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

Does something really have to have an attached expert and a group name to be true?

Does having an attached expert and a group name make it true?

Does lack of resident experts, or lack of testimonials from some prominent institution (such as Brookings, or the Urban Institute, “MDRC,” the Children’s Defense Fund(!)) university (Princeton/Columbia/Georgetown/Yale/Harvard — or Brown/Smith/Dartmouth) — or even the U.S. Department of Justice make anything , any premise untrue or irrelevant?  

Do we not yet understand how easy it is for something to appear more popular and grassroots than it is when the PR money is put behind it, or tax-exempt foundations who are already funding university centers (and often, their professionals) coordinate for what to promote?

http://151.12.58.141/virtualexhibition/birth.html

“Where is Athena today? Surprisingly she seems to be everywhere. She, or her Roman counterpart Minerva seem to pop up all over the place, and are still mobilised for their eternal qualities. While this website celebrates the legacy of the Goddess Athena, it does in no way support, or promote Neo-paganism, which in some countries has recently become an recognized religion….

re: “from Athena” — U.S. Medal of Honor (left), $5 coin, 2011 (right)

For over two thousand years Athena has decorated coins; either appearing in full battledress, or with one, or more of her attributes – the owl or olive tree. In today’s world she is still seen as an emblematic figurehead; representing heroism, and acting as a role model for those going into – or having survived battle. On the United States Military Academy Coat Of ArmsAthena’s helmet sits prominently in the centre of the composition.

 As recently as February, 2011 two new coins were authorized by the US Congress, designed with Athena as the central motif. These shiny new coins were minted in recognision of the United State’s highest personal decoration, The Medal of Honor. This medal was originally produced in 1861 as the Army and Navy’s recognition of valor in the battlefield.  Minerva is pictured prominently both on the original medal, and on the newly minted coins on the reverse side. In both desings (sic) she is pictured holding a shield and the Union flag

For that matter (speaking of where I’ve been living now for many years), the Great Seal of the State of California bore the image of Minerva (Roman “Athena”), in part because she skipped the process of becoming a territory before a state in 1849, among other reasons.

…The original design of the seal was by U.S. Army Major Robert S. Garnett and engraved by Albert Kuner. However, because of the friction then in existence between the military and civil authorities, Garnett was unwilling to introduce the design to the constitutional convention, so convention clerk Caleb Lyon introduced it as his own design, with Garnett’s approval. Garnett later became the first general to be killed in the Civil War, where he served as a Confederate general.

---

From “Ancient.eu/Athena” Ancient(™) History Encyclopedia by article Mark Cartwright (2012), a reminder that Zeus was afraid his sons would take the kingdom from him, and so swallowed Metis, who he’d gotten pregnant by trickery and enticment into shape-changing games.  She changed into a fly and he swallowed her (one version anyhow — this article doesn’t tell that part of the story):

Zeus was told that his son would take his throne from him, just as he had taken power from his father Cronus. Accordingly, when Metis was pregnant, he swallowed her and Athena was born from Zeus’ head, wearing armour and fully grown. A popular theme in ancient art, Hephaistos is often depicted in the role of midwife, splitting Zeus’ head with an axe.

Author Mark Coatwright of article I’m quoting here

<== “When Metis was pregnant” author Mark writes.  Wonder how that happened; quite a bit of romantic action is missing from this simple declaration that a female (even a goddess) “was” pregnant.    :)…..

Epithets of Athena include Pallas (girl) and Parthenos (virgin), living up to which, she is conspicuous amongst the gods for not indulging in illicit relationships with other divinities, demi-gods, or mortals. Other epithets were Promachos (of war) – perhaps referring to more patriotic, defensive, and strategic warfare, rather than attacking warfare, in contrast to her more aggressive, conflict-loving brother Ares, Ergane (of the crafts), and Nike (victory) … Athena is also associated with household crafts, giving mortals the gifts of cooking and sewing…

 

And, speaking of the Olympics, athletic games held every four years currently going on (where last night, US is leading the medal count, too) in Rio de Janeiro:

She is closely associated with Athens, the city named in her honour after the people of Attica chose her as their patron following her gift of the olive tree, symbol of peace and plenty. The 5th century BCE temple of the Parthenon, which continues to this day to dominate the acropolis of the city, was built in her honour.  Her adopted son Erichthonios, one of the first kings of Athens, is traditionally credited with inaugurating the Panathenaic festival, held every four years to honour the goddess. The festival included a magnificent procession through the city, the presentation to Athena of a specially woven peplos (depicting the Gigantomachy), and athletic games. Prizes for the games were amphorae painted with a figure of Athena and contained prime olive oil. In her role as protector, she was also revered in many other major cities, notably as patron of Sparta, as the founder of Thebes in Boeotia, and at Corinth where she appeared on the city’s coins.

ANYHOW…. Now that I just pushed this post over 14,000 words post-publication (by expanding on the CCHS section)…

In referring to Athena’s birth out of the head of Zeus in reference to how quickly CCHS (and this “Program on Extremism” under it got up and running, apparently December 2015 (although I’ll bet components were around earlier), I was also thinking about only THREE women Fellows out of TEN, and only ONE out of those three women Fellows apparently having been educated, raised, or born in the US — and that one, J.J. McNabb (UCBerkeley) as it turns out, is there to turn the focus on Americans in case they are too ‘right-wing” or talking sovereign, taxes, etc. ….

Senior Fellow at CCHS.GWU.edu  J.J. McNab, one of 3 women and only American woman among other Senior Fellows (7) at the Program on Extremism who are men, as of this viewing of website, summer 2016. https:// cchs.gwu.edu/jj-macnab

Program on Extremism

But as to powerful or even just prolific centers, institutes or nonprofits springing fully-fledged and operational out of nowhere:  this rarely happens based on simple merit.

Like this myth of a famous goddess, to be honored, worshipped, and whose image is to symbolize all that is good, wise, fearsome and just — by way of a motherless-birth by unnatural means out of the ruler of the universe’s head, skipping labor, nursing & infancy, growth learning, and basically, childhood (which also might involve women, if not even possibly the mother’s caretakers) — there’s the myth, the image (appearance) and then there’s the more probable reality.

As to those centers, what it generally means, in this scope and especially when it happens at major universities (like this one in the D.C. area….) they had patron saints, and sometimes connections with “Mount Olympus” and mostly did not surface out of merit, innate worth or wisdom, or in open competition with the non-connected…

So make wise decisions about whether or not to join the processions, parades, and worshipping and expensive sponsorship of such, well, idols.  That said, myths do unify real people, sometimes across the centuries, to engage in real activities with very real consequences for wherever they are operating.

When it comes to tracking the sponsorship of this one, you’d have to be a “whiz”  (or wizard?) at plowing through GWU’s financial statements, something the average person probably doesn’t want to do.

CCHMS’ PROGRAM ON EXTREMISM drop-down menu choices:

• STAFF
• SENIOR FELLOWS <== what I was referring to above, male-dominant (and Dan Koehler is one).**
• BOARD OF DIRECTORS
• TASK FORCES
• PROJECTS
• INTERNSHIPS

I’m not ignoring the Oklahoma 1995 Bombing, or other well-known events in USA history.  However, I still think people should be aware of who might be studying even NONviolent protests within the US and Canada, which might include protests of economic oppression or violations of its own laws by government itself:

J.J. MacNab is one of the nation’s leading experts on Sovereign Citizens, Tax Protesters, U.S. paramilitary militia groups, and related anti-government extremist organizations.

MacNab received her Bachelors in International Relations from the University of California at Berkeley. She has testified before the U.S. Senate and other governmental agencies on subjects ranging from the growth of extremists groups to the financial scams used to recruit new members to these groups.

This does not sound like she has a masters degree in anything….interesting the scale of coverage with a single degree from UCB.

MacNab writes a regular column on the subject of anti-government extremism at Forbes.## She has appeared as an expert on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, NPR, and on numerous other television news and radio shows. In 2005 The Wall Street Journal published a front-page profile on her tax protest movement research. She has been featured in three documentaries on the subject of domestic terrorism in the United States and Canada.

## Link added by me. Motto: “I write about sovereigns, tax-defiers, and anti-government extremists.”  Bio at that site (click it to see) has more detail on which government committees she’s testified for.

MacNab is the author of the forthcoming book, “The Seditionists: Inside the Explosive World of Anti-Government Extremism in America,” **scheduled to be published in late 2015 by Palgrave Macmillan. The book takes readers deep into the movement, including its racist history, recent growth, and factors that drive members towards violence.

In addition to her research and writing, MacNab works as a consultant for various federal, state, and local regulatory and law enforcement agencies.  She travels around the United States and Canada, teaching at law enforcement, judicial, and legal conferences.

McNabb’s work with the Program on Extremism at George Washington University explores current trends in and public policy responses to homegrown anti-government extremism.

** Link added by me. Here’s the book (see link for more description), obviously book already out:

Image from MacMillan.com

There are approximately 300,000 people in the United States today who believe that they are exempt from all laws, taxes, and debts. They drive without licenses and stockpile weapons, gold, and survivalist supplies in preparation for what they see as the U.S. government’s imminent collapse in a second American revolution. Frustrated when law enforcement, tax collectors, and the courts label their detailed research as worthless, many have lashed out in anger.In The Seditionists, JJ MacNab escorts the reader deep into the movement. Recent events have pushed them onto the political stage, from the rise of the Tea Party, to the rash of mass shootings throughout the country. In the last three years, more than a half-dozen police officers have been killed by Sovereigns and at least three major terrorism events have been prevented, prompting the FBI to label the group as a domestic terrorism organization.The Seditionists will educate readers about a fascinating and growing subculture that has recently forced its way into mainstream politics, but it also serves as a warning that anger in the movement is building, and that one or more significant domestic terrorist events are likely to occur.

From the main CCHS.GWU.edu website:
Corporate Membership = Corporate Privileges, including regular off-the-record contacts.  Conditions (or cost of) Corporate Membership not published on center blog at GWU:

The GW Center for Cyber and Homeland Security has established a new Corporate Membership program to provide a means for companies (for-profit and not-for-profit) with interests in the areas of cybersecurity, counterterrorism and homeland security to support the work of the Center and participate in its activities, including through events developed with the specific interests of its corporate members in mind, including roundtable discussions on key policy and regulatory issues and regularly scheduled off-the-record events.

This literally means that an internationally funded nonprofit by private interests could potentially have privileged, and more access to this center on “U.S. Soil” than resident citizens, although it looks like they are most at-risk of being judged terrorists for religion, views towards government (the “sovereign”movement is targeted through the Program on Extremism) or even political persuasions from this center. In fact, how left or right of center as defined by _(tba’s)____’s version of patriotism is going to be permissible in the US, from now on? A few inches — a few feet?

(END, SECTION ADDED POST-PUBLICATION 9/11/2016)

AND, Strong Cities Network (meaning the USDOJ) is involved, as well as some family counseling // deprogramming NGO models from, specifically here, Germany. So in this context, can I perhaps apply a few “analysis” tools in comparing how domestic violence prevention / intervention policies do or do not get the job done, and how the fields relate?  Can I learn a few vocabulary words, or even to navigate differences (not an easy prospect) between USA reporting on its own NGOs (501©3s)  and the public/private partnerships in other countries connected with ones in THIS country?

And can I not, fifteen years later this coming September, re-institute a few comments on the validity of the premises behind what happened on 9/11/2001 in New York City?

Should all others involved and (by force) supporting the infrastructure just quit trying to separate fact from fiction, roll over and play dead, and start quoting Expert 1 vs. Expert 2– or is it maybe time to figure out how to take a closer look at the facts?

I’m not on the conference circuit, haven’t trademarked, published a book (though that’s not off the radar eventually, if investigative blogging for free isn’t good enough in others’ eyes) and am not hiring myself out as a consultant or coach on this material…although with six years of work, on this topic, I already qualify as one). One reason I haven’t has been the targeted litigation (personal local pressures), but my approach from the start has been more teaching and explaining as a friend (public-interest) than “PR.” I have been in the “clueless” position where experts were acting clueless on this material — when they absolutely weren’t; by and large, they simply didn’t want it out in the open, as it would make their own dialogues “moot points” and less relevant.

But if people starved for factual information relating to their immediate concerns can be reached with diluted (bastardized, framed for marketing the solution) information, then if hungry enough, they would consume, and help proliferate the philosophies.  Hence, we get “parental alienation” debates, year after year, of “judges just can’t tell a charming abuser from a good parent” premises, and more where that came from.   I know because I’m on several of the group emails disbursing it.

It doesn’t come all the time, but people have commented on this blog, while “going through it” on their own cases, that this blog has helped them not lose their minds.  That’s a VERY big deal, and it takes work — mental, cognitive, comprehension work.

One good way to lose one’s mind is to attempt to connect to equally and contradictory premises, each one of which eliminates the other as logical, and often enough, none of which were shown to be factual in the first place.

I expect that people can accelerate their own learning curves, and in the issues I’ve been personally reporting on for years AFTER personally “looking it up” myself, which process I also continually narrate and demonstrate on most posts….

…to personally consider prioritizing researching over reblogging others’ re-hashing of the same pro/con/maybe debates, topic by topic, we see every four years for Presidents, every two years for Congress, and with every new terrorist headline, “Domestic” (as to the USA) or “abroad” (non-domestic as to the USA, including Canada and Mexico).

I want readers (and re-bloggers of familycourtmatters) to acknowledge first to themselves (most important) their need to overcome their own collective cognitive dissonance regarding ALL social policy debates involving public funding or public/private partnerships, national AND international, and then start practicing other ways to overcome cognitive dissonance than “pick a side” in the polarized debates being offered us, OR simply adopting a third-position because it claims to be “bi-partisan” or NOT polarized.  Joining another on-line cult or organization who has some shrink-wrapped solutions, but isn’t teaching others how to look-it-up is not overcoming anything — it’s simply switching social clubs.

In the process, you also become acquainted with the databases and organizations in a non-traditional, more independent (“Uncommon analysis” is in the blog motto for a reason!) way, as opposed to the “marketing” angle, which the public websites, or press releases, or journalistic reporting (where the purpose is to keep the readers coming back to THAT journalist or publication, not to “tell all” in such a way readers could NOT need to keep coming back for more…)

Why would I ever bother going through all the above if it was not going to lead to something independent, and which would withstand sales-pitches on the value of programs ABC we are funding, and being sold, nationwide and as it now turns out (see “Munich” “Paris” etc.), internationally?

I could’ve done this from a fatherhood practitioner field (easily…) but this time chose for an example (and not the first time this example), domestic violence groups in Minnesota.

I end up taking on the reasoning behind Strong Cities Network (as described in its September 2015 launch at the USDOJ website) and countering with the existing evidence from other sources that this “just might not have happened” according to the common account.

The countradictory evidence, surprisingly, doesn’t take the form of social science R&D pilot project descriptions and their summaries and evaluations, but from some sources, the realm of structural engineering, design, and material science regarding the WTC center, and from another, a bit of history and economic incentive for actually “raining down terror from on high” and kickstarting Homeland Security on Americans, which is where we are now, in importing “CVE” classes and training from “der Vaterland” and one of the original USA colonists, “the Brits,” which is to say, currently, the UK, and specifically, London.

And what difference it makes if thosediscordant 9/11 accounts were right, when the common account is being used to justify inter-continental airfare both ways to bring CVE experts to, say, Daniel Koehler to, say, Minneapolis, to train others how to evaluate what are the chances of convicted defendants getting de-radicalized — after, that is, a US District Judge Michael J. Davis flew to Germany to take a look at it first).

I know many readers or followers may be thinking, “C’mon!! What’s with All these Terms, Organizations, and Details? And people, too?  What do you expect of me?” I also sometimes hear this in private communications (email) from former co-bloggers or parallel bloggers on custody issues.

For the rest of FamilyCourtMatters‘ readers, not particularly included in the above lists or necessarily public employees, including probably some US-based professionals (psychologists, lawyers, custody evaluators), family court reform-advocates (experts spokespersons or “laypeople” followers and recruiters/rebloggers) and people associated with nonprofits I pick on — what do I expect from you, or “Whaddaya Want, Let’s Get Honest!?!” regarding all this international stuff?

For example, these are the tags from just my last post, several of the organization or outfits being new to me too.   An “X” separates each term from the next and the system alphabetizes them, so Arne Duncan — only on there to remind me to review that bio blurb — comes up first.  I bolded a few of them.

Overall recently, the blog’s recent posts (maybe all of them, for all I know!) impression might be:

“How is anyone supposed to make sense of and connect the dots between all this?”  

“What’s the main message anyhow?”

But I am expecting others to do exactly this, and to do it without being subjected to the “polarization” “either/or” “pick a side — and whoever’s on the other side of it, is suspect” game. I had to do this, and I expect others can too.

Who else do you expect to do this — all the self-contradicting (or collaborating, but not necessarily for our best interests) experts? Then, after decades of “just let the experts do it” mentality, we want to complain about HOW the experts do it, or stand aside and listen to them argue with each other, which is EXACTLY what the gender wars (men’s rights vs. women’s rights) (+ Fix-the-flawed-practices Family court reform advocates) have been doing….

Sure, that makes a lot of sense.   No, I, “Let’s Get Honest” expect the average “commoner” (not PhDs, J.D.s, Psy.Ds, Esquires and “The Honorables” meaning, the judges and the Senators and Representatives in Congress, or in state legislatures)… to look at these things. I also don’t expect the associated LMFTs, LCSWs, MPHs and the occasional M.Ed.D.s to take these issues to heart.  Where are their livelihoods being made in the first place?

The top of the Ph.D., J.D., Psy.D. Esquires and “The Honorables” people have less incentive to figure this out — if in public service, they have their pensions, and most of them, professions.  When working out of a university center that is itself taking major alumni and/or private foundation funding, often enough these people to get TO those positions will show a C.V. full of public (mostly) and/or private grants in the first place (the example I’m thinking of at the moment is Robert J. Gelles, simply because I looked in some detail at his a while back).  Another example might be the UDenver professors responsible for development of “Prep, Inc.” (or “Within My Reach”) for distribution through both faith-based and welfare systems, as well as on-line.

Would those people be likely to give an honest look at, say, how the marriage/fatherhood grantees are tending to set up a system of money-laundering in pursuit of the altruistic cause of these wonderful family values?

If they get TOO far out of line, some board of professional licensure (like the State Bar, or Board of Behavioral Sciences if that’s who licenses the psychologists et al.) can slap them with a probation, or explusion.  That, I’m not exactly holding my breath on being an effective form of keeping a balance of power on the radar, or keeping criminal or unethical behavior by those IN public office in check.

Are you counting on these measures? Or, perhaps luck? Or personal connections?  Or your own upright behavior, while letting the rest slide downhill?

WHY: I am doing this because places where the majority are dysfunctional through denial are not safe, and after what I just witnessed and went through the last two decades, I would like the next two to be better– not worse.  If US Citizens are not able to face where and in what ways they’ve been manipulated — and express it in anything other than the polarized alternatives being offered us — then perhaps some other country with a little more common sense and less self-denial exists.

WHY: And as I am a U.S. Citizen (and born into it, though my great-grandparents weren’t), I would prefer this one regain some collective cognitive functionality on what is taking place NOW to eradicate the national sovereignty and what already has to eradicate sovereignty along state lines, which no question, Strong Cities Network seeks to do, and which no question, NGOs (including NON-profit NGOs that is, “non-government organizations”) facilitate, particularly because they are not government.

WHY NOT TRY TO COMPREHEND?

Who can’t learn some vocabulary?  And then practice it?

When you learn a vocabulary word, you should also learn what part of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) and then see it in use, see a variety of meanings and when you see specialized vocabulary in use in disparate (many different) sources, then there is SOME connection between those speaking it — they picked it up from each other, shared, borrowed, trained, mentored, or communicated it contagiously through rubbing shoulders or breathing the same conference-room  air and just inhaling it.

When you learn about some of these groups, you should know where they originate, and whether they are an NGO or a government entity.

• So, I recently showed several sources using the term CVE and several referencing GIRDS and Hayak.  Is that really so hard?
• I identified some nonprofits are registered in the US (Brookings, “Life After Hate, Inc.” — although barely) and some are in London, and at least one is in Germany. Is that really so complex?

Making sense of anything and, if there are dots to be connected, connecting them, requires some vocabulary, an ability to recognize which vocabulary is in use in any given situation, and what are the organizing principles (as opposed to the supposed organizing principles). That’s just a sensitivity to language (verbiage within the native language, here within English) and general awareness of some existing jargon, as well as created jargons (Social Science PolicySpeak, for example).

For example: “Coordinated Community Response”  originates, in this country, heavily from Domestic Abuse Interventions Program in Duluth, MN — a nonprofit which has most of its duration (since 1980) relied on government funding.  Therefore, it’s not too far-fetched to say that this is a desired outcome for those government agencies funding DAIP over the years.  We should be able to associate that from spokesperson (d. 2012) Ellen Pence.

This next entire section is taking only a LOCAL, DOMESTIC (USA) situation to demonstrate “connecting the dots” on a few different databases, and how you can construct definite sentences based on the information from those databases, and propose possible explanations for the same. It also shows how, through habitual attention to some of these “anomalies” and conflict of information from different sources, I became aware that the sources themselves lacked credibility and accuracy. From there, the questions can come up “why?” and reasonable or unreasonable deductions may be made.

But what is NOT reasonable is NOT EVEN NOTICING some of these details.

We are now 15 years post 9/11 (almost) and dealing with international alliances such as Strong Cities Network basing some of the justification for it, and I will quote and show this today, on who caused “9/11” destruction of the World Trade Towers, and I am quoting the Attorney General Loretta Lynch on this. 2001 happened during a Bush / Republican Administration, and these events cannot be “blamed” on Democrats, or Obama, as may be a typical politically polarized response. We have to know better to do better.

If people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the federal/state relationships financially, what about when the NGOs are spanning different continents, not based in the US, and involving the US Department of Justice. THEN what?  [[Rhetorical question, I just took it to another post (Full Title at Top of This Post..]]

Please show patience with that next post, Minnesota (mostly)-based example. It’s there not just for the specific situation, but also as an example of a process of looking at more than one TYPE and SOURCE of organization and making a few observations from that material of which we can be sure, based on that material. IF the database material is off, that’s another, and separate, matter.

A look at the nonprofits and at the rhetoric (not to mention connections) shows that this organization Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) (“theDuluthModel.org”) has invested into the “Technical Assistance and Training” mentality, which by definition pulls in the behavioral modification tactics (of both the people being subjected to the Supervised Visitation or Batterers Intervention services — as well as the service providers).

Sooner or later dots should connect with this Duluth, MN organization as having spun off “Batterers Women’s Justice Project” and observing its behavior and involvements, “figure it out.”

This group only registered in year 2013, and so far in 2013 and 2014 filed two 990-N postcards showing revenues under $50,000 and details (from IRS form) don’t acknowledge a website:

EIN	Legal Name (Doing Business As)	City	State	ZIP/Postal Code	Country	Tax Year
46-3584341	BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT	Minneapolis	MN	55403	United States	2013
46-3584341	BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT	Minneapolis	MN	55403	United States	2014

So far, through “990finder.foundationcenter.org” by EIN# search it has not filed a normal Form 990 where the public might read some organizational details — names of directors, private vs. public revenues, where it’s spending them, and program service accomplishments, for year 2015, or, say, number of employees, how many on board of directors, or any “related” organizations.

The principal director, Denise Gamache, is a name known on the DAIP HHS grants. From the above links (IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” — Filed Form 990-Ns search results) ….

[[for more, see that post when it comes out..]]