Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Why a Connecticut Series Again; Why Now? Well, It’s ALWAYS Timely to “Look It Up,” While We Still Can(!), Also…

leave a comment »

With apologies to any inconvenience this may cause to any early readers of my last post (6/17/2016, “Post #1 of 3”), I’m moving most of its “Introduction/Exhort” and added post-publication “Brexit” section over here.

Section “Brexit,” with the associated “British Gun-Control Legislation and Policy” references, like Fathers’ Day, are only in there because they are “current news headlines and events.”  When they pass, something else will be chosen for “current news headlines and events — but probably not what I blog on — public/private partnerships, government grants, and how little most people know about where they go, what they do, or even how to find out.  Let alone who, if anyone, is keeping track.

Navigation: List of the “Section Titles. “

On this post, sections are marked out by Big, Bright-Blue Titles: So far I have, underneath the Community Foundation Logo and its caption near the top, and in order from the top:

    • (Expressive, which slipped in here, and was promptly, most of it, moved to a side-link)

  • WHY timely, WHY Look Up Connecticut Organizations and Family Court/ Healthy Marriage/ Responsible Fatherhood Scenarios at this time?

  • IRS Returns are NOT Rocket Science!  They are a rich source of information on any group, including on how it fills out tax returns.

    • Best used in combination with similar looks at many (dozens, hundreds) of other tax returns of similar or related organizations who have mimicked the purpose of government, but done it in a privately controlled, tax-exempt model where fewer citizen’s rights to transparency in government expenditures exist. Let’s Take a Closer Look at this Community Foundation for Greater New Haven
  • FATHER’s DAY, and other Current Events.  

    • (Which is where we get “Brexit” and “British Gun-control Legislation,” and reference to “Orlando” in this post.).
    • Click on the words “Father’s Day” for a link to History.com’s short summary, although I don’t call attention to it, this holiday only went national in 1972, through Richard Nixon declaration.  Interesting, this came after the 1965 USDOL “Moynihan Report” which had so much to say about fatherlessness as a social scourge, and matriarchy as pathological in this patriarchal country.
    • Public policy and major social science academic centers (Columbia, Princeton, UPennsylvania, and elsewhere) STILL built on this premise that the federal government should get involved in designing families, particularly (in terms of that time, at least from this author) “The Negro Family.” I just found it interesting this holiday was so recent in national practice, came after 1965 and in a decade somewhat known for the emergence of a feminist, and a “protection from violence” (Battered women’s shelters) movement, too.  Simultaneously other things such as the 1975 Family Support Act pushing for greater and more aggressive collection of child support from (well, mostly fathers!) to reduce poverty.
  • NOW, about CONNECTICUT POST SERIES, particularly NEW HAVEN (City of / Metro area)….

    • More Exhortation, and this section in light-blue background was taken from Post#1, and is a good read:“About this Connecticut-based series from the starting point of “Male Information Network” participants:”

Those actual contents will be removed from there when this post is published.  Those sections are now  the bottom half of this post of about 8,400 9,500 words.  On the top half, some more exhortation and “show and tell” on not being intimidated by a little old IRS Form 990, even when filled out for a big old (in this case), financially fat Community Foundation — this one. I blurted out a quick summary below the caption before the computer could freeze up again:

Connecticut-based 501©3 which in 2015 began moving its “alternative investments” (Balance Sheet Line 12, Assets, “Investments in Other Securities), currently $138M, into Cayman Islands-based funds. Oh, and promoting Education, Health, Welfare, Youth Programming, and Civic Vitality. EIN#0660321; Related foundation (since 2004 per its IRS form) “The Valley Community Foundation,” (much smaller in size, focusing on a different set of Connecticut cities) is EIN#841637102. Look up either one at http://990finder.foundationcenter.org, but for the 2015 on the larger one, must go to its website, CFGHN.org. Located through its participation in supporting a (nonfiling) leader in the “New Haven Family Alliance” (status IRS revoked as of Nov. 2015 for not filing tax returns for 2012, 2013, or 2014). NHFA, says a local news article (promotional) modeled its “Street Outreach Worker Program” (SOWP) on one in Rhode Island, which (turns out) partners with “Rhode Island Partnership for Mentoring” which is part of “The National Mentoring Partnership” (specializing in Technical Assistance and Training for the same, program certifications?, and it seems (so far) mimicking a government entity through repeated use of the initials “OJJDP” on its material. [see: “https://www.ojjdptta360.org/“] This National Mentoring Partnership [Mentoring.org] (so far as I can tell), IF it is a legitimate business entity, is doing a good job of hiding WHERE (in which state is legal domicile or any HQ) — and taking donations currently under “NetworkForGood.org” [see “https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/mentornational?code=MainDonatePage“]. ~ ~ ~ ~> > But, see my Post #2 of 3 on Connecticut for more on all that. Meanwhile, CFGNH.org is an interesting example of public/private collaboration, and how ONE privately controlled entity, only 11 board members, can direct how and where nearly ½ billion of assets is invested, sold, spent, or stewarded. See also its Schedule O on composition of Board Members and who in local civic life appoints them (Chief Executive of City of New Haven, Head of local Bar Association, Head of PROBATE court, Chamber of Commerce person, etc.] ALSO SEE what it omits from its tax returns (details on Schedule I, etc.). VERRy INterrresting overall!!

“OJJDP” is “Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and part of (under) the Office of Justice Programs?under USDOJ.  http://www.ojjdp.gov/about/DivList.asp.   It relates to an act passed in 1974 by Congress, and, around this time, it would seem we got our NCJFCJ set up in Reno Nevada (although it claims origins back to 1939) and what later became a major subset of the NCJFCJ’s operations, their Pittsburgh-based “NCJJ” I blogged on earlier this year (2016). I DNR recall all those dates, but it does seem coordinated nationally to encourage diversionary justice programs — and it seems that this was then thought to also be a great idea for the family courts as well.  IN FACT, despite claims of earlier 1963 origin, it does seem that the AFCC (Association of Family Conciliation Courts — older name) incorporated in Illinois in 1975 also, with its registered agent (strangely) in Denver and its “entity” address out of 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles, which just so happened to be, I believe, a courthouse.  Private nonprofits (unregistered or registered) out of public buildings must have been harder to track — if you were clueless that they existed — before the internet age, for sure…ABOVE is the government logo.What “Mentoring.org” is doing in mimicking their websites, while (at least one says) taking a grant from OJJDP, I’ve not yet gotten to the bottom of, other than it doesn’t seem that honest in presentation.  As to Nationalizing Mentoring — everything else fatherhood, marriage, child protections, domestic or family violence prevention, for that matter “healthy communities” and so forth) is getting “nationalized” so someone saw an opportunity, obviously!   Also it should be obviously that the field of “fatherhood” would of course also involve mentoring training, and other profit-making adventures, even if there is no charge to the users on some of the websites.

Will discuss more on other posts, especially #2 of 3 in this series.

I have had three days of frustrating, significant computer problems or all this moving, splitting one post into three parts would’ve been done within 24 hours…and by Father’s Day..


This section, optional.  I put it in, but if you’re not in the mood, skip down to next large-font, bright-blue title.

To personify this still unresolved “computer situation,” with participants: one inanimate, mostly-metallic  piece of hardware, and its related software & operating electronically organized systems, meaning my laptop and/or sources of internet access (plural) —  my “electronic staff” (computer/browser/keyboard, etc.) simply went on strike, refusing to process basic instructions of the simplest sort, but intermittently functioning — unpredictably in both how and when.  Several “saves” were lost during a freeze which then required sorting out which was which and if possible salvaging the latest version, or deciding when not to.

The delay brought home the reality that this blog remains every year still  a one-person volunteer operation, without administrative staff, tech support, or (obviously) copyeditors, or, really, any budget in regularly producing specific tasks (posts!) en route to chosen goals, with deadlines.

How Too Many Simple Obstacles can Deter Long-Range Goals.  When these are deliberately sowed by interested parties, and what that interest (as to family court litigation) is actually sometimes really about (hint — it’s not really the children):

The electronic vulnerability, and frustrating obstruction in just a single, otherwise straightforward sequence of just a few time-sensitive tasks in some ways, seems an analogy for my life run through the family court gauntlet and thereafter attempting to personally re-integrate into anything even approaching normal business, work, housing or social relationships — minus several years productivity and definitely minus confidence in the short- medium- and long-term future apart from things I, personally, have committed to do.  The terrain has most definitely changed, and my ability to “pretend” it hasn’t and re-invest in the same type of initiatives that, absent inter-generational warfare for total supremacy (and control of the resulting “story line” and its interpretations) which can and do produce positive results for many, is greatly diminished.

Read More, here (this is simply a page, which I probably will not add to the sidebar, but will be accessible through this link). If you’re short on time, come back to that later – what’s below is more important, “imho.”

***** The link gives more of a personal sense (for people who are just NOT going through anything similar) and speaks to how it goes when one is targeted by family members after, in some cases (my case, and it would appear also the Grazzini-Rucki case in Minnesota, I have no doubt there are plenty more — defame, discredit, or render dysfunctional a family member, “by any means possible, moral or immoral, legal or illegal)” and “you, too, can get your name one money intended for someone else, and from there, extort them, engage in personal abuse, play “lord for a lifetime” or simply steal. The closest analogies I can think of which communicate this to people who haven’t yet encountered it in life, or within immediate family lines, is that of Scientology, or other well-known cults who attempt to DESTROY people who leave, or “out their practices.

There is a high overlap of practices with practices and institutions (such as “re-indoctrination” prison-like camps, ex-communications, and aggressive litigation to wear the person down and destroy ability to function apart from the cult) with what is routine in the family courts….

Beyond personal responsibility, by now it’s clear local government entities and enforcement authorities cannot be counted on to keep their own operations functional, fraud-free, and doing the right thing when “the right thing” isn’t a close call, but reasonably obvious in individual situations, and in recent developments of this blogger, so documented by me (off-line, to those involved) from public sources.  I don’t feel comfortable saying more at this point.

As I said, my laptop and I have not yet negotiated a truce surrounding the “does not compute” sit-down/walk-out strike this past weekend (but being inanimate, I potentially can replace it).  I will eventually correct or solve this problem, but the much larger one is how to safely extricate from people who have become entwined in one’s life for the wrong reasons, and JUST WON’T GO. This is not so easy to do with people who, having become aware of some stray assets and profit to be made from them in one’s name (if not control, in my case), simply refuse to cease running interference, or get out minus an exorbitant exit fee when told to.


Shortlink to this Post.  Shortlink to June 8, 2016 post also on Connecticut-events and organizations, titled: “Courtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network“”

Shortlink to Post #1 of 3 published Friday 6/17/2016. ** Post #2 of 3 at this link, and

*** Post#3 of 3 here.

(Posts 1-3 contents better described in their very long titles, my style this year.  These posts represent one already-written larger message split into three parts.  Post #1 already published; when Posts 2 & 3 are published (ASAP I hope), their shortlinks above (easy to copy & tweet, or link to) above will become active.  Remember also in this 2016 series, my Connecticut-focused post on Good Ol’ Boys and “Male Information Network,” dated 6/8/2016, which refers to (has links to!) other posts from 2013 on organizations and headline-making, family-court-related events in this state.  Links relate the information, and other links also document the information.

Perhaps I could produce faster and more posts with fewer links, at which point, my point of “LOOK IT UP!” and documenting the points I’m making, would be lost. I’ve opted for more methodical, and teach/re-teach/teach it again writing style.  But what taught me was coming face to face to the evidence in a highly-motivated mode (I have children, this is their future too if no one speaks up!) and realizing how valuable, and over-looked, this information has been — it is pivotal to what’s happening in the country and it’s pivotal to why the family courts [admittedly peopled — including judges, attorneys, custody evaluators and other quasi-judicial personnel — by both men and women) continue failing to protect both women and children, or reduce criminal behaviors among family members.

For one, I still say they weren’t created to do either of the above, and expecting them to — or building any argument or movement on their obvious failures to protect or (case by case AND in general) reduce criminal behavior by family members, is illogical — based on this other evidence, as well as on the statements of groups claiming responsibility for directing, and which I’ve found historically in some cases, even set up the family courts themselves (as a division of Superior Courts) within a given state.

WHY timely, WHY Look Up Connecticut Organizations and Family Court/Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Scenarios at this time?

While what I find on looking it up  …

(on looking up and looking also at the corporate (business filings) and fiscal (source of revenues, who else is being funded, size of operations) information on public/private relationship organizations taking federal, state, and private money to promote “HMRF” (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) causes)

is often disturbing and often discredits the good intentions of substantial charities and public-interest causes, it’s still a good thing to know what is taking place in those sectors.  People ought to know what direction and changes are taking place, how they’re being enacted, and begin monitoring and curtailing the increasing centralization of control at the local level, being organized THROUGH the nonprofit + government sectors, and sold as “services.”  Only by seeing the backdrop (some of the fiscals) of the participating groups do you get an awareness of where public funds are going, and how they are being handled.

Experiential and anecdotal information, while also relevant, are LESS relevant than the profit, power, and control motives — as well as how programming is being organized and sold nationally (and internationally) — without informed consent.

To comprehend some of the backdrop of their operations is to better comprehend our own relationship to government, and how the USA works, which is essential to monitoring and communicating with others to maintain a balance of power upon government.

We are now over 100 years (since 1913) of wealth redistribution via the income tax, with corresponding wealth-protection for the tax-exempt corporations.  Current electronic technology speeds the pace (and ease) of creating more and more nonprofit (tax-exempt, private nonstock) entities which add layers of circulation and moving of money originally often FROM government (Federal, state, county) or FROM some of the more/most powerful corporate ownership which tends to stow its own wealth in tax-exempt foundations, and from there, work regionally (metro regions) with community foundations to push programming these have mutually determined in their roundtables, commissions, committees, task forces and as recent posts have been showing as to children, “Councils” as in Children’s Policy Councils (CPCs).

IRS Returns are NOT Rocket Science!  They are a rich source of information on any group, including on how it fills out tax returns.

Best used in combination with similar looks at many (dozens, hundreds) of other tax returns of similar or related organizations who have mimicked the purpose of government, but done it in a privately controlled, tax-exempt model where fewer citizen’s rights to transparency in government expenditures exist.

Let’s Take a Closer Look at this Community Foundation for Greater New Haven

Having looked, some of my thoughts: This next one still does seem to get about $1 million (or somewhat less) per year in government grants, about 1/66th of its total contributions, and contributions being just under HALF of its revenues (year 2015). In other words, it could survive WITHOUT contributions at all from handling its substantial investments, and definitely without government contributions — so why is it still taking in those grants?  Why do we collectively seem to assume that almost anyone but ourselves (particularly government or large community organizations) will handle assets better than individual households who might, if so much wasn’t poured into the tax-exempt sector, have more to spare for themselves??

In CONNECTICUT, For Example:   CFNGH.org — EIN#066032106 (The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven (its name since 1993;  formerly called simply “The New Haven Foundation”), its website says, funds The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc., who being primarily dependent on government grants, just got its tax-exempt EIN# revoked by the IRS for three years in a row of non-filing, and, though still “Active” per the “Commercial Recording Division” of the Secretary of State, apparently has not filed an annual return since 2011, i.e., has been out of compliance on THAT regard for now five or six years. To be discussed more in upcoming posts.

Look at Page 1 of the 2015 Tax Return, available on the organization’s website, EIN## 066032106.  I look at tax returns almost every day, year after year, and was shocked by the omissions and sudden changes in this one, although I’d just learned about its existence only last week.  Look at the size of operations ($501M Gross receipts representing ½ billion dollars), and the significant changes shown on Page 1 Summary, “Prior Year (2014)” to “Current Year (2015).”  I’ll provide both the pdf and a “png” image although the image isn’t as clear as I’d like.  Click on either link to a pdf to see it more clearly.  The one next to the image only shows a single page; this one (from website) shows 75 pages of the Year 2015 IRS return made available to the public on their website:

Salaries (11bd 44emps)=$3'5M so Rev-Expenses INCREASE by $83M in ONE YEAR

Salaries (11 Board members 44 employees)=$3.5M. Rev minus Expenses INCREASED by $83M in ONE YEAR (Prior Yr to Current Yr) (Horizontal Line#s = categories of Revenues or Expenses, with Assets – Liabilities = Net Assets or Fund Balances at end of the year).  Get used to looking at these labels and categories across organizations!  Notice major increases (Prior year to Current) in several categories of REVENUES, but less increases in “EXPENSES” meaning, at the end of the day, the organization, obviously, kept the difference.  Notice, please that $29M of grants were distributed in 2015 it says.

Not a math whiz?  Neither am I.  So what! — That’s no excuse!  An IRS form is just pre-printed words, with labeled Parts, Accompanying Schedules and within each, specific Lines #s.  The various Parts refer to other parts, or Schedules. Any filing organization thenfills in the blanks, mostly with numbers, but also with some words.

At first, make mental “ballpark” estimates to compare numbers and notice WHAT ORGANIZATION DID this year compared to last, what it’s general financial patterns are.  A Form 990 (public charities) tax return, Part by Part (Roman Numerals, I, II, III, etc.) and after that, in attached (Schedules A,B,C etc.) talks about, using different words for this, an organization’s IN-come and OUT-go for that year, then reports its cumulative holdings (Assets), minus Liabilities (cumulative) = Net Assets or Fund Balances.

<== See Page 1.

A current IRS Form 990, filled out, also gives some basic data on the organization (example: Page 1 Header Info, labeled sections A .. L; Part I Summary, Lines 1 through 7 showing number of Board Members, Employees, Volunteers, etc., and elsewhere.  For example, Part VIIA lists key personnel, and Part VIIB, independent subcontractors paid more than $100K.  This tells In part) who else is doing business with any group, and for how much. For example, Schedule R lists related organizations.  Or, Part III tells what “Program Service Accomplishments” were, with extended info, if needed, on a supplementary Schedule O.

It identifies the year’s Gross Receipts/Revenues, Its Expenses, and Subtracts Revenues from Expenses to get the Difference.  Many times this will be a negative — but the organization has existing assets, so unlike in some situations (for example, with individuals) rather then be thrown out of its home, it continues carrying on year after year, or simply seeking more contributions to cover the gap.

You do not need to be a “math whiz” to be able to read aloud numbers, and identify (by how many places) where it’s hundreds, thousands, or millions you are dealing with, and whether one number is a lot larger (and about how many times larger) or a heck of a lot smaller than another — greater and smaller comparisons.  And, from there, ask a few more intelligent questions about WHY this might be — then go look at the rest of the return (for starters) for those answers.  

In the case of CFGNH (which I’m not showing here because will on Post#3 of 3) suddenly, drastically in 2015 increased its revenues by ALMOST the amount of its holdings, and invested several million, per its schedule F, in entities registered in the Cayman Islands.  If a corporation did this, of an individual, it might make news — but when a nonprofit highlighting how LOCAL and COMMUNITY-BASED and “PROMOTING CIVIC VITALITY it is, does, it doesn’t make news???  How long has that Year 2015 tax return been available to Connecticut residents (and everyone else who looked)?  Check out the Balance Sheet (Part X) -most ($329 End of year) is held in Line 11 public-traded securities (which could also be anywhere in the world) but over $138M is also held in Line 12 “Other Securities” which on the attached Schedule translates into “Alternative Investments” — which are then described on Schedule F, extensively.  Moreover, on Schedule F, we can see that there is $151M of “Activities” during year 2015 in “Central America and the Caribbean” — but no officers or employees in the area.  Unless this refers to “Grants” which I doubt, this probably refers also to investments.  So much for “local” in activities!

“BALL-PARKING” LARGE NUMBERS: FOR EXAMPLE: Hypothetical (but close to the attached) example, on a given Line#, under “Prior Year” or [for other sections, such as Balance Sheet, Part X, “Beginning of Year”] if see a figure $24,123,456, less five places I could call it $24.1 Million.   I also know that if on the same line under “Current Year” or [for other sections, such as Balance Sheet, Part X, “End of year’], I see a number $65,567,890, I can for the purpose of THIS blog (getting some basics on any group, exploring, for example, its “financing and finances; size, age; activities; acknowledged business relationships, and who’s running it”)] safely ignore the last six digits, express maybe part of it in a decimal and call it $65.5M (for “Million”)  Those being more manageable numbers for comparison, I think most of us can who ever broke a dollar into four quarters or made some change, may know that three of them is $0.75, two of them are $0.50, and comparing $24M to $65M, so for this example, we are between two and three times larger — and in general, that’s a BIG increase in one category for just one year.  Then comes a question (this example was for “Contributions” Line 8), how come and who from?

{{“Ball-parking” refers to a “ball-park” or stadium where, I guess baseball, takes place:  A Ballpark is a very large container of people and sports events.  Despite it’s being so large, it still contains — so a “ballpark estimate” means, within range, not pinpoint precise.}}

I also know that $500M is ½ billion — and that’s a lot of money for any tax-exempt organization. When I see for CFGNH.org, CONTRIBUTIONS almost tripling (more than doubling) in one year, but under Expenses, distributions only increasing by about 50% (from $20M to $29M) I know that this organization either has some friends in high places, very good fundraising professionals for soliciting from the common folk, or at least few very rich friends and connections.

Read more on the composition of the board itself, for this group (Schedule O describes) and we learn it is VERY closely tied to leadership of the City.

In addition, for this, and I think most, community organizations, they tend to encourage donor-advised funds, and serve as fiscal agents for smaller projects, who can advertise on their webpages for people to donate to those noble causes, small or large.  One of their “donee” pages featured on this particular organization is the Catholic Charities — Archdiocese of Hartford, who are not exactly cash-poor (or assets-poor either) … and they are receiving direct HHS/HMRF funding also ($800K/year I saw on a recent databse — this series gets to that information) — but somehow the Community Foundation is helping the assets-rich organization with a direct connection to the Archdiocese of Hartford itself, receive donations.  …

Part I Header information shows “Gross Receipts $516M.”  How did this happen?  The organization (corresponding details, See Part VIII, “Revenues”) not only earned $12M as investment INCOME (Interest or dividends on securities), but it also had enough stored assets to sell over $470M at a certain cost, resulting in $66M profit from sale of assets.

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ON SEVERAL RECENT FORM 990s (IRS Tax Returns) OBSCURES GRANTEE INFORMATION. Was CFNGH and its 44 employees too poor to type this in, or was their some other excuse?

In addition, CFNGH.org does not (per the tax return on their own website — as to 2015 — and those available (I checked three years’ worth) via 990finder. foundationcenter.org, which are obtained from the IRS scanned Statement of images of Form 990s) actually complete the REQUIRED “Schedule I of Grants to Individual, Government Entities and Organizations in the United States).  Instead, the tax return — which is run by the 11 board members, it says, so they are responsible — only reads in the column which is supposed to LIST grantees ( with name address, EIN#s, and form of donation -the total says “cash” so we can assume all of these were cash donations), AND (under which Internal Revenue Code or category — 501(c)3, 501©4, government) EACH grantee organization exists, exact amount to that organization, and for what purpose (rightmost column).  

Here are an image and link to pdf of that image,  1 page only, just that  2015 “Schedule I” (Notice, it does not say, as some large organizations sometimes do, “see Additional Data Table,” nor does any such table show up on the link provided by the organization, or on other years, representing what IRS was shown):

CFGNH Year 2015 %22Sched I%22 $29M Grantees Not Shown (1-line summary %22Various Tax-Exempt orgs%22)(actual pdf page30, labeled %2234%22 on image) <== CFGNH Year 2015 “Sched I” $29M Grantees Not Shown (1-line summary “Various Tax-Exempt orgs”)(actual pdf page30, labeled “34” on image)

(The 75-page version of same 2015 Tax Return)

I look up organizations behind these policies in a way and context which is not being, has not been, and no doubt will continue NOT being reported in major owned MSM media, by politicians, by ANY groups (openly) ON the public/private payroll in anything other than a positive manner, and so far as I can tell, to date, none of the fatherhood groups will acknowledge of multiple, on-line resource centers, and training  largest benefactors openly, and none of the domestic violence coordinated network is going to acknowledge how deeply they have been in bed, figuratively, with the better-funded fatherhood resources, and in some areas, adopted that agenda minimizing violence against women, and mitigation prosecution of it as a crime where the same behavior towards any stranger would be clearly recognized as criminal.

I hope this series (like the blog) to be illuminating and empowering, and that it may encourage people who will live longer than me, and possibly build on this information, thus knowing more sooner, to continue “looking it up” and teaching others why this is AS important as following the daily mainstream media and weighing in pro or con on the issues it spits out, regularity, each season, to weigh in on– while keeping THIS information on a collective MSM blackout

Again, Shortlink to Post #1 of 3 . ** Post #2 of 3 at this link,  and *** Post#3 of 3, plus next-to-most-recent post of June 8, 2016.

FATHER’s DAY, and other Current Events

This next series is particularly relevant to the upcoming Father’s Day, our nation’s, or I should say, Administration’s and most media’s obvious intent to impose more gun control on the law-abiding to allegedly stop terrorism* (in the wake of “Orlando” shooting on June 12 and subsequent stabbing/murder of pro-Syrian Refugee, pro-Great Britain staying in the EU, British MP, a 41-year old, politically active wife and mother Jo Cox) by a 52-year old man) and of course the upcoming presidential election.

*(as an indicator how this might work, how well is domestic violence roadkill, sometimes involving bystanders, always involving harm to innocents, being stopped? Has removing weapons – at least guns —  from perpetrators actually been done, and if so, has it curtailed the attacks? Can increasing behavorial modification classes…and pushing “responsible fatherhood” through the social welfare system, including on immigrant populations (Check TAGGS.hhs.gov — this is happening) stop men from beating, assaulting, degrading, controlling, threatening and at times killing their spouses?  Will this stop honor killings in the USA, too?))

How’d it work in the UK?  Here’s the Library of Congress/Law Office on the history of gun control in Great Britain.  Did you realize it’s more stringent than here, and dated mostly to the 1960s, and some more, the 1980s?  Any emphases below are mine (added), and I copied text up to the part where after 1920, 1937, 1968, 1988 and finally 1997 restrictions on firearms for British citizens.  Notice that this didn’t stop massacres, and finally a massacre in an elementary school which is, naturally, compared to Sandy Hook in the USA.

Firearms Control Legislation and Policy in Great Britain  (Law Library of Congress, this is a US government site)

SUMMARY:  Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.  The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weaponsHandguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission.  Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.


Great Britain has the reputation of having some of the tightest gun control laws in the world.[1]  Only police officers, members of the armed forces, or individuals with written permission from the Home Secretary may lawfully own a handgun.[2] This stringent legislation may, in part, account for Britain’s relatively low statistics for the use of firearms in crime—in 2008–2009 firearms were used in only 0.3% of all recorded crimes and were responsible for the deaths of thirty-nine people.[3] This report covers the law relating to the lawful ownership of firearms and offenses for unlawful possession.

Firearms laws governing the country have generally been enacted in a reactive manner in response to massacres and overwhelming public support that backed the introduction of prohibitions on firearms.  The laws cover a number of weapons, including handguns, shotguns, imitation firearms, deactivated firearms, and air weapons.  This report focuses on the requirements to lawfully own a shotgun, firearm, or a prohibited weapon for residents of Britain.  Back to Top

History of Firearms Law

Early Regulation

Early acts regulating the ownership of firearms were fairly limited.  The Gun Licenses Act 1870 and the Pistols Act 1903 served primarily as Acts to generate revenue and required owners to hold a license from the post office.  The system was described as generally ineffective.[4]   In 1920, the Firearms Act[5] was passed, to stop firearms from being used by criminals and “other evilly disposed or irresponsible persons.[6]   While one aim of the restriction was to curb violent crime, it was believed that other reasons included concerns over uprisings in Russia spilling over into Britain, particularly with the end of World War I and the return of thousands of troops trained in the use of firearms and an increase in the number of such weapons in circulation.[7]   This Act set out the basis for the licensing system of firearms that is still in operation today, providing the chief officer of police in the district the applicant lives with the authority to issue licenses.  When enacting this legislation, the right to bear arms by citizens was considered; however, “this was countered by the argument that such redress was adequately obtainable through the ballot box and by access to Parliament and the courts.”[8]   Further controls were introduced in 1937 to allow conditions to be attached to certificates and to place more stringent restrictions on particularly dangerous weapons such as machine guns.[9]

The laws were consolidated and amended in 1968 with the enactment of the Firearms Act, which is the legislation still used today.

Modern Developments in Firearms Legislation

The development of major changes in modern day firearms legislation in Britain has generally been preceded by tragedy and a change in public attitude and opinion towards the ownership of firearms.

The Hungerford Massacre and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988

In 1987 Michael Ryan shot and killed sixteen people, including his mother, and wounded fourteen more before killing himself in what became known as the Hungerford massacre.[10]  Ryan used two high-velocity semiautomatic rifles, a US M1 carbine, and an assault rifle that he lawfully owned to perpetrate the massacre.[11]   The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988[12] was passed as a direct result of this incident.  The 1988 Act banned the ownership of high-powered self-loading rifles and burst-firing weapons, and imposed stricter standards for issuing ownership certification for pump-action shotguns with a magazine of more than two bullets.  When enacting this legislation, the government considered that the tightened controls were justified as it had to safeguard the public at large, but at the same time “protect the interests of the legitimate shooting community.”[13]

The legislation did not result in the complete cessation of shootings—just a year after the law was enacted Robert Sartin, who suffered from schizophrenia, killed one person with a shotgun and wounded sixteen more.[14]   However, the Hungerford massacre that preceded the legislation saw a changed attitude to guns by the police, and tighter checks before certificates were issued.[15]

 Look at the next two paragraphs (1997 and 2010 massacres)!

Dunblane and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

Close to ten years after Hungerford, in 1996, another massacre occurred at an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland.  This incident bears strong similarities to the Sandy Hook shootings in the US.[16]   Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary (elementary) school in Dunblane, Scotland, and shot and killed sixteen small children, aged four to five, and their teacher in the school gym before killing himself.  Hamilton lawfully held the two rifles and four handguns that he used for the massacre, and had lawfully held firearms for almost twenty years prior to this incident.[17]

The Firearms (Amendment) Act1997 [18] was passed in response to overwhelming public opinion that firearms should be banned from use by the civilian population.  The law did not introduce a complete ban on firearms, but served to essentially prohibit the private ownership of handguns in Britain.[19]

Back to Top


In 2010 Derrick Bird killed twelve people and wounded twenty-five in Cumbria, a county in northwest England.[20]   He lawfully possessed the firearms used in the shootings.[21]   Parallels were drawn between the Hungerford massacre in 1987 and the Cumbria massacre in 2010.  The number of fatalities were higher by four people in the Hungerford massacre, where sixteen were killed, compared with twelve in the Cumbria massacre, but the number of casualties were significantly higher in the Cumbria massacre—twenty-five wounded compared to fifteen.  The difference in these figures was, in part, attributed to the weapons used to perpetrate the crimes.[22]


FBI questions member of mosque attended by Orlando gunman” (Reuters, 6/18/2016 by Bernie Woodall and Ben Gruber):

FBI agents on Friday questioned a member of the Florida mosque attended by Omar Mateen, the man who shot 49 people to death at a gay nightclub, as new information surfaced revealing the killer had exhibited chronic behavioral problems during his youth.

Academic records obtained by Reuters showing Mateen was frequently suspended as a student – at least twice for fighting before he was transferred to a special high school for potential dropouts – added to a disturbing portrait of the long-troubled gunman who committed the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Mateen, the 29-year-old private security guard shot dead by police at the end of the June 12 massacre in Orlando, has been described by his first wife – whom he divorced after a brief marriage – as an abusive, mentally disturbed man with a violent temper.

Others who knew him recalled Mateen, a U.S. citizen and Florida resident born in New York to Afghan immigrants, as a quiet, socially awkward individual who kept largely to himself.

The FBI has acknowledged interviewing Mateen in 2013 and 2014 for suspected ties to Islamist militant groups but concluded he posed no threat. Still, evidence in the Orlando case points to a crime at least inspired by extremist ideology.

Can’t say as to these three posts’ relevance immediate UK’s upcoming (6/23?) “Brexit” vote except the UK is responding to its experience under a federalization it no longer controls.  I most certainly write about federalization of things under state jurisdiction, which the family court issues are.

And a 41-year-old wife and mother political figure was just murdered (shot and stabbed to death) allegedly (suspect detained) by a 52-year-old man this week, and according to some, NOT according to others, surrounding the issue of BREXIT.

After that vote, in just a few days!!, no doubt there will be other, in fact an ongoing series of other  distractions from looking at how the government of the USA, and state governments continue taking significant federal input to their economies via the Social Security Act funds, as amended 1996 and passed a few times since with some amendments, and NO amendment, to date, having eliminated the HMRF or Access/Visitation funds — or the infrastructure, expanding, and often in the private sphere, they continue to not just directly support, but through public relations, evaluations, demonstrations, and social science/public health sectors of universities, continue to support.

Why should we NOT make sincere and diligent efforts to comprehend what this means locally?  We are being constantly fed paid-for promotions by the participants of what GOOD things it means locally, where is the counterpoint reporting, based on an overview and linked to supporting details other than more journalism based on, essentially, storytelling designed to increase readership and sell stories & programming?

BREXIT // Jo Cox Murder in the UK

Briefly,  on “Brexit” and a recent killing of British MP Jo Cox, who was against it.  Why despite it, I still say — go get the basic, background data on corporations doing ongoing Family Design business with government, and continue paying attention to it!

Today, from the Guardian.UK, by RGreenslade(?)

Pro-Brexit papers’ coverage of Jo Cox killing raises questions/…reference to alleged perp. might betray political agenda

The national press was united in horror at the murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox, putting her death on the front page of every title on Friday. ….

But amid the sensitive and respectful reportage, the references to the alleged perpetrator, Tommy Mair, raised questions about the political agenda of certain pro-Brexit newspapers.

The Mail described him as “a troubled loner” and cited “unconfirmed evidence” that he “supported far-right causes” along with “claims he had mental health problems and had been released recently from psychiatric care”.

The Sun called him “a mentally ill loner”, adding that he had “a history of mental health problems” and was “said to have been on medication and receiving psychotherapy for prolonged periods”.

Compare those portrayals of Mair to the description in the same two papers on Monday of Omar Mateen, the man responsible for the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida.

The Mail stated with certainty that Mateen was “an Islamic extremist … pledged to Islamic State … who had come to the attention of the FBI for his extremist views”.

The further distant centers of decision-making is from the people being governed, and the more covert, subtle, and un-written practices to undermine their freedom including freedom of choice how to live and right to protect themselves from violence by others (including theft of children and assets by others, or by the state)are, the more defenseless people become of their own liberty, privacy, and in general, safety.

Should we be copying British-style progressive gun control? Massacres occur, then laws get passed, and in the press discussion of other possible reasons such massacres MIGHT have occurred is not publicized. For example, where is any headline about how an establishment (Orlando) supposed to be a gun-free-zone didn’t have some means — effective — of preventing people with guns from getting in. Reasonably being a target of some crazies, what kind of protection would the alcohol-serving place be allowed to maintain in case of an event or failure of the first “line of defense,” at the door? On Orlando shootings, there’s been plenty of news coverage, I haven’t heard or read it all, but I read several in major publications — and no mention of how he got in the door with a gun to start with. There are no bouncers? Should perhaps a warning be posted on the door of every establishment, like stickers at some gas stations in the US, “warning: may contain chemicals known to cause cancer on these premises” such that anyone going in knows in advance. Apparently other places the following type of warnings might be posted: elementary schools, middle and high schools, schools, places offering supervised visitation exchanges, high schools, community or other college campuses:

This is a gun-free zone. We do our best to keep it that way, but cannot guarantee 100% success in screening all clients including but not limited to disgruntled ex-employees, or ex-romantic partners of clients. Because of this, and because “gun-free” includes the manager, should some armed crazy get past our bouncers, you risk of injury or death on entering these premises, and by entering, agree that owners are not liable for any injury or deaths which may happen on the premises, or with ___feet of the entrances.

Pardon me if that sounds like an ignorant question — but perhaps it’s not. Perhaps it’s more ignorant, after each disaster, to NEVER consider how one opposing person able to shoot back might have kept the death & injury count down, or awareness on the part of any crazies or armed person with a cause that they risked bullets coming in the other direction just MIGHT be a deterrent.

I have been a battered wife, not in this decade, and I had to deal with the level of hostility existing around a rapid accumulation of both large knives AND different types of guns in the home, after which I finally did force separation by filing for a protective order. Surrounding this there were also iessues of depression and talk of suicide. FOLLOWING this, my ex’s (father of our children’s) father himself committed suicide — by bullet — in a parking lot, in fact before that restraining order had expired, this had occurred. It is unclear to me, but I both heard and saw the death certificate. Many years later I was told (not by his son, my “ex”) that there’s just been a change of medication the week before. Which is to say, in the context of domestic violence issues, the gun issues is one I’ve had to think about seriously over the years. I cannot turn back the clock, but I DO know by experience as well as by reading, that police cannot be everywhere at once, and beyond that, police (law enforcement) once there don’t always choose to enforce when they are able to.

The prospect of a country without a legal means of self-defense from potentially lethal assault / attacks to individuals who may be under personal attack — and cannot afford bodyguards (name me one person in a custody battle who can) — is, well, discouraging. What about women??

It seems to me that any bar, night-club, or alcohol-serving establishments, if no guns are allowed in them (don’t frequent, so wouldn’t know other than in this recent news), would have to have major enforcement/prevention measures taken. Doing this adds to costs, and probably might diminish casual business. While I don’t have the answer, it does seem that all possibilities should be discussed. Suggesting we disarm everyone — and leave only law enforcement, etc. armed, when (at least as to handling of women, and domestic violence) they are also sometimes a problem — doesn’t make sense. It seems to me that no one wants to take responsibility for admitting risk. As to the Orlando massacre, I still want to hear not all the usual discussion after shootings, but how did the person get on the premises with the weapons in the first place?

On both sides of the Atlantic, everyone is naturally writing about this and its relevance to “Brexit.” Do a basic search to see!  Aljazeera:  Killing of MP Jo Cox halts Brexit campaign (dated “7 hours ago” 6/17/2016 PST here):

Killing of MP Jo Cox halts Brexit campaign (dated “7 hours ago” 6/17/2016 PST here):

Campaigning for Britain’s EU referendum scheduled for next week has been suspended for a second day as the nation reels from the murder of a popular pro-Europe MP.

On Thursday, Jo Cox, a 41-year-old former aid worker and pro-EU campaigner known for her advocacy on behalf of Syrian refugees, was killed outside a library** where she regularly met constituents in her home village of Birstall, in northern England.

Witnesses told local media that the Labour MP had been repeatedly shot and stabbed.

{{**that link says she’d interfered in a scuffle between two men, when one pulled out a gun from a bag. It doesn’t say where the stabbing came in.  See also this next quote fromthat link:}}.

Cox was a leading campaigner for Britain to remain in the 28-member bloc and chaired the all-party parliamentary committee on Syria. | A University of Cambridge graduate, she was the Oxfam aid agency’s policy chief before entering parliament and a prominent campaigner for refugee rights. | She became a Labour MP for Batley and Spen in the May 2015 general election and was also known for her work on women’s issues.

Bloomberg.com talks about the polarization of the Brexit campaign (both sides), compares it to Donald Trump vitriol and other events in the US, references President Obama’s hope that the UK remains in the EU, with a reference to Hitler’s intended means of “unifying Europe.”

Similarly in the U.S., presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump revoked press credentials for the Washington Post, saying it was a front for its owner, Jeff Bezos, and his company, Amazon.com Inc. He has also said he would stiffen libel laws to make it easier to take the press to court.

(What about the Washington Times?  Major media has owners, period!)

And Alex Jones’ Infowars says the incident will be exploited to push against Brexit (against the UK leaving the EU):

THE POLITICAL ESTABLISHMENT WILL EXPLOIT THE MURDER OF JO COX TO KILL BREXIT ‘Not all Muslims’ crowd will blame all ‘Vote Leave’ conservatives for shooting of MP

I do have an opinion on Brexit — I hope the Exit.  But it’s just an opinion.

Meanwhile, I have an opinion that we ought to know how our own government operates while it’s still around, and we are — and that includes economically.  The best source for this is not predominantly news headlines and NEVER government’s own records of its operations, but those records, and SECONDARILY, news headlines. All this is a matter of “where is your head at?” which will also be indicated in part by where is your time being spent?, if any free time exists, is spent.  HEADLINES WILL CHANGE.  Typically, while what it’s used for may change, and how much, taxation is not likely to have major changes.

However, in the USA, federal/state relationships and the federal budget DID have a major change in 1996.  This cannot be entirely grasped by the headlines, either. Let’s continue to take sample readings of the corporations engaged in activities representing the major privatization of government services 1996 PRWORA did enable, and how it relates to the family courts, when we are seeing family court rulings getting:  lawyers jailed, handcuffed in court hearings, and/or disbarred; parents thrown out of their home, permanently (and “leave the children behind!”), ongoing (Grazzini-Rucki not the only one) and NOT on domestic violence protective orders with kickout which allege it’s necessary to protect life and limb from imminent danger (and which, generally, can be removed shortly after, and often are)..


particularly NEW HAVEN (City of / Metro area):


Perhaps I went a little overboard on the exhortation and explanation up top — BUT, ….

ABOUT THESE… between New Haven being the home of Yale, Connecticut being a significant state within range of the NYC metro area — but the tail-end, southern edge of New England (and all that Ivy League, Colonial-attitude history represents), it being a fairly SMALL state with tight control of both their fatherhood initiatives (legislation set it up statewide as far back as 1999) and the organizations I’m reporting on in this series, being (a) prominent in those circles in Connecticut and (b) fairly typical of what can and DOES occur outside this state — I think it’s well worth your while to read all three posts.

Posts #2 & #3 will be published under those links, as soon as I can finish the “split process,” their contents already are complete, hopefully within 24 hours.

  •  About these three posts
    • ‘Tags” for all are listed at Post #1 only.  Total words before split about 12,000.
    • Posts get long when I am researching and writing it up organization by organization, and piece of evidence regarding each organization, by piece of evidence, and the places where each intersects with another…
    • This split into three posts somewhat arbitrary — long post titles describe basically what’s in each.  Because of the arbitrary split, some references such as “shown below” may actually refer to a different post in this series of 3.
    • The characterization of NHFA as “Inactive/Defunct” in this post (Post #1’s) title, for example, is explained better in Post #2 of 3.  However, briefly (and referenced briefly below also) NHFA (“The New Haven Family Alliance, Inc.”) isn’t status “Inactive” as a business entity in Connecticut; it is currently marked “Active” — but when compared to their annual report filing record on the same database, this would seem to say more about the State’s failure to enforce consequences for noncompliance with state law than NHFA’s compliance.

How many mothers, going into family courts in any state, county, or particularly metropolitan region, are typically aware of just how many sources of financial, legal, social, moral, and other help they will be going up against IF they attempt to stay the contact at 50/50, or maintain what was far less for good reasons involving prior domestic violence or child abuse issues involving the fathers?  I’ve been exploring this for years now and am STILL shocked at how pervasive the evidence is that “Fathers (including incarcerated and ex-offenders) Count” where Mothers In Need of Boundaries (apparently) Don’t.

To think that when public/private partnerships involving top universities, major community foundations, and locally connected nonprofits hooking up with city government (stewarding grants from the U.S. Department of Justice), are on board with this promotion of “Males” and “Fatherhood,”…. add to this powerful and rich all-male leadership religious authorities, as to Connecticut, in the area (such as Catholic Charities — Archdiocese of Hartford (of which the Archdiocese is a “related organization”) which in this case has an account at the large community foundation and is the second-largest direct from HHS recipient of responsible fatherhood funding in Connecticut, not to mention a state-level coordination of services under “Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut” legislated into state law back in 1999, and certification of 10 DSS “fatherhood providers” it’s amazing that any mother in the state, in any contested custody case, might actually prevail.   (More on that, Post #3 of 3.)

About this Connecticut-based series from the starting point of “Male Information Network” participants:

I started looking at these on my last 6/8/2016  post, and in these three, and probably some following as well.  While I’ll point out the “schlock” aspect — which it is (“get real!” with the reasoning in them) and did notice (but didn’t focus on) the set of circular references to support the schlock, my interest is now, as then, more in the organizations (and, to a lesser degree, people running the organizations) getting paid to publish this fatherhood rhetoric and stake it out as a field of practice.

What they are actually doing needs a backdrop — their business entities and financials ARE the place to start.  While most people are not funded to pour out article after article promoting healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood promotion and now “Youth Violence Prevention Initiative” (heavy promotion of “Hug a Thug” mentoring to reduce crime– see Post #2 of 3) schlock in academically creditable places,  — I feel strongly that BLOGGERS should make a note of it and while doing so put those engaged in propagating “Marriage” or “Fatherhood” as federally-supported fields of practice that we notice the inappropriate handling of government funds and Failures to File by involved organizations, for which the noble cause of “faith, fathers, and family” or “diversity, equity, and compassion for the poor/violence prevention,” while noble causes, are not good enough to cover up the other behaviors.  In fact, constant PR seems necessary to distract from the fiscal misbehavior.

While PR and anecdotal information are convincing, the public welfare (HHS/HUD/DOL) rationale for most of this is helping the poor — because of that rationale, anything economically inappropriate by the “Problem-solving” or “Prevention” and/or affiliated “Consultation/Evaluation” groups – entities — organizations involved should be pointed out.  Likewise, the “Prevent Crime” rationale (see “USDOJ/…OJJDP funding) as well shouldn’t be accompanied by illegal behavior  of the corporations, and in this case, I have caught at least two in it, simply because I looked, within the past week in this area.

The hypocrisy alone says they aren’t particularly concerned about the overall problems as much as their own careers, reputations, and ability to evade accountability while running programs a, b, c, or d.

After all — the entire “schlock” has been sold to the public as helping poor people, reducing crime, delinquency, and violence in any community.  …. I fail to see what public benefit or social services is provided when well-known locally nonprofits AND their universities connections (here, at Yale!!) which conceal their own tax returns and are too busy (??) to send in a piece of paperwork, required by state law annually (in Connectictut) to indicate they exist as a corporation, at which address, who are the principals and registered agent (same or different) and other basics.

In addition exhorting us to not get distracted from the economic data, in this post, I call attention to the poor, and in general unpredictable quality of state-level business search databases from which a common respect for the public ought to include providing decent record-keeping of those doing business in every state.

If “we the people” are indeed on the same page as government (as we are supposed to be, judging by our continued support of it through taxation, fees for services, and seeking all kinds of permissions and licenses to do the basic functions of life (raise and educate our children, drive a car for transportation, work at a business and withdraw some non-bona-fide currency [or, register to pay electronically] in order to pay for housing, transportation, children’s education, and food — and marry, divorce, or look up certified copies of some business locally or in a distant state), we ought to at least by now have maintained in ALL states and territories, reliable information in functional form provided to us by these governments. Those people responsible enough to actually want to know, shouldn’t be charged extra for finding out, either! Unfortunately, we just do not now have this.


First (almost), a general message to blog readers and followers

(not including those on whose organizations and practices I’m reporting!):

As I am continuing to learn, I will continue to report!  Get the understanding while you can — there is no guarantee blogs or bloggers will be around for long under current, accelerating conditions in the USA and globally.  

You can try backing up everything, including comments on others blogs, your own blogs if they exist, or key information, and hoping someone doesn’t accuse you of a felony and incite police to break down your door and grab the laptop — as happened to Dede Evavold of RedHerringAlert (and accused in the Grazzini-Rucki case for participating in felony parental interference…) and hoping that this disparate information contained in multiple sources is accessible, or makes some kind of sense overall….  

OR, you could put in the time to make sense of the patterns, give the players appropriate labels validated at the governmental and business level (i.e., Business Entity, NOT a business entity, Government Entity, Individual Professional, Center with Department XYZ at University ABC (and distinguish between public and private universities, etc.), get a grasp of government fund accounting and how government public officials tend to form nonprofit trade associations to keep themselves organized.  You could begin to understand, really, that one of the most important things to understand in ANY country is how your own government takes in and distributes money, and how this is reported on its financial statements (CAFRs, in general — and that’s internationally, not just in the US).  You could start to get a grasp at what an “underground economy” involving public funds might be, and look like (one way is reading accounts at federal agencies on some of their “OIG” reports discovering fraud).

Particularly with the increase of corrupt, money-laundering practices being made available through the privatization of government, the increase in quantity and skill in operating illegally of tax-exempt 501©3s obscuring public/private partnerships to set up national/global “best practices” for basically anything involving government services, or population control  (but no corresponding increase in monitoring of the same) of nonprofits.  

Meanwhile, please exhort your friends and yourself to make use of some basic habits — just try it! — when you hear about an organization involved in some worthy cause (pro/con) or public service — or you just love its self-descriptions on the organization website — or even have a friend working with them, and your friend is a good sincere person, therefore the organization must be — and even when famous universities and other authoritative sources are talking about how great it is — do us all a favor.  Show some initiative and engage in a little self-education ….

Head STRAIGHT ON OVER to Corporate Registration at the state level (must first locate in what state it resides — try the “Contact Us” page if its unclear) AND READ IT,, and as appropriate (if it’s a 501©3 or ©4, in other words, a tax-exempt organization that ought to be filing tax returns) — go locate the tax returns, AND READ THEM!!!  OK?   If you’ve got some discretionary computer (or even cell phone) time during the day, or during the weekends, whenever, I’m sure you can spare at least a few minutes for this, or at least a half hour, regularly.  In order to have justice, freedom and all those American values, we need an informed populace.

The best place to get informed may include on-line journalism and the evening news, but to put it together coherently, it CANNOT be limited to these sources.   They are written to drive readership, views, and revenues upwards.  They have corporate owners, most of them.   Bloggers, myself included, are what they are, but in my experience many of them simply follow on-line news, and re-blog information often FED them by advocacy groups with private agenda.

Let’s learn how government uses and reports its revenues and start checking out some of the groups its famous public/private partnership features.  There is always some background story those financials will tell and collectively, they also show patterns of behavior by type. When that story is at odds with the public relations — then you have something significant to add to any discussion of those groups!

And quit quoting and reblogging group names you haven’t looked up or even identified as currently existing as a business or not!//Thanks!

Ignore the Tax-Exempt Sector

of Business Activity and Government Influence

at Y/Our Own Risk!!  Better yet, don’t ignore it!

A few pointers that came  up in a recent conversation:

Do Comprehend How Its Functions attract resources, accumulate resources, distribute some of them or in some cases, stockpile assets and invest, at will, overseas.  Do Comprehend that Non-Stock = Private Control (by their boards and by-laws/articles of incorporation) without accountability to shareholders as in public companies.  DO understand that this sector organizes itself to receive both private and public (government) grants while often having government (civicl servant/public) current — or former — employees on their boards.  DO comprehend how also business with subcontractors of major non-profits can help build fields of practice, fund (with others usually) university centers, hire academics or other non-profits to evaluate (“validate” mostly) their projects.  DO understand that layers of nonprofits can and do obscure original sources of funding (power) behind any project or idea.  DO understand that the current, over-worked word “COMMUNITY” may mean some aspects (such as board memberships, or distributed grants) may actually be local to a designated community (metropolitan, or other multi-county) geography — but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s where their hearts are, or their ownership comes from.

Always look for the asset ownership (look at the Balance Sheets) and notice major changes over time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: