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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Look at Who’s Been Looking at This Blog Recently. [+ Update re: the Trust/Probate Factor]

with 2 comments


For those who complain that my blog is a little too dense on the detail, and light on the format — I do have trouble getting it in detail and in acceptable format. Detail is needed for depth — I am defining terms, speaking in somewhat of a different language, and about different things, than most blogs focused on this subject matter.  How much can go in one post, and how that displays (format) is a definitely a challenge on an informal website such as blogs.

There’s the process of writing, and there’s the process of formatting all those quotes, which means much of the time for any post I am actually typing in “html” (“Text”) mode and adjusting the formatting instructions.  The quotes make for longer posts, and scrolling back up and down for formatting is, yes, a pain in the neck.

However, here’s perhaps a little encouragement to hang in there as a reader — who else within government is at least visiting this site (and, month after month after month, with some fluctuation, this is a fair sample).

To tell the truth, while researching and writing it up, I am in learning mode and that’s a good mode to be in when under significant pressure otherwise.  I no longer have the outlet (or many associations) from the classical musicians I used to hang with (all ages), or other kinds.  I don’t do holidays any more (any of them!), and learning which develops understanding and has at least some potential for positive action (as I’m sure this blog does — we have to stop those incentivized grants both for cause and for how they are being handled) helps me, too.  In hindsight, that writing helped me survive the years of marital abuse also, which always involves the ongoing “gaslighting” (crazymaking) post-incident by the abuser; at that time it was my husband.  It also provided a written record post-incident; over time, they start to blur together and the cumulative effect which may become the “normal” with some time and distance, shows more of the scope.

Concurrently — how many can identify with this? — the pressures that started “back when” for some of us, and resulted in decade-plus in the courts, and disheartening look at the future (no present communications with my own children, and I’m concerned to about both, yet myself dealing with a long-term, no-permanent housing situation related to a family trust — related to the family court fiasco — related to the prior domestic violence) are still on.

Once you’re “in” this system at some angle — or have been targeted by a power network for “assets appropriation” or “family dismantling” — when we are not documenting and writing, we are often just fighting pending, imminent, or past litigation and to preserve housing in such a way as not to be subject to imminent threat of loss of housing through loss of income.

Most of my stuff (including a prized piano) is in storage and has been for months.  Last summer I (again) protested a longstanding form of trustee abuse and within a few months was driven out of a long-term rental under crisis conditions which arose, suspiciously, the same month, and continued until I had to exit the property on 24 hrs notice for a safer place, which was a room in a hotel.

(I am very, very tempted to post more details, but don’t think it wise at this point.)

I have a few close friends (local, some not local) for regular conversation.  This week in I am again empathizing in particular with Sandra Grazzini-Rucki’s situation (a kangaroo criminal trial for felony parental interference next Monday 7/18/16 in Minnesota, dragging others in also as I understand it), while I myself have been dealing with “how to stop extortion based on fraud” and how to communicate with entities who have made a joke of the process.

So what you get may not be short enough or clean enough.  If I come within range of personal contact simultaneous In person, and with access to my laptop, I can definitely present and speak with authority (based on research, not degrees) on this material, and coherently.  I see how it’s assembled and working — but putting this into a WordPress.com blog format without a dynamic audience is a whole different beast.

For those who pray, I also ask prayers particularly this next week.  I am an elder (it happens!) and this exploitation routine is getting old.  I’m having to fight for paperwork that should be given, and each and basically any, interaction will involve being lied to or exposed to more dysfunction of people in control of, as I have said this before, resources I need each week, to stay housed and have transportation and food.

Health care not even on the front burner yet, although I prefer focusing on living a decent lifestyle, there are still times one must go in.  Right now, my stress level (see above) is through the roof and I would consider it a health hazard.  That’s one reason I had to get away from that slumlord/substandard housing and, hopefully soon, toxic personalities motivated by money, not ethics or their own industry professional guidelines (if the shoe fits wear it!), and forced interactions with people who have taken parts of my life (present past and future) hostage for pay they do not deserve and have not earned, in the capacity in which they entered to start with.

These people to continue certain kinds of operations need associates (friends, cronies, related people in the associated professions) to pull it off, and attempt to continue intimidating those who are being robbed of both time (which is life) and money, and their legal rights.

Which gets back to another reason I do blog — once anyone goes through the level of work it takes to smoke out, label, narrate, and show the connections between the various sectors involved — why force others to go start from scratch in their personal cases too?  Only by collective action, at least SOME collective action, can at certain points and times, some of the abuse of privilege and position once usurped, be taken back.

I’m here now to remind us (and the case in Minnesota also reveals) that some of the greatest wealth around is being held in real estate and business operations, and that real estate and those businesses are sometimes contained in trusts.  So, in any given state (New York, Florida, Illinois — Connecticut….), for a power structure when it comes to lawyers, look in the real estate and trusts sections, and when it comes to exploiting elders who may have something saved over the years, or due them from elsewhere, you will be talking probate court and dealing with the category of people called “trustees,” and the corresponding sections of the State Bar specializing in these fields.

California as a state only around 2008 got this categorized under the Dept. of Consumer Affairs and set up a “Professional Fiduciary Bureau” so naturally there is going to sooner or later be a professional nonprofit association that seeks some control of the field and referrals from them.  In this state, that’s been named “Professional Fiduciary Association of California” (PFAC for short).

(From Fiduciary.Ca.Gov) website)

The Professional Fiduciaries Bureau was created by legislation that passed and was enacted into law in 2007 to regulate non-family member professional fiduciaries, including conservators, guardians, trustees, and agents under durable power of attorney as defined by the Professional Fiduciaries ActAre You A Professional Fiduciary?

Professional fiduciaries provide critical services to seniors, persons with disabilities, and children.[**1] They manage matters for clients including daily care, housing and medical needs, and also offer financial management services ranging from basic bill paying to estate and investment management [**2].

Requirements for licensing include passing an examination and completing thirty (30) hours of approved education courses (See Pre-Licensing Education Information), and earning fifteen (15) hours of continuing education credit (two (2) hours must be in ethics for fiduciaries) each year for renewal. [**3]

OUR VISION
To protect, maintain, and enhance the quality of life for consumers by promoting the highest Professional Fiduciary standards.

OUR MISSION
To protect consumers through licensing, education, and enforcement by ensuring the competency and ethical standards of Professional Fiduciaries.

[Read more from this Professional Fiduciary Bureau page]

**My footnotes, not on the original website.  My three comments:

[1] The term “seniors” has an age definition in the 60s, but obviously someone in their 80s or 90s, depending on their state of health and mental capacity (which could still be OK) is going to be different than people in their 50s or seniors in their 60s, barring any unusual incapacity.

Right from this description, we see that this legislation was not primarily targeted towards trustees for otherwise competent people.  However, I’ll be there are plenty of relatives who may have cause and might wish to be attempting to portray an adult sibling standing to inherit something as somehow incompetent.  Being “senior” according to the legal definition doesn’t indicate anything about competency.

[2] Notice the emphasis on paying others bills — which would imply, obviously, having signing access to their funds.  Obviously there are disabled or fragile elderly people around who do need these services.  What I’m concerned is that this not become an additional, new dumping ground for competent people who have been compromised financially through the family courts, and in many cases this will involve people who have experienced domestic violence, or are trying to deal with situations where their children also have been abused, including but not limited to sexual abuse.

This typically means chronic and extended litigation which means work disruption which can compromise anyone’s financial standing in a hurry and for years.  And where the pickings are good, the vultures will assemble along with hopefully some good ethical decent people.

  • But I have a rhetorical question — are all the good ethical decent professional fiduciaries going to really stand up to the ones that are functioning as vultures — or is this Fiduciary Bureau?  If the good ones reported on the corrupt ones (assuming they had access to information to know about it), how would that go for an entire system often based on colleague’s — or as to guardianship or consevators, a court’s! — referrals, as this is?

[2, continued] Once others start taking over a personal financial footprint for others inappropriately, it is tough to get back and it is going to affect other aspects of life.  Example:  How many people came out of marital or other partnered relationships involving domestic violence with children with their credit intact — faced custody battles, and kept their credit that way for those years?

[3]  With licensing comes qualifying — so here comes the approved education providers. Who (typically it’s going to be a private nonprofit — so which one?) gets to run those, and does graduation have much to do with ethics or character once someone has graduated? I won’t review those in detail now, but please note that Professional Fiduciary Association of California appears both among the “Approved Education Providers” and below that chart for “pre-licensing education immediately” which also lists them, as well as the National Guardianship Association — which is where it gets interesting….

To earn pre-licensing education credit immediately, the Bureau has identified the following possible opportunities:

  1. The CSUF Fullerton’s Fiduciary Management Program online courses-website: http://extension.fullerton.edu/ProfessionalDevelopment/Fiduciary
  2. The National Guardianship Association online CE courses-web site: www.guardianship.org/
  3. The Professional Fiduciary Association of California’s Annual Education Conference, May 2008-website: http://www.pfac-pro.org/
  4. The UC Riverside Extension Professional Fiduciary Certificate Program: http://www.extension.ucr.edu/certificates/9698683/CE2297/ProfessionalFiduciaryManagement
  5. http://www.alz.org/norcal/in_my_community_professionals.asp
  6. http://www.guardianshipcert.org/

“guardianship.org” logo

You know me.  I’m going to look ’em up (and did) so I know that this one is now in Pennsylvania — (174 Crestview Drive . Bellefonte, PA) a commonwealth which apparently only requires registration about every 10 years (“decennial”) with some exceptions — after Illinois revoked their permission to operate for non-filing!

http://www.guardianship.org/overview.htm

NGA represents more than 1000 guardians, conservators and fiduciaries from across the United States who share our vision. They are professionals, volunteers and family guardians.

NGA set the standard for quality in guardianship by establishing national practice standards for individuals in 2000 and for agencies in 2008.

NGA also led the way in advocating certification of guardians by forming the Center for Guardianship Certification, which now lists 2000 individuals who have earned the designation of National Certified Guardian or National Master Guardian.

Looking at the math (considering there are 50 states and territories), is 1000 membership and 2000 who got so far as to be certified or master status — and for how long they’ve been around — that remarkable?  From the summary, it looks like the idea stemmed from a 1988 Chicago Conference with a 1989 incorporation in Illinois:

NGA came into being in 1988 in Chicago, Illinois where over 200 people gathered for the first national conference designed to meet the needs of this emerging and rapidly growing guardianship profession. …In January 1989 NGA was formally incorporated in the state of Illinois as a non-profit corporation.

The early years – Initially, there was a concentration both on defining NGA’s roles, responsibilities, and direction and in developing services and materials for the members. A Model Code of Ethics (authored by Michael D. Casasanto, Mitchell Simon, and Judith Roman) was adopted by NGA in July 1991 and later NGA went on to create and adopt a baseline of seven Standards of Practice for Guardians.

The organization always had a heightened interest not just in training and education for those in the guardianship arena, but in a national certification for guardians as well.

Certification =/= licensure, but typically says so-and-so passed our course, or requirements, he or she knows the rules, etc.  It was in 1997, with the support of the membership, that the NGA Board of Directors voted to create a separate examination and certification body. It was originally called the National Guardianship Foundation and is now known as the Center for Guardianship Certification. NGA continues to provide a review session for people qualifying to take the certification examination, while the CGC administers the examination process.

Here’s the record from the State of Illinois, both organizations:

Entity Type File Number Corporation/LLC Name
CORP MST 54974485 NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION
CORP OLD 54974485 NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION/ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE
CORP MST 59666274 NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED

Searchable here at Illinois Corp/LLC page

Details will show the NGA (File#5474485) registered in 2/1988 with name then agent change in 3/1991 and was involuntarily dissolved  on 7/1/1999.
The NGA Foundation (File#59666274) showed up as a Domestic “BCA” (Business Corporation Act) = ? only in 1997 and was dissolved in 4/1999 (this is part, not all, of the details page):
File Number 59666274
 Entity Name NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED
 Status DISSOLVED
 Entity Type CORPORATION  Type of Corp DOMESTIC BCA
 Incorporation Date (Domestic) 11/13/1997  State ILLINOIS
 Agent Name SUSAN B MCMAHON  Agent Change Date 11/13/1997
 Agent Street Address 2801 FINLEY ROAD  President Name & Address
 Agent City DOWNERS GROVE  Secretary Name & Address INVOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION 04 01 99
 Odd that this does not indicate “not for profit” in its Type, but what looks like standard business, despite its name having the word “foundation.”
Anyhow, there is a definite time gap (perhaps spent visiting other states for registration? or just not bothering to stay incorporated anywhere?) before it shows up in Pennsylvania.  (Search Pennsylvania businesses).  Because I searched under just “national guardianship” I pulled up the prior name for the Certifying Center:
Filter Records 
So, the NGA I see registered on 2/27/2006  (where was it between 7/1/1999 and then — seven years?) and the NGA foundation first under that name and later changing, registered on 9/7/2007.
Did these two organizations’ decisions to get registered again (if they hadn’t been meanwhile) have anything to do with a project being done for some courts in Vermont, and in preparation for setting up a Fiduciary Bureau in California in 2008/2009?  Technically speaking, if an domestic Illinois entity is dissolved, it no longer exists, if the exact same people even using the exact same name, then drive over the state border (or somewhere else) and registered a new one — that is NOT a continuous entity’s existence.
If an entity (Corp, LLC, etc.) registered as a foreign legal domicile IN Illinois but just let its IL authorization slip, that same entity still might exist legally in the home state…  Look at this timeline again, now that we see Illinois stopped in 1999 and PA started in Feb. 2006 and Sept. 2007, respectively.  The “Where’s Waldo Legally Incorporated Now?” time gap again, is 1999 …… 2006/2007:

 It was in 1997, with the support of the membership, that the NGA Board of Directors voted to create a separate examination and certification body. It was originally called the National Guardianship Foundation and is now known as the Center for Guardianship Certification. NGA continues to provide a review session for people qualifying to take the certification examination, while the CGC administers the examination process

The teen years – The original seven Standards of Practice were expanded to twenty-three Standards of Practice between 1998 and 2000. Later, additions were made in 2002 and again in 2007 to comprise NGA’s current twenty-five Standards of Practice. In 2007 moving from the Standards of Practice for individual guardians to Standards for Agencies and Programs Providing Guardianship Services seemed like a natural evolution for NGA.

Coming of age – In 2008, NGA performed the first Agency Quality Improvement Review for the Office of Public Guardian in Vermont. That was followed in 2009 by the first Court System Quality Improvement Review for the Delaware Chancery Courts.

The NGA site has a “myths and facts” about the two organizations page.
They’d better be incorporated somewhere if they are contracting with government agencies in two different states!  Maybe I should go check Vermont and Delaware….  Meanwhile, they have developed affiliates in 24 different states, it says (Vermont, Maine, Connecticut not included, nor New York — nor DC Metro Area States Maryland or Virginia, but still, ALMOST half the states (no territories listed so far) out of 50 isn’t too bad.
There are now more than 1000 NGA members and 24 state guardianship associations that have been accepted as Affiliates.
 I see “Illinois Guardianship Association” is listed as one of them, and went back to Illinois Cyberdrive Corp/LLC search(link above) and keyed in “Illinois Guardianship.”  I got two results, one was the word “service” and a corporation which has since changed its name to “Dayone Pact” and the other, labeled “NOT IN GOOD STANDING” with last registered agent change in 2015:
 File Number 60045607
 Entity Name ILLINOIS GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION
 Status NOT GOOD STANDING
 Entity Type CORPORATION  Type of Corp NOT-FOR-PROFIT
 Incorporation Date (Domestic) 07/17/1998  State ILLINOIS
 Agent Name JOHN R CORNIELE  Agent Change Date 03/19/2015
 Agent Street Address 151 LINCOLN HIGHWAY  President Name & Address
 Agent City DEKALB  Secretary Name & Address
 Agent Zip 60115  Duration Date PERPETUAL
 Annual Report Filing Date 00/00/0000  For Year 2016
 (Note all state-level search sites usually come with disclaimers…)
 Here’s the Certification Organization Form 990-EZ (notice this doesn’t ask questions such as “state of legal domicile” or “year incorporated” like a Form 990 might.  Then again — it’s pretty simple.  They have an executive director Patricia Calabrese, however on the list of trustees, one of them is labeled “Calabrese Management Corporation’.  Size of organization is small and notices it’s labeled “990EO.“(From Search site 990finder.foundationcenter.org).
ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
CENTER FOR GUARDIANSHIP CERTIFICATION PA 2014 990EO 10 $180,121.00 36-4196972
 And here’s the other one:
ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION PA 2014 990 29 $376,289.00 36-3591860
I also looked at a Year 2010 return, hoping to see whether the Schedule A (last four-five years of receipts chart) showed anything going on,. however it only goes back to year 2006). Both say “Formed in” (Header information) is 1987 and state “PA.”  As I’ve shown, a group formed in IL dates back to 1987 — this one is not the same entity (despite even if they retained the same website), and particularly if it wasn’t incorporated somewhere between July 1999 and January 2006, it most definitely does NOT go back to 1987… but only 2006.
In 2009, AND in 2008, they filed a Form 990EZ (for gross receipts of $452K) Management, “The Heuser Group” paid $153K in 2014, $120K+ in 2009 and only $104K in 2008, for doing the same generic thing every year, that’s not bad (a 50% increase in fees within six years).

I wanted to see the “Schedule A” lookback, the Schedule is called:

Public Charity Status and Public Support

To be completed by all section 501(c )(3) organizations and section 4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trusts.
Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ. See separate instructions

Here’s an image of that page.  Put this information together with their having been contracting with the courts in New England (Vermont) and Delaware around 2008, but apparently having no real operations just years previously– that are being admitted, anyhow (this pdf shows the same image closer up National Guardianship Organization Year 2008, ‘Schedule A Pt III ONLY%22 (showing 2004 & 2005 receipts) URL|EIN# 363591860_200812_990EZ: and that on that chart two ($$) columns on the left, Year 2004 and 2005, Contributions and Gross receipts (respectively) were:

2004: $57,210 + 187,252 = $244,462.

2005:   $114,005 + $180,922 = $294,927.

National Guardianship Organization Year 2008, 'Schedule A Pt III ONLY%22 (showing 2004 & 2005 receipts) URL|EIN# 363591860_200812_990EZ

CitizenAudit.org, a database which sometimes goes back further than the one I normally use (the one I normally uses displays summary information in tables, which is helpful — but usually only three- years worth) has pdfs of earlier tax returns for National Guardianship Association available, including some “Forms 990-T” showing “Unrelated Business Income” and other things.

Year 2001 — in Tucson, Arizona

2002 — Tucson | 2003 – Tucson |

2004 – Tucson (#s shown above were taken from later return Schedule A).

2005 — Address change to State College, PA.  Signed by Patricia E. Heuser, but the “Management” fee of $66,000 paid to a Kellen Company in Tucson, AZ (obviously, former address).  They acknowledge “National Guardianship Foundation” as a related organization, and receipts close to $300K. NOTE: Not incorporated in their new state until September 2006.

Year 2006 -Address change within PA to current Bellefonte, PA address.  This time, Mgmt Company is the Heuser Group (at the State College address) and only paid $54,000.  In just a few years, that will be $100K higher…(see above)….   | Year 2007 (now addresses of organization and its management company match) — Heuser Group now paid $72,000.

Rather interesting, for sure.  To look from the same CitizenAudit site (which has many tax returns for the associated Foundation // Center for Guardianship Certification (EIN#36-4196972, as shown above) for several pdfs by year, look here (Pdfs for Years 2004 – 2014, that is, 11 results).  You can see its name changed while now in Harrisburg PA in 2008, but “name change” was not checked on the form.   Interesting Also for activities in 2008

ADMINISTERED STATE SPECIFIC EXAMINATIONS IN CALIFORNIA TEXAS FLORIDA AND OREGON

Those being each major coastal states with seaports.  Such states (the other one not referenced is New York State) tend to have a lot of real estate development and in short, wealth, at least three of those).  (Search “Bentley 500” on this post — or online and check the link on largest infrastructure owners in the world, with governments compared side by side with corporations.  US Federal Government (last I looked) was on the top, The State(s) of California and Texas also rank very high as does Florida).

(cont’d. 7/18/2016 — without this information, the write-up would be incomplete)…

Now that I realize the NGA and related foundation had moved to Arizona, I went and looked up the corporate filings.  None are listed as “Active” but both are listed as “INACTIVE.”  See my comments above — this means, not the same ENTITY — and that the statement it dates back to 1987 on the NGA Form 990 IRS is misleading, if not (as it would seem) simply false.  Again — a business entity is a business entity and it is legal when registered within a state, otherwise if it’s of the categories required to be registered and is operating, it’s doing so IL-legally.

From “Arizona Corporation Commission” search site, set for “National Guardianship/Inactive/”

Viewing 1 – 20 of 20 

File Number History Corporation Name
10913611 NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION, INC.
08603917 NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP FOUNDATION, INC.

Under the first one, we see it registered only in 2003 (though Illinois was “defunct” as of 1999).  As I showed the tax returns above, this organization was simply operating within Arizona illegally at least in 2001 and in 2002.  Also interesting, it was Administratively Dissolved (as happened in Illinois also) when the mail and was returned as undeliverable, not to “The Kellen Company” (see below, as shown on the IRS forms) but “Management Plus Ltd.” at the same street address:

File Number:
10913611

Corporation Name:
NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP ASSOCIATION, INC. AD-DISSOLVED – UNDELIVERABLE ADDRESS 11/26/2007

Name Title Address Date of Taking Office Last Updated
LAURY GELARDI OTHER OFFICER
1604 N COUNTRY CLUB
TUCSON, AZ 85716
01/01/2005 07/18/2005

Images on this corporation search site are mostly illegible, or just about, but here’s the 2004 Annual Report from “Images.AZCC.gov” — showing about 24 different names (see image below), two full pages of two columns each showing as board members.  And here’s 2005 Annual Report.  After images load, scroll down below the form and financial statements to see a list of Directors — and for 2005 I see it’s three pages, and several (from squinting you can almost read) are obviously civil servants, i.e., Probate Court, or Dept. of Aging, and I saw two from the Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Commission in what looks like downtown Chicago.

For the Arizona “National Guardianship Foundation,”

Search Date and Time:
7/18/2016 #:##:## PM

File Number:
08603917

Corporation Name:
NATIONAL GUARDIANSHIP FOUNDATION, INC.AD-DISSOLVED-FILE ANNUAL REPORT 11/26/2007

“Domestic Address”

% CALABRESE NEUSER
4305 N 6TH ST STE A
HORRISBURG, PA 17110

That’s truly odd, not to mention that the state capital of PA is Harrisburg, not ‘Horrisburg” (look at your keyboard — if these are keyed in, is the “O” anywhere near the “A”??), Calabrese was management of one of these two organization, and Heuser, (not ‘Neuser’) the other.  So I have no idea what “℅ Calabrese Neuser” might represent here…

Agent Name: LAURY L ADSIT
Agent Mailing/Physical Address:

% MANAGEMENT PLUS LTD
1604 N COUNTRY CLUB RD
TUCSON, AZ 85716

So, this one was started up in 1998, and their Annual Reports are showing as filed 1999-2006, with administrative dissolution (for non-filing, in other words) in 2007, like the other one.  Apparently they just moved to Arizona and didn’t bother to close up shop in Illinois, then did it again moving to Pennsylvania, while some how the new entity “Domestic” address in Pennsylvania was entered here.

Entity Type:  NON-PROFIT Business Type:  SOCIAL
Incorporation Date:  12/17/1998 Corporation Life Period:  PERPETUAL
Domicile:  ARIZONA County:  PIMA
Approval Date:  12/17/1998 Original Publish Date:  1/19/1999
Status:  AD-DISSOLVED-FILE ANNUAL REPORT Status Date:  11/26/2007

So, here’s the AZCC.org image for their 1999 Annual Report, starting up as a brand-new organization, but the enclosed short-form (990-EZ) tax return with header marked “Initial Return”  and only $18K in program service revenues.  That makes sense as it was basically a very new entity.

I see also on the report 3 officers:  Larry Adsit in Arizona (as above), Patricia Moger Shillingburg in Newark, NJ and Rhonda Williams in Peoria, Illinois.  Plus three other people in New York, and two in Texas.

NJ Connections? Our House, Inc. — and statewide Youth Consultation Services, and their Foundations, and Related Organizations, and Government Grants (YCS) truly suspicious-looking IRS Forms.  YCS being the largest and older organization of the two.

With a searchable name like “Patricia Moger Shillingburg” I couldn’t didn’t resist a quick search, and found “Our House, Inc.” she’d apparently founded (Annual Report 2010).  They provide “housing, employment, social services for the developmentally disabled” with help from their own foundation, as well as of course the state (it said 91% of funding was from state).  Excerpt:

Since 1988 Employment Services has been assisting individuals with developmental disabilities to find competitive employment. Our House Employment Services Department currently serves over 170 individuals with a wide range of disabilities in community employment throughout Union, Morris, Essex, Somerset, Hudson and Middlesex Counties. Individuals are provided training (overseen by a Job Coach) and ongoing support to ensure the employee’s success, and to meet the employer’s needs. Employment Services places individuals with disabilities in jobs ranging from dishwasher, clerical assistant at major corporations, to technology support technician in a state agency.

We continue to serve students while still in school, helping them learn their roles and responsibilities as employees. Our goal is for every student to feel comfortable going into the workforce and to become a productive member of society. Each year the demand for vocational service increases at the high school level. With the Employment Services Program, students are guided through the transition from school to work, and the student can develop a positive attitude with the adult world and employment situations.

We received more great news, OHI received approval for $300,000 to purchase new vehicles that meet all state requirements (etc.).

Shillingburg was the founder, and Our House, Inc. was founded in 1980, it says.  So she would’ve been involved with this during the 1980s and obviously is working in this field, involving housing also:

http://www.ourhousenj.org/about/

Founded in 1980, Our House, Inc. is a private, non-profit 501(c) 3 organization that provides residential, employment and recreational services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Our first home opened in 1980 in Summit, NJ, and we have steadily grown to 37 residences throughout Union, Essex, Somerset and Morris Counties.

The goal of Our House, Inc. is to promote a high quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities. Services are designed to be flexible, in order to meet each individual’s unique needs. A strong emphasis is placed on enhancing community involvement and participation, as well as helping individuals develop meaningful connections to community life. Individuals are encouraged to make independent choices about their lives, with support from trained and caring staff.

[Continued on separate link — this is complex, but still I think important to understand]… The next page is published but may not appear in Right Sidebar:

In NJ as to the Developmentally Disabled Children and Youth | Our House, INc. | Youth Consulting Services, Inc. | YCS Sounds Great but the IRS Filings have BRF (BIG Red Flags).  Page Added 7-18-2016.

I’m now backing out of this engrossing subject matter started with “Our House, Inc.



BACK TO ARIZONA and the National Guardianship Foundation / Association

2004 Arizona-based “National Guardianship Foundation TRUSTEES list has a printout showing their affiliations.  Most times on the other returns I saw, these were NOT displayed, but all officers (usually unpaid) were displayed as at the main organization address.  Obviously, this provides some confidentiality — which I could understand — but also clouds their possible affiliations.

I felt strongly that my readers should see this one from Arizona, Year 2004.  Notice carefully the public civil servants (From Tucson — An Arizona Supreme Court Judge, a Maricopa County Fiduciary, an Arizona-based Fiduciary Consulting Services, also a Tarrant County Probate JUDGE, people from Michigan and Kentucky working also in public service.  Plus two or three? from a “Roy Graham Association” in Downers Grove, IL — which I’m curious about, and two (not one) from “The Kellen Company” which was the management company during AZ years for both organizations:

NationalGuardianshipAssocFOUNDAT'N Trustee Roster 2004 (from AZ) http-:pdfs.citizenaudit.org:2005_09_EO:36-4196972_990EO_200412NationalGuardianshipAssocFOUNDAT’N Trustee Roster 2004 (from AZ) http-::pdfs.citizenaudit.org:2005_09_EO:36-4196972_990EO_200412

(May revisit this later, wifi place is closing now).

 


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 jobas 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 certificationgot 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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
Page Views: 1
Exit Time: 5 Jul 2016  09:18:54
Browser: Chrome 51.0
OS: OS X
Resolution: Unknown
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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…]
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
Canada Flag
Page Views: 1
Exit Time:
29 Jun 2016  13:25:37
Browser: IE 11.0
OS: Win7
Resolution: Unknown
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United Kingdom Flag
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
United States Flag
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
United States Flag
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….

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 16, 2016 at 8:57 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. As usual I worry for your safety. I know you expose the truth and I am so grateful for your efforts. I, myself, live a very difficult life with the truth, and much more so, after the attack from the family courts which blindsided me and left me and my daughter destitute starting in 2009. Oh, those fatherhood federal funds and the damage that they do to moms who are fighting to protect their children, sometimes from real live monsters! The information you posted regarding these visitors is hopefully good people looking into your massive research project! Did I mention your blog helped save me during my court case. I was sure I found the holy grail as I gobbled up information from your blog. This was what was happening in my case that made absolutely no sense whatsoever. My core beliefs were shattered but at least I knew it wasn’t me and there were answers (truths) within that were ugly to say the least, I had to face. It is the belly of the beast for sure. Your blog IS following the money.

    May these people be good and wanting to understand what IS GOING ON HERE. Everything you post, I as a layperson, understand so it cannot be presented too badly. As a mother who was fighting to protect her child, I had no problem soaking up your hard earned information.

    Some people would rather die than face the truth and some would rather kill. Stay safe lady. ((( ❤ )))

    I hope to speak with you soon. Thank you for your commitment to the cause!

    D'

    Stillhere

    July 17, 2016 at 1:18 am

    • Thank you. Glad you are “still here.” I worry when mothers just get real busy or go silent for a long time, though have also done this.
      FYI my phone has changed recently; I can’t forward to new#; use email, or I will.

      Let's Get Honest

      July 17, 2016 at 2:38 pm


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: