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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for June 2017

Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014**, split in three; this part published June 30, 2017]

with one comment

This post was first written October 25, 2014, about 30,000 words covering the above theme and an extended section, after pointing out the type of organization, looking closer at “NASMHPD” and “Mental Health America,” not to mention showing basic ABA (American Bar Association) and APA (American Psychological Association) Forms 990O, 990 (respectively) tax returns for a glimpse at organization size,** and some of their history, from its own timeline, (**Originally, not including their known related entities, formed much later than the original associations, also.  In the update, I showed and discussed some of those, however).

…not to mention, again taking on the (il)logic of the “Broken Courts” theme for which conference, Amazon books and university-based resources are still active on-line and which also are being promoted in part with foundation backing and via various nonprofits, particularly two from California  associated for years as presenters or participants in the “BMCC” (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) on the East Coast (New York, and in more recent years, Washington, D.C.)

Original/full post title: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”.

These reflect key topics of the blog as a whole — developing a better awareness of this type of nonprofit, professional trade association (not just one or two of them) as an organized tool by those who form them, to push private purposes and theories upon the often-unsuspecting public — because the public typically doesn’t focus on the networked nonprofit sector, let alone the networked nonprofit sector with words implying “government entity” in their names, when they actually aren’t (in other words, functioning something like squatters in public office, to add weight and importance), they are operating in the privately controlled nonprofit sphere,##

AND,

developing an awareness of the means and consequences of having “mental hygiene/illness/health” theme promoted upon the population at large with a focus on screening everyone possible, or claims (by another organization whose original legal name had the word “national” in it, but was not of this type I’m discussing here as referenced in the post title), that is NAMI, that 1 in 5 Americans live(s) with a “mental health condition,” and (shown below and in subsequent post/s from this one’s split) that this also can and has led (through one of the named organizations above) to excessive and harmful promotion of medications (Rx) and paid-for “expert consensus” on which ones to use, when, resulting in harmful side-effects, such as suicide and other causes of death, and other destructive, life-altering conditions.  Key phrases there include:  patented atypical antipsychotics. 

The promotion of organizations and themes focusing on prevalence of mental illness, early prevention and services to promote mental health,  and attempts to turn many basic public institutions — such as the superior courts under state jurisdiction — into behavioral health (modification, training, indoctrination, re-setting of personal values, etc.) revolving doors diverting people who walk through those doors into “community resources” is pervasive and is also reflected in practices and by design, intents, of the family courts.

##That comment may seem harsh, but I believe it’s true and relevant.

Towards the bottom of this post, I had earlier referenced a career attorney working first for in child support Tennessee, but later for Policy Studies, Inc. (deeply involved in the field), and after a long stint there, then for Maximus.  Maximus bought Policy Studies Inc. (one source said) ca. 2012.   Regarding my harsh comment about these organizations, and although Maximus isn’t in the same category, while talking about government privatization with outsized contractors, Maximus has a horrid, fraud-ridden, and frequently-sued record in the US, THEN got contracts for government services in the UK, and continued, allegedly, manipulating the data and falsifying records to the point of harming those the government’s charge was to help, that is, the most vulnerable.  This was debated 2/9/2016 in the UK Parliament (House), which I quoted.  It acknowledged the problem with accountability to the public when the purpose is contracting out services.  In the U.S., “Sourcewatch.org” also reported extensively on Maximus disgraceful track record — yet somehow, it’s still in business.

What I’m looking at here is not just what’s being done (the cause promoted) but the leverage provided by the networked nonprofits intent on pushing the cause — or any other cause they may agree upon, once the mechanism for promoting/pushing it is in place.  These are nets; they are intended to catch people, and they are referred to among the fishers as helpful, good, beneficial and for public service.  I’ve looked closely at the nets, and been caught in some of them, and do not believe this should be the purpose of public institutions.

I’m not a fish!! or somehow less knowledgeable about my own life simply from holding a different position, profession, or place in society, than those who operate in these circles. But, collectively, the public is being treated, if not literally farmed, like fish, that is, simply exploited, under pretty flimsy pretenses, without legitimate argument (that is, OPEN argumentation) and once the infrastructures are well set, privately, in privately networked circles, like the institution and attitudes to match it of, say, slavery, it’s hard to change the dynamics, or channels we (the public) get chased into.



I found it interesting that NAMI (formerly The National Alliance of Mental Illness, Inc.) was only formed, by one account in 1980 (IRS exemption only obtained in 1985), and with an initial statement of focus on mental illness in general, but also seeking biological “causes and treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.” (That image and more images and discussion, especially of how NAMI organized and “reproduced” nationwide, further below), a tactic and approach shared by other do-good, cause-promoting organizations (this topic continued, below).


 

ABOUT THE TIMING of TURNING AN OCT. 2014 DRAFT INTO THREE mid-2017 POST Updates.

I’d thought this had been published. In fact, throughout the second half of 2014 and all of 2015, I’d taken time off publishing posts on the blog (see my TOC page), not time off researching and writing it up, just posting, mostly because my personal situation had heated up (legally) and was in major life transition.

Somehow after resuming it in 2016 and focusing on present tasks, and getting the Table of Contents page organized, I thought — probably because had worked extensively on it, and on the theme, that this post had been published. (See image showing revision dates from administrative part of the blog).  Once involved in a post, or a study theme, I am intensely involved and focused on it; once things are written, they tend to be somewhat off my mind unless related to the current theme, with, of course, all of them building on each other.

Having discovered the error after trying to quote this post, I decided to correct the situation and get it published.  This required splitting it into segments (three), and involved, as it always does, further reflection and some updates on the subject matter.  The updates are mostly shown as “preview” sections.  I also cleaned up the formatting some (paragraph breaks had been lost) and used a font and post format which has since become more standard on this blog).  As usual this process took about a week, and deepened my current internal, mental awareness* “database” of knowledge on, and understanding of, specific organizations and topics. (*And saving the evidence electronically for future reference of course.)


Original/Full Post Title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}.

The basic concept, as one of its “tags” says, is “national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships.” If you can think of a two- or three-word phrase describing this, which would apply to those mentioned above and others in the category, please help out – submit a comment! (Input at the bottom of any post.) A shorter sound-byte to convey the essence is needed.

In function, and as to at least the NGA (only one I’m aware of) in classification, these are not just ordinary nonprofits or 501©3s (or “©6s”) because of their boards, memberships, and chosen names representing several aspects of public office but most of them, by type, seem to be registered as straightforward 501©3s or ©6s.  (The NGA is classified as “deemed to be an instrumentality” per its consolidated financial statements and earlier tax returns; now it’s simply labeled “nonprofit”).

However organized except for the defined “instrumentalities,” it’s their restricted memberships and boards of directors as reflected in the names, and the sense /aura of right, that is governmental jurisdiction, which seems to set them apart and empower them to do things which local legislatures ideally responsive to their state populations only, or having to deal more directly with them, might not get passed.

Some of these organizations have been around a LONG time, others not so long, but we must face that this has been part of the way the US operates since at least the invention of tax-exempt status that seems to have coincided with “tax almost everyone” around 1913, not to mention further changes in the 1930s (between the wars) and yet more after World War II.  That is, these are NOT, for the most part, as associations, Constitutionally mandated or warranted, whether U.S. Constitution or state/territories’ constitutions.

If and when some were set up by an Act of Congress (or other administrative order, if by President or Chief Justice of the US, comes to mind), they are STILL functioning primarily in the private area, and are as such privately controlled, and can legislate as nonprofit to accept direct bribes  contributions by supporting (corporate) partnerships, and exclude whoever they want from memberships.  They are essentially private-equity, private membership clubs (associations) who want to govern, and have been doing it, but more as “squatters”  and by consent through apathy, than by informed consent of those governed.

And the plan is for unified, coordinated forms of control by agreement among the professional associations, apparently, how to recommend handling all sorts of governmental programs, in discussions NOT typically soliciting or receiving input from the lowest form, apparently, of US life, the common citizen, and strategically unaligned (other than perhaps with a political party) person.

Not all in the post’s title list have fully-restricted member eligibility or boards of director eligibility as civil servant-only, but those that don’t (NCJFCJ, NCCD [National Council on Crime & Delinquency], NACC [National Association of Counsel for Children] for example) still tend to focus on public-office and public institutions, or spheres of operation, as their names reflect — and their boards often DO have people fulfilling simultaneous dual-purpose (one, public, the other technically and in reality, private) functions.

By providing dual (public in one role, private in another) contemporary roles for:  Governors (NGA), Lieutenant Governors, State Courts (NCSC), Judges (several, but one entity similar, but not identical to the others focused on two types of courts: juvenile and family (FYI, juvenile came first historically)  would be the NCJFCJ), State Legislatures (NCSL), Attorney Generals, Mayors (US Conference of Mayors),  AND organizing memberships, conferences, and soliciting partnerships from corporations, they are in effect re-organizing and restructuring government itself, but “behind the scenes.”


(RE:  MENTAL HYGIENE/HEALTH/ILLNESS promotion/advocacy; NAMI/TMAP topic, cont’d.):

I”ll color this section light-green background.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). [Publ. June 24, 2017]

with one comment

The “All-Gender World” reference is at the bottom; “All-Gender” bathrooms are showing up in California, which is by grammar declaration there are more than two genders.  Oregon went one step further and became the first state to allow this option on drivers’ licenses.  It does make one wonder about the logic of continuing the gender wars and their funding, if the USA is about to go “All-Gender.”  Just a little humor and call to reason there. The rest of my two-part title reflects the main post content.

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive shortlink ending “-73P”) <==Title.


Fathers’ Day (now, last Sunday).  Bit of a tough time to write a post without going sarcastic about fathers’ rights organizations, possibly offending those who had positive relationships with their own fathers.

I did, basically, other than he didn’t live long enough which I must admit was possibly a factor in why the man I married felt it was OK to slap and throw around, in other words threaten, injure his own pregnant wife, and his own wife raising their two small children, for years until I stopped at least THAT behavior by having him physically separated from where we lived (legal intervention). it did not stop the stalking, and as it turned out, a similar battle had to be fought again, over wider territory, with the same man and his now widened sphere of support, and dramatically lessened financial obligations i.e., demands upon his personal time, and backed by initially two, later FOUR (if you include in-laws) of my own relatives who’d picked a battle to distract from the one I’d just won some ground in — stopping the domestic violence.  


So, during those married (in-home abuse) and post-separation times (family court litigation which continued long after the protective order was removed, reproducing many — not all — of the problem / work interference situations of the marriage, and adding legal costs, ongoing intimidation, and parenting drain on time and resources),  I got a first-hand lesson of how married men (both relatives and some friends), religious men including pastors who knew about the battering at the time it was occurring and others or people who attended gatherings led by pastors, with rare exception/s most single men in my acquaintance through work, and in general MEN often just do not intervene with one of their “kind,” (gender) known to be assaulting his own wife in front of the kids and apart from them, and/or while maintaining economic control making it nearly impossible to flee.  And/or causing major life and work difficulties for single mothers afterwards. I can see why they might not (having their own work and personal/social lives to lead), or why they might, being aware that domestic violence or family violence prevention organizations exist (if they are aware), wrongfully assume some of these are effective once the divorce process begins.

The other factor is, stepping in between a person targeting a woman for abuse and the abuser, puts himself repeatedly at risk for collateral damages, as do some officers stepping in between incidents in process.  This condition, facilitated in large part through the family court process itself and its tendency to strip off restraining orders and focus on “co-parenting” once the process begins, starts to isolate the single mothers from other sources of support they may have already established — including (I found) through their work lives.

Many of the above men might support battered women or such women post-separation, morally, or in some ways during those times socially (or more accurately, permit their wives to where there were wives), but there is a problem with the situation.  It becomes a personal war! Men willing to assault and batter their wives then confronted in this legally don’t automatically change their heads, hearts, or intents, and (I’m speaking from experience here, 21st century), the act of supporting a woman who the other is intent on “getting even with” or destroying, is met with boundary violations of supporters, or enough increased pressure on the woman that more support is required, tending to isolate and drive would-be helpers away. Just as acts of independence, initiative, or self-improvement are met with escalations to counter this.

I’m indebted to one unnamed (and not otherwise described in this post) individual who helped for years post-separation, and took some personal heat from my family for doing so, not to mention significant inconvenience, with nothing to show for it than, I gather, a sense of having adhered to his own moral, social, and charitable values.

I later got a hard lesson in how my own country, at least those in power, still primarily men (see Congress, for example) still seem to view women, in general, as well as how women in power — including in feminist or DV circles as lawyers, professors at major universities (incl. at some of their law schools) — or those running major violence “prevention” organizations — may preach and establish network after network “until the day goes down,” and run public media campaigns against domestic violence, and, case in point locally, “Coaching Boys into Men,” but
at the end of the day” make sure to let the family law situation run its course, not outing HHS fatherhood, access visitation grants, or nonprofits like themselves, very profitably as 501©3s, fill a niche in the fathers’ rights armor — the need to be seen as respecting domestic violence issues and having some women “on board,”  (a niche in the conflict zone), while not actually revealing the “supply lines” of the continuing conflicts (<==This sentence revised post-publication to clarify meaning).

The more nonprofit websites and Forms 990 (or audited financial statements, where available) I looked at, the clearer the situation becomes. I doubt one post could explain it, but this one has some of the evidence.


ALSO, in this post, the excerpts and quotes I show regarding welfare reform and pushing marriage/fatherhood programming prove that it was not, as we’ve been led to believe or as some imply, really a political issue. Marriage/fatherhood and promoting it through social services seems to be the one area both progressive and conservative foundations could and did agree on, and did not radically protest at the time.  Major foundations from sides are also engaged in it, as we speak.  Nothing like a politically incorrect, but instinctively and historically gut-level felt common enemy [independent women with equal access to power, nationwide, single mothers not made financially dependent on either men, or the state [controlled by men], bottom-line, women] that while you can’t get away with it by direct name-calling, but can by indirect name-calling ([female-headed households, “fatherlessness,” out-of-wedlock childbearing].

This gut-level fear/hate to the point of being willing to wage a war over it sentiment is unacceptable (at least to mainstream liberals) on “in-your-face” on mainstream media, but in private conferences, and networks until the funding is in place, and letting the public think it’s a political (Left/Right, Democrat/Republican) issue to keep the public debates off-track, constantly — no problem!  (<==Another post-publication rewrite to clarify some double-negatives and conditional sentences.  If that didn’t clarify, just move on to the exhibits!]

Wait til you see the exhibits, and my annotations before you mentally dismiss the above statement.  I was surprised, too, and have been (for years), but I believe when I see the evidence, time and again….

Instead of calling WOMEN and MOTHERS [not under control of or in relationships with “their” men] bad, although it basically communicates this anyhow, it coined a term, “fatherlessness” (a sort of paper tiger) and threw programming and millions of dollars against it, and, unilaterally, just about, marriage good; having children outside marriage, bad.  Then went after “fatherlessness” in both married, and unmarried households where the children lived with their mothers.     I have many exhibits today, so let’s get right down to it.

The attempt to distinguish itself from right-wing extremists was under way.  Let the public fight them, and not notice the other networks being set in place…..


Tough not to be mis-taken as going after the entire male gender as a whole, or all fathers.

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive, shortlink ending “-73P”) <==Title.

This confusion of usage discourages anyone taking the appropriately tough stand against the legitimacy and honesty of the premises allegedly underlying the practice, research, and profession of “fatherhood” created post- and pre-welfare reform of 1996, and spread rapidly (helped in part by certain groups NOT reporting on it consistently) through the modern electronic marvel called the Internet and with it, websites providing downloadable (fatherhood) curricula, resource centers (sometimes called “Clearinghouses”) and holding webinars for certification, etc., etc.

Another source muddying understanding of government vs. “not-government” (and so, private business or enterprise) arises when not just one, but whole series of private organizations with public officials’ names in their legal business names is said, and portrays itself as actually representing U.S. citizens’ best interests while networking, as they do, together in conferences to determine policy which are then fed (having avoided the normal means for citizen input to legislators, or such public officials) in the policy formation process.   (See recent post.  Link repeated below): Why Bother To Unravel the Proliferation of Private Associations Representing Public Offices? …. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6ZS”) (published June 16, 2017 and lists several of them, details a few of them…, like these two, in fact a “two-for-one” combo):

Notice top concept on banner is organization by REGION. Below that are ten topic areas. Mimics, in some ways, HHS Regional Centers, and OpDivs (only HHS is restricted to “Health and Human Services” whereas CSG as you can see, isn’t.)

At the same street address as CSG, but a legally separate entity whose tax returns you basically can’t (unlike CSG’s) read — because it’s been filing Form 990-N postcards instead, is a still influential “CSG Justice Center, Inc.” with a different logo:Click images for one of the two

Our Supporters

The work of the CSG Justice Center is made possible through the generous support of a diverse collection of sources. Over the past three decades, we have received significant federal funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That support has spanned four administrations and reflects deep bipartisan support in Congress for the issue areas on which we focus. Dozens of private foundations—local, regional, and national in focus—have also awarded grants to the CSG Justice Center. In addition, the private sector, such as companies working in health, telecommunications, and banking, have contributed financial support to our organization. A growing number of state governments (such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia) and local governments (such as Seattle, Harris County, TX, and Baltimore County, MD) contract with the CSG Justice Center for an array of services. Click here to see a full list of our past and present funders.Follow the CSG Justice Center on Twitter at @CSGJC or on Facebook at @CSGJusticeCenter.

(Where I found CSG Justice Center, Inc’s EIN# off-site)

Providing a list of funding agencies, foundations, and private companies is nice, but that’s not what readers, and citizens who fund those AGENCIES through tax receipts deserve — which is accounting statements for money received, with (a) EIN# (b) Donor dates © donor amounts, (d) grant OR contract purposes, (e) audited financial statements FOR the CSG Justice Center, Inc., if appropriate — and judging by what its telling IRS (which minimizes its revenues received) ALL of that above must be giving it just tiny bits at a time over four decades — or it’s hiding how much it actually is receiving. The failure to offer up financial information (even an EIN#!) by a nonprofit entity, especially one like this associated with CSG (above), is a red flag.

The CSG Justice Center has a well-developed website reporting yet more collaborative and interagency councils at the federal level, like this one. https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/firc/snapshots/

Federal Interagency Reentry Council

The Reentry Council, established in January 2011, represents a significant executive branch commitment to coordinating reentry efforts and advancing effective reentry policies. It is premised on the recognition that many federal agencies have a major stake in prisoner reentry. The reentry population is one we are already working with — not only in our prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities, but in our emergency rooms, homeless shelters, unemployment lines, child support offices, veterans’ hospitals, and elsewhere. When we extend out to the children and families of returning prisoners, the intersection is even greater.

A chief focus of the Reentry Council is to remove federal barriers to successful reentry, so that motivated individuals – who have served their time and paid their debts – are able to compete for a job, attain stable housing, support their children and their families, and contribute to their communities. Reentry Council agencies are taking concrete steps towards these ends, to not only reduce recidivism and high correctional costs but also to improve public health, child welfare, employment, education, housing and other key reintegration outcomes.

The federal agency (not private nonprofit named after “state governments”) HHS, under HMRF.ACF.HHS.Gov also had a natural focus on Prisoner Re-entry underneath its marriage/fatherhood programming (next few images. Notice that the top of the page says HMRF, but the links and content includes Re-Entry programming.  Some pages I’ve excerpted read “last reviewed June 16, 2017.”  Notice the funding is $150M/Year for 5-year period, and it at least lists how many organizations got the grants.  It doesn’t, however (also notice) suggest to the reader where they might go look up some more — like at TAGGS.hhs.gov!

1 of 4 (see also pdf listing that year’s grantees by type and state). Note left sidebar and reference to ReFORM (re-entry programming)

2 of 4 from HMRF.ACF.HHS.gov

3 of 4 from HMRF.ACF.HHS.GOV (and “see more” links at bottom of each successive page)

Click to read the whole list (about 2pp) from in pdf formta. Shown is just the Re-entry portion.

 

[And more like them where these entities showed up…]

 



That 6/16/17 post tells why it is important to unravel by doing so for two or three big (widely networked, and long-standing) ones, such as the “Council of State Governments” and American Public Human Services Association” and its “affiliate” entities, one focused on TANF, and the at-large member of that particular network (from Oklahoma DHS) was also found Sept. 2015 (therefore I found… again…) participating in a PEERTA network where well-known fathers’ rights group (reframed now as “families” not just fathers, while still pushing the same basic idea and initiative, and boasting about its networking with others who also do), CFUF.org.  See that post for details; several images involved.

I first started noticing these (as I recall) promoting fatherhood initiatives directly to the governors in conference (National Governors’ Association), but this wasn’t put on-line and once on-line, pointed out, that I’m aware of,  by ANY protective parents, family violence prevention, domestic violence prevention, feminist anti-domestic violence lawyer famous in the field or, from what I can tell, any of the nonprofit entities formed by the same….

…(for example, DVLEAP, or National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, or at the time, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, or even (Florida) family lawyer Elizabeth Kates (advertising with Lisa Marie Macci, family law appeals statewide), whose “LizLibrary” arguing against parental alienation and many interesting, and still relevant issues, is or at least I know was when I was more involved on-line networking, before focusing primarily on this blog, well-known in “protective mothers'” circles (those who were blogging the issues) ranks.

Before I show, the NGA’s work promoting fatherhood and fathers’ rights nationwide via the state’s governors (which I doubt shows up on lizlibrary), I went back to look at LizLibrary.org.

I should probably address the situation in a new post, one of these days.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 24, 2017 at 8:45 pm

Good Cop, Bad Cop (not to mention Camouflage) in the Federally-Funded Gender War, Classic Examples (Inset, Callout or Footnote to my other 6/24/2017 post)

with one comment

Re: Good Cop, Bad Cop (not to mention Camouflage) in the Federally-Funded Gender War, Classic Examples (Inset, Callout or Footnote to my other 6/24/2017 post) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-74c”).


In a newsletter or journal, or textbook layout, there are times a call-out or inset, supplementary detail is appropriate.  Here, maybe consider it an inset, or a footnote.  Either way, the box below in teal (green-blue) borders and print near the bottom of the post below, and its lead-in paragraph didn’t stand fully on its own in summarizing the “scenario,” and was interrupting the flow of a post already detailed in summarizing something similar, but not identical.  That post: ….1. The War on Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive, shortlink ending “-73P”)

So I moved it here.

I then added the “House Divided Against Itself” section, quoting from (basically) three different times and sources in hopes this may also better explain what I am seeing and concerned about currently.
Read the rest of this entry »

Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) [Publ. June 18, 2017]

with one comment

Speaking of genetics, here’s the geneaology of this post Speaking of Projects and Nonprofits Funded by The Broad Foundation…. How about The Broad Institute (and its role in waging Patent Wars over CRISPR (Gene Perturbation, RNA/DNA cutting-edge research) with UCBerkeley?) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-720” that “0” is a zero, not O as in “Ohio.”).  

My unpaid, ad hoc “developmental editor” (sounding board for coherence, flow, and how it communicates the central ideas, not personally involved in the primary content I report on, by now familiar with the blog and my writing style), suggested I not dilute the middle of the previous (parent) post (“Why Bother to Unravel….”) with this fascinating information on another Broad Foundation project at Harvard & MIT.

I didn’t want to add this fascinating information to the end of the “Why Unravel…?” post (full title and starting sentences — see image below left)  — it was too relevant and interesting to be that far down — so a new post it is as of June 15, 2017 (so far). (and now published..//LGH)

I already had a second, more detailed (older sibling?) post** started on the same topic, so this can stand in as a preview. (**The Broad Institute (MIT,Harvard, TBF*, 2008) and Stanley Family Foundation (see MBI, Inc.)-funded Psychiatric Research (“schizophrenic, bi-polar”) Testing & Treatment Advocacy (TAC) and Gene-Editing (CRISPR-Cas9) USPTO Patent Wars with UCBerkeley et al. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-71z” and post started June 14, 2017, currently in draft published in July). I’ll post the link again at the bottom.

After following that ad hoc editor’s advice, I then somewhat ignored it by still leaving in a shorter section, (a “footprint”– image below-right with extended caption) then expanding further upon another of the organizations of the type I was blogging, that is, upon the Council of State Governments, an association of the same generic “type” as the one which had received a $10.5M grant long ago for a MIA (“Missing-In-Action” that is, not to be found in anything resembling $10.5M worth of product, or as described) project by the Council of Chief State School Officers.  From the earlier version of The Broad Foundation (dba of “The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation.”)

Snapshot of my June 16 2017 post, the section referring to The Broad Institute (involving Harvard, MIT & The Broad Foundation) and their recent patent wars with UCBerkeley over CRISPR processes), and the “footprint” of Broad Institute info left at the “Why Unravel” 6/16/2017 post more on private associations named after public officials or entities (State legislators, Governors, Mayors, City Managers, School Facilities Planners, or, case in point, Chief State School Officers).


But first, a bit of “genealogy” of The Broad Foundation, or as they now say “The Broad Foundations.” (their financial statements identify what’s meant by that — includes one related to art).

I’ll pick up the narrative with a reminder below this section.

First, A Bit About The Broad Foundation

(Some consciousness-raising from its website, global financial history events in mainstream media about an insurance company it bought for $52M, sold for $18B a generation later, after which the US Taxpayers had to bail out the insurer for $85B, AND they also paid some of its CEOs $165M to stay on and straighten out the mess they’d made, and pay a nearly $1 billion settlement to shareholders.  As I’m reviewing this, and the startup of the Broad Institute at JUST ABOUT the same time, I’m also remembering how the Broad Foundation (will summarize below again) switched its EIN# and corporate Entity#s, moving assets smoothly from one to another, while persuading the IRS it wasn’t a real termination of the earlier one.

In addition (as it reminds me) exceptions were made for their “Broad Center” (with both old and new nonprofits focused on training urban education leaders) on its 990s, despite being primarily funded by The Broad Foundation (old & new EIN#s both) in stating that the major philanthropic foundation wasn’t “really” a related entity (as the IRS form prompts to reveal), despite being the major funder and having major overlap of board of directors in common (typical indicators).  I won’t post that info here (might have previously), or it might overburden this post, but will respond to any comment asking for the details.  Or, you can go through the process I did, and read the involved Form 990s of all four entities around the time of transition.  I posted some of it near the bottom of my recent (June 16, 2017) post.)


“Broad” in this foundation is not pronounced like a derogatory term for women, but to rhyme with “road” or “Rhodes” as in a Rhodes scholarship.  

Current website features education first (Education, Science, and the Arts) and uses very large font, many pictures and bright colors, while (as I found with theBroadCenter.org) no easy link to find the financials. A link to “Foundation Report” will instead lead to descriptions of their projects.  No audited financial reports and certainly no Form 990PFs (next two images).

It also has the short version of their astounding success from humble origins (Detroit Public Schools, Michigan State, married straight out of college, Eli Broad went from CPA to homebuilder [nationwide AND France], making homes without basements therefore more affordable to young people, Kaufman & Broad for a while, also purchasing SunLife (retirement savings for the Baby Boomers he was already selling homes to), and moving to Los Angeles by 1963:

In 1971, Eli acquired SunLife, a small insurance company founded in 1890, for $52 million and transformed it into a new business that would answer another essential public need: offering secure retirement savings to aging Baby Boomers—the same customers who bought homes from Kaufman and Broad. SunAmerica, as Eli renamed the company, provided retirements for a generation of Americans. The company was the best-performing on the New York Stock Exchange for a decade, brought thousands of jobs to Los Angeles and created wealth for its employees, shareholders and Eli’s family when he sold the company to AIG for $18 billion in 1999.

AIG was world’s largest insurer.  Only nine years later, after the Broads got out of it, with MAJOR profits creating no doubt debt to be funded, in 2008, the U.S. taxpayers bailed out AIG…. Wall Street Journal article (see image.  Unfortunately, WSJ  wants a subscription to read it all; but I’ll bet most of my readers over the age of 20 may remember events of 2008).  (U.S. to Take over AIG in $85 Billion Bailout: Central Banks Inject Cash as Credit Dries Up | Emergency Loan Effectively Gives Government Control of Insurer; Historic Move Would Cap 10 Days That Reshaped U.S. Finance)

WSJ on AIG Takeover (date: Sept. 2008)Click image if needed to read the preview shown

An April 11, 2017 retrospective in “The Balance.com” by Kimberly Amadeo, recounts how the AIG bailout made (then-chairman of the Federal Reserve) Benanke angrier than anything else.  A good reminder of how it happened and how many were involved, I’d read it…
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Why Bother To Unravel the Proliferation of Private Associations Representing Public Offices? Well, re: the sponsored database project SchoolMatters.com, That Might be a $10M Question for “The Council of Chief State School Officers” (CCSSO.org) in D.C., Grantee, and “The Broad Foundation,” in Los Angeles, Donor. (Publ. June 16, 2017)

with 5 comments

This post:

Published without tags, about 13,500 words (including captions to its many images), Friday, June 16, 2017.

By the time you read this, if you’re still in denial about the extensive networks of private associations involving government officials on the board, or restricted to them as members (but — hey, let’s not reject some donations — not as sponsoring partners or “Associates”) and that while government at different levels continues to fund such entities, they aren’t exactly advertising the inter-relationships on gov’t websites, or the financials on the association websites — and that these associations operate in the private, nonprofit sector with intent to affect the government sector (at all levels) bypassing normal input from citizens — then please seek personal help.  Fast.  You’re cognitively disabled.

* My last two at June 15, 2017.

Maybe this post should have preceded the two I just unleashed,* for just one example of why we ought to be talking about and in terms of the hidden scaffolding of private associations dedicated to individual government positions (Governor, Mayor, Chief Justice — or, case in point here, Chief State School Officer — State TANF Administrator, not to mention, below state level, City or County Manager, Child Support Enforcement Directors, etc.) or entities (State Court, Legislature, etc.).  Every branch of state-level government is covered with some association.

There’s even an association called “Council of State Governments” (EIN# 366000818) which proudly describes itself as serving all three branches of (state) governments, and being the only national organization to do so. This is not one to lose sight of…particularly with their “CSG Justice Center” which has its own EIN# (56-2655371) and Identity — sort of — but is “℅” the CSG. (Keep reading, I discuss it below).  Sections in purple-background color + any related images:

(<=EIN#366000818, that links to its latest tax return showing about $33M Total Gross assets, and where its $36M Gross Receipts came from, went to, and are being held.

For example, in a symptom of “fantastic” stewardship, (see Pt X Balance Sheet, Assets) ALMOST NONE is being held in public traded securities, or income-producing assets, but $26M in “Savings and temporary investments.”).

In a symptom of “fantastic” awareness of how to follow instructions on an IRS Form, that is, to label different sources of its own $36M of revenues being held in cash, not investments to produce some sort of revenue which might reduce their need for contributions (or membership dues of $7M), this nonprofit (coordinating efforts to coach all three branches of state governments AND with a program to draft suggested state legislation), on  Pt. VIII, Statement of Revenues, Line 1 shows $11M total”Contributions,” none from “Government.**” ($7M from membership dues — no doubt from member government entities’ budgets — and only $4M from “other contributions.”  However, Line 2 on the same page shows they’ve (improperly) lumped “Grants (which belong on Line 1) and Contracts (Line 2) together under $17M of revenue.  Could some of that be, actually, government grants?  Or more corporate?  Certainly.  In fact, (see image, or Page 2, Pt. III Line 4a) they admit it is and even name  some of the federal granting agencies.  Foundations are also granting to it (improperly listed on Pt. VIII Ln2 also)

But a higher number on Line 2 makes it look like more valuable services are being provided, and justifying the high percentage spent on employees for this entity.)

Page 1 FY2014 Council of State Gov’ts Form 990 (Hdr Info only)

From PtX Assets –notice almost nothing (relative to the total assets) listed after Ln 10 (Land, buildings equipmt), which isn’t much either. See large total. $26M of this (NS in image, see tax return) is on Ln2, Savings. See (related image) Pt.VIII Ln3, Revenues — little investment income).

Pt VIII, Statemt of Revs (Lns 1-3 only)

Pt. VIII, Page 2 Lns 4abcd, Progr Serv Accomplishmts.

Sched O (Supplemental Info). Note it has a website for explaining the Form 990 at top. CSG didn’t follow, though.

EACH IMAGE above is ANNOTATED (relating to above para.) I also have more on the CSG below on this post.  The information is disturbing at a gut level, on quick review of just FY2014:  it’s mis-categorizing revenues, avoiding explanation of its high “Consultant Expenses” where required, and running the “Pt. III Line 4c avoidance” tactics, which this year failed to account for over $892,000–almost $1M — of Line4d expenses, as well as not posting its financial statements (but people may request them).  I didn’t even post an EXTENDED section on attempts to draft legislation affecting the criminal justice system (Sched D details), or Sched C details, its attempt to bypass an Ethics Commission requirement to register as a lobbyist (when it was actually lobbying) in one or more states, or that its primary “Other Liabilities” (almost exactly matching its $11M admitted contributions) are “due to managed organizations which brings up the question — which ones?  All or some of its listed “affiliates”?   For the record, the Council of Chief State School Officers (different — and not listed as an “affiliated” org at CSG.org), of this post, has about the same Total Assets per its tax returns.

 

(The reasoning for Council of State Governments (<=its website) I guess, being, “What the heck — why not combine all three branches created originally for separation of powers, and unify them into just one master-planning entity membership organization? After all, wouldn’t this be more efficient use of “scarce governmental resources” and result in better “evidence-based” policies?”).

CSG is active in criminal justice reform, one thing I discovered (as I recall) long ago tracking some HHS | “HMRF” programming.  The tax return tells about this, too, on a Sched C or D attachment, in detail.  Some webshots from the “CSGJustice Center “Collaborative Approaches to Public Safety.” show: what by sectors, what it’s doing, that it’s “120 employees spanning three time zones,” and, at the bottom (in almost invisible print) who funds the website, and a disclaimer for any responsibility on what it says on behalf of those federal agencies providing funding (!):

This website is funded in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 16, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Yet Another “Recent Research Suggests” link (2015 quoting pre-2010 source) unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp. and Its Also Recently Re-branded Partner, ALL Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. [Publ. June 10, 2017]

with one comment

Read THIS post,

Yet Another “Recent Research Suggests” link (2015 quoting pre-2010 source)~ unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp. and its (Yet Another, Also Recently Re-branded) Partner, ALL Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. (with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6Wy”),

together with another one called:  School Facilities Planning Roundtables (2008 in California) and the Internationally-conferencing Trade Association Re-Branding Runaround (case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Zr”), both to be published, I hope, today, June 10, 2017. They have been about a week in process as more organizations, publications, and interrelationships continued to surface.


The material on the above to two posts came out of a page so long I provided an orange-bordered (like this) roadmap to its alternating-background-colors sections — in fact, from a reference in road-map section which identified a previously unknown professional association of the “School Facilities Planning” persuasion.

I already copied and have published the top third of the long “Page “to a “Post” promoting it:

Here are links to first the top one-third (post), with its long title, then the whole thing (page) with its shorter title), each with a color scheme as found on its place on FamilyCourtMatters.org:

Promoting Page added May 27, 2017, on “The Whole Nine Yards”: Who’s Been REstructuring the PK-12 School Planning Infrastructure; the Capital Appreciation Bonds [raising funds for school facilities] Scam; CAFRs; Unbelievably Unethical, Internationally-Conferencing 501©3s; Where University Centers, each University’s Supporting Foundations (sometimes plural); and of course Many VFFs (Very Famous Foundations) Coordinate for Cradle-to-Career GLOBAL Control (of Education).”  Here’s the ==> case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6WW” to that extended title!

[That] PAGE title, with its case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6TM” is:

About My Blog Motto (formerly on Vital Info/Sticky Links post, moved here  May 26, 2017).

All four links will be repeated at the end of this blog, some in the middle, and in addition there are titles and links to other developing posts herein you’ll see, all related to same central theme, representing research already done and soon to be posted. And, as usual, there are plenty of captioned images and internal links to outside material to make and support my points in posting on this topic.


Ironically, the shorter post title includes the phrase “The Whole Nine Yards.” Since the phrase came up (came to mind as a label for the whole mess of information), let’s talk terminology:

“The Whole Nine Yards” is a common use phrase of colloquial origin.  It gets the point across.  Unfortunately many common-use phrases regarding government financing and operations — including of schools — including planning to expand or renovate the existing school infrastructure — and how money should be raised for this — and who controls distribution of it, and the school renovation/expansion infrastructure–  come with all kinds of tax and income level references and short- and long-term consequences. “It’s a whole different ballpark” and NOT understanding their points of origin can be disastrous to the average person tossing those terms around without realizing what they refer to and, from that realization, and what they and those shooting them off in “for-public-discussion” media, specifically wish to avoid referring to, which might be summarized as “The Whole Nine Yards” of a trade and commercial sector in motion towards certain destinations (that is, with payloads for certain few, though it’s a large sector, persons at the expense of most others.

“The Whole Nine Yards,” just means “everything,” per me (I used it!) and Wikipedia, has a simple basic meaning that works OK in the colloquial arena. It’s the point of reference and origins that have puzzled experts.

A Few More Inches of Post about That Phrase and where Casual, Common-use terms Trap wise-sounding Discussions into Closed-Circuit, Going-Nowhere Collective Behaviors.  

Let’s look at the difference between colloquial phrases which work, harmlessly, for their limited purposes, and common but casually tossed-around words referencing technical, ongoing vital relationships which, generation after generation, describe and define our relationships with this country, and the states, counties, special authority districts — and school districts, and who pays how much interest on which capital infrastructures they probably will be using, periodically but will never actually own or control.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm

School Facilities Planning Roundtables (2008 in California) and the Internationally-conferencing Trade Association Re-Branding Runaround. [Publ. June 10, 2017]

with one comment

Put THIS post School Facilities Planning Roundtables (2008 in California) and the Internationally-conferencing Trade Association Re-Branding Runaround (case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Zr”) together with this one, please, called: Yet Another “Recent Research Suggests” link (2015 quoting pre-2010 source)~ unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp. and its (Yet Another, Also Recently Re-branded) Partner, ALL Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. (with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6Wy”)


Some images from this post give a  preview of its contents:

CEFPI (“Where great schools begin) logo shown (2013) on an “Education Markets” Association web page as a “Partner,” the website (vs. 501©6 name) was “EdSpaces.com.” Click image to see the Dec. 2013 conference page

[CLICK IMAGE for more from “ABOUT US” page] The Education Market Association (EDmarket) is the leading trade organization for the educational products marketplace. [TIMELINE shows this name dates only back to 2013 before which it was the National School Supply & Equipment Association (NSSEA). EDmarket puts the collective experience of the most successful school industry businesses in the world at your fingertips. EDmarket represents companies of all sizes that produce and deliver every type of product you find in an education environment. Founded in 1916, EDmarket promotes an open market for quality educational products and services that are produced and delivered by professional suppliers and dealers.


Ideally, both posts will be posted today, June 10, 2017.  I could do more work on this section (i.e., post more of the material I researched, including more screenprints and narratives explaining the issues the tax returns present).  But I’m taking a short break from it after some very intense days working through the material.

Also — is this not true? — once the point has been raised, anyone of reasonable intelligence and persistence, with familiarity to IRS Forms 990 (or 990O, 990PF where that may apply) could also look through any tax return to see if it’s:

  • complete
  • internally consistent in both labeling (i.e., if grants were provided — say so on where the form prompts for information about grants (In a Basic Form 990, 2008ff (the form changed around that time) that’d be:  Page 1 Summary; Page 2 under “program service accomplishments” (lines 4a,b,c & d, “Expenses…. including grants of …”), Part VIII IX (Statement of Expenses) Line 1 “Grants” and if there are some, find the corresponding Schedule (“I” for domestic, “F” for outside the US) showing “GRANTS TO WHOM.” And where the form prompts for a grantee EIN#, was it provided.  Was the listing of grantees even legible and so forth.
  • internally consistent for numbers reported under each section.

And, to:

  • simply look at the various pages, and extract the organization’s statements about itself, its activities, any related (Schedule R) entities, and any “anomalies” such as having a major cost under “salaries” while claiming NO employees.
  • look at progression or changes in funding, expenses, or how tax return is filled out (incl. Schedule A of support) over time (including earlier returns especially).
  • if there’s a number requiring explanation in an attached Schedule (such as Schedule “O”), notice if that explanation is given on the uploaded document you are viewing.
  • notice when and whether patterns of avoidance seem to recur.
  • if the entity is large ($50-$100M assets, or over $1B or more, as some major foundations are), where are the largest expenses, and if that’s grantmaking, which grantees get the biggest ones over time.
  • just be observant!

If questions come up on what is the filing rule, another source of information is simply the IRS itself (they do have an 800#) and as I read, some questions whether I’m understanding the instructions on the form do come up.  BUT, you can still learn a lot about any entity from its tax return, or better yet, from several from the same entity, one year compared to others, a lot more than if you never looked it up!

I use the word “entity” often because there are “non-entities” posing as “entities,” for example when a named program or initiative is spoken about as if it had a life of it’s own, that program or initiative is probably someone else’s (some other entity’s, or combination of entities’) puppet, or prop.  NO program or initiative exists in a vacuum; it’s going to occur in a context (platform, stage) and it has promoters, and even if it’s 100% volunteer run (the exception), it has costs.

The word “entity” also prepares us to distinguish between government or business entities, which then locates them on the tax continuum (government entities CAN tax, but their profits are not taxed.  They may and do pay employment tax for their employees — but the overall government entity’s excess revenues after all expenses and overhead, no matter how large it may be, IS NOT TAXABLE.  Business entities occur in for-profit and not-for-profit forms, i.e., taxable (depending on the level of income after write-off of expenses and so forth), or not.  Look at any Form 990 Schedule R, [2008ff] “related entities” and notice they are divided into categories “disregarded” “tax-exempt” “taxable as a corporation” and “taxable as a partnership or trust.”

Apparently those distinctions (terms) are meaningful to the IRS, and they should be to us when programs in the public interest are promoted and reported on to us, or (should we eavesdrop on the industry journals and roundtables where they are provided on-line) to each other.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 10, 2017 at 6:52 pm

%d bloggers like this: