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

RELATIONSHIP of the ABOVE to CURRENT PERSONAL PRESSURES

The lovely ladies (as it so happens) I’m dealing with presiding over making me essentially homeless in less than one year “on the job” as trustees (and within one month of renewing my demand to disrupt the cozy “bypassing-the-beneficiary” arrangement in a tenant lease they had no part in establishing and which they were not on, plus perpetuating the kind of insane communications and decision-making, such as moving the assets over my objections, concealing where they went for a LONG time over requests, and failing to provide monthly statements (which the former institution did) so I know what is the balance, as well as withholding receipts for direct payments so I might protect myself in court AFTER being made essentially homeless, are early members of “PFAC” and last I looked take some credit for its having been passed (California’s affiliate of this NGA).

I have been informed, now that the above and related (and associated) significant damages | harm | obstructions to my process of leaving substandard housing in an orderly manner and to a better, LESS expensive situation] that since they cannot continue on this trust (which I recently informed them will not happen based on ongoing pattern of deception, concealment, harm and (see opening paragraphs of this post for another related word beginning with “e”), they will resign  voluntarily but only to another professional fiduciary, i.e., if it goes to some cronies.  Simultaneous with that communication, I was given an offhand, belated excuse for why the full amount of funds for this quarter (which began July 1, not July 18 or later) could not be delivered before mid-July.

Because of licensure in California, “professional fiduciary” now means licensed by that state bureau, which is citing to the same nonprofits involved in the process.

Concept:  Licensure as controlling the competition:

A somewhat similar situation (for point of perhaps more familiar reference to blog readers) arose sometimes around early 2013 for professionalizing the field of supervised visitation within the state — California Association of Supervised Visitation Service Providers.  They can’t get to ALL supervised visitation providers, but if someone is doing it in a professional capacity, then this organization, apparently gets to set the training. It just so happens that among the trainers is a close connection to the California AOC/CFCC and handling the access visitation grants (Shelly LaBotte) who also was active (probably still is) in the national/international related group “Supervised Visitation Professionals Network.”

While the public relations and political promotion is that “professionalizing” a field through licensure is for the public good and to ensure ethics across the field –in practice it’s to control the field and reduce the competition; for people who can pass certification (don’t really know how high THAT bar is set), they’re “in.”  When it comes to fiduciaries, in California, lawyers (and some other categories) are already exempt from the process.

I have just one question — how well do you think that’s working, these days, for lawyers, and I’ll throw in another field of practice for good measure — psychologists?  And if our country lasts long enough, I don’t know how highly respected this will be, but while they aren’t (so far) licensing fatherhood practitioner, I do know that Connecticut (at least) is promoting a certification process.  (see John S. Martinez Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut website).

For comparision, Wikipedia on “Enclosure” after it’s understood that the collective wealth within any state held by elderly people with either troublesome or warring offspring, or without children or relatives to care for them, figuratively speaking is like land which can be farmed (or poached) for the price of management fees, in teams of professionals who each get their take. In addition it many times does include real estate, and I suppose may include farmland, but I am talking here about land referring to revenue-producing or income-producing asset, and some of those assets could be billings for services in management.

Obviously a PROFESSIONAL fiduciary [trustee] implies someone who is qualified for the fees to management the funds better than the beneficiary could, whether for time, or for competence, which includes knowing and complying with the laws and regulations of the field for proper stewardship and protection of assets — out of primary duty of loyalty to beneficiary interest in it  

“Professional” in many areas of practice (think sports, or my case, musicians) in practice means paid for the services, does it for a living.  (The root word, however, means to declare/say, as in “Profession of Faith”)  Professional certification — got qualified. Pay the fees, take the courses.  Professional license — continuing til suspended, revoked, or made inactive — permission to engage in the field for pay.  Licenses require some sort of regulatory board to grant, or rescind, that permission, obviously these are powerful when the prosecute, or when they abstain from prosecuting, bad licensee behavior. It would seem that these are at the state level.

WIKIpedia on Enclosure//English History:

Enclosure (sometimes inclosure) was the legal process in England during the 18th century of enclosing a number of small landholdings to create one larger farm.^[1] Once enclosed, use of the land became restricted to the owner, and it ceased to be common land for communal use. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

Enclosure could be accomplished by buying the ground rights and all common rights** to accomplish exclusive rights of use, which increased the value of the land. The other method was by passing laws causing or forcing enclosure, such as Parliamentary enclosure.

**Now do readers understand why in looking at a field I say, look for the coordinated, common interests among seemingly different corporate or organization names?  This practice is as old as plain old monopoly (the example I’m thinking of is of over 100 years ago when Cecil Rhodes understood “scarcity” and bought a water pump for the Kimberly mines in South Africa; when the miners couldn’t afford it any more, they began paying in stock. Soon enough his only competitor was down to one, and a deal was cut….

The field of family law is obviously one of moving assets — it’s a real source of wealth — and when organizations such as AFCC (currently IL registration posing on IRS return as in Madison, Wisconsin), NACC (Colorado), and consulting nonprofits such as Jessica Pearson et al’s CPR (Center for Policy Research/Denver) — and more (CRCkids.org, David Levy’s “Children’s Rights Council” for the access-visitation promotion)– are acting in concert across subject matter (family law / domestic violence providers / “fatherhood practitioners”) sectors when it comes to nonprofit, and across types of entities (such as including university-based “Centers” or institutes) — and involving federal incentives based on HHS grants streams, how powerful is that?  But the influence and power may not be immediately detected at the litigant level because it’s so diverse (geographically and type of involved entity) and because how many people, really, stay up on what major federal agencies are granting public resources for?

Example: Right now there’s a “Fatherhood Practitioners Research Center” (FRPN.org) at Temple University in Pennsylvania hooked up with Jessica Pearson and Jane Venohr of CPR in Colorado + another firm (Baumann consulting or such/DNR offhand), and with a number people running fatherhood-focused nonprofits and/OR University-based Centers.  The HHS grants for this FPRN went to Temple University, not the smaller Center for Policy Research, and presumably would be much harder to follow.

Enclosure, cont’d.

So, in this century, we have seen at least in my state, “enclosure” in at least two fields of practice, when it comes to being paid for it — Fiduciaries (ca. 2009, and including guardians, conservators of people and — as in my case — trustees only of the assets, NOT the person), and Supervised Visitation Providers, a few years later (discussed some below) (I believe this is at the required certification ?? — not the Licensing — level.  But certification is often a step towards the enclosure of licensing).

The latter process of enclosure was sometimes accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agriculturaland economichistory in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit.

The process of enclosure created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For example: “In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common rights are lost”.^[2] Thompson argues that “Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery.”^[3][4]

W. A. Armstrong, among others, argued that this is perhaps an oversimplification, that the better-off members of the European peasantryencouraged and participated actively in enclosure, seeking to end the perpetual poverty of subsistence farming. “We should be careful not to ascribe to [enclosure] developments that were the consequence of a much broader and more complex process of historical change.”^[5] “[T]he impact of eighteenth and nineteenth century enclosure has been grossly exaggerated …”^[6][7]

Enclosure is considered one of the causes of the British Agricultural Revolution. Enclosed land was under control of the farmer who was free to adopt better farming practices. There was widespread agreement in contemporary accounts that profit making opportunities were better with enclosed land.^[8]Following enclosure, crop yields increased while at the same time labour productivity increased enough to create a surplus of labour. The increased labour supply is considered one of the causes of the Industrial Revolution.^[9]

Now let’s take this analogy to farming federal SSA funds which are allocated to people on welfare, others to people on disability, elders, and so forth.  In other words, the VAST resources of social federal security payments for aid to individuals (once they pass the “TANF block grants to the states,” and those that arrive separately through other programming.

What I’m saying as to trustees — it’s not just people and families with individual, perhaps carefully stewarded over the years — or families who own businesses held in trusts.  The other area being farmed for livelihoods includes the ongoing management of the poor — and of their  Social Security, Disability, or other payments.  There are funding streams attached to minor children, to adults owed or paying child support, and to anyone receiving social services (food stamps, cash aid, etc.).   The poor are not working or working in ways where their revenues (income) exceed their expenses, but the people managing them and managing funds due them often are.  They also typically have fewer write-offs than the businesses, i.e., the operating expenses of their own lives.

More on this interesting topic of enclosure affecting the course of history, politics, and industrialization, and laws, so at some points the royal tide turned against the practice:

In Great Britain, the process sped up during the 15th and 16th centuries as sheep farming grew more profitable. In the 16th and early 17th centuries, the practice of enclosure, particularly of depopulating enclosure, was denounced by the Church and the government and legislation was drawn up against it. But elite opinion began to turn towards support for enclosure, and rate of enclosure increased in the seventeenth century. This led to a series of government acts addressing individual regions, which were given a common framework in the Inclosure Consolidation Act of 1801.

Sir Thomas More, in his 1516 work Utopia suggests that the practice of enclosure was responsible for some of the social problems affecting England at the time, specifically theft:

“But I do not think that this necessity of stealing arises only from hence; there is another cause of it, more peculiar to England.” “What is that?” said the Cardinal. “The increase of pasture,” said I, “by which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order, may be said now to devour men and unpeople, not only villages, but towns; for wherever it is found that the sheep of any soil yield a softer and richer wool than ordinary, there the nobility and gentry, and even those holy men, the abbots not contented with the old rents which their farms yielded, nor thinking it enough that they, living at their ease, do no good to the public, resolve to do it hurt instead of good. They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns – reserving only the churches – and enclose grounds that they may lodge their sheep in them.”

The loss of agricultural labour also hurt others like millers whose livelihood relied on agricultural produce. Fynes Moryson reported on these problems in his 1617 work An Itinerary:^{[13]  …}

And from another section, the topic of inflation and debasement of currency during King Henry VIII’s reign come up.

I’m continuing the quote because — think about it –what, similar, is going on today?

{Still from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure}

Anti-enclosure legislation[edit]

The enclosure of common land for sheep farming and the consequent eviction of villagers from their homes and their livelihoods became an important political issue for the Tudors. Reflecting royal opposition to this practice, the anti-enclosure acts of 1489 and 1516 were aimed at stopping the waste of structures and farmland, which would lead to lower tax revenues, fewer potential military conscripts for the crown, and more potential underclass rebels. The Tudor authorities were extremely nervous about how the villagers who had lost their homes would react. In the sixteenth century, lack of income made one a pauper. If one lost one’s home as well, one became a vagrant; and vagrants were regarded (and treated) as criminals. The authorities saw many people becoming what they regarded as vagabonds and thieves as a result of enclosure and depopulation of villages. From the time of Henry VII onwards, Parliament began passing Acts to stop enclosure, to limit its effects, or at least to fine those responsible. The first such law was in 1489. Over the next 150 years, there were 11 more Acts of Parliament and eight commissions of enquiry on the subject.^[14]

Initially, enclosure was not itself an offense, but where it was accompanied by the destruction of houses, half the profits would go to the Crown until the lost houses were rebuilt (the 1489 Act gave half the profits to the superior landlord, who might not be the Crown, but an Act of 1536 allowed the Crown to receive this half share if the superior landlord had not taken action). In 1515, conversion from arable to pasture became an offense. Once again, half the profits from conversion would go to the Crown until the arable land was restored. Neither the 1515 Act nor the previous laws were effective in stopping enclosure, so in 1517 Cardinal Wolsey established a commission of enquiry to determine where offenses had taken place – and to ensure the Crown received its half of the profits.

Inflation and enclosure[edit]

Alongside population growth,^[15]inflation was a major reason for enclosure.^[16] When Henry VIII became King in 1509, he found the royal finances in good shape thanks to the prudence of his father Henry VII (reigned 1487–1509). But this soon changed as Henry VIII doubled household expenditure and started costly wars against both France and Scotland. With his wealth rapidly decreasing, Henry VIII imposed a series of taxes devised by his Chancellor, Thomas Wolsey (in office 1515–1529). Soon the people began to resent Wolsey’s taxes and the administration had to find a new source of finance: in 1544, Henry reduced the silver content of new coins by about 50%; he repeated the process to a lesser extent the following year.

See also other significant features of that reign (persecuting of Bible translator William Tyndale followed by having him hunted down (he’d fled to continue translation on the Continent), betrayed by a friend, later (1539?) burned at the stake, although the subsequent version published was largely Tyndale’s work.  See also starting the Church of England (“Anglican Communion” now) for royal/political reasons… See also “the Reformation” challenging Roman Catholic control of the Christian faith.. Think it’s not relevant today?  See “Faith-based initiatives….” and churches as religious-exempt entities in the USA, and federal (HHS especially) dealings with the same. It’s relevant!

After that, I just found another reference which may narrate better than Wikipedia, I’ll link to it, I have scanned it, but have not evaluated it.  Again, my purpose in thinking about this is considering my personal situation in which as a human being, I have been labeled through my gender and marital status by this government (single mother) which as it happens for many of us, the ‘single’ was a result of not being able to ‘single-handledly’ stop, contain, or take the level of personal and physical violence (assault, battery, coercion, threats, and in general, ongoing abuse) that this marriage had, nor was I as a mother willing to raise children who might be led to think that this was either acceptable or a “normal” role model.

The abuse within my marriage as it does during most marriages, had a horrible economic effect also (although doing so made a real fighter in categories which affect one’s ability to work, as I became aware one by one of just what they were as exercised by my ex).  That economic control was to ensure I didn’t “walk” under the bad treatment, and as a general-principle over entitlement; and it was instituted swiftly near the beginning with the physical assaults not beginning until having one child and becoming pregnant with the next ensured I was effectively attached within the marriage.  (This was also before the Violence Against Women Act had passed in 1994).

One of the most destructive was the theft of my credit, which affected ability to obtain post-separation housing, limiting options to get a safe geographical distance away and reduce the ongoing trauma through close and frequent personal contact.

When time came to move out of the original rental where these years of abuse had occurred — a good thing psychologically, although at the time it was occasioned when the landlord sold, giving me not much notice — I chose one among the two available options at the time, quickly leveraged this into a good balance of work to expenses to children’s ongoing education — and found myself immediately under a side-slamming attack for exercising choice and not saying a cowering, needy, dependent adult woman in front of my own relatives who’d not done much to help during the MANY years of abuse.  That side-slamming attack, like my husband’s, began with words and attempts to improperly regulate my choice (without basis for it), but the first real “slammer” was bringing us into the family courts to start with.  It was one of many.

The family courts, as women are often learning, are not particularly interested in giving the issue of domestic violence significant weight  (see also “no-fault divorce” changes in the 1970s, focusing on the state of the relationship, and eliminating? the seven causes of divorce, one of which involved commission of felony….).  So, for someone whose first major contact with the legal system may have been the effective help of a restraining order with kickout in order to save lives, which is a clear statement that in fact domestic violence DOES matter, immediately there is a partial state of confusion — “Why does the relative character and behaviors of either parents in the recent past no longer really matter?”

In the state of confusion about the nature of the family court system as it sits nested within other systems (and not knowing most of us, about the federal fatherhood promotion, increased noncustodial parenting time incentives and the court-connected, court-referred livelihoods [professions] they support overshadowing all of this), anyone, and battered women in particular, might be induced to consent to agree to something in the long run not in her best interest, such as not fighting adamantly and HARD for sole physical AND legal custody, and safe boundaries.  For those that do fight anyhow, if this fight occurs not knowing the full economic/political weight which could be applied on the opposing side when one is obviously NOT a father by virtue of being born female, and having given birth becoming instead a mother, this is a disadvantage.   There have been even programs sold coaching fathers’ attorneys how to persuade mothers’ attorneys to threaten their own clients with complete loss of custody if they don’t go along with joint legal AND physical custody, 50/50… (Richard Warshak, who sits (or did) on the editorial board of the AFCC-Hofstra University produced professional journal for the family courts, “Family Court Review” was selling such a program years ago.  (Those are searchable terms, so I’m skipping the links this time…). So, another thing which then may and can happen is a mother’s own attorney may compromise her, and discourage pursuing full extent of legal rights and protection in circumstances when that is actually necessary.  This happened in my case — important evidence submitted to the attorney was not submitted to the court, our first time in court for the dissolution.

Anyhow, I want to enclose this other reference on “Enclosure” — interesting reading:

(from “Thelandmagazine.org.uk”) “the occasional land magazine”

[Don’t shoot the messenger” — this long intro quote brings it to current relevance!] Don’t yet know where the writer stands on this, but it looks like a good read, relevant, and so I’m posting it here.

Land rights in the UK differ from in the USA.  The Crown and Crown Estates seem to own more, including what’s UNDER the land (mineral rights) and regarding the shoreline.

A Short History of Enclosure in Britain

Simon Fairlie describes how the progressive enclosure of commons over several centuries has deprived most of the British people of access to agricultural land. The historical process bears little relationship to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, the theory which ideologues in the neoliberal era adopted as part of a smear campaign against common property institutions. 

---

Over the course of a few hundred years, much of Britain’s land has been privatized — that is to say taken out of some form of collective ownership and management and handed over to individuals. Currently, in our “property-owning democracy”, nearly half the country is owned by 40,000 land millionaires, or 0.06 per cent of the population,1 while most of the rest of us spend half our working lives paying off the debt on a patch of land barely large enough to accommodate a dwelling and a washing line.

(from “TheLandMagazine.org.uk”)

There are many factors that have led to such extreme levels of land concentration, but the most blatant and the most contentious has been enclosure — the subdivision and fencing of common land into individual plots which were allocated to those people deemed to have held rights to the land enclosed. For over 500 years, pamphleteers, politicians and historians have argued about enclosure, those in favour (including the beneficiaries) insisting that it was necessary for economic development or “improvement”, and those against (including the dispossessed) claiming that it deprived the poor of their livelihoods and led to rural depopulation. Reams of evidence derived from manorial rolls, tax returns, field orders and so on have been painstakingly unearthed to support either side.

Anyone concocting a resumé of enclosure such as the one I present here cannot ignore E P Thompson’s warning: “A novice in agricultural history caught loitering in those areas with intent would quickly be despatched.”2

---

But over the last three decades, the enclosure debate has been swept up in a broader discourse on the nature of common property of any kind. The overgrazing of English common land has been held up as the archetypal example of the “tragedy of the commons” — the fatal deficiency that a neoliberal intelligentsia holds to be inherent in all forms of common property. Attitudes towards enclosures in the past were always ideologically charged, but now any stance taken towards them betrays a parallel approach to the crucial issues of our time: the management of global commons and the conflict between the global and the local, between development and diversity.

Those of us who have not spent a lifetime studying agricultural history should beware of leaping to convenient conclusions about the past, for nothing is quite what it seems. But no one who wishes to engage with the environmental politics of today can afford to plead agnostic on the dominant social conflict of our recent past. The account of enclosure that follows is offered with this in mind, and so I plead guilty to “loitering with intent”.

(Last, but not least…)

Who’s Been Looking at This Blog|

The Table:

Comments available on any blog post, I will get them by email within the day.   No hate-talk, or threats, try to remember the public if you’re going to complain about a situation, try and make it specific enough so we have a clue, but I do not need nor should you casually be providing, personal case information on this blog. Provide links to what you’re speaking about where they exist, and of course (if this shoe fits and you are a party involved in my current or past legal situations) no stalking! //LGH.

Look at the table below of who’s been visiting this blog, per my little IP-based log!

This tracks who visits its main page (where all posts show up in a single long parade of prose).  Perhaps it might be worth studying for a season what I’ve been saying while it’s still a live, public-domain blog!  

You can see States of Minnesota, New York, Iowa, and State of Washington DSHS, State of California DSS, etc.  Most are short visits, but I’m sure whoever or whatever (crawler, semantics recognizer, or whatever it is that brings the visits) recognizes that I am reporting on some of these agencies and on public-interest information on use of government resources.  If they see fit to notice, perhaps even monitor this blog, “just perhaps” I have something valuable to say in this field  that is not being covered in other sources, even though I am not doing it as an active, conference-circuit speaker, consultant, or nonprofit with product to sell.  And even though I am not PhD’s in a related field (or, currently, any field), or working in the courts.

I didn’t include in this table various “info networks” of cities, counties or universities which also come up, or except for one instance, any of the foreign country visitors, or school districts which seem to come up with some regularity.

…Sample table doesn’t include, but they are still visiting FamilyCourtMatters, major private universities or most of the overseas (non-USA) visitors. I’m just showing some government entities who’ve been peeking in (some, repeatedly) of late. Not to worry, individual private followers or viewers, I would not expose personal IP addresses of visitors.  Also corporate identities (such as law firms or hospitals, — Ford Motor Corporation or GMC) may show up, but with one exception related to the military, I didn’t post those. This table shows a sample of visitors whose browsers identified as a government entity.  What displays in the table as blue hyperlinks are just my own labeling of what was system-generated and shown under “IP Address” when it has a recognizable name.

I must admit that having repeat “Homeland Security” and DOD drive-by‘s is a little unnerving — but still, I don’t lie, I do attempt to document and cite my sources; otherwise it’s opinion, and I’m not advocating anything unethical, immoral, or to the best of my awareness (not being a lawyer), illegal, violent, etc. —  those are the types of behaviors I’m blogging to protest!

The tables are a little tricky and time-consuming to tweak (standardize/format) for the blog.  I certainly wouldn’t bother except that I do believe this information I’m writing on is critical, it’s time-sensitive and I don’t know who else is teaching or reporting on it consistently with regard to the family courts — and able to connect what’s happening there to the “macro-economic” and other political/governmental directions, especially within the United States of America, my country.

As a parent I know plenty about how devastating these courts can be, and it is my intention that this type of devastation, which is needless, and at odds with existing laws and the alleged purpose of this country, be exposed, and stopped, if possible.  Also, I know I have been in this system and blogging during a time of recent remarkable change in these courts (and related child support) and of course in the country.

The time is NOW to get up to speed on how the symptoms we are experiencing relate to economic and “geopolitical” purposes of those in power. I am not so foolish as to believe I can do this alone. I am wise enough to at least call out — make a loud noise, constantly — what’s in the road ahead for the non-connected, average human being | individual working citizen, based on what directions have been taken in the past, and how current trends are a continuation of the same, and current reform and advocacy efforts are geared NOT to change the overall direction.  And, I do not speak from particularly either political party’s platform.  Neither Republicans nor Democrats at this point particularly represents the common good, in my opinion.

Page Views 1 Exit Time: 6 Jul 201609:22:07 Browser: Chrome 51.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Ad dress: Department Of Homeland Security (216.81.81.81) WDC Dept of Homeland Security 6Jul2016 216.81.81.81 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page: Unknown
Page Views: 2 Exit Time: 6 Jul 2016  06:19:41 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits:1 Location: Baltimore, Maryland, United States IP Address: Social Security Administration (137.200.32.38) Social Security Admin, Baltimore !! Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page: Unknown Exit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 6 Jul 2016  06:58:42 Browser: Chrome 51.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Baltimore, Maryland, United States IP Address: University Of Maryland At Baltimore (134.192.179.214) 6July UMaryland Baltimore 134.192.179.124 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 5 Jul 2016  10:40:14 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Olympia, Washington, United States IP Address: Department Of Social And Health Services (147.56.137.6) Washington State “DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SVCS” (DSHS) 147.5 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page: Unknown
Page Views: 4 Exit Time: 5 Jul 2016  09:54:00 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: Internal Revenue Service (152.216.15.5) the IRS (WDC) 152.216.15.5 Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page:  Unknown Exit Page: Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 5 Jul 2016  09:18:54 Browser: Chrome 51.0 OS: OS X Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Tampa, Florida, United States IP Address: University Of South Florida (131.247.140.18) U South FL (Tampa, FL) Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 4 Jul 2016  16:29:16 Browser/OS: Safari iPad/iOS Mobile Device: Apple iPad Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Apo, Armed Forces Europ, United States IP Address: Globecomm Services Maryland Llc (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxxx**) APO ARMED FORCES EUROP | Servr: Globecomm Svcs Maryland LLC Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 2 Exit Time: 1 Jul 2016  10:51:16 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: Firefox 50.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown [Still on Firefox?  That’s sad…]		Total Visits: 1 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States IP Address: Hennepin County Gov Center (207.225.131.141) HENNEPIN County Gov Ctr (MN) 1July2016 207.225.131.141 Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page:  Unknown Exit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 30 Jun 2016  08:37:29 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win10 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Bemidji, Minnesota, United States IP Address: State Of Minnesota (156.99.239.153) STATE of MN Bemidji 156.99.239.153 @ 30Jun2016 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 2 Exit Time: 30 Jun 2016  04:18:47 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: Chrome 51.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: General Services Administration (159.142.71.6) (Federal) Genl Services Admin (159.142.71.6) Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page: Unknown Exit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 29 Jun 2016  14:34:49 Browser: Chrome 51.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Medford, Massachusetts, United States IP Address: Massachusetts Higher Education Computer Network(134.241.179.254) MA Higher Educ Computer Netwk 29Jun2016 14:34 134.241.179.25 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 29 Jun 2016  13:25:37 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Albany, New York, United States IP Address: New York State (170.123.7.115) NEW YORK STATE (ALbany, NY) 170.123.7.115 29Jun13:25 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 29 Jun 2016  11:33:51 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win10 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Boise, Idaho, United States IP Address: State Of Idaho (164.165.88.171) STATE of Idaho (Boise, 164.165.88.171 29Jun2016 11:33) Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 29 Jun 2016  11:15:47 Browser: IE 11.0 OS:Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: Department Of Homeland Security (216.81.94.70) Dept of Homeland Security Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 29 Jun 2016  09:23:49 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Sacramento, California, United States IP Address: California State Dept. Of Social Services (162.2.171.81) California State DSS (Social Services) 29Jun2016 9:23, 162.2 Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 2 Exit Time: 28 Jun 2016  14:11:04 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Frankfort, Kentucky, United States IP Address: Commonwealth Of Kentucky department Of Information (205.204.248.75) COMMONWEALTH KY Dept of Info Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page: Unknown Exit Page: Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 28 Jun 2016  04:36:36 Browser: IE 11.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: London, United Kingdom IP Address: National Health Service (194.176.105.135) UK LONDON NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE 28Jun2016 04:36  *** Referring URL: (No referring link) Visit Page: Unknown
Page Views: 3 Exit Time: 27 Jun 2016  04:12:42 Visit Length: Multiple visits spread over more than one day Browser: IE 51.0 OS: Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location:  Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: U.s. Securities & Exchange Commission (162.138.210.3) US Securities & Exchange Commission 27Jun2016 (3views) Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page:  Unknown Exit Page:  Unknown
Page Views: 1 Exit Time: 24 Jun 2016  06:41:12 Browser: IE 11.0 OS:  Win7 Resolution: Unknown		Total Visits: 1 Location: Springfield, Virginia, United States IP Address: Dod Network Information Center (214.28.226.252) DOD Netwk Info Ctr Springfield VA 24Jun2016 214.28.226.252 Referring URL:  (No referring link) Visit Page:  Unknown

**I.P. address removed.  I’m not going to possibly compromise someone’s safety who is in Armed Forces Europe (even if it seems stationed in US)…  *** I highlit the London “National Health Service” visit because so much of what we have in the USA is British National Health Service in style — particularly focus on national mental health….