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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

How Many Unified City/County Governments are there, and Since When, and WHY? Here’s One (Wyandotte County|KCK, since 1997)

screen-shot-2017-02-02-at-5-33-21-pm screen-shot-2017-02-02-at-5-33-38-pm

Post title and shortlinkHow Many Unified City/County Governments are there, and Since When, and Why?  Here’s One (Wyandotte County|KCK, since 1997)

[Note: WordPress-generated shortlinks, unlike web and email addresses, seem to be case-sensitive (if you’re planning to type it, keep the same upper/lower case configuration.  This one ends “5CC” — a separate one generated a few days ago, I noticed ended “5Cc.” ).

This moves material from my January 2017 updates to a January 1, 2012 post, in an act of mercy towards the older post, and in the public interest today, about 5 years and 1 month later.  PART of this post about CALEXIT is continued on one published the same day (title and link right below the “Read More” divider). I am publishing this within 15 minutes of the other.  Tags may be added later.

My 2/5/2017 published post alerts readers to this one and explains that, despite long efforts on this one, it’s not in what I’d consider a complete format.  There are still unanswered questions I have and follow-up information I’d normally like to have finished before posting.

However the information on this one is varied, of current (as well as ongoing) relevance, and still well worth reading.  As you’ll find out soon enough, it’s also not particularly on the post’s title.  This time, I followed my nose for what needed to be said, and posted what it smelled, piece after piece.  “So be it…”

Why of public interest today…

We are First 100 Days of the Trump Presidency, swimming in Executive Orders, Cabinet appointments, Supreme Court nominee, news media featuring worldwide protests on the same, and reports on the President’s phone calls with leadership of other countries around the world.  Uncertain times….

My state (sic) — or at least a group called Yes California, Inc., is campaigning for Secession; I kid you not.  Guess this will supplement my inspiration to secede from California, which (for reasons which have escaped me) appears to believe it’s morally, ethically, and in many other ways simply superior to the rest of the country.  Meanwhile, these progressive liberal values have raised hell upon non-globalist individuals who mistakenly, working, marrying, having children (escaping at-home violence), and divorcing here, might have thought that “liberalism” and progressive values JUST PERHAPS might also meant us.

I’ve already located “Yes California, Inc.” in time and space (Time: 9/2013), space -no longer at a street address where multiple organizations, it looks like landscape-mulch-involved (one of which had zero registered presence as a company, though I found its advertising, and a notice that the State of California DOT had stopped a payment on a contract (at least I think that’s what the “stop payment” list was…), and is now showing up registered at its CPA address in Long Beach (So Cal near Los Angeles for the uninitiated into California geography).

This is so simple, although annoying to have to do. Just some business entity search, a generalized further street address search, and if there are some uploadable images to the business, looking at them, making maybe a note of the registered agent, or responsible parties (now that the Calif SOS Business Search site provides the information).  MAYBE if more people engaged in this routinely on being approached for money, or doused with volatile and at times disturbing information from authoritative sources, and then SHARED what they found with others (and on-line so it’s searchable) — we’d likely have a different state, and country.  But, most do not.  I know I didn’t until I was at a loss for answers how certain events happened, in “my” country, the USA, and in this supposedly progressive/Democrat, liberal (etc.) state!

Show 10 entities per page        Narrow search results:

Face page lists it as “Domestic Stock Corporation” (not a nonprofit).

And this Project, having made the post really Top-Heavy (before I got all the answers I wanted) has just been off-ramped, but to be published at the same time, without all the “connective tissue” narratives I sometimes get around to.

I believe an appropriate title will be “Just Say “NO” to “Yes California, Inc. ~ Yes California Independence Campaign Committee  ~ YesCalifornia.org ~ and “CalBrexit” til you get (1) their identities (2) their filings and (3) that this include “The Debt We Have” meaning, someone hasn’t been reading CAFRs, or doesn’t want or expect others to,” and of course (4) Who’s running that show.

Once I remove that chunk of post, what’s left is complex in a different way, and more central to the blog’s main themes, not that CAFRs and California wanting to be its own nation (allegedly) isn’t related.
[Substantial Material relating to “CalBrexit” entities and claims — and an exploration of the FPPC trying to nail down who’s who, and validate the on-line campaign claims of actual existence of a PAC with this Secession agenda —  was removed from this part of the post @ Feb. 6, 2017).  To be continued as if it hadn’t be removed on separate post, with no real lead-in, on the same day…..]   

The post has been published (with a bit of imagery and intro) just before 8:30pm PST Feb. 6, 2017, and under this Actual Title & Link: Just Say No to: Yes California, Inc. ~ Yes California Independence COMMITTEE (PAC) ~Yes California Independence CAMPAIGN ~ YesCalifornia.org ~ and “CalBrexit.” (And Why)

Now, moving on… (and at a bit UNDER 18,000 words now…)

I believe it’s fair to say that most Americans, while perhaps pumped up pro- or con- politically and confident that this choice of political persuasion is a good match for values and for what the USA represents,are completely unprepared for any battle to obtain or defend even their own, let alone their children’s, their neighbors’ or their favorite demographically-defined population’s unalienable rights, including to Life, Liberty (FIRST! from which, dare I also mention) and Pursuit of Happiness, not in possession of any “ammunition” which can target false statements about government costs, expenses, budgets, or in short, justifications for most any of its many policies:  whether immigration, welfare, women’s rights, men’s rights, or anything else.


Most people — and I’ve talked to plenty, am getting old, have ‘been around” (including crossing “socioeconomic/cultural” sectors since before there was a word for it) in person and now on-line, I’ll stand by this one — don’t even have a definition of government which meets its own definition.. All is expressed in terms of “causes” with a flourish of economic references, or justifying them economically– absent the ability to point to the proof, or a roadmap in which direction it just might lie!  The winds are definitely blowing, and it’s a little late to start asking for interpreters of “in which direction” without ways to even check who may have reason to dilute the truth.  Grasping onto a political platform (or a religious one) in hopes of not being swept overboard, or with a sense of righteousness through being either a majority or, even a minority.. well…  

That’s another reason I’m featuring in this discussion someone (or someone’s writing) who at least as to Unified Governments, this time, was not ignorant about where to look when evaluating claims of cost savings around consolidating government operations into “new improved” (or at least, consolidated City-and-County) reporting units.    The Impact of City-County Consolidation of Local Government Finances (2009 by Beverly Cain).  (Those are my words; the quote is just a convenient way to add html to box it up).  Repeated with more images at the bottom of this post…

I found a fascinating 2009 analysis which cited to CAFRs in proving / disproving whether the consolidation reduced expenses for the locals (that is, for government).


Click here to read full-sized, incl. my annotations. Bottom-right rectangle acknowledges the URL, report will also show discussed (with links and proper acknowledgements) in my post below.

In the fine detail, page 21 of this, I discovered, per this report, that the author couldn’t locate ANY Financial Reports immediately predating the consolidation for the two components which unified in the case of Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City Kansas.  Look for this annotated image in the post below:screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-22-10-pm


Also from the Bibliography (end) page s of this short 2009 report by Beverly Cain, which studied the effects of consolidation on four specific governments, it’s clear she referenced several years of CAFRS post-consolidation for each area studied.  What I don’t see referenced anywhere in the Bibliography is CAFRs of the consolidating city or consolidating county governments, pre-unification.  ///Let’s Get Honest about 01-23-2017.


On the other hand, I only found the report through following up on a minor detail in someone being quoted on a post.  Over the years, “minor detail follow-ups” do accumulate, adding depth that is, more of a “3D” understanding of topics which get flat-lined into sound-bytes on the major media.

Flat-lining and sound bytes are fine, I guess, in some situations, but regarding government itself (as opposed to its various programs and services)  WHEN people at the local level can’t or won’t speak a different (than is pre-shrinkwrapped and fed us), functional language not just to the various causes, but also to accurately show how government itself exists in relationship to our supporting it, and it, having received that support, servicing us, THEN the people can’t and don’t get and stay organized outside the predetermined (by the MSM) political or other sections — which seems intentional to silence discussions common to both sides, unless mediated by leaders on either side who have already decided what to sacrifice and compromise on each issue, without public, informed consent or participation on the same.

In this condition as to discussing within political or cross-political jurisdictions (such as state lines) other than in the grooves cut by the pro-/con- driven MSM, stuck to the various causes, which are allocated like sports teams to one side OR the other, we are playing, predictably, into the hands of those who own and finance both sides.  (And in this post, I ran across another example of just exactly that, where you wouldn’t expect it, either — under a disappearing, local-focused on-line outlet (Examiner.com) under mega-consolidation by Anschutz Corporation, Denver, CO. (Colorado Sec of State Business Entity Search)

I have a sense this preview of the Anschutz Corporation Filings, and all its annotated images, will get “off-shored.”

In fact, now it is. Put this together with different background on the company and its famous founder (Philip Anschutz, who took over the father’s business in oil exploration? about 1960) found below on this post — as the off-shored (“shore” being this post) one reminds readers also.

Section: “Anschutz” Corporate Filings in Colorado

Or, in the expanded post title format: (How Well) Do You Know Your Media/Sports/Telecomm Conglomerates? AXS.com, run by AEG, owned by Anschutz Company (Delaware 1991) into which the “The Anschutz Corporation” (KS, 1959) merged.  A look at the Corporate Filings in Colorado and a Forbes-list Denver Billionaire (started 2-3-2017)

FYI, I also in making the case to pay better attention (which I historically try to do), the strange case of IBT Media (formed only 2006 in NYC and described by one of its ex-staffers as better thought of as a cult with a few websites than a media outlet) with close associations to a Unification church look-alike, Olivet University (founded only 2004 in California, with its last-listed CEO being in New York… and IBT Media as a “Related Corporation” plus an as-yet unresolved dual set of EIN#s for the exact same title business entity. (Click on the next link, the caption from an image already shown above, Calif. Secession search results; I annotated in yellow box attention to this domain name, which for some reason, immediately stood out to me among them all).

Google search as image shows 2|2|2017 produced only one result from January 2017. THE LINKS on the PDF ARE ACTIVE. Click HERE to see annotated page.

Not mentioned there, but also within the past month or so, the history of “Westlaw” came up again, and its connections with Thomson Corporation, Reuters.com, the competition with LexisNexis, and two Minnesota business registrations, one apparently licensing the names from the other.  (Western Academic — which is a dba of Leg, Inc. — and West Publishing, which is separate).  With the inexhaustible source of revenues from lawyers needing case law updates, and having this controlled through licensure, no question the costs are being passed on to the consumer.  It’s a fascinating business history and part of American history, too.

Putting this together with accelerated internet connections and access made available in public/private collaborations involving universities (public AND private universities within the states) and it seems at least in California, also the entire county Offices of Education (i.e., the K-12 system), we have a major power divide between the two.  I have a local acquaintance (not personal friend outside of general conversation)who sometimes will provide a soundboard for things I am discovering on-line, such as the function of Internet2, how broadcasting systems work, and — which is very helpful — simply some industry terminology one might not pick up by reading, say, the local newspaper.  Collectively, this is helping me put together what is already being observed and experienced (as print publications get skinnier and still more expensive, and consolidated).

This will not be the whole picture, obviously, and isn’t meant to be.  BUT, it is a visual reminder that when a media is talking in terms of ONE corporate name, that corporate name has a history, and if it’s an important enough one, often of mergers, or changes of legal domiciles, creating subsidiaries, then merging them back under the parent company, or any variety of combined restructurings.  Here, most of them seemed, however, to stay under the firm control of the main company owners:  (How Well) Do You Know Your Media/Sports/Telecomm Conglomerates? AXS.com, run by AEG, owned by Anschutz Company (Delaware 1991) into which the “The Anschutz Corporation” (KS, 1959) merged.  A look at the Corporate Filings in Colorado and a Forbes-list Denver Billionaire (started 2-3-2017)

Total results: 3Search Again.

[Interesting.  Self-sustaining through corporate and other investments (not taking contributions), distributes in a certain way, low-profile but to lots of (mostly Colorado) organizations.  I am curious about how the “Book Value” of some investments can be just a fraction of the “Fair Market Value” and took some screenprints, but am not qualified at present to discuss.  Maybe they’ve just been holding on to those investments for so long, may be why.  Susan Anschutz Rodgers and what looks like three of her married daughters, and possibly in-laws, are most of the foundation trustees, and efficiently run by just a few officers.  AnschutzFamilyFoundation.org

That website kindly requests people to note that the family foundation isn’t “The Anschutz Foundation,” which I notice has assets of over one billion dollars, so (what the heck..) I’m posting them both here.  Click on organization name to view the related tax return.

Total results: 3Search Again.

The Anschutz Foundation CA 2015 990PF 105 $1,036,105,145.00 74-2316617
The Anschutz Foundation CO 2014 990PF 72 $1,157,981,219.00 74-2316617
The Anschutz Foundation CO 2013 990PF 135 $1,126,706,872.00 74-2316617

(Wow.  Interesting….)

Tax Year of the Family Foundation starts Dec. 1 one year, ends Nov. 31 of the next.  Sched I (grantee) not seen on the top return, but does shown on 2013 or 2014.

Anschutz Family Foundation CO 2015 990PF 19 $56,992,092.00 74-2132676
Anschutz Family Foundation CO 2014 990PF 57 $58,161,135.00 74-2132676
Anschutz Family Foundation CO 2013 990PF 60 $56,474,743.00 74-2132676
Bloomberg.com profile of The Anschutz Corporation taken Feb. 2017

Bloomberg.com profile of The Anschutz Corporation taken Feb. 2017. Currently the corporation’s legal domicile (since 1992) has been Delaware, after the 1959-Kansas entity merged into the Anschutz COMPANY (formed 1991 Delaware) which then changed its name to The Anschutz Corporation and its authority to do business in Colorado under ANS Equity, Inc. (as a dba) as I recall (from the filings) to the “Corporation” name again. Verry interesting…


Image 1 of 2 from Bloomberg.com on Philip F. Anschutz, showing several of his “people” are also on the family foundation. Also, through JFK Ctr for Performing Arts — Stephen Allen Schwarzman of The Blackstone Group LP, David Mark Rubenstein (!) of The Carlyle Group LP, and others. Ronald O. Pereleman … Vinod Gupta (Infofree.com), etc.


Image 2 of 2 taken from Bloomberg.com’s “Philip F. Anschutz, CEO & Chairman, Anschutz Corporation” profile featuring other board members on the JFK Center for the Performing Arts, with their own affiliations: Partnership for Public Services (I’ve studied and may have posted on this one), International Rescue Committee (one of nine “Volags” the US ORR is working with), National Park Foundation, an d UN Development Corporation. It must not be too current a filing (wait a week or so) as it still lists Arne Duncan at the USDOE. Also Smith Bagley of “Smith Bagley, Inc.” whoever that is and Michael M. Kaiser of “MaterialBridge, Inc.”


Here’s Bloomberg.com  profiling just The Anschutz Corporation itself ((which gets the info from S&P Global Market Intelligence, it reminds us).  These short profiles are very helpful.  A second profile (Bloomberg’s) of just Philip F. Anschutz as CEO and Chairman (now age 76) of the above reminds us of the Family Foundation, and how many associations can also be obtained or developed (although often these directorships may show up as just a few hours/week volunteer) in high-profile nonprofit institutions.  Here, I only showed two images, but the totality of relationships involving “The JFK Center for Performing Arts,” besides including Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Aspen Institute, the Brookings Institution, Arne Duncan and others, won’t fit onto just two images.  See the link (or that entity’s latest Form 990PF) for the full list.





















End of this Section which was off-shored to another post.


Continuing the conversation from THIS paragraph above…

Flat-lining and sound bytes are fine, I guess, in some situations, but regarding government itself (as opposed to its various programs and services)  WHEN people at the local level can’t or won’t speak a different (than is pre-shrinkwrapped and fed us), functional language not just to the various causes, but also to accurately show how government itself exists in relationship to our supporting it, and it, having received that support, servicing us, THEN the people can’t and don’t get and stay organized outside the predetermined (by the MSM) political or other sections — which seems intentional to silence discussions common to both sides, unless mediated by leaders on either side who have already decided what to sacrifice and compromise on each issue, without public, informed consent or participation on the same. …

For example, it’s become difficult to discuss “domestic violence” or “Violence Against Women” in any other context than that which is sponsored by the most media-saturated organizations (and also saturating at the setting public policy level) in the “field.”

This has become a virtual dog-and-pony show; the Good Cop/Bad Cop act continues year after year.

The only thing which cuts through it to admitting it’s an act [it’s theater!]  is reading the tax returns of the various spokesperson’s favorite points of reference, which tend to be nonprofits. Or posing as one.  Or “Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils” at the local level, a tactic encouraged by AFCC, or for sure some of its prominent judges, as part of the generic take-over of the field with the ultimate purpose of having organization members (that is, judges, lawyers, or court-appointed/court-affiliated psychologists, etc.) become the “go-to” individuals whenever some parent cries out that the other one is assaulting her (often enough) or has threatened to kidnap — or just kidnapped — the children in an act of revenge.

At about that point, those who cry out, and don’t end up homeless or jailed themselves, along with people who may through proximity end up helping them too

(and end up in jail, as happened with Dede Evavold last September — 120 days “in the clink” and over someone else‘s runaway teenagers… recently as a recent (1/28/2017) RedHerringAlert post said, “Back from the Big House” (in Ramsey County MN),

will be prepped, or unceremoniously ordered into some kind of therapy, or for (one of the economic tracks available in the courts — GOT money, or got NO money or anything else the system might want — like minor children, or family trust funds (case in point, Grazzini-Rucki family divorce that Evavold tangled with some years back) for the usual drill:  “That wasn’t abuse, you need your head examined, and we’ll (by the way) also evaluate your parenting, your kids, your home, and your values system — some more…”  The professional associations have been publishing, role-playing, rehearsing, and writing guidelines and benchbooks on What to Call It where “IT” is commonly understood, and in a parallel system, often qualifies as a crime.

Speaking of AFCC, the California Chapter…which can’t seem to even get its own organization name straight — or follow the rules about sending in annual registration renewal forms (RRFs):


Link to see full-sized image  EIN# is 770238397


These “Search Results” available by repeating the search, using any of several different fields (but, EIN# recommended) HERE... _____ Click this link to see the fine-print annotations (in yellow). This is a California Registry of Charitable Trusts (run by the Office of Attorney General, “OAG) search result for the California Chapter of AFCC showing the word “AND” is in its name, and also showing the EIN# 770238397 displayed (for matching with other filings).  The “Charitable Details” page (which image above shows top part of) would be accessible from this page by clicking on organization name.

EIN# is 770238397

For example, here’s a person prominent in AFCC circles, it seems, who’s been at this for 20 years now (and has been AFCC-CA, that’s the California Chapter of “the mother ship” with a Wisconsin mailing address, Board of Directors).  This has led to a career which includes coaching others how to view domestic violence, child abuse, etc. — from the psychological point of view, and making no secret about the affiliations with AFCC.

The individual’s web page (let alone the C.V.!!) (near thumbnail image of a person and the banner displaying name and profession — not the various filing images between here and there…)make it clear the framework is psychology — NOT law.  FYI, I could’ve picked on any similar professional (and over time on this blog, obviously have) this was just a recently viewed, handy, and concise example. I had been recently also viewing the AFCC California Chapter Charitable Details page, including noticing its inconsistency even in using its own name (whether or not the word “And” was included between the words “Family” and “Conciliation”), not to mention failure to file properly with the state until threatened with suspension for not filing — typical…).  FYI, an older registration (as corporation — but never as a charity) of what is claimed to be this organization, had the styling minus the “And,” so it’s in this case, not an unimportant detail, esp. with some of the longstanding leadership still active:

(not the Calif Chapter) AFCC -- "Not Registered: as a charity and missing the "AND" in its org. name

Click for full-sized annotated image. (not the Calif Chapter) AFCC — “Not Registered: as a charity and missing the “AND” in its org. name


This gets to the same image full-sized. This time, I left the descriptive (but long) file name (most of it) in place: assocfamconciliatncts-califchapt-770238347 “no-and”-yr2014-Sched-O-p2-pt-iv-officers-dirs-trustees-incl-leslie-drozd-phd-execdir-marilynpallister-7hrswk (2017-01-23) (the light brown print is from a website I’m about to quote anyway, and “(2017-01-23) is date of screenshot.  The image contains some other urls.


Below, part of an IRS Form 990EZ tax return of the state chapter showing 3 judges (red arrows), 3 PhDs (gray), and (though not so labeled) a former SF Supervising Family Court Commissioner, Majorie Slabach (blue arrow) on the board as I recall, although only 2.0hrs/volunteer and with minimal reported revenues…

Year 2013 tax return (Section showing Bd of Directors/Officers) AFCC-Calif Chapter

Year 2013 tax return (Section showing Bd of Directors/Officers) AFCC-Calif Chapter.  The organization name this year lacks the “AND”… (on p.1 of that return also).  Click to read full-sized.


Advertising services at LeslieDrozd.com, featuring the Clinical Psychological factor, but claiming expertise re: Domestic Violence assessments in context of custody evaluations

Advertising services at LeslieDrozd.com, featuring the Clinical Psychological factor, but claiming expertise re: Domestic Violence assessments in context of custody evaluations

…She has co-edited other books on relocation, psychological testing, and child sexual abuse and written chapters on domestic violence, treatment of trauma, alienation, and unification therapy. Dr. Drozd has been a child custody evaluator for over 20 years, trains other evaluators, serves as a consultant to attorneys, and as a testifying expert in family law matters. She has helped write the Association of Family Conciliation Courts Model Standards for conducting child custody evaluations and for those parenting plan evaluations involving allegations of domestic violence. She also works clinically with families in the various stages of divorce including co-parenting therapy, family therapy, unification therapy, and parent coordinator. Dr. Drozd has spoken at conferences on these topics in America, Canada, and Europe. …

Notice the preferred phrasing, apparently, is “ALLEGATIONS of domestic violence” in close proximity to talk of alienation” and of course, the remedy, therapy, especially “unification therapy.”  That’s the AFCC way… and to a large extent has also become the family court way, as this organization is closely connected to the development of those courts, and is not ashamed to take credit for it, frequently, (or, at a minimum “leading the way” for them).

The innate conflict with the concept of crime AS crime is built-in (as it has been for decades now…) , and this organization advertises itself as multi-disiciplinary professionals who are for the “resolution of family conflict.”

No mention is made in the organization motto for upholding the law, or anything referring to individual rights under it.

Makes you wonder how many families and children were begging to have among the two highest-paid (per hour) professions around (judges and psychologists) to somehow improve their (meaning, families and children’s) “sorry” lives through reframing the concept of what is NOT, really, crime…like domestic violence, and sexual and other abuse of children specifically.

Where was the grassroots demand to ensure this was first solidified in professional, private trade associations and in journals the average person wouldn’t encounter in the course of say, working and raising children; like the Family Court Review (which makes clear what kind of submissions it is, and by process of deduction, is not, interested in having submitted.  The summary paragraph there is its own “piece of work” linguistically, too — after which the page goes on to list the academic respectability it’s obtained through Blackwell and WestLaw:)

(The page: http://tinyurl.com/HofstraFCR-NewSubmissnGuidelns; my image of it only):


EVERYTHING about this description/invitation says that law and mental health, social science, etc. fields are to be blended and treated as equals so far as the professionals involved are concerned. The opening sentence, first includes only three terms:  Family LAW, Family COURTS, and “the RESOLUTION of Family DISPUTES.

“Dispute Resolution” (ADR, etc.) (along with the push for mandatory mediation in divorce) was among the original forces behind establishment of AFCC, and like the more recent “parenting coordination” is a created field.

The word “dispute” isn’t “feud” “war” or even “Terrorism” but implies a disagreement that just needs to be settled.  (see annotations on image).  But the NEXT sentences lists, in no apparent order, both some fairly normal life occurrences (divorce and separation, at this point) and procedures which come with that territory (child custody) alongside some heavy-weight issues:  child abuse and neglect, domestic violence … adoption — termination of parental rights…juvenile delinquency …).

Trying to blend the obviously lesser with the obviously serious and life-threatening isn’t exactly obvious.  It takes a real “leap of faith” to put the two side-by-side and even close to parallel — but, relentlessly, some people are zealots about doing just that.  In other circumstances, this might be called “crazymaking.”  It’s deliberate mis-application of common English words with the goal of endorsing, furthering and promoting specific professions and practices which create ongoing profits for those promoting them.

BUT — I’ll take that discourse off-post for now (!!).


The emphasis (throughout the January 2017 resume) on “Clinical” “Forensic” and “Expert” and other terms of self-congratulation not always found even on resumes which are designed to put forward one’s strengths and accomplishments, such as:


(CV, page 1 of 10, clean copy. The words “CURRICULUM VITAE” at the top are missing and the title for the first section of “Professional Certificates, Awards, Outstanding Achievements, Presentations, Noteworthy Publications…” (an ON WHAT) isn’t included. See annotated version below).


Click for pdf of annotated image. It has two more comments around the lime-green and brown arrows, not shown on the above image.  Brown arrows refer to overuse of “Clinical” “Forensic” “Expert” and the green points out that a major theme of her life (as a psychologist/therapist etc. since 1984) has been focused connecting [associating] any phrase referring to domestic, family, or interpersonal VIOLENCE with the words ALIENATION (or, see rest of c.v., other specific terms: estrangement, or as to the “relationships” High-Conflict, etc.) , and doing this in her professional capacity.  This is straightforward AFCC agenda, as refelcting the organization’s intentional “behavioral health outreach” (Bring on the psychologists psychiatrists, social scientists, etc.) throughout its short, but speckled (as to corporate fillings) history. //LGH.

From the CV (annotated) available at the above *.com website, this 10-pager has 50 uses of “AFCC”, 18 of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and 4 of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).”  In addition there are several uses of “, AFCC” in a different context, or AFCC as an adjective in some meeting.  All of this from a B.A., a teaching credential (1971) and, about 14 years later, the MA and PhD in “Clinical Psychology” from California School of Professional Psychologists (CSPP, a school I’ve posted on, and which Nicholas Cummings, Ph.D. claimed to have started within the state of California as helping the profession continue getting work — as not everyone could afford, or was going to order psychoanalysis…)And at the institutional level, the push has been on (for some decades now) to reframe it ALL as a socially treatable disease.  Bring on those “Batterers’ intervention programs,” but whatever happens, don’t prosecute it as a crime — or if this is done, bend over backwards during and afterwards to later transfer custody to the abusive parent and then stand back (ka-ching!) while the other one comes back to court trying to regain contact.  Do this often enough, and it can seem to “justify” then going back to the public — and the DV Cartel asks for more funds, as do the family courts, who are getting, predictably (and deliberately planned in this regard) overwhelmed with repeated motions.DVCC’s (coordinating councils — often a state agency, not always), by basic web search results:  Delaware‘s | Heres what looks like a nonprofit called “Domestic Violence Council | United to End Abuse” in Omaha, but on closer examination (its Annual report [Only Year 201-2013 is showing) — no 501©3 showing up voluntarily) it’s engaging in a public/private coordination based on the Praxis International, Inc. model (Praxis being as started by the late Ellen Pence, also of “the Duluth(MN) Model.”). the DVC coordinates the Douglas County CRT, and the Douglas County CRT uses that model.  Notice the emphasis on getting a lot of entities to submit to training by one key agency — and this one (on its website) provides NO financial information about itself: (3 images stacked on top of each other, below-left, are from the annual report).990Finder mislabeled the organization’s name, although that does reflect its purpose.  Click org. name through to the tax return to see what it tells the IRS its name is (the word “Coordinating” ain’t in there, or “of Greater Omaha” but same CEO, Tamra Muir, is.  It’s a smallish organization that, top row, shows $284K gov’t grants and $371K non-gov’t contributions were received.  Of this, its Schedule I shows $215K was passed through to a page’s worth of others, several of them simply giving it back to government entities!  (p.33, see the tax return “2014” link).

Harris County (Houston, TX) Domestic Violence Coordinating Council. Again, you can see traces of “Praxis” but scant information about the council itself on its own website, including who are the members, is it private, public, or a public/private combo.. The Praxis Blueprint has UN (or a related entity) approval, apparently — but not mine.  And I live here…


found at HCDVCC.org (Texas) but referring to a plan from a group in St. Paul, MN

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-8-03-39-pm screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-8-04-30-pm screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-8-06-05-pm


I call it a DV Cartel because outside viewpoints would have to go up against the entire infrastructure to even get in the door, and would be (properly) viewed as doing so even then.  That infrastructure includes powerful nonprofits taking funds from even more powerful foundations — and government — and private corporations who want to be known as protesting violence against women, without losing their support on the other side of the same issue, minimizing its relevance.

This is an expert game and it’s been well-played for decades in the country, AND it can pull out the crowds, as the latest rounds of (organized) “Women’s Marches” around the Trump Presidency recently demonstrated.  People will respond to this — but who, if anyone, ever marched (or better yet communicated with some “teeth” behind the communications based on our rights to exercise some consequences) en masse against the key components of 1996 Welfare Reform – public propaganda (continued from the 1960s and earlier) on single mothers and divorcing mothers using the social science (so-called) to justify characterizing (us) as demographically, as a whole,  basically, the scum of the earth, this scenario to be then “remedied” by setting up entire professions (both nonprofits with their trademarked goods, and their subcontractors); helping private parties just set up their own private on-line and in-person shops as pumped up and promoted by Federal Designer Family (“Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood” funding, at least from the HHS perspective).

Look at this latest screenshot from National Fatherhood Initiative!

(In fact, there are several home-page banners:  Here they are:  Facilitator, aimed at Dads, aimed at Moms (indoctrination) and _______.(YOU NAME IT, SOONER OR LATER THERE WILL BE A PROGRAM FOR IT).

store.fatherhood.org viewed Jan. 30, 2017 (sliding page banner)

store.fatherhood.org viewed Jan. 30, 2017 (sliding page banner)


There’s fatherhood EFFECTIVE FACILITATION, and then Fatherhood ENGAGEMENT, and certificates for each...Guess it’s hard to facilitate fathers before getting them engagedHow much should be (or, has been!) spent to incentivize Dads to “get engaged” so someone can facilitate their groups?











For Dads (Just $18.99 a 50ppack for the brochures, in Sp. or English) for Pregnancy Centers

For Moms...

For Moms…Putting Moms through 12-step programs in understanding Dads…



Just Because Dad was Jailed doesn’t mean he shouldn’t get nonprofit and governmental help healing his relationship with his children. (Understanding disproportionate incarceration, still — who ever helps mothers once the children are snatched? — case in point — it happens! by fathers encouraged by the social saturation of pro-father propaganda that he could and deserves to get away with this felony act? Or by fathers who realize (correctly), it’s an effective way to force continuing relationship when the mother is trying, for safety reasons, to detach…  RE-ENTRY is now a major feature of the HRMF funding (go see http://HMRF.ACF.HHS.Gov, last reviewed Fall 2016 as I recall).









(more images where these came at the bottom of the page, for a puny, but well-connected nonprofit only started in 1994):

USPTO.gov (I learned recently, not all legal trademark registrants choose to be listed here; there are more who are not listed.  However, it’s still a resource for viewing ones that did show registration here):

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

Use Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) to conduct a free online search of the USPTO database. TESS provides access to text and images of registered marks, and marks in pending and abandoned applications. The USPTO cannot provide guidance as to how you should search, beyond the HELP provided within the TESS site.

Currently (today) there are only five “live” trademarks registered to this Maryland nonprofit called “National Fatherhood Initiative.”  The earliest one, 2006 (coincides with getting another significant HHS grant) is trademarking its own title.  The other four (I just checked) are either filed March 12, 2012 (three) or April 10, 2012 (the fourth).  Click (or repeat search if that doesn’t work) to read the “G&S” (Goods & Services) descriptions for each:

(live)[LD] AND (national fatherhood initiative)[OW] docs: 5 occ: 20

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 85593175 4249900 DOUBLE DUTY DAD TSDR LIVE
2 85566866 4249394 DOCTOR DAD TSDR LIVE
3 85566845 4249393 INSIDEOUT DAD TSDR LIVE
4 85566823 4249392 24/7 DAD TSDR LIVE

Details of the earliest one still “Live” in 2017:

nfi-the-trademark-gs-details-from-uspto-screen-shot-2017-01-30-159pm<==click for full-sizednfi-the-trademark-gs-details-from-uspto-screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-159-07-pm

The only “Status: Dead” trademark found to this owner was a prior description of itself but not mentioning the “computer software” offerings under “G&S.”

(Click to read full-sized):



One (the earlier one) shows NFI as a Pennsylvania Nonprofit; the other (cancelled one) as a “MARYLAND” “Corporation” (it doesn’t say “Nonprofit” and the word “The” is omitted:


Date Amended to Current Register June 30, 2000
Registration Number 2394397
Registration Date October 10, 2000
Owner (REGISTRANT) National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc., The NON-PROFIT CORPORATION PENNSYLVANIA One Bank Street, Suite 160 Gaithersburg MARYLAND 20878
Attorney of Record KEVIN R CASEY
Affidavit Text SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator DEAD
Cancellation Date May 13, 2011

Next registration shown:

Registration Number 3474511
Registration Date July 29, 2008
Attorney of Record John W. McGlynn
Prior Registrations 2394397

Whatever’s been going on there, between the two different registrations, would have to be figured out from different databases and then comparing them, and the timelines.  For example, why is only one of them labeled “Nonprofit”?

Click “Business Information” on the Maryland “SDAT” website http://charter.dat.maryland.gov

Essentially, it looks like to be legit, businesses must be chartered (State Department of Assessments and Taxation is involved), and for NFI, without the “the” we find it at (at least) one point had to be “revived” meaning, a filing status was earlier let slide:

Search Results for NFI (written out) shows an "a.k.a." and a "Revived" (searched 1-30-2017)

[][In Maryland, State-level Search Results for NFI  (written out) shows an “a.k.a.” and a “Revived” (searched 1-30-2017) for this particular business entity “F03950086” (F stands for Foreign: legal domicile outside MD) (likely PA, but not proved til seen…)

Business Entity F03950086 = Foreign Legal Domicile. Next level (click on General Info) shows it’s now “Revived” and in good standing, was formed 8/11/1994, legal domicile “PA” and is listed as “Ordinary Business NonStock.”  Current resident agent is Roland Warren.  Here’s the image:

NFI General Info page viewed 1-30-2017 at Maryaladn's SDAT search site, showing status Good and current R.A. is Roland C. Warren, legal domicile 1994. Only by clicking on the "Amendments" Tab would more history show up.

[][NFI General Info page viewed 1-30-2017 at Maryland’s SDAT search site, showing status “REVIVED” and “Good Standing” “Yes,” and current R.A. Roland Warren in Gaithersburg (The entity itself is in Germantown), legal domicile PA and formation, 1994. Only by clicking on the “Amendments” Tab would more history show up.

Details here seem to say: It qualified 8/1994, was disqualified for not filing on time the next year, Reinstituted (after getting revoked) 3 months later in 1995, then nothing is seen until 2000 (no annual reports filed meanwhile?) In 2000 an entry reads "Forfeits right to do business in Maryland for not filing in 2000 (what about 1996, 197, 198, and 1999?). Then nothing until 2006,. when it is (a) reinstituted, and then 2010? Forms some resolution (the only two images viewable for free on-line are marked by the red "eye" icon on the right.

[][Details here seem to say it: was qualified 8/1994, was disqualified (“Authority to do Business in Maryland Forfeited“) 11/1995 three months after not filing on time the next year; re-instituted (after getting revoked) in 12/1995, then nothing is seen until 2000 (no annual reports filed meanwhile?) only in 11/2000 does an entry read “Forfeited for failure to file property return in 2000” (what about 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999?). Then nothing until 2006, when it is (a) reinstituted, and then in 2010 files a 2-page resolution (the only two images viewable for free on-line are marked by the red “eye” icon on the right.

RE: the NFI Street address “12410 MILESTONE CENTER DR STE 600 GERMANTOWN, MD 20876 (doesn’t match the Maryland cover page info, but does match the Fatherhood.org/contact page), also (currently) at the same street address AND Suite#600, are:

Showing Fatherhood.org (that is, NFI) mailing address as of 1-30-2017

Showing Fatherhood.org (that is, NFI) mailing address as of 1-30-2017

© 2015 [“Lurn.com is a trademark of Lurn Inc. © 2015”]  lurn.com is the best source for all things digital publishing. On this site, you’ll discover the best advice from some of the most successful digital publishers in the world. Whether you want to start your own digital publishing business or grow your existing one, you’ll get access to tested, cutting-edge strategies. We are constantly adding new training, so check back quickly” ….

NLH Contracting, LLC. (company name + “.com”)

Shares exact street/Suite# with fatherhood.org as of 1/30/2017: NHL Contracting.com ("LLC") Michele Orisme since 2015

Shares exact street/Suite# with fatherhood.org as of 1/30/2017: NHL Contracting.com (“LLC”) Michele Orisme since 2015

NLH Contracting was founded in 2015 by Nicole Orisme, PHR, SHRM-CP, a seasoned human resource professional with a passion to help small and mid-sized business employers build a solid infrastructure for growth. 

Mrs. Orisme has over 11 years of experience in Human Resources Management, Project Management, Regulatory and Corporate Compliance Management for businesses and government contractors. She is a SCORE Mentor volunteering her services to small businesses looking for support. She is also a member of the Montgomery County and Frederick County local chapters of the Society for Human Resource Management. Her experiences in the following areas have helped her to become a highly sought after consultant.

……[[and the first sentence capitalizes three phrases which shouldn’t be, but perhaps that makes them more important]]…

REGUS, plc, IWG, plc and INVESTEC BANK, plc (RE: an address in Germantown, Maryland)

and REGUS.com (office space rental near two county courthouses and 45 minutes from Washington, D.C.  Rent it flexibly, and with services…) The fine-print on the (otherwise huge-font, photo, and spares information, actually) website read “Regus, plc,” which I figured meant a non-US company.  Founded in Brussels, Belgium 1989, currently global, traded on the London Stock Exchange.

I looked at some regulatory filings, and it seems that IWG, plc (International Work Group, plc) may be the parent company, and it’s buying up shares.  STRATEGIC REPORT (see about p. 23) shows it’s maybe 33% exposure to US Dollar and 13% to (British pound) sterling, that companies in the group do business mostly in their own currencies, and that it is operating from a “net debt” position.

Regus PLC Company profile (owns? or operates the Milestown Business Park from which NFI (Fathersource(™)) does business, Suite #600 in Germantown MD

Regus PLC Company profile (owns? or operates the Milestown Business Park from which NFI (Fathersource(™)) does business, Suite #600 in Germantown MD

As I was clicking about on the “investors” and “Shareholders” portions of this global firm Regus, plc, I ran across something about a Court Sanction of a Scheme of Arrangement (recent – 2016), and, wanting to read about it, was forced to acknowledge I’d read an important disclaimer.  What’s first (and most interesting to me) about this disclaimer is it specifically says, not registered under U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and nothing in this implies that these shares are for sale in the U.S. (!!).  Here’s the top part (last two paras. are more general warnings and disclaimers, but notice the first two!):



Please accept the following terms and conditions before accessing this page.


Please read this disclaimer carefully – it applies to all persons who view this website. In accessing the Materials, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them from time to time, each time you receive any information as a result of such access. You should read it in full each time you visit the site. 

Nothing in the Materials constitutes an invitation or offer to sell, or the solicitation of an invitation or offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction. 

The Materials do not constitute an offer for sale in the United States. The securities described in the Materials have not been, and will not be, registered under the US Securities Act of 1933 or with any securities regulatory authority of any state or other jurisdiction in the United States and may not be offered or sold, directly or indirectly, in or into the United States unless the securities are so registered or an exemption from the registration requirements is available.

My question: Why is “National” (referring to THIS nation, the USA) Fatherhood Initiative, Inc.” doing business in a flexible office park which, operating as a global for-profit, London Stock Exchange traded company in an obviously high-growth (flexible office space in many countries..) industry which does NOT offer its shares in the US, or to be traded in the US?? Just asking... The next two paras are mostly disclaimers.  There are more on that site (see regus.com/investors section for more complete info).

The Materials may contain certain forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include all matters that are not historical facts. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results of operations, financial condition, prospects and the development of the industry in which the Company operates to differ materially from the impression created by these forward-looking statements. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise unless required to do so by applicable law. You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement, which speaks only as of the date of its issuance.

No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information, opinions and conclusions contained in the Materials. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Company and its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, employees and agents, disclaim any liability, whether arising in tort, contract or otherwise (including, without limitation, any liability arising from fault or negligence) as to the accuracy or completeness or use of, nor any liability to update, the documents and the information contained in the Materials, and nothing in the Materials shall be relied upon as a promise or representation in this respect, whether as to the past or the future …

Funny I just happened upon this site following up on a hunch to search a street address for a familiar organization, at this time.

Next image: Court Meeting and Extraordinary General Meeting – 5 December 2016 Of course they mean “Shareholder” meeting (URL also includes that word).  I have the Table of Contents down to Item 6, but it’s longer still.  The colorful annotations are in part labeling the image (for future recall of its context) and in part, thinking aloud about this very interesting situation, and “scheme” crossing, it seems, two jurisdictions (UK and Jersey?) affected by two different regulating authorities, with a third bank (?) or investment custodian (? etc.) Investec, plc also involved, making it clear, no warranties for shareholders, the clients are ONLy those specified in the arrangement!!


Click HERE to read the commentary and full-sized image. For a clean copy, see link provided in the related FamilyCourtmatters post or under “investor” section of Regus.com (click “Regus plc” at the doc’t footer — that’s how I got to the section).

This is from Item “2” (inside the purple oval in image to left), Prospectus of IWG PLC dated 3 Nov 2016).  Notice the column of “pdfs” on the image — that’s also access to the same, after acknowledging the disclaimers first…

WOW, is this interesting…  I’ll quote from the front matter, show a single image, quote some more from the same front matter, and then (as it comes up) make a few comments.   My own disclaimer: I’m not promoting ANYTHING here other than becoming aware of global operations of companies not trading or offering securities within the US, but able to influence and get a piece of the “American” pie (through real estate leases, sounds like) as discovered in Germantown, Maryland…. Underlinings, mine.  Bold, most of it also mine, except where obviously some section heading: (see above link for source.  The prospectus is a long doc’t. I’ve skimmed it, not read all of it…). reguscominvestors-left-sidebar-cf-nfi-street-address-in-germantownmd-regus-leased-the-office-space-screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-6pm (<==image of left side-bar, we are looking at one of the “Scheme of Arrangement Documents” below):reguscominvestors-left-sidebar-cf-nfi-street-address-in-germantownmd-regus-leased-the-office-space-screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-6pm

[this background-color marks the quote from the IWG, plc, 3 Nov. 2016 prospectus, link: main domain/url terms:  Assets.Regus.com/investors/shareholder-meeting/2-prospectus-of-iwg-plc…/]

This document comprises a prospectus relating to IWG Ordinary Shares (the “Prospectus”) prepared in accordance with the Prospectus Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) made under section 73A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”). This Prospectus has been approved by the FCA in accordance with section 87A of FSMA and made available to the public as required by Rule 3.2 of the Prospectus Rules.

The intended audiences would know under what jurisdiction is the “FCA.”  Probably British.

This Prospectus has been prepared in connection with a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Article 125 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 to introduce a new Jersey–incorporated holding company, IWG, to the Regus Group (the “Scheme”) and has been prepared on the assumption that the Scheme will become effective in accordance with its current terms. A summary of the Scheme and other proposals is set out in Part I of this Prospectus. You should read this Prospectus in its entirety and in particular the risk factors relating to IWG and the IWG Ordinary Shares set out in the section of this Prospectus headed “Risk Factors”.

Being a US Citizen, I don’t see that I’d even qualify to invest, so the risk factors are a moot point.  Reminder:  I’m not providing any financial advise relating to investments here; the context is a public-interest blog and the connecting point is a public (USA)-supported nonprofit, not a particularly ethical one that I can see (NFI didn’t stay incorporated to do business in Maryland after filing to do so even two years in a row initially) who happens to be, looks like renting some form of virtual or other office space from what is now probably IWG plc, but is under the “Regus” brand still, as seen by the street address.

The IWG Directors, whose names appear on page 31 of this Prospectus, and IWG, whose registered office is at 22 Grenville Street, St Helier, Jersey JE4 8PX, accept responsibility for the information in this Prospectus. To the best of the knowledge of the IWG Directors and IWG, who have taken all reasonable care to ensure that such is the case, the information contained in this Prospectus is in accordance with the facts and contains no omission likely to affect the import of such information.

Application will be made to the UK Listing Authority for the IWG Ordinary Shares to be admitted to the premium listing segment of the Official List and to the London Stock Exchange for the IWG Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on the London Stock Exchange’s main market for listed securities (“Admission”), subject in each case to the Scheme becoming effective. If the Scheme proceeds as presently envisaged, it is expected that Admission will become effective, and that dealings in IWG Ordinary Shares on the London Stock Exchange’s main market for listed securities will commence, on 19 December 2016.

No IWG Ordinary Shares have been marketed to, nor are any available for purchase or exchange, in whole or in part, by, the public in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in connection with Admission. This Prospectus does not constitute an offer or invitation to any person to subscribe for or purchase or exchange any securities in IWG or to become a member of IWG.

Part of the deal seems to (have) been a 1:1 exchange of Old Regus shares for IWC shares.  If more shares are bought or issues in the interim, the values might change, I suppose. Sometimes prospecti (plural) I guess DO come in conjunction with issuing shares.  They’re simply making clear — that’s not what this is about…  See next image (which is inset in the prospectus, about p.2). I grabbed some preceding and following text to highlight where it is shown:


It says, “Introduction of up to [one billion] IWG Ordinary Shares of one penny each to the premium listing segment of the Official List and to trading on the London Stock Exchange’s main market for listed securities.   … Investec Bank plc, sponsor and financial adviser.”

The fragment of text grabbed below ‘IWG PLC’ inset says that the IWG Ordinary Shares “have not been and will not be registered under the U.S. Securities Act” and are issued  “in reliance on the exemption provided by  Section 3(a)(10) of the U.S. Securities Act  I don’t know that section, but will look it up.  Is there something innate to the US Securities Act (this section) which might discourage or prevent IGW PLC from offering shares in the USA? It sounds as though the exemption is from registration under the same act.

But first, who is “Investec Bank plc, sponsor and financial adviser”?

Pause to locate Investec Bank, plc in time, space, and any other handy labels, such as substance.  Who is it?Why would it be interested in “the Scheme” at this time?  

This pause developed into a section.  Below that, the mustard-colored background quote is continued.  It started with me knowing NOTHING about Investec Bank, plc, or Investec, and ended with me, at least knowing, much more, at least putting it in its international context.

I quoted from three sources: Bloomberg (which quotes S&P Global Market Intelligence for a company profile), Moody’s Investor Services, and Wikipedia.  See also “investec.com” for the company’s self-description.

Bloomberg.com (which page also reminds readers that the information is courtesy S&P Global, not itself).  Image shows it’s:  Since 1950, particular interest in the UK, Australia and South Africa, has over 3,000 employees and if you can read the fine print, key leadership is all men between the ages of 49 and 69. And, a subsidiary of “Investec, plc.”

Speaking of Investec Bank plc’s interest in South Africa, there seems to be an Investec Bank, Ltd. IN South Africa (Google results search, obviously).

Moody’s investor service recently downgraded the largest 5 banks in South Africa’s ratings, understanding in part that their creditworthiness is highly tied to the government itself’s (sovereign debt).  This is a lot of fine print, but just part of the article, and here only as a general-interest “FYI” on Investec’s S. African presence, and again, in general, period:

Action follows Sovereign rating action, concludes review for downgrade

Limassol, May 10, 2016 — Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) has today confirmed the Baa2 long-term deposit ratings of the five largest South African banks: Standard Bank of South Africa, FirstRand Bank Limited, ABSA Bank Limited, Nedbank Limited, and Investec Bank Ltd. The rating agency has also confirmed Standard Bank Group’s Baa3 issuer rating, while downgrading Absa Bank’s baseline credit assessment (BCA) to baa3 from baa2. A full list of the banks’ ratings affected by today’s rating action is at the end of this press release.

The rating action concludes the review for downgrade on the banks’ ratings that was initiated on 10 March 2016. The banks’ national-scale ratings, which were also on review, are addressed in a separate press release.

Today’s rating action is driven primarily by Moody’s prior decision to confirm South Africa’s sovereign rating (Baa2), on 6 May 2016 (please refer to the press release: Moody’s confirms South Africa’s sovereign rating at Baa2 and assigns a negative outlook [https://www.moodys.com/research/–PR_348291]), which alleviates the downward pressure on the banks’ credit profiles due to their sizable holdings of sovereign debt securities that link their creditworthiness to that of the national government. The action also takes into account Moody’s expectation that the banks will generally show resilience in their financial performance despite the current economic slowdown in South Africa.

While Absa’s deposit ratings were confirmed at Baa2, Moody’s downgraded the bank’s BCA to baa3 from baa2 given its weaker capital and asset quality metrics compared with peers.

The negative outlook assigned to all five South African banks takes into account the negative outlook assigned to the sovereign rating and the impairment risks that the banks will continue to face over the next 12-18 months given the difficult operating environment.



The rating action is primarily driven by the confirmation of the South African government’s debt rating at Baa2, which alleviates pressure on the banks’ credit profile as the banks’ high stocks of government debt securities, held as part of their liquidity requirements, links their credit profiles to that of the government. The top five banks’ overall sovereign exposure, including loans to state-related entities, averages around 143% of their capital bases, according to South African Reserve Bank’s (SARB) regulatory returns (BA900) as of February 2016. In view of the correlation between sovereign and bank credit risk, the banks’ standalone credit profiles and ratings are inevitably constrained by the rating of the government. (etc.)

Here’s the Wikipedia — I recommend reading all of it, it’s very informative!  It started in Johannesburg, South Africa (1974) and has a unique dual-jurisdiction operation (but with firewalls for creditors), in this century took advantage of “BEE” (Black Economic Empowerment)” act by African National Congress (addressing apartheid exclusions) which was later adjusted in 2007 for a more broad-based qualification of just exactly who was disadvantaged.  It’s a member of the FTE250, meaning, BIG…(see Wiki link, which also has a list of current members).

I notice also its location in Central London (“click away” to consider more), which relates to the topic of this post, the Unifying of City and County governments over time.  Fascinating, the parallels, and the decades in which major structural changes were made…

Investec is an international specialist banking and asset management group. It provides a range of financial products and services to a client base in three principal markets: the United Kingdom, South Africa and Australia.[2] Investec is dual listed[3] on the London Stock Exchange[4] and the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.[5] Investec is a FTSE 250 company.[6] 

Investec’s South African headquarters are at 100 Grayston Drive, Sandown, Sandton. Investec’s UK headquarters are at 2 Gresham Street in Central London. Investec’s Irish headquarters are at The Harcourt Building, Harcourt Street, in Dublin.

The history page is a short read – recommended to make a note of the growth curve and which years….


LTI TX4 “Silver” advertising for Investec

Investec employs approximately 8,200 people worldwide and operates primarily in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland. It also has banking operations in Switzerland, MauritiusGuernseyHong KongJerseyNamibia, Botswana, Canada, Taiwan and the United States.[7]

I’m including the entire “History” section here.  You can see how such a company grew fast by merging, acquiring, and at times selling off (but retaining shareholder control — and later taking over the rest) of different enterprises, as well as see the “BEE” action was almost 25 years into its history; when it gained access to the London Stock Exchange.  In contrast with this way of “doing business” individuals are throughout the USA, at least, coached and advised to make their way through life NOT by investing in, or buying & selling businesses (and taking advantage of any tax breaks or loopholes along the way — such as forming multiple foundations, which then sponsor nonprofits to influence government favorably for the originating corporate classes of wealth without so alienating the workforce they have to deal with riots….which requires a LOT of public relations clout) — but by looking for a good job at fair wages — and if one is a single mother (including for safety’s stake), marrying one’s way out of poverty somehow…  Pardon my sarcasm, but I DID just show several “NFI” trademarks above, did I not?  This is US social policy as we speak — and was under Democrat Administrations (Clinton, Obama) as much as under Republican ones (George W. Bush, and here comes another one, Donald J. Trump):


Investec was founded as a small leasing and financing company in 1974 in Johannesburg by Larry Nestadt, Errol Grolman and Ian Kantor. It has expanded through a combination of organic growth and strategic acquisitions.[7]

It secured a banking licence in 1980[8][9] and was first listed on the JSE Securities Exchange in South Africa in 1986, after merging with Metboard, a trust company. In 1988, Investec Bank Limited was restructured into Investec Group Limited (“IGL”), giving Investec Management and staff control of the company.[8]

In 1990, Investec acquired property management company I. Kuper & Company (Pty) Limited, Corporate Merchant Bank Limited (formerly Hill Samuel Merchant Bank Limited) and trade finance company Reichmans Limited.[8]

Investec entered the UK market in 1992, by acquiring London-based Allied Trust Bank Limited (‘ATB’), this was the first international acquisition by the Group.[8]

In 1998, Investec acquired Guinness Mahon, a leading London based merchant bank, and Henderson Crosthwaite, its stockbroking arm, for £95m.[10] It also bought Hambros plc, another London based merchant bank the same year.[11]

It was first listed on the London Stock Exchange in 2002.[8] In 2003 in a Black Economic Empowerment transaction[8] empowerment partners acquired a 21.5% stake in the South Africa-listed Investec.

In 2005, Investec sold its UK Private Client Stockbroking operation, Carr Sheppards Crosthwaite Limited to Rensburg plc. Investec retains a 47.7% interest in the combined entity, Rensburg Sheppards plc.[12]

In 2007, Investec plc acquired Kensington Group plc[13] and Experien (Pty) Ltd.[14]

Investec plc acquired the remaining shares in Rensburg Sheppards plc in 2010. This business has since been rebranded as Investec Wealth & Investments and incorporates other wealth activities previously operated through the Bank.[15]

In June 2012, Investec plc completed the €32 million acquisition of Irish brokerage firm, NCB. As a result, Investec now employs more than 240 specialists in Ireland.[16]

Link to Black Economic Empowerment Wiki had its own footnotes.  The image is a 2004 quote from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, footnote [13] therein:


Missing (last) sentence of that section of article is “We are sitting on a powder keg.” Click Here to read full-sized (or access through the Wiki footnote [13] to “Black Economic Empowerment”

After the history page, this is the dual-listing structure I was referring to:

Legal structure[edit]

In July 2002, Investec became the first South African company to list on both the London and Johannesburg stock exchanges, by implementing a dual listed companies (DLC) structure.[17]

The main features of the DLC structure are:

  • Investec plc and Investec Limited are separate legal entities and listings, but are bound together by contractual agreements and mechanisms.[17]
  • Investec plc is the holding company for the majority of the group’s non-Southern African operations and Investec Limited is the holding company for the majority of the group’s Southern African operations.[17]
  • Investec operates as if it is a single unified economic enterprise.[17]
  • Shareholders have common economic and voting interests as if Investec plc and Investec Limited were a single company.[17]
  • Creditors, however, are ring-fenced to either Investec plc or Investec Limited as there are no cross guarantees between the companies.[17]

Empowerment in South Africa[edit]

Investec’s approach to transformation within South Africa involves:

  • Fostering the creation of new black entrepreneurial platforms[18]
  • Serving as a source of empowerment financing[18]
  • Encouraging internal transformation by bringing about greater representivity in the workplace. Investec focuses on creating black entrepreneurs within its organisation[18]
Sidebar from Wiki on "Investec Bank" seems to be dated 2015. Context, Regus, plc + IWG, plc (the latter in 2016 applying to be listed on London Stock Exchange, though a Jersey company

Sidebar from Wiki on “Investec Bank” seems to be dated 2015. Context, Regus, plc + IWG, plc (the latter in 2016 applying to be listed on London Stock Exchange, though a Jersey company

[this background-color marks the quote from the IWG, plc, 3 Nov. 2016 prospectus, link: main domain/url terms:  Assets.Regus.com/investors/shareholder-meeting/2-prospectus-of-iwg-plc…/]  (Continuation quote coming soon — I’m showing some images from Investec.com website, including from its timeline. As the prospectus says up front, they wanted (and probably were accepted since) to serve as the custodian bank AND financial adviser to IWG, plc in Jersey in entering in a certain way into the London Stock Exchange with its up to 1,000,000,000 stocks at one penny/share, in late 2016…]


home page of Investec.com showing is tabs (areas of operation)

home page of Investec.com showing is tabs (areas of operation)

Investec.com “History” page

(Timeline, concise statements with the Zebra an apparent mascot in each one)…

1996-  Investec acquires controlling interest in the eighth largest bank in Israel, and some other things:  “…

Investec Bank (Jersey) Limited, a private bank based in Jersey, was established, motivated by  the need to give clients greater offshore advantages.

Investec acquired a controlling interest in Israel General Bank Limited, the eighth largest bank in Israel.

Investec acquired London-based stockbroker and private client portfolio management company, Carr Sheppards Limited.

This is all of 1997 from that timeline:  Restructuring, access to more countries, including “Mauritius” which made an appearance in my posts already when some major tax-exempt foundation in the US (Casey Family, or MacArthur?) paid their highest independent contractor, based in Mauritius (locate on a map, it’s a small island off the SE tip of Africa) with a particular investment interest in India, over $1M for its services.  Meanwhile, the same foundation was propounding its concern for the poor and vulnerable (esp. foster care) children of the USA, functioning here tax-exempt….something their parents likely weren’t doing…

ATB was renamed Investec Bank (UK) Limited (“IBUK”).

The Group restructured with all banking operations falling under Investec Merchant Bank Limited. Investec Bank Limited was renamed Investec Group Limited and Investec Merchant Bank Limited was renamed Investec Bank Limited.  

[[See Moody’s Investor Service recent downgrading of its credit status, above]]

Investec established an operation in Australia  {{what kind of “operation”?}}.

Investec acquired the Mauritian-based bank, Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild (Ocean Indien) Ltee.

Investec opened a representative office in Hong Kong.

The Group established asset management operations in Botswana and Namibia. Listings on the Namibian and Botswana Stock Exchanges followed. Investec Securities (Botswana) (Pty) Limited was registered and a licence to trade was approved.

Next stop, or among the next stops in 1998, and what looks like for the first time, the USA. It acquires NY registered broker-dealer “Ernst & Company” which later acquires “Stuart Cole & Company” a NY retail broker.  This image is part (not all) of the 1998 timeline:


By 2001, Investec Ernst & Company is buying its way into the US market, esp. NY and Florida.  PR Newswire (by then, or at least now, a “Cision Company.” I already wrote (posted?) on how UBM (formerly United Business Media, now focused on becoming a global business-to-business event/trade show provider) first bought, then later sold, PR Newswire)…

Investec Ernst & Company acquiring Retail Brokerage Division of Herzog Heinrich Geduld of Merrill Lynch.
Acquisition Significantly Expands Investec’s
Retail Brokerage Presence in the US

NEW YORK, Jan. 9 [2001] /PRNewswire/ — Investec Ernst & Company, a 75-year-old New York Stock Exchange member firm and part of the Investec Group (Johannesburg Stock Exchange: INT), today announced that it had entered into an agreement with Herzog Heine Geduld — a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) — to acquire their retail brokerage business.  This acquisition, Investec Ernst’s third in four years, is part of the company’s ongoing strategy of aggressively expanding its retail brokerage presence in the United States. The deal will add 50 highly experienced retail brokers to Investec Ernst’s Private Client Group in the New York and Florida markets, boosting the total number of retail brokers to 350 nationwide.

At this time last year, the company had 270 retail brokers based in midtown Manhattan, the Wall Street area, Woodbury, Long Island, and Chicago. By acquiring Herzog’s retail brokerage division, Investec Ernst will also be able to immediately establish an active presence in the high-net-worth Miami market. Herzog’s New York-based retail brokers will be integrated into Investec Ernst’s existing Manhattan offices.

By acquiring Herzog’s brokerage division, we have dramatically increased our retail brokerage presence in the United States,” said Michael Rabinowitz, Executive Vice President of Investec Ernst & Company. “Our expansion illustrates Investec Ernst’s deep commitment to providing high-level brokerage services to both institutional and individual investors. We plan to continue our growth and are actively looking for high quality brokerage groups, like Herzog, to incorporate into the Investec family.”

[The blue font above {+ obvious title lines} marks the quote where quotation marks could not].  As PRNewswire does, at the bottom are brief summaries of the organization.  Note that by this time (2001), Investec is claiming $75B assets under management (“AUM” in some other circles) to Merrill Lynch’s $1.8 trillion (making Investec almost half the size of Merrill Lynch).  Also (first sentence) that Investec as of 2001 was “aggressively” marketing Israel and South African securities in the U.S. (note the recent acquisition of 8th largest Israeli bank, a few years earlier):

Investec Ernst & Company’s Private Client Group offers a wide range of comprehensive financial services to retail, institutional, and professional clients around the world. In the United States, Investec Ernst & Company provides securities clearance and execution, asset management, investment banking services, international securities research, mutual fund and unit trust advisory services. The company is a leading distributor in the United States of South African and Israeli securities.

Investec Ernst & Company is part of the Investec Group, a leading international specialist-banking group, headquartered in Johannesburg, South Africa. The Group is one of the 20 largest companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and ranks among the world’s top 300 banks with total assets under management exceeding $ 74 billion.

Over the past 10 years, Investec has registered a compound growth rate in fully diluted earnings per share in excess of 30 percent per annum. Merrill Lynch will continue to execute internal order flow in Nasdaq and other over-the-counter stocks through Herzog Heine Geduld’s market making operations, providing superior service to its institutional and individual clients.

Merrill Lynch is one of the world’s leading financial management and advisory companies with offices in 43 countries and total client assets of about $1.8 trillion. As an investment bank, it is the top global underwriter and market maker of debt and equity securities and a leading strategic advisor to corporations, governments, institutions and individuals worldwide. Through Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, the company is one of the world’s largest managers of financial assets.

As the Investec.com Timeline showed, first Investec bought NY broker-retailer Ernst & Company (becoming Investec Ernst & Company) and by the end of the year had through it bought another one Stuart Cole & Company.

The next section (getting back to that IWG, plc Prospectus quote — which brings up the need for certain Exemptions (referring to parts of the US Securities Act, that is, things that would be regulated by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission — of the US).  I have several images on this, which will make more sense of this image of a different (but timewise, nearby) response to a letter from Investec Ernst & Company, about to receive a “UIT” (Unit Investment Trust”) from ING (who’d just received it from Reich & Tang not long before), but needing to be reassured that it would qualify, as the two preceding companies had, on some Exemption under (it would seem) the Investment Act of 1940.  In anticipation of this and probably as a condition of the transfer I think it’s asking for a “No-Action” letter from a SEC-related Commission –that is, that they’d state in writing they would not be recommending to take action under that Act before Investec gets its own “Exemption” legitimized.  Anyhow it shows you how fast the company was moving in the US once it got its feet here.  Maybe they were here earlier, but that’s according to their own History & Timeline anyhow (first mention of a US business):

The link is in the caption to the image. Scroll down to read the Investec Ernst & Co. letter it’s responding to; the date is April 2001:


[this background-color marks the quote from the IWG, plc, 3 Nov. 2016 prospectus, link: main domain/url terms:  Assets.Regus.com/investors/ shareholder-meeting/2-prospectus-of-iwg-plc…/]  (Continuation quote) 


The fine-print paragraph (and the one after it) below the inset, reads:

The IWG Ordinary Shares have not been, and will not be, registered under the US Securities Act. The IWG Ordinary Shares will be issued in reliance on the exemption provided by section 3(a)(10) of the US Securities Act. In addition, the IWG Ordinary Shares have not been and will not be registered under the securities laws of any state of the United States but will be issued pursuant to available exemptions from state law registration requirements. Neither the SEC nor any US state securities commission has reviewed or approved this Prospectus, any accompanying documents or the Scheme. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offence in the United States.

This Prospectus does not constitute an invitation or offer to sell or exchange or the solicitation of an invitation or offer to buy or exchange any security or to become a member of IWG. None of the securities referred to in this Prospectus shall be sold, issued, exchanged or transferred in any jurisdiction in contravention of applicable law. …

{{emphases mine, not in the prospectus}}

Section 3(a)(10) of the US Securities Act.  In looking this one up, I first glanced at several staff memos by the SEC Corporate Finance Division, including the footnotes defining what the section says.  A certain NY LLP has an easier-to-read summary (as of 2008) of some of those statements, but makes it clear this isn’t legal advice or an opinion on the subject matter:

Memo interprets 3(a)(10) Exemption from Registration (at “Cahill.com” see the 3 images).


Image 1 of 3 (see Memo interprets 3(a)(10) Exemption from Registration (at “Cahill.com”))


Image 2 of 3


Image 3 of 3











Another link, though dated 2003, at least explains enough of the references and terms to give an understanding of what we’re talking about (and what the IWG, plc prospectus was so intent that shareholders  understand was NOT in reference to under US Securities Act, but are making clear, these securities were not registered under it — relying instead on these exemptions):  A 2003 analysis by Mr. Mark Holzapfel at Fordham Univ. (Corporate and Finance) Law Review.  I have 3 images from there also (incl. title page):


An Analysis of the Section 3(a)(10) Exemption Under the Securities Act of 1933 in the Context of the Public Offering Component of Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 in Fordham Journal of Corporate & Finance Law, Volume 8, Issue 2, Article 3 (2003).

Published, thankfully (so we can read it) by bepress, that is, “Berkeley Electronic Press” © 2003 by the authors (the link shows in first image and gives the Fordham URL).  Each image (of 3) below has been printed to pdf for reading of annotations, however the main text is easier to read at the above link:


Image 1 of 3 from this Aricle, Title Page. Click to read annotations in blue (the bottom two only label the image, and the article’s URL).


Image 2 of 3 from this Article.  Above: page 427 (no pdf provided as I didn’t really annotate)


Click here to read annotations if you wish. Two are labeling the image and article, the other two, the context of my interest in it.  This is Image #3 of 3 from the Fordham Journal, but I’m still quoting from next two pages (429-430) to make one more point.  Quote may show to left of image as normal font..















Continuing, from p. 429 top, we see why the SEC saw fit to have this Investment Company Act of 1940…(this is after section “Introduction.”

I. 1940 ACT

The focus of the 1940 Act [8**] is on “pooled investment vehicles, such as mutual funds, closed-end funds, and unit investment trusts.”[9] In the 1920s, the SEC found such investment vehicles especially prone to “manipulation and self-dealing.”[10]”

As a result, Congress enacted the 1940 Act,”[11] which provides, in part, that:

No investment company organized or otherwise created under the laws of the United States or of a State and having a board of directors, unless registered under section 8, shall directly or indirectly-(1) offer for sale, sell, or deliver after sale, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, any security….[12]

Once registered, an investment company is substantially restricted in its activities.” Although the term “investment

**We are in a law journal — major parts of the text are footnotes! Footnotes if not copied here may be seen in the article. I didn’t copy, for this page, footnotes 8-12, but did mark where they are in the text. In another section, though I will, because it contains a point I’m making.

Regarding the “pooled investment vehicles” being thought “prone to manipulation and self-dealing,” many decades later, and having finally been alerted to the existence of just how much US, State, and other (i.e., County, Authority, etc.) government entities DO utilized “pooled investment funds” and for self-dealing, that is protecting their assets while we lose ours (“asses,” that is) maintaining the investment platforms, the infrastructure, the people that inhabit and operate it, the software that operates, the telecommunications that coordinate it, and even the schools (up through college/universities at the state level) which train us to do all this unquestioningly, I am reminded that the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) does NOT regulate, that I’m aware of government entities (or their pooled investments) and that if it did, it might be a new day in America.

I looked up at least one (there has to have been more than one regarding non-disclosure of collective held assets, and deliberate non-discussion (mostly) of the facts that CAFRs even exist by the media, government entities themselves when speaking to media and to the public in general, while no problem talking about “budget” and especially, budget deficits..

I’m going to quote this in screenprints from a June 2012 email thread posted at http://CAFR1.com/herman (as in Carl Herman). “The Screw Tightens — California Government – Disclosure” He also references the State Bank (Ellen Brown) material which I posted on (several posts) in early 2014, and interacted by email with Ms. Brown after asking on her “WebOfDebt” page why her front (promoting the cause) “Public Institute” couldn’t get its own EIN# like a proper nonprofit, instead of hiding with dozens of others under Inquiring Systems, Inc.  I was quickly contacted in an apparent effort to find whether I was friend or foe, and in the process, whether it was possible to discredit Walter Burien more, privately, than had been attempted already in public.

It’s pretty hard to discredit people who are talking sense, although no lack of trying, although “just don’t want to talk about it” (the “it” in this larger context being, just how big ARE those collected, pooled government assets?  In every filing entity’s case, and taken as a whole?

2012-cafr1comherman-html-1the-screw-tiightens-ca-govt-fincl-disclosure-burienherman-exchange-scrshot-2017-01-31-at-3-06-33-pm 2012-cafr1comherman-html-2-of-the-screw-tiightens-ca-govt-fincl-disclosure-burienherman-exchange-scrshot-2017-01-31-at-307pm 2012-cafr1comherman-html-2-of-the-screw-tiightens-ca-govt-fincl-disclosure-burienherman-exchange-scrshot-2017-01-31-at-307pm












The fourth screenprint is quoting C Herman’s 2012 response, which posts from his article at the Examiner on his attempts to engage a California official on the nature of the NONdisclosure of the collective assets revealed in the CAFRs while talking “austerity” in public.  Including the header information would squeeze the image too small, but it can be seen at the link provided:


The header info (and Examiner article link, again) actually show at the bottom of the previous image, to left as quoted at FamilyCourtMatters.org post (for publication 1/31/2017 or ASAP after, http://wp.me/psBXH-5CC (<=case-sensitive shortlink)














“..Please explain how it is not fraud for officials to misrepresent public taxpayer assets by only saying that the budget has a deficit and never saying cash and investment accounts have in the case of California 35 times that amount?”

“How is it not fraud to label accounts for “pensions” when the data shows the opposite:  that only 4% of pensions are paid by a fund of nearly half a trillion surplus taxpayer dollars?”

Again, if the SEC caught a public-traded corporation doing this, what would the response be?

I’d like to address (tie this back in to) the Analysis of Section (3)(a)(10) exemptions above, and the Investment Act of 1940 statement about pooled fund vehicles being “prone to manipulation” by the dishonest.  For one, it occurs to me that the SEC might be serving, actually, to reduce the competition among the criminally intended, that is against the government entities who can do with impunity what the private are not supposed to, for fear of SEC retribution.  By cutting down on the competition, the activity could continue decade after decade.

Carl Herman’s drawing a blank on confronting an official was good documentation (though not too surprising) and a collective message — which most people do not seem to be registering — that the presumption “Don’t Ask — We Won’t Be Telling” applies, and that it’s up to the public to organize ENOUGH of ourselves to continue asking this question until a concern about continuing to tax us for things for which taxes are just not needed might seem like the better option.  Of course, so many people’s livelihoods (mortgages, family support, kid’s private or college educations, and their own retirements) are so entwined with government itself that to go against improper (if not technically speaking — because it’s not under SEC regulation — “illegal”) behavior in stockpiling assets, continuing to receive income from them, running for-profit businesses, while propagating social science demographics about the reasons for poverty (and the poor) — that telling the truth would seem to put many “hooked-on-the-system” (and I’m NOT referring primarily to welfare recipients, but to the administrative sector at all levels of government) families at risk, and so be naturally opposed.

But first, when I clicked through to his examiner article (which, last time I looked, was still there) we can see that the “Examiner” outlet seems to have been taken over by “AXS.com” (or at least directs to there.  Realizing that a website ending “*.com” does not a business entity make, I looked at the bottom of the (very colorful and vivid news etc. page) for their links and clues to who IS the company (see image) and copied the entire text of self-description from this section.  See “About AEG?” link?

Footer (part of it) from AXS.com website (in contrast to the colorful, white-background main page) leaves clues to who owns it...

Footer (part of it) from AXS.com website (in contrast to the colorful, white-background main page) leaves clues to who owns it…


So, this is who operates, looks like, AXS.com and probably AXS.TV (cable) also.  Big enough for you? On-site, this is in pale letters over a backdrop more appropriate to the grand, entertainment-savvy Los Angeles entity, which as it turns out is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ANSCHUTZ COMPANY


Company Overview

AEG is one of the leading sports and entertainment presenters in the world. AEG, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Anschutz Company, owns, controls or is affiliated with a collection of companies including over 100 of the world’s preeminent facilities**

Wait a minute.  A company is a company (it exists as a legal entity under some jurisdiction’s authority, or ‘legal domicile.”  It’s a creation-by-filing, a calling-into-existence, and can exist without any physical belongings, or even evidence of existence other than that paperwork (or these days, on-line) filing.   A FACILITY is something built, physical (at least the ones in the next list are!! — large ones, like an arena, a stadium, etc.).  AEG or one of its many controlled, or affiliate companies my own or operate some of the facilities, but those companies (whether owned, controlled,or affiliated with) are not the same as the facilities.  So connecting the one with the other by the word “including” is impressive — but false.

Unless companies can include facilities, the statement is untrue.  But given where it’s posted, who’s to notice of give a cr@p anyhow?  The point is to impress. And if AEG is so impressive,what does that make “the Anschutz Company?

[…facilities] such as STAPLES Center (Los Angeles, CA), Sprint Center (Kansas City, MO), Citizens Business Bank Arena (Ontario, CA), O.co Coliseum (Oakland, CA), Oracle Arena (Oakland, CA), Valley View Casino Center (San Diego, CA), PlayStation Theater (Times Square, NY), Verizon Theatre (Grand Prairie, TX), Colosseum at Caesars Palace (Las Vegas, NV), Target Center (Minneapolis, MN), BBVA Compass Stadium (Houston, TX), Allphones Arena (Sydney, AU), MasterCard Center (Beijing, China), Mercedes-Benz Arena (Shanghai, China), Ericsson Globe Arenas (Stockholm), Sydney International Convention Exhibition, and Entertainment District (Australia), Barclaycard Arena (Hamburg), Mercedes-Benz Arena (Berlin) and The O2, a 28-acre development located in the eastern part of London along the Thames River which includes a 20,000-seat arena and over 650,000 sf of leisure and entertainment use which are all part of the portfolio of AEG Facilities; AEG Merchandising, a full service merchandising company; and AEG Global Partnerships, responsible for worldwide sales and servicing of sponsorships naming rights and other strategic partnerships.

In addition, AEG developed and operates StubHub Center, a $150 million national training center located on the campus of California State University, Dominguez Hills in Carson, CA which is an Official U.S. Olympic Training Site and features elite facilities for soccer, tennis, track & field, track cycling, boxing, lacrosse, rugby, football and other sports, as well as concerts and family shows, and is home to the LA Galaxy and Chivas USA MLS franchises. In partnership with MGM Resorts International, the company is also spearheading the development of a 20,000-seat sports and entertainment arena in Las Vegas set to open in spring 2016.

Teams including the 2014 Stanley Cup Champion LA Kings (NHL), Manchester Monarchs (AHL), Ontario Reign (ECHL), Houston Dynamo & LA Galaxy (MLS), three hockey franchises in Europe as well as the Hammarby (Sweden) Futbol Club, management of privately held shares of the Los Angeles Lakers, events such as the Amgen Tour of California cycling race and a schedule of soccer exhibitions in the US featuring the most popular international teams are part of AEG Sports’ portfolio.

AEG Live, the live-entertainment division of Los Angeles-based AEG, is dedicated to all aspects of live contemporary music performance. AEG Live is comprised of touring, festival, broadcast and special event divisions, fifteen regional offices and owns, operates or exclusively books thirty-five state-of-the-art venues. The current and recent concert tour roster includes artists such asAlicia Keys, Bruno Mars, Bon Jovi, Carrie Underwood, Daughtry, Enrique Iglesias, J Cole, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber, Kanye West, Kenny Chesney, Leonard Cohen, Paul McCartney, Taylor Swift, The WHO, Trey Songz and Juanes. The company produces residency shows at The Colosseum at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and is the exclusive promoter at The Joint at Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Las Vegas. AEG Live is the largest producer of music festivals in North America from the critically acclaimed Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival to Stagecoach Country Music Festival and New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival.

AEG directed the overall creation and development of L.A. LIVE, the 4 million square foot / $3 billion downtown Los Angeles sports, residential & entertainment district featuring venues such as Microsoft Theater, The Novo by Microsoft and The Conga Room; the GRAMMY Museum, saluting the history of music and the genre’s best know awards show; a 54-story, 1001-room convention “headquarters” destination (featuring The Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels and 224 luxury condominiums – The Residences at The Ritz-Carlton L.A. LIVE – all in a single tower), Regal Cinemas L.A. LIVE Stadium 14 movie theatre, “broadcast” facilities for ESPN, along with entertainment, restaurant and office space making it the region’s most active ‘live content and event campus.

In 2010, AEG launched its AEG 1EARTH environmental program featuring the industry’s first sustainability report while in 2011, AEG introduced AXS a comprehensive entertainment platform serving as the company’s primary consumer brand including AXS Ticketing which provides fans the opportunity to purchase tickets directly from their favorite venues via a user-friendly ticketing interface, Examiner.com and the AXS TV network.

[ x ] Back To Top

Wiki short piece on The Anschutz Corporation (not “Company” but that’s mentioned too) also contains a footnote to “FundingUniverse Summary,” which I recommend reading:

The Anschutz Corporation is an American privately held holding company headquartered in Denver, Colorado, United States.[1] It was started in 1958 by Fred Anschutz, a wildcatter, and the father of Philip Anschutz, who took over the company in 1962.[1]

The Anschutz Corporation, and affiliates Anschutz Company and Anschutz Investment Company, are vehicles for the diversified investments for Anschutz;[1] the latter is a venture capital firm with minority stakes in sectors such as mass media, entertainment, sports, telecommunications, energy, and transportation.[2] Larger investments include Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) and the Regal Entertainment Group (REG).[3]The company is also the owner, through Clarity Media Group and The Oklahoma Publishing Company, of several media properties, including The Weekly StandardThe OklahomanThe Gazette (of Colorado Springs), and The Washington Examiner.[4]


  1. Jump up to: a b c The Anschutz Corporation, a company history and profile from FundingUniverse.com
  2. Jump up ^ Anschutz Investment Company from Bloomberg Businessweek
  3. Jump up ^ Regal Entertainment Group from the Anschutz Entertainment Group website
  4. Jump up ^ Avery, Greg (November 30, 2012). “Anschutz buys Colorado Springs Gazette”Denver Business Journal. Retrieved November 30, 2012.

 They tell you what it is now, but it started in Oil. Here’s from the Wiki on Philip Anschutz (minus ALL the links…):

Philip Frederick Anschutz (/ˈænʃuːts/ an-shoots; born December 28, 1939) is an American entrepreneur. Anschutz bought out his father’s drilling company, Circle A Drilling, in 1961 and earned large returns in Wyoming. He has invested in stocks, real estate and railroads. He then began investing in entertainment companies, co-founding Major League Soccer as well as multiple teams, including the Los Angeles Galaxy, Chicago Fire, Houston Dynamo, San Jose Earthquakes, and the New York/New Jersey MetroStars. Anschutz owns stakes in the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and venues including the Staples Center, The O2, London, and the StubHub Center. Anschutz also invests in family films such as The Chronicles of Narnia and Ray. Forbes ranks him the 38th richest person in the U.S. with an estimated net worth of $11 billion as of 2014.[2] …..

[with more links, this section]

…His father was an oil tycoon and land investor who invested in ranches in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, and eventually went into the oil-drilling business. Carl Anschutz,[7] Anschutz’s grandfather, an ethnic German who emigrated from Russia, started the Farmers State Bank in Russell, Kansas.

Land ownership[edit]

In 1970, Anschutz bought the 250,000-acre (1,000 km²) Baughman Farms, one of the country’s largest farming corporations, in Liberal, Kansasfor $10 million. The following year, he acquired 9 million acres (36,000 km²) along the UtahWyoming border. This produced his first fortune in the oil business.[16] In the early 1980s, the Anschutz Ranch, with its 1 billion barrel (160,000,000 m³) oil pocket, became the largest oil field discovery in the United States since Prudhoe Bay in Alaska in 1968. He sold an interest in it to Mobil Oil for $500 million in 1982.

A very smart move, as oil prices then went down, says another write-up…(I think, fundinguniverse.com on the Anschutz Corporation)

For several years, Anschutz was Colorado’s sole billionaire. With his acquisition of land in other Western states, he owns more land than most other private citizens in the United States.[17][18]

Anschutz then moved into railroads and telecommunications before venturing into the entertainment industry. In 1999, Fortune magazinecompared him to the nineteenth-century tycoonJ.P. Morgan, as both men “struck it rich in a fundamentally different way: they operated across an astounding array of industries, mastering and reshaping entire economic landscapes.”

Rail and petroleum businesses[edit]

In 1984 he entered the railroad business by purchasing the Rio Grande Railroad’s holding companyRio Grande Industries. Four years later, in 1988, the Rio Grande railroad purchased the Southern Pacific Railroad under his direction. With the merger of the Southern Pacific and Union Pacific Corporation in September 1996, Anschutz became Vice-Chairman of Union Pacific. Prior to the merger, he was a Director of Southern Pacific from June 1988 to September 1996, and Non-Executive Chairman of Southern Pacific from 1993 to September 1996. He was also a Director of Forest Oil Corporation, beginning in 1995. In November 1993 he became Director and Chairman of the Board of Qwest, stepping down as a nonexecutive co-chairman in 2002, but remaining on the board. He has also been a Director for Pacific Energy Partners and served on the boards of the American Petroleum Institute, in Washington, D.C. and the National Petroleum Council in Washington, D.C.

In May 2001, the Bush administration upheld Anschutz’s right to drill an exploratory oil well at Weatherman Draw, in south-central Montana where Native American tribes wanted to preserve sacred rock drawings. Environmental groups, preservationists, and ten Native American tribes had appealed the decision without success. In April 2002, the Anschutz Exploration Corporation gave up its plans to drill for oil in the area. They donated its leases for oil and gas rights to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has pledged to let the leases expire, and the Bureau of Land Management said it had no plans to permit further leases there, and would consider formal withdrawal of the 4,268 acre (17 km²) site from mineral leasing in its 2004 management plan. In recognition for its preservation efforts, The National Trust for Historic Preservation presented its President’s Award to the Anschutz Exploration Corp.[19]

However you cut it, the Anschutz Corporation (privately owned in Denver Colorado) has been run by a very smart son — but he started out with his father’s businesses, not broke, and not trying to raise money through employment or self-employment that we can see.  The difference is huge. Plus, what happens once you’re at the top of the heap, and the USDOJ or SEC goes after you, or your company?  Deals can be made, apparently.  See “Key Dates” (up to Qwest –only 2000 — for FundingUniverse.com.  I think that’s about how recent this website ever seems to go).  Key Dates: 1997, Anschutz hires AT&T Executive Joseph Nacchio to lead Qwest, which is taken public in the year; Anschutz retains 84% stake, worth $4.9B by year-end. … 2000 Qwest acquires U.S. West in stock swap, reducing Anschutz share to 38% (or, $12 billion….).

fundinguniverse.com on The Anschutz Corporation (in Denver, since 1958)

fundinguniverse.com on The Anschutz Corporation (in Denver, since 1958)

Then (I had to use a cached version to read this in the Denver Post):

Qwest, SEC Settle Fraud Case ($250M)

PUBLISHED: May 26, 2005 at 7:57 am | UPDATED: May 13, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Qwest has agreed to pay $250 million to settle charges that the company engaged in rampant fraud, conducted by former top managers in order to dupe investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission found that Qwest fraudulently claimed approximately $3.8 billion in “spurious” revenue while excluding $231 million in expenses.

In many of the deals, Qwest swapped or sold fiber-optic capacity to other companies and reported revenues even though the money wouldn’t be paid for years, if ever.

Qwest employees referred to those deals as Qwest’s “heroin,” the complaint said.

Qwest neither admitted nor denied guilt as part of the settlement, but it did agree to pay the second-largest fine ever levied by the SEC against a telecom company…

[much further down after noting that the fraud began in 1999 and involved Joe Nacchio, allegedly — disputed — etc.] …Excluding Qwest founder Philip Anschutz, Qwest’s executives and board members netted a cumulative profit of $640 million through sale of Qwest stock from 1997 to 2001. Nacchio accounted for $253.1 million {{over ⅓!!}} of that.

Separately, Anschutz reaped $1.85 billion.

Investors who lost billions in stock value won’t have justice until the people responsible for the company’s meltdown are held responsible, said Lynn Turner, a former SEC chief accountant who is based in Denver. “It is unfathomable that errors of that magnitude go without notice by executives who in this case were paid hundreds of millions of dollars,” Turner said.

Qwest has set aside $500 million to pay legal costs stemming from the SEC’s accounting probe and other legal actions.

The rest of article mentions that when stock dropped from $34 to $26 a share, top dogs pressured underlings to make the grade or else (bonus-related compensation); the stock went up to $50 a share, then dropped to $1 a share in 2002 (!!).  Of the $500M set aside, I’m recalling related articles read (in associating with this posting) taht indicated Anschutz got to say what nonprofits and law schools they went to, and no SEC charges against him in this mess….
I think readers of this post would be interested in the several pages of a 2006 article on Philip Anschutz and his corporate, private, and deal-making life, including pp.4 and 5 which deal with the Qwest situation, adding interesting details.  From an earlier section, reference to some nonprofits the Anschutz Foundation likes to give to (and possibly started):

Anschutz has spent about $23 million over the last decade on a pair of nonprofit groups to promote positive values. His Random Acts of Kindness Foundation is dedicated to inspiring generosity, and the Foundation for a Better Life was established to “help make the world a better place for everyone.”

According to an analysis of federal tax returns, the Anschutz Foundation donated nearly $110 million from 1998 to 2004, with about 80% of the money going to nonprofit organizations in Colorado.

Here it is.  Page 5 references Cal Teachers Retirement Fund having lost money on Qwest, and indicates that there’s been a pattern of stalling payments, waiting til sued for them, then settlin, over a lifetime career and in different industries.  The article discusses his quiet, and low-key but effective influence on Los Angeles:


A Denver Billionaire’s Invisible Hand {<==currently set to page 4}

Industrialist Philip Anschutz, intensely private and `focused beyond belief,’ is quietly changing the face of downtown Los Angeles.

July 23, 2006|Glenn F. Bunting | Times Staff Writer (in The Los Angeles Times). …
 [picking this up as Amoco’s settlement to get its payment moves into Railroads and purchasing the Southern Pacific Transportation Co., which is where Los Angeles real estate comes in…]

“Over the past eight years, Anschutz has employed a myriad of stall tactics to delay certain substantial payments in other settings,” wrote Amoco attorney Timothy Beyer in June 1993. “Its position has been to baldly refuse to pay its obligations…. ”

Railroads   Anschutz amassed one of the largest fortunes in the modern history of the railroad business.

He saw an opening when the U.S. government deregulated the railroads in the 1980s. Anschutz believed that a consolidation of transcontinental lines was inevitable, and he wanted a piece of the action.  {smart guy…}

In 1984, he bought Rio Grande Industries, parent of the ailing Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad, for $500 million. Anschutz paid $90 million in cash and borrowed the rest. Four years later, he merged it with San Francisco-based Southern Pacific Transportation Co. for about $1 billion, most of it borrowed. He also assumed $780 million in Southern Pacific debt.

 So, a whole lot of debt; people are owed money.  Here’s what happened (how he handled that).

Southern Pacific was nicknamed the “Sluggish Pacific” because it was hemorrhaging cash and saddled with aging locomotives. Shortly after the merger, the railroad giant was losing $400,000 a day. …

To stave off bankruptcy, Anschutz sold a slice of the merged railroad to a Japanese shipping line, invested in new equipment and generated $2.2 billion by selling hundreds of parcels of surplus real estate.

The properties included downtown L.A.’s Union Station and 177 miles of rail lines that now carry commuter trains to Los Angeles from Orange County, San Bernardino, Simi Valley and Santa Clarita.

One of the most sought-after assets was the Southern Pacific line along Alameda Street. The cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles needed the right-of-way to build the Alameda Corridor, a high-speed 20-mile cargo expressway connecting their ports to downtown rail yards.

Steve Dillenbeck, then the director of the Port of Long Beach, recalled the first time that local officials met Anschutz over lunch near Pershing Square. After everyone was seated, Anschutz walked in sporting a large silver belt buckle. | “He didn’t say a heck of a lot,” Dillenbeck said. “It was staged very much to show that he is a little extraordinary.”

(See page 5 for the rest, and how QWEST started as a subsidiary of the S. Pacific — telecommunications lines run alongside the railroads (!):

The officials at the table nearly choked on Anschutz’s initial demand: $500 million.

“It is incomprehensible that he would even think we would pay that amount,” Dillenbeck said. “For $500 million, we could have bought the whole railroad.”

The price tag eventually was whittled to $240 million. The final cost of the Alameda Corridor was $2.4 billion, making it the county’s most expensive public works project.

In 1996, Anschutz negotiated a $5.4-billion merger with Union Pacific that made him the largest shareholder of the nation’s biggest railroad. Anschutz had parlayed an initial $90-million investment in the Rio Grande into a $1.2-billion stake in the Union Pacific.

As I said, re: AXS.com (and AEG its owner, wholly owned subsidiary of The Anchutz Company affiliate of The Anschutz Corporation….) why would it preserve data of the Carl Herman expose part while taking over “Examiner.com”?  It needs to have governments at times be able to buy property from it for various purposes, like that Alameda Corridor !!

CalSTRS (State Teachers Retirement System) claims to have lost $150M in Qwest, and planned to sue as of this article (which ends noticing that Anschutz personally doesn’t use a computer, keep his signature on much of anything, or in short, leave much of a footprint which could be used in court to nail his involvement to any such problems….


The Qwest Mess (from p 5 of LA Times 2006 article on “Denver Billionaire’s Invisible Hand” affecting Los Angeles)


So, when it gets down to people who have unearthed, written up, and posted on-line important information regarding our own government entities and financial statements, as Carl Herman did, and posted at “EXAMINER.com” as seen below — click on those links, and you’ll be redirected right to “AXS.com” — does a company like AEG (in all its glorious, global manifestations as shown above) particularly care about this information getting out?  When it has to get cooperation from governments (globally) for its redevelopment projects, or development — and persuade them, no doubt, to deal with the zoning issues — and kick in some bucks (pounds sterling, euros, rmini, rand, whatever the currency)??  Would AEG be particularly interested in this level of detail indicating that perhaps more of the money should be retained at the individual level, rather than helping provide ample “bread and circuses” so they don’t think too hard about financial matters? (Note one of the projects above was even called “Coliseum..”)

From: “Carl Herman”
Subject: L.A. County D.A.: CAFR billions non-disclosure “not a crime,” but won’t explain
Date: Sat, June 30, 2012 8:45 am
To: WalterBurien@cafr1.com

Below and here: http://www.examiner.com/article/l-a-county-d-a-cafr-billions-non-disclosure-not-a-crime-but-won-t-explain

L.A. County D.A.: CAFR billions non-disclosure “not a crime,” but won’t explain 

Regarding the data (video interview explanation here) of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) that show taxpayer surpluses in the literal trillions while government officials tell the public our “only option” is austerity, Los Angeles County District Attorney Office’s Dave Demerjian (Head Deputy Public Integrity Division) wrote me:

The failure to disclose cash reserves is not a crime unless there is some evidence that official documents have been intentionally altered or destroyed to accomplish the non-disclosure.

He did not respond to my follow-up: [I already quoted, and screen-shot the image of it, above]

Click on the examiner linke, or the “data” one and you’ll go straight to AXS.com where you are free to look for anything remotely resembling that information on home page that looks like this:

Examiner.com now redirects to AXS.com (run by AEG -- see website footer banner)

Examiner.com now redirects to AXS.com (run by AEG — see website footer banner)

or, if you wait a few seconds, like this (second image below it).

So THAT’s why we spend so much time saving our work, and at times, imaging it, or others, knowing this is how the world works. You can’t count on anything on-line to last forever and shouldn’t.  So, how is cross-communication going to happen about these things in THIS century if people’s heads are into anything BUT focus on the fiscal, and accounting for their own understanding (or lack of) how governments works?


Returning to my more generic “soapbox” on why a post on Consolidated Governments is relevant today.

(In other words, leaving the fascinating, but complex world of international jurisdictions, foreign exchange rates, and changes of holding companies of a major growth industry (flexible office space, globally) between Old Regus (or “Regus, plc”) and IWG, plc and its financial adviser and custodian bank Investec Bank, plc — and leaving for now the whole “thing” about National Fatherhood Initiative as a business (nonstock) entity, 501©3, network franchise establishment (just about, in this field) and promoter of trademarked trainings involving the dominant roles of males and the duty of females to be indoctrinated into better understanding that — and the duty of the United States of America, ALL of us, to subsidize the same…….

Government operations are a continuum of services, with justifications, with appropriations to allegedly match.  Government receipts include, but are by no means limited to tax and sale revenues, not to mention contributions (employer/employee) to Social Security and Disability trust funds, etc.

Government itself (that is, said “entities”) have definitions which are far more than the typical understandings of:  Federal, State, County, Municipal, and a few “Authorities,” and/or even School Districts.  For example, an entire university system could be a component unit of the State (as I found in Missouri) or organized in some other fashion — but it’s still state-owned, state-operated, and state-funded. Then again, states are also taking in federal funding, sales taxes, and other fees unique to themselves.

So, place the thumbtack on a map somewhere — where you live is as good as anywhere else — and identify the reporting (filing CAFR) entity for that area, including state, county, school district and any other authority.  These entities as the title indicates, can and do often change their definitions, borders, or subject matter jurisdictions.  For example, California for a while had redevelopment agencies — then dissolved them, and local governments had to scramble to find “successor agencies.” In another different year, it split (if I’m remembering it right) the Department of Health Services (ca. 2006).  In yet another, later year, it suddenly restructured its own reporting of a statewide educational system (K-12) statements.

Restructuring is going to happen, and maybe at times it’s beneficial.  But it does cause some problems tracking the fiscal history pre-consolidationm just as could be said with nonprofits which revolve in and out of compliance, or being found in noncompliance (forfeiting an IRS status or business name), someone else comes along and picks it up — or, the same group of leaders simply picks up an entirely different registration with exactly, or almost exactly, the same name.  Or, maybe a quite different name,. depending on whether the wish is to provide a sense of continuity– or distance oneself from that which has just recently been disgraced, or is at risk for it in some manner.

This can and does happen in high-profile entities, as I noticed regarding the lead “Promise Zone” entity for Los Angeles — Youth Policy Institute (YPIUSA.org).  One version claims East-Coast origins since 1983, an honorable geneaology leading as far back as Robert F. Kennedy (one of its founders having been a long-term friend of RFK).  Another version – which I only found because I looked up its California Incorporation – only goes back to 2001.  No question the website is perpetuating the discrepancy and claiming earlier history.

For example, a City Councilperson or County Commissioner might have several different government entity – or even Joint Powers Authority entity- hats legitimately worn.  Same goes for at the State level, from what I can tell.  The people may have rights under only ONE of them, not all, although the other ones might be taking in and taking on major infrastructure projects with private parties — and are often also going to be dealing with federal department (for example, the Department of Transportation is often involved in major metropolitan area JPAs or other cross-jurisdiction government entities).

As I discussed (if it’s yet been published) regarding the Millennium Tower project in San Francisco, a condo development right next to TJPA (Transbay Joint Powers Authority) which they claim caused the ground to sink, and, of course, homes and livelihoods, and the public, to be put at physical and financial risk in downtown San Francisco. And I was doing that primarily to use a concrete analogy for the need to understand government from the fiscal perspective using its own terms — not terms it feeds the public when selling a project…

I found a fascinating 2009 analysis which cited to CAFRs in proving / disproving whether the consolidation reduced expenses for the locals (that is, for government).  In the fine detail, page 21 of this, I discovered, per this report, that the author couldn’t locate ANY Financial Reports immediately predating the consolidation for the two components which unified in the case of Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City Kansas.  Look for this annotated images in the post below


Click here to read full-sized, incl. my annotations. Bottom-right rectangle acknowledges the URL, report will also show discussed (with links and proper acknowledgements) in my post below.

Also from the Bibliography (end) pages of this short 2009 report by Beverly Cain, which studied the effects of consolidation on four specific governments, it’s clear she referenced several years of CAFRS post-consolidation for each area studied.  What I don’t see referenced anywhere in the Bibliography is CAFRs of the consolidating city or consolidating county governments, pre-unification.

See next several images from the same on-line document (I included some references just before or after the list of CAFRs for bookends of some of the lists).   The Impact of City-County Consolidation of Local Government Finances (2009 by Beverly Cain)


Wyandotte County/KCK

screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-23-12-pm screen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-26-01-pmscreen-shot-2017-01-30-at-12-24-30-pm



– – – –



Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

February 6, 2017 at 9:37 pm

%d bloggers like this: