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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 updated + Publ. July 10, 2017, Pt. 3A)

leave a comment »

Elongated post title reflects content after a three-way split of a previously unpublished (because I mistakenly thought it had been published!) post from late October, 2014, a situation I am now correcting in late June 2017 after trying to cite to this post to better explain the recurring topic of networked nonprofits named after public agencies. AND to increase public awareness of major professional associations in the tax-exempt sector collaborating together for population control, behavioral modification, etc., all allegedly for the public interest.

This is “Part 3.” Blog followers may have heard that explained twice before, but newcomers may have not. This post is a blend of updated information and previous insights + narrative; the updates include more visuals (especially excerpts of tax returns).

 Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3A) (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-76j” generated by WordPress)

The APA and ABA

They are the American Psychological Association (since 1892, incorporated 1925, last “Gross receipts” from the tax return posted on their website, $160 million, assets $236 million) [@ tax latest return posted Oct. 2014; update below shows $200M gross receipts but total assets $230M], and the American Bar Association (since 1878, incorporated ____,** last “gross receipts” posted tax return, $152.6 million and the assets $329 million) [*@ Oct. 2014; updates below].   **This info left blank because:  the last 3 tax (FY2012, -13 and -14; 2016 not posted yet on “Form990finder”) returns left it blank; before that, some said 1905, before that, 1878.  Before 2008, the IRS Form didn’t ask legal domicile and year founded as part of the header info.  I went to Illinois Cyberdrive Search to look up the corporate registration (which comes with plenty of disclaimers), and it currently says, in the details page, only 1992- – which cannot be right.  I went to D.C. business entities search (a site I’m familiar with) — the web page and URL had been changed and my username (free registration) no longer recognized — at which point, I figure, leave it blank!]

Both the ABA and APA organizations have related entities -a specific term which relates to and affects their tax returns and financial reports; the term means related if one controls the others, or with common leadership but with separate EIN#s and legal names.  For example, from an independently audited financial statement FY2012 for the American Bar Association references some, but not ALL its related entities.  But this wouldn’t be known at first reading — the tax returns reference others  (See first image. Screenprints from the APA’s recent financial statements, including its “Note 1” describing APA’s related entities reflected in the statements, are shown further below on this post.)

ABA statement regarding which entities are in its Consolidated Audited FS for those years (2012, 2013) show only three, however there are more ABA-related entities shown on tax returns…

And, as you realize if you think about it, both the ABA and the APA also have affiliates or chapters at the state and county level, although these are not registered as “related entities” on the main organizations’ (APA + ABA’s) tax returns or audited financial statements. However these may be organized or named as fiscally separate business entities, these also are linked together and networked by both purpose and long association (meaning, within each major discipline, i.e., whether law or psychology).

For example, some recent Form 990 search results (FY2015 only, ABA only) of such state-level associations and within two of our larger states (NY, CA). You will be able to see which column they are sorted by (next link, and three images with gray-and-white striped tables with blue header rows). Some major states (California, Texas, Florida) Bar Associations didn’t even show up in the search results which raises another question:  How many of us would know nationally, off-hand, about how many state and county-level (a) bar and (b) psychological associations exist, and where to find their exact names in a list, from which their tax returns could be looked up, for size, leadership, or activities? Would the ABA and APA main websites tell this? (I checked ABA for “Member list” and was asked to join, and warned that the list was proprietary– but that may be for individual ABA members).  State level bar associations don’t appear to be required to follow an exact name format, probably, and even if they did, would the capacities and/or quirks of the standard charitable databases that might be searched reveal all of them? (990finder.foundationcenter.org despite its convenience, often has search results whose organization names do not match the underlying tax returns, which I’ve known for a while now).

  • Actually, here’s the ABA interactive map of the US for search of “State and Local Bar Associations“). Under California (of course — where I live!), the State Bar of California, is described as an arm of the Judicial Council, and “Unified.” It’s listed among the 38 pages (for the state).  It would then take several other steps to locate their respective tax returns for a generic idea of the assets maintained, or operations.   State Bar of California website says it processes $30M of grants to legal aid organizations throughout the state, that it was organized in 1927, and more.
  • So, to get a national result, I guess one would have to do at least 50 searches and compile results…

I then did two Form990 searches specifically for NY (one of the largest) and for California (and THE state bar association didn’t show up in those results, but it gives a flavor of the diversity of named bar associations, whether by geography (county, city or for some larger cities, parts of a city), or by demography (Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Women, Mexican, etc.) — each one a separate organization, many likely with their own related entities, such as foundations.  The next link is simply an interactive search (entity names links on it are clickable). I had done FY2016 only, but so few results showed, I backed it up one year.

Form 990 Srch Results YR=2015 NAME= State Bar Association Of bring up only 18 (Org Names=Active Links in the pdf) printed July8 2017 (2pp of results)<==Why several major state’s listings aren’t shown, DNK — may be a factor of the database’s labeling, or how they are titled.  But the absence of state bar associations tax returns from MAJOR states in such a search is unusual…Note most are filing Form 990Os).

2015 State Bars sorted by Total Assets 7/8/2017. Click to enlarge (true for most images herein).

Search Results within NY, Year 2015, sorted by $$

Search Results 2015 within CA, sorted by $$










Currently, the APA (P for “Psychological”) shows only one related tax-exempt entity, formed in 2001, but a recent (FY 2015) tax return shows it’s focused on promoting the profession across national lines (i.e., states, territories and provinces), by lobbying and organizationally, and as small as it is, relatively speaking, it shares about 50% of its revenues (“expenses”) as for “Payments to Affiliates” — which the fine print shows means the APA itself and possibly another related entity, the APA PAC (political action committee), EIN#000522094 also in D.C.

The same tax return then granted out a portion of is proceeds to others — and a three-page printout of “to whom” reveals minor grants ($15K, $20K range) to a variety of more local psychological associations, most by geography.  While those grantees are not showing as “related entities” to either APA or the APAPO, they are benefitting from its operations…

Grantees from p2 of 3 APA PO entity reflect various state-level psychological assoc’ns (see FY2015 return, or link to Sched I of Grants, all 3 pp, nearby in this post.

the APA PO lists two Related Entities, one of which (red oval) is a PAC, the other is APA proper.

the APA PO decribes what its reason for existence is, notice not limited to US only

The APA PO (EIN# on image) references Two Categories of Members, Practice Constituents and Education Constituents (who pay into a certain trust, not identified readily on the Form 990.

APAPO EIN#522262196 FY2015 (45pp) (Sched I of Grants only Grants were USD 471 268 Other Exps (mostly Paymts back to the APA) USD 3 687 269 (link to entire return provided above in text).

State (Territory,DC+ one Canadian) psychological associat’ns supported by the APA PO entity); click to enlarge.

Below (colorful annotations, thumbnail size) is image of a FY2004 list from the same organization’s Form 990. I am simply reminding readers that these state-level organizations exist and interact with the APA, or rather, its related entity.

Back to the “Related Entities”:

For example, the ABA “Financials” link shows combined financial statements and that two corporations were recently dissolved:  the James O. Broadhead Corporation (“JOB” EIN#521874598) and the ABA Museum of Law.  Not referenced on the “Financials” page for some reason is the National Judicial College (EIN#942427596) in Reno, NV, listed as a Related Entity at least to the dissolving JOB Corporation in 2012.  The NJC in Reno (street address at “Judicial College Building,” formed in 1977)  is of moderate size and gets grants (I just looked at recent Form 990) from the USDOJ, the USDOT (transportation) and the State Justice Institute — about $2M worth (next five images after the three (keep reading) with this-background-color captions from the unrelated-to-the-ABA NCJFCJ, were added 2017 from the ABA Financial Statements page which is one of the images).

Meanwhile, the financially small, but still influential NCJFCJ formed in 1975 (EIN#362486896), a completely separate entity (not ABA-related) on whom I’ve blogged so much, shows a PO Box 8970 in Reno Nevada (and said to be at the University of Nevada-Reno), and per a FY2004 Form 990 it received $12M of government grants.

So, just for comparison — one paragraph, a link, and three annotated images from the NCJFCJ (Nat’l Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Inc), a FY2004 Form 990.*  

I posted quite a bit on this in 2016…starting perhaps with this post 3/10/2016 (quoting opening statement and the link both):

 About UNevada-Reno-based NCJFCJ, its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III(d.2012)’s Tuscon-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded company (“PRSC”): First, the Context (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-2Se”)(Published March 10, 2016):

This post was drafted January 20, 2016.  It  holds a significant “find” that I don’t know who else has found, or would ever have found.   Probably, only people who drill-down on organization tax returns and notice what might be missing when any organization describes itself, boasting about the public service it’s done over the decades, might have run across this information.  There are some indicators that the organization involved did not want it to be found.

NCJFCJ also has two related entities (a “Fund” and a “Foundation”) (Sometimes much earlier tax returns will reveal more about their directors or some of the details, than later ones.  The IRS Form 990 changed dramatically in 2008. The earlier one listed government vs. non-government contributions on Page 1 but little corporation detail (# of employees, board members, volunteers, etc.) on Page 1.  later ones moved the gov’t./non-gov’t. contribution details to Part VIII, Statement of Revenues, and more details on Expenses to Part IX.

NCJFCJ (EIN#362486896) FY2004 Form 990, Pg1 All (See Line 1c, main rev source) Click to enlarge).#1 of 3 images

NCJFCJ (EIN#362486896) FY2004 Form 990, Statemt.7 breaks down (Reno/Pittsburgh + Fed, State, non-Gov’t) for each category of its $10M Expenses. #3 of 3 images.

NCJFCJ (EIN#362486896) FY2004 Form 990, Program Purpose + my comments on the same. #2 of 3 images

Pt I pg 1 top showing JOB entity termination year, and its founding only 1994, and investmt proceeds of $7M+ prior year. Held title to a DC Building for the ABA

Pts I + II, Pg 1, the terminating JOB Corp. Form 990 showing reversal of $49M of liabilities became a YE $49 assets (which were then sold and proceeds given to the ABA)

JOB Corp Sched N terminatn showing $50M more for the ABA when building sold.

Sched R FY2012 for JOB Corp showing other related entities with EIN#s and purposes of each, incl. the ABA itself. Click to enlarge.

Top part of ABA’s Financial Statements Page (2016-2011 FS and ABA+ABA FJE | ABA+FJE+JOB | ABA+FJE+JOB+Museum-o-Law Forms 990, respectively by year.

First, 2017 UPDATE/preview (different background-color section) discusses and lists ABA and APA “related entities” posting some of the returns and tax-return excerpts to show size, and part of their functions. Remember that these organizations’ “related entities” =/= “affiliates” (chapters at the state or county level); their influence is not limited only to the exact ABA, APA (i.e., the national level) entities + their listed related organizations.  As we already saw in several (so far, three) significant mental health &/or illness-focused organizations (NAMI, MHA and DBSA)…

(Blogging techniques in progress: In Oct. 2014, I couldn’t yet do screenprints as shown below, and was naturally thinking in somewhat different levels of detail on tax returns, although you can see I was already posting them, and on many of the same basic to the public interest topics, than I would be after three MORE years of investigation of similar issues, more organizations, and seeing (and blogging) how they work together for purposes related to steering public institutions, opinion, and finances towards mutually-agreed-upon ends, regardless of the specific issues.

HOWEVER, mental health expansion, integration, and moving into all aspects of public services, has been a long and ongoing theme. This theme is also built into the family court systems,  whether as problem-solving courts, or as representing “therapeutic jurisprudence” (and the handling of criminal activity such as domestic violence at the felony level, more of a “disorder” than deliberate acts and attacks on other human beings one is in intimate, marital, or family relationships with), making understanding of both the ABA and the APA (and awareness of other networked nonprofits working along similar lines) still essential information for all — that is, everybody, at least everybody in the USA, not that the associations limit themselves to activities within the USA (see their Schedules F for some indicators, or simply descriptions of what they do!).

A recent APA tax return states that it operates independently from its affiliates, but sometimes acts as enforcer to collect membership dues, which is explained to account for why it’s holding funds as a “fiscal agent” for some of those affiliates.

(APA’s FY2015 Form 990 Tax Return, Sched D Pt XII and XIII, annotated Details)

[[Obviously there are more “related organizations” for both APA and ABA, as well as state chapters, and other related by purpose if not fiscally by common governance, associations.  My purpose here is to show enough to convey the general idea that both organizations, either separately or taken together, wield major influence and control more assets than a look at a single tax return on the surface, would show.

And, in many ways the ABA and the APA are working together, particularly in the family courts. What I’m not attempting to do is out-line and lay out all entities of each and total or view respective assets.  That’s above my “pay grade” now and was at the time.  It’s also above the technical carrying capacity, probably, of a simple WordPress blog and what kinds of database uploads individual posts can handle.

But, for general information, here are more recent ABA and APA tax returns’ “Schedule R” listings of Related (Tax-exempt) organizations in screenprint form and some, in table format (of the returns) also.  //LGH update June 2017]]



ABA Related Entities Shown, and Transactions with them (Sched R) for FY2014. In 2014, as a blogger, I didn’t know how to make, much less annotate, these screen prints, so inserting them here is sort of an “anachronism,” but does remind us, the tables shown below are parts of the whole, and that money, naturally, moves among several different entities over time for both the ABA, the APA, and many large foundations, including community foundations.  (Nor does a foundation have to be large to created a related one and shift assets, revenues, and allocate expenses back and forth between its various parts).

So when a news article referring to the main, or parent organization references any entity, it’s good to know how many are in its family, so to speak, and be aware that when the same articles talk about their revenus, budget etc., it may only refer to one of several entities.  Without qualifying, and looking further, you just do not know.

(The same goes with government entities.  Until you look, you just cannot know!).

The screenprints here relate especially to the ABA Fund for Justice and Education (formed in 1961), but they are FROM the main ABA tax return.  For reference, the ABA Fund for Justice and Education last three tax returns are here:

Total results: 3Search Again. (Look below; this is less than 10% of the related ABA Tax return Total Assets, for the same year, but it seems a significant related organization.  Out of the same street address in Chicago, too).

American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education IL 2015 990 70 $24,619,717 36-6110299
American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education IL 2014 990 143 $24,702,609 36-6110299
American Bar Association Fund for Justice and Education IL 2013 990 110 $22,901,558 36-6110299
American Bar Endowment IL 2016 990 44 $134,138,879 36-2384321
American Bar Endowment IL 2015 990 50 $140,251,742 36-2384321
American Bar Endowment IL 2014 990 43 $140,688,309 36-2384321
American Bar Foundation IL 2015 990 39 $22,992,973 36-6110271
American Bar Foundation IL 2014 990 39 $24,847,398 36-6110271
American Bar Foundation IL 2013 990 38 $22,756,615 36-6110271

NOTICE THAT THE LIST ABOVE, ALL Tax-exempt and filing Forms 990 (not 990PF) and all related to the American Bar Association (itself), do not include the ABA tax returns.  I show them below.  But, taking Year 2015 for an example, those Total Gross Assets, roughly $23M (ABF) + $140M (ABE middle row above) + $24.6M = (roughly) $187.8M.   

Add to this the ABA’s FY2015 Total Gross Assets shown of $323M, and this is about ½  billion altogether.

(This light-yellow-background section focuses on related entities to the ABA and APA; the ABA and APA main entity tax returns are shown below this section, as I had written in 2014 with just a mention that related entities exist — not actually posting them)….

Each has its own website, function, balance of revenue sources to expense, and year of founding (per the tax returns). And, relationship with the main entity, the ABA itself. The ABA FJE (formerly “Fund for Public Education”) was founded its tax return says in 1961, the ABA Endowment in 1942, and the Foundation was formed in 1952.  The Foundation received major contributions from the Endowment.  Here’s a screenprint of recent grantees from one to the other two:

ABA Endowmt Grantees (FY2015) notice the top two, over $3M each, are to the other two tax-exempt related entities (#1 of 3 images)

ABA Endowmt Grantees (FY2015) (#2 of 3 images)

ABA Endowmt (Image 3/3), its only “Sched R Related” entity is ALIPI, a “C corp.” for insurance, for lawyers only. Lawyers are encouraged to donate their dividends. (A whole other discussion, or post…)(See ABE About, some goes to the ABF and FJE; also explore ABE website+History page)

Image 1 of about 3, ABA EIN#360723150_201508_990O
(=FY2014** Form 990O) Sched R Pt II [5 Related Tax-Exempt Entities] SShot 2017Jun27 @4.47PM [10] (Click Images to Enlarge)

Image 2 of about 3, Image 2 of about 3, ABA EIN#360723150_201508_990O (=FY2014** Form 990O) Sched D Pt XIII [(Suppl’mntl Info)] re ABA Fund for Justice & Education taking Endowment Funds income to supplement ABA revenues. See NEXT image…

Image 3 of about 3, more complex than usual, but just showing SchedR transactions with “related orgs.” including $26.9M with the ABA FJE (type “o”) and $6M (type “q”) and other “type “q” transax with other related ABA entities — just that year.


and Its One Related Tax-exempt but Several “Disregarded” (related) ENTITIES:

Look at any Form 990 Schedule R and you’ll see it has the filing entity (here, the APA proper) categorize its “Related” entities as defined by the IRS, into different categories, listing in Parts I, II, III or IV.  Tax-Exempt Entities show up in Part II, so the other parts, by definition, are NOT tax-exempt.  However, those in Part I, “Disregarded” are “disregarded” probably for counting revenues of the Form 990 filer.  It’s a label I still don’t have a full handle on (IRS implications) although I’ve read up some on it, but in this category, you can see other lines of business, and common board members (often) between an organization’s “Disregarded Entities” and Board Memberships or Officers. This, again, may influence how or why the main tax-exempt organization operates as it does.

Two examples of multiple disregarded entities on their tax returns (from my blogging) which come to mind are Focus on the Family (in Colorado) and ICMARC.org, or International City/County Managers Association Retirement Corporation, in Washington, D.C.

And, Sched-R, related organizations shown in the FY2015 APA (EIN#53-0205890) Form 990 tax return, screenprints:

Unlike the ABA with its five tax-exempt related entities (and one “taxable as corporation or trust), the APA has ONE related tax-exempt entity, but several “Disregarded” related entities (Sched R pt.1) with significant assets, and income, that is, LLC’s dealing with RE rentals.).  Click on images to enlarge. They show other lines of business the APA is in, but conducted by these LLCs it controls.

Similarly, elsewhere on the same return, you can see a $21M tax-exempt bond (from the District of Columbia) they have, and other things which any close look at a Form 990 will show.  I also am showing (3rd image, caption background color is light yellow) a screenprint of their top 5 contractors just to show SIZE and QUANTITY (81 total subcontractors) of the organization (That would be Section VIIB of the return).

APA (EIN#53-0205890)Form 990 FY2015(=calendar yr) Sched R, Disregarded Entities, significant operations…

APA (EIN#53-0205890)Form 990 FY2015(=calendar yr) Sched R Pt II, Just one tax-exempt related entity

APA (EIN#53-0205890) Form 990 FY2015(=calendar yr) Pt VIIA (last line) showing 7M (Key Officer Comp total) + VIIB INDEP CONTRACTORS ~yowza!~ top 5 (81 total) – $5M $4M $1’5M $1’2M + $1M)


Now that I’ve pointed out to recognize and admit the existence of two categories of organizations — (1) related entities per tax returns and/or financial statements AND (2) the MANY geographic or demographically-self-defined associations at (from what I can see) State or lower levels — for both lawyers and psychologists — working with the two major professional associations, ABA & APA, it’s time to look at the primary entity tax returns, for size and self-descriptions:

Resuming the 2014 narrative, except that I as you can see ran the latest 3 tax returns again for updates:

Total results: 3 [+ 3 update = 6] for the APA.  Search again

American Psychological Association DC 2015 990 89 $230,421,517 53-0205890
American Psychological Association DC 2014 990 106 $260,756,298 53-0205890
American Psychological Association DC 2013 990 98 $257,045,386 53-0205890
American Psychological Association DC 2012 990 64 $236,941,077 53-0205890
American Psychological Association DC 2011 990 71 $193,166,631 53-0205890
American Psychological Association DC 2010 990 57 $195,322,496 53-0205890

[Total Assets column here represent Total Gross Assets — at the beginning of the year.  See page 1, bottom of (any) tax return for clarification; you’ll which figure there matches the Total Assets  figure column above].

[The top three rows are an update run June 2017; the bottom three, all that was available as of post draft, late October, 2014]. For the APA (at least top 3 rows shown) Fiscal year = Calendar Year, so its tax returns for 2013 weren’t even uploaded to Form990Finder (which gets them from the IRS) by late October as I was writing = near the end of the next fiscal (and calendar) year. ]

It seems that once a tax exempt group gets to a certain point (size), to rapidly increase assets is the norm unless the organization purposefully is dumping assets (or, if it gets too big, spinning some off into another related entity…)

Look at the change in the last two years, for each one: $41.6 million increase for APA (2011-2012, above) and (below), almost $100 million increase for the ABA (2012-2013, below)….

Also, note that the ABA is filing a 990O and that the three years this database pulled up are not identical (the APA didn’t have its 2013 tax returns up yet). My purpose here, however, is to simply show the general scope and size, that there is growth, and that we consider the associations as what the are — private corporations engaged in business and keeping significant assets in part because they are not taxed on corporate profits.

Total results: 3 [+ 2 update = 5]Search Again.

American Bar Association IL 2015 990O 63 $323,522,431 36-0723150
American Bar Association IL 2014 990O 98 $356,575,456 36-0723150
American Bar Association IL 2013 990O 56 $329,776,848.00 36-0723150
American Bar Association IL 2012 990O 63 $298,105,242.00 36-0723150
American Bar Association IL 2011 990O 53 $239,942,508.00 36-0723150

RE: Timeliness of posting major organization’s (such as this one’s) tax returns:  I am updating in late June, 2017, barely two months before the end of the ABA’s fiscal year (August 31). In the “year” column above, it always represents year ENDING.  For groups whose fiscal year =/= calendar year, the underlying tax return would be for the previous year.  Therefore, the ABA, at least on this website, has not made available yet its tax return for activities, assets & liabilities, revenues & expenses, subcontractors, grantees (etc.) for its own Fiscal Year 2015, which ended nearly a year ago, Aug. 31, 2016.

As the APA website describes itself:

The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world’s largest association of psychologists, with nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members.

Screenshot July 2017

Division are interest groups, not (seemingly) separate organizations….Currently 54, see website for list.

Unlike the ABA’s website, the APA’s doesn’t volunteer, through any visible link (top, left, or otherwise, or under its “Governance” or “Reports” pages) its own financial statements or tax returns.  However they are searchable on the graphics- text- and links-rich website, and when a year 2012 “Consolidated Financial Statements” result came up, I clicked on it, changed the year to 2016, and did find those statements.  What I wanted to know, obviously, was who are its official subsidiaries, described (as well as to read them), having already seen them on the Form 990s.  I also discovered that the financial statements were prepared by a USA branch of a UK firm.  Anyhow:

Click image for the complete FS 2016/15 from APA website.

Footer to APA FS 2016 cover page (Click to see preparer BDO’s identity)

APA Note #1 (image 1 of 2, page 3 of FS) to 2016 Audited Consolidated FS lists Subsidiaries, when and why created. Note APAPO and that the Educ Advocacy Trust is not a separate entity, but fund, and that the PAC isn’t an incorporated situation. Image2 shows property-holding (disregarded) entities and functions.

APA Note #1 (image 2 of 2, page 3 of FS) to 2016 Audited/Consolidatd FS lists Subsidiaries, when and why created. The 750 LLCs show commercial-property-holding (disregarded) entities and one to manage the leases.










~ ~ ~ ~

As the American Bar Association describes itself:

The American Bar Association is one of the world’s largest voluntary professional organizations, with nearly 400,000 members and more than 3,500 entities.  It is committed to doing what only a national association of attorneys can do: serving our members, improving the legal profession, eliminating bias and enhancing diversity, and advancing the rule of law throughout the United States and around the world.

Founded in 1878, the ABA is committed to supporting the legal profession with practical resources for legal professionals while improving the administration of justice, accrediting law schools, establishing model ethical codes, and more.  Membership is open to lawyers, law students, and others interested in the law and the legal profession.

Our national headquarters are in Chicago, and we maintain a significant office in Washington D.C.

[[not mentioned — its legal domicile is Illinois, not D.C. Since this page was written, or that ABA home page quote copied, the D.C. Office building was sold (and the James O. Broadhead Corp. holding title to it dissolved), but the text of this “About” page hasn’t changed.  Also, as shown above, the ABA provides a ready link to its financial statement on this main “About” page, and posts them.  It does not define its “more than 3,500 entities”]] 

ABA Affiliated orgs, that’s all of the list (viewed July 2017)

It lists its “Affiliated Organizations” (notice none show individual “state” or local jurisdictions) and the description mentions, they are represented in the “House of Delegates.”  Viewed 7/2017. (The image is a quick view; quotes provide active links)

Affiliated Organizations

The following national legal organizations are affiliated with the American Bar Association and are represented in the ABA House of Delegates.
The Association of Life Insurance Counsel 

I took a quick look at the first one (ALIC) and learned it was formed in 1913 and is based in Columbus, Ohio, admitted its first woman member in 1926:

The First Meeting of the Association of Life Insurance Counsel in 1913 established one of the legacies of the Association, that of presenting papers and programs that contribute meaningfully to the literature and law of life insurance. Early presentations featured the newly enacted Federal Income Tax and the National Bankruptcy Act. The Association continues to uphold this tradition and the seminars at its Annual Meetings every May keep members abreast of the latest developments in life insurance law and practice.

The first meeting was hosted by The Travelers Insurance Company in Hartford; 20 members were in attendance. Meetings have continued every year, with the exception of cancellations in 1918 and 1942-45, due to war; in 1933, due to the Depression; and in 1946 due to a railroad strike.

Membership initially was restricted to lawyers who were home office counsel. In 1925, membership was opened to counsel of Canadian companies, and the Canadian Superintendent of Insurance was made an honorary member. In 1926, the Association welcomed its first woman member, Hilda F. Deyoe, an attorney for Metropolitan Life.

In 2001, the Bylaws were amended to permit lawyers in private practice who devote a majority of their time to representing life insurance companies or industry associations to join.

The Maritime Law Association of The United States
American Immigration Lawyers Association
The Federal Circuit Bar Association
The American Law Institute
Energy Bar Association
Hispanic National Bar Association
National Association of Attorneys General
American Judicature Society
Association of American Law Schools
Conference of Chief Justices
The Federal Bar Association
Federal Communications Bar Association
Judge Advocates Association
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
National Association of Bar Executives, Inc
National Native American Bar Association
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc.
National Association of Women Judges
National Association of Women Lawyers
National Bar Association Inc.
National Conference of Bar Examiners
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
National Conference of Women’s Bar Associations
National District Attorneys Association
National Legal Aid and Defender Association
National LGBT Bar Association
National Organization of Bar Counsel, Inc.

and a list of its “Charities” reads like a partial list of its related entities as seen previously in this post (from the tax returns):

Charities from the American Bar Association

By leveraging our vast membership, the ABA provides both financial and legal resources to a variety of charities. The ABA has no political action committee and makes no political contributions.

Fund for Justice and Education (FJE)

The ABA Fund for Justice and Education is a 501(c)(3) charitable fund that supports the public service and educational programs of the American Bar Association. For nearly 50 years, the FJE has helped the Association develop programs that provide lawyers with the training and resources needed to address the legal needs of our communities. Today, the FJE provides the ABA with over $40 million annually in gifts and grants that helps support over 200 ABA public service programs each year.   Learn more.

American Bar Endowment (ABE)

The American Bar Endowment generates funds for the support of law-related public service, educational, and research programs by building and sustaining the Legal Legacy Fund and by sponsoring insurance and other programs for the legal profession that encourage charitable giving.   Learn more

American Bar Foundation (ABF)

The American Bar Foundation is the nation’s leading research institute for the empirical study of law. An independent, nonprofit organization for more than fifty years, ABF seeks to advance the understanding and improvement of law through research projects of unmatched scale and quality on the most pressing issues facing the legal system in the United States and the world. ABF is recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.  Learn more

Interesting, no mention made of the ALIPI (life-insurance plan) or the related entity National Judicial College as part of the ABA.


Nor is the NJC referenced in their consolidated annual financial statements.  But, at least the main website and About page does lead to some understanding of the major organizational elements of the association clearly from the top, better than the APA website (which reads more like a billboard or newsletter in general) does, by actually omitting financial statements and tax returns from its website identifiable through basic links from the home page!!

ABA year founded / history and concurrent events:

Some may notice this 1878 founding was not long after the Civil War, that the 15th Amendment, granting suffrage (voting rights) to black males nationwide, was only passed in 1870; not because of its righteousness, but apparently because the Northern Republicans (which appear to be have been closer to the current Democrat platform now) needed those votes.

Source: CRF-USA.org**. It quotes Frederick Douglass, speaking in 1865 before the Massachusets Anti-Slavery Society:

Only days after General Lee surrendered at Appomattox in April, 1865, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke before the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. In his speech, Douglass explained why the black man wanted the right to vote “in every state of the Union”:

It is said that we are ignorant; admit it. But if we know enough to be hung, we know enough to vote. If the Negro knows enough to pay taxes to support government, he knows enough to vote; taxation and representation should go together. If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag for the government, he knows enough to vote ….What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice.

The Democrats realized they were fighting for political survival. They feared ratification of the 15th Amendment would automatically create some 170,000 loyal black Republican voters in the North and West.

In debates over the amendment, Democrats argued against the ratification by claiming that the 15th Amendment restricted the states’ rights to run their own elections. The Democrats also charged the Republicans with breaking their promise of allowing the states, outside the South, to decide for themselves whether to grant black male suffrage. Democrat leaders cited the low level of literacy in the black population and they predicted black voters would be easily swayed by false promises and outright bribery.

Victory, Then Tragedy

Despite Democratic opposition, the Republicans steadily won ratification victories throughout 1869. Ironically, it was a Southern state, Georgia that clinched the ratification of the 15th Amendment on February 2, 1870

The jubilation over victory did not last long. While Republicans acquired loyal black voters in the North, the South was an entirely different matter. The Ku Klux Klan and other violent racist groups intimidated black men who tried to vote, or who had voted, by burning their homes, churches and schools, even by resorting to murder.

When the election for president in 1876 ended with a dispute over electoral votes, the Republicans made a deal with the Southern Democrats. First, the Southerners agreed to support Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes for president. In turn, the Republicans promised to withdraw troops from the South and abandon federal enforcement of black’s rights, including the right to vote.

Within a few years, the Southern state governments required blacks to pay voting taxes, pass literacy tests and endure many other unfair restrictions on their right to vote. In Mississippi, 67 percent of the black adult men were registered to vote in 1867; by 1892 only 4 percent were registered. The political deal to secure Hayes as president rendered the 15th Amendment meaningless. Another 75 years passed before black voting rights were again enforced in the South.

**[“CRF” stands for Constitutional Research Foundation.  Explore its Mission, and from there, History page (very detailed) for more info.  It was formed in the 1960s in Los Angeles, later went national (with affiliates in other cities) and currently? taking funding from the OJJDP. They post their EIN# on the site; here’s a much earlier (2002) CRF tax return showing that about ⅔ of funding was  government.  They have been particularly focused (from the start) on ensuring youth understand the Bill of Rights, created a sourcebook, and conferenced with teachers for presenting it, conducting mock trials.  More recent contributors (see “Spring Dinner” [fundraising] section from history page):

Another dinner highlight is the Bill of Rights Award bestowed on honorees who have made a significant civic contribution. They include Dr. Ronald Sugar, Northrop Grumman; Thomas Mars, Walmart USA; Peter Ligouri, Fox Broadcasting; Dian Ogilvie, Toyota Motor Sales; John Bryson, Edison International; Dr. Dale Laurance, Occidental Petroleum; Louis Meisinger, The Walt Disney Company; Hon. Richard Riordan, Mayor of Los Angeles; Jack Valenti, Motion Picture Association of America; Raymond Fisher, Heller, Erhman, White, & McAuliffe;  John Cooke, The Walt Disney Company; Richard Stegemeier, Unocal Corporation; Alan Rothenberg, President California Bar Association; Robert Erburu, Times Mirror; Rocco Siciliano, TICOR; Franklin Murphy, Los Angeles Times.  [Year or years, not shown…]

….In 1978, joining five national partners—the American Bar Association, Constitutional Rights Foundation/Chicago, Law in a Free Society (now the Center for Civic Education), Pi Alpha Delta (the national legal fraternity), and Street Law—CRF received funding for national dissemination of law-related education funded by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The partnership conducted hundreds of teacher conferences and professional development sessions over the years and continued until 2005.

Moving on…

Interesting, the first psychological labs at Harvard and in Germany in were established 1875 and the APA only in 1892..  Timeframe from the “Bill of Rights Institute: Here are the amendments showing the income tax was passed in 1913, and suffrage for women with the 19th amendment only in 1920″

Amendment XVI (1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Amendment XIX (1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

2017 addition — looking up the source of my quote:  The Bill of Rights Institute (Arlington, VA on its footer address):

Established in September 1999, the Bill of Rights Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization that works to engage, educate, and empower individuals with a passion for the freedom and opportunity that exist in a free society.  The Institute develops educational resources and programs for a network of more than 50,000 educators and 30,000 students nationwide.

Screenprint indicates its main services offered will be education, communications, media-based.

EIN#48-0891418 shows the organization started in 1979 in Kansas (not 1999 in Virginia) and with at least @ 2002, board member Charles G. Koch and mgmt services by a Koch company. (Click Form 990 excerpts provided to see) Interesting…

Quickly, I looked for a tax return and as quickly discovered (citing same street address and web address, not to mention organization name) the Form 990 (no link shown on the website) not a Sept. 1999, but a 1979 entity based in Kansas, seems to be privately funded for the most part.  Moderate size of grants are consistent over time:

Total results: 3Search Again.

Bill of Rights Institute VA 2015 990 48 $2,676,261.00 48-0891418
Bill of Rights Institute VA 2014 990 38 $2,511,792.00 48-0891418
Bill of Rights Institute VA 2013 990 43 $1,325,061.00 48-0891418

I know what I just saw on earlier tax returns (especially from 2002 to 2003), but saying it here would disrupt what’s left of the flow of the post.  Their major income was in a category unrelated to the program purpose. Earlier years show some government funding.  Other than that, I made a mental note (and a follow-up folder).  Moving on ….


So, how did the American Bar Association respond to suffrage, at least for black men (no females til later….). Well, the ABA interactive timeline shows they first set up three divisions (1. Legal Education and Admissions, 1890; 2. Patent, Trade-mark and Copyright, 1894; 3. Judicial, 1913) in 1900 establish the “AALS” (Association of American Law Schools).

They are very busy setting up the regulation of the profession, butin 1912 (42 years after suffrage) take time out to rescind the membership of three gentlemen discovered to be “of color” and require that if at any time, anyone shall nominate “a person of the colored race” for membership, a statement of fact showing this shall be attached:

On January 4, [1912,] the ABA Executive Committee rescinds the membership of William H. Lewis, the first black assistant attorney general of the United States. Although Lewis had been elected to membership in August 1911, the Executive Committee reports that the ABA had acted in ignorance of material facts” and that “the settled practice of the Association has been to elect only white men as members.”This action generates heated debate within the bar and in the media. U.S. Attorney General George Wickersham, the 1934 recipient of the ABA Medal,## sends a letter to Association members pointing out that ABA policy does not bar membership based on race or color and that, in rescinding William H. Lewis‘s membership, the ABA is acting “to gratify a race prejudice entertained by some of its members.”

##This timeline skips ahead to 1934 then goes back, apparently, to 1912, obscuring for how long the ABA just didn’t deal with exclusion of people of color (anyone but “white men” from its ranks). Wikipedia on George Woodward Wickersham (1858-1936, see thumbnail) shows he was Attorney General of the United States from 1909-1913 only.  Later he was President of the Association of the Bar of New York.

“The matter is addressed at the Association’s Annual Meeting in Milwaukee in August [must be 1912]. Lewis’s membership is reinstated, but on a “grandfathered” basis, as the ABA resolves to effectively prohibit members of color: “As it has never been contemplated that members of the colored race should become members of this Association, the several local councils are directed that, if at any time any of them shall recommend a person of the colored race for membership, they shall accompany the recommendation with a statement of the fact that he is of such race.The Association would not formally address this issue again until 1943.

That is, for about 31 years, over a full generation…

Concurrently with William Lewis, ABA memberships are also initially rescinded for two other lawyers identified as being “gentlemen of the colored race.Butler R. Wilson of Massachusetts, one of the founders of the Boston branch of the NAACP, is elected to the ABA in June 1911. William R. Morris of Minnesota, who had served on the Fisk University faculty, is elected in October 1911.

Interesting . . . Lewis’s biography from “The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed” shows an outstanding ability (also Harvard graduate) AND an interest in civil rights; had been recognized politically and by President Roosevelt at the same time the ABA was throwing him out. What does that say about the Bar now? Has it changed, or just changed controlling tactics, realizing you can’t just throw people out based on race any more?

… Despite his football knowledge and fame, Lewis’ primary interests were civil rights, the practice of law, and government service. Lewis successfully launched a political career serving three years on the Cambridge City Council and one term in the Massachusetts State Legislature between 1896 and 1902.

On July 30, 1903, Lewis presided at the famous gathering of the National Negro Business League in Boston, now often referred to as the Boston Riot. It was Lewis who called for the police to take away a persistent heckler of Booker T. Washington as the latter attempted to speak. In a follow-up trial he also testified for the prosecution against William Monroe Trotter who was accused of disrupting the speech.

That same year, President Theodore Roosevelt directed that the U.S. Attorney General for Boston### appoint Lewis as an Assistant United States Attorney. He became the first African American to hold that post. From 1907 to 1911, Lewis was Roosevelt’s appointee as Chief of the Naturalization Bureau for six New England States.

In 1910, Roosevelt’s successor, President William Howard Taft, in the face of Southern Senate opposition, nominated Lewis to the post of United States Assistant Attorney General, a sub Cabinet appointment which was then the highest Federal position ever attained by an African American. Lewis served in the position from 1911 to 1913.

In 1911, Lewis was also the first African American to be admitted to the American Bar Association (ABA), which provoked a campaign to oust him. Lewis refused to resign, and the ABA Executive Committee voted to oust him in 1912.

Following the election of President Woodrow Wilson, a democrat, in 1912, Lewis built a successful private practice. He earned a reputation as an outstanding trial lawyer and became one of the first black attorneys to join the legal team of the newly created National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Lewis continued to practice until his retirement. He died in 1949 in Boston at the age of 81. – See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/aah/lewis-william-henry-1868-1949#sthash.TeoyVHBN.dpuf

## I never heard of a “U.S. District Attorney for Boston” (as opposed to “Massachusetts”) and so went looking it up. Search”Boston”on the first link for at least some interesting information on the history of the office, and that George Washington’s first appointment for Washington was Christopher Gore, who in turn introduced Daniel Webster to the bar…Found on the main page of justice.gov/uso-ma, i.e., “United States Attorney’s Office – The District of Massachusetts”

Historically, the District of Massachusetts is one of the two first U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in the nation. President George Washington appointed Christopher Gore U.S. Attorney in 1789, shortly after Congress enacted the Judiciary Act. In total, 54 distinguished United States Attorneys have led the Office for the District of Massachusetts.

While it doesn’t really clarify who was US District Attorney (which district included Boston) in 1903, the link above comes from a 1989 Bicentenary of the U.S. Constitution, and some of the screenprints I’m adding here (in 2017) are interesting regarding certain key dates in which situations changed.  For example, the U.S. Department of Justice was created by Congress in 1870, but only an Presidential Executive Order in 1933 (!) officially solidified its role in supervising the U.S. Attorneys.  In 1953, and additional “Executive Office” (of the DOJ) was added.


Also consider, from the same source, this information:

Until 1896, United States Attorneys were paid on a fee system based on the cases they prosecuted. Those fees could amount to quite a substantial sum if the district was located on the coast. In those districts, maritime cases filled the docket with seizures and forfeitures involving substantial amounts of expensive cargo.

…United States Attorneys exerted even more independence by being able to retain their private practice while holding office, a policy that remained unchanged until 1953. This system occasionally gave rise to awkward situations as one United States Attorney discovered when he found himself prosecuting a defendant represented by the Assistant United States Attorney.

So, with the ABA having been founded back in 1878, for it seems that for nearly 20 (i.e., 18) years, the profit from those fee-based systems were in place, as well as being able to retain private practice at the same time even longer.

That these longstanding “monster” (humongous, huge) associations the ABA and the APA — I also mean not just financial size, but also, with their affiliates, in scope of activities, and influence on nearly every court or legal system, and community — are exempt from taxation because of all the services and goods they provide (the premise underlying any 501©3 essentially), as opposed to the services and good provided by other professions who may not have private membership groups to promote them and lobby for recognition, almost defies the purpose of language.

They got started early, and at a time when America and its institutions were not only historically racist, but also sexist.  They got started barely after the Civil War, and before a Constitutional Amendment establishing the income tax.

It is safe to say they are major factors in the American economic picture: where wealth comes from and goes to, and with this, control and organization of the population, which is to say, “Population Control.”

I think it’s time to reclaim some language which categorizes groups according to their taxable status and their relationship to their function in relationship to government and from there, given we are taxed, to taxation. In that context, who is controlling whom, and who is serving whom?

Let’s talk finances and accounting. Let’s talk about taxation is to be with — not without –representation and by informed consent.  How can one consent to what one’s not informed about?

Any one can talk “rights,” endlessly, by a sub-population’s profile, but while systems are changing to accommodate a constantly swinging pendulum of profile-based rights, by the decade it seems, what happened to a representative government, locally, where we live, and due process under those laws in those courts when we need to resort to them?

To Identify and Understand shows Why [and How] We Must Withstand.

The existence, with so little notice and public commentary, of so many such organizations as those above signals a presence that is NOT MEANT to be understood by the masses, whose income provides most of a yearly federal budget receipts as shown from HERE:

fical logo headerFMS-TREASURY-GOV piechart + legend, 2013 Federal receipts 10% Corp, 46% Income Taxes, 30+% SocSec-Retiremt Contributions-2 and with some discussion,in a bright yellow box (my post) here. THIS LINK is to more details at the Fiscal Management Service which as of 2001 is as I understand it a new, combined office:

The Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances.

A little percentage talk (see also that piechart): Corporations only pay 10% of federal receipts, in part because there are (maybe…) fewer corporations around than individual taxpayers around.

On the other hand, corporations, smart ones, are smart enough to avoid excess taxation — which their shareholders and investors wouldn’t like, by donating to some terrific philanthropic (tax-exempt!) “foundations” or “trusts” — which are NON-stock and can be privately controlled. Or, to form such tax-exempt (nonprofit) associations. From there, without too many eyes on the money, they can go about influencing government policy.

This leaves the bulk of the federal receipts (as shown above) to contributions from: Income Taxes (46%) and Social Security/Retirement Contributions (30%), which is to say, to (as I understand it) a HUGE public investment platform commonly known as “Social Security,” obviously not just one big fat trust fund, but a variety of them. In others, you work, and you pay into Social Security, maybe even retirement, by virtue of working. So does your employer. If you are self-employed, you pay the whole amount yourself.

Every one pays in now for a return on their deposits later, (except those who do not pay), if that makes any sense.

In plain English, (math, I should say), what does “46% + 30% = 76%” add up to — less than, or more than half of federal receipts?

Yet, the public is lectured and pushed as to our burden of the public debt, while tax-exempt corporations + government operations collaborate to set up systems of population management, including utilizing professionals with skills of persuasion and/or intimidation so we will not forget who should be blamed, and tagged, for the public debt.

For an antidote, go read someWalter Burien (May 10, 2010, “Is our Government Bankrupt?…. Analogies are Fun to Use: Is the Columbian Cartel short of cocaine?”, Clint Richardson (July 20, 2013, “Detroit: The Latest Bankruptcy Lie” (hover-cursor for abstract, and read the top part, too)), or Carl Herman, who asks such questions as, “CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?? (from his 2012 article) and, like the others, can also walk people through it, and has:

  • Interview: Game-changing CAFR trillions explained (Feb. 14, 2014)….These astounding funds are disclosed in official Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs). Government and media “leaders” claiming no options but austerity while failing to honestly communicate surplus trillions is OBVIOUS criminal financial fraud . . .


SUBSTANTIAL SECTION REMOVED, PRIMARILY ABOUT “PLACE ON THE TAX_CONTINUUM PECKING ORDER, TO SHORTEN POST… THE SECTION REMOVED INCLUDES MY PICK & DISCUSSION OF OF “5 RELATED POSTS” from (this blog’s sidebar’s) VITAL LINKS and more… The destination post is:  To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”, active and accurate when that post is published). There will be some connective tissue between the two posts (this one and the new one).


This conversation which should be happening, is NOT happening in the family court advocacy circles.   It is probably not happening in part because of refusal on too many individuals’ parts to discuss and make the time to comprehend the role of nonprofit trade associations in setting up NOT ONLY the culture and standard of family court policies, but the courts themselves.

Think about it: the federal government (for this example) is not taxed but continues to taxes people for revenues (hence “Internal REVENUE Service,” not that the IRS is part of government) under the banner “for the public good and to provide services” as in “Health and Human Services” (formerly, until I learned just recently, 1980, “Health, Education and Welfare,” a.k.a. “HEW”), and in this process, it hires people who have organized their professions under tax-exempt status, also as for the public good, and supposedly it all adds up to “public benefit.” If it doesn’t, who’s going to withstand and speak up against the multiple nonprofit associations which have been around, and mutually organized with subsidiary parts for decades, and with unknown thousands employed through membership advocacy?

As the APA website describes itself:

The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA is the world’s largest association of psychologists, with nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members.


Understanding the family courts requires some understanding of how all the psychologists got involved. As anyone who’s been involved in a family court proceeding knows, it’s going to affect (likely disrupt, possibly bankrupt) your personal household economy which is going to impact others you have been dealing with in any community.

There are family courts in every state and probably in most counties throughout the country.

When major sectors of the economy depend on family discord and strife and shepherding “families in transition” to a different state than they were before, and all occurs with in government offices in association with court contractors in association with various nonprofit trade associations shadowing the purpose of major government offices, consider all the “goods and services” in transition — which is where money is lost from some, and gained by others.  Remember, what’s an expense to you is income to someone else, and when traffic is directed, or redirected away from individual households TO other sectors, a profit motive is involved overall.

I want to have some conversations (intelligent ones, with the purpose of informed consent or dissent) about how tax exempt status stacks the deck against representative government, which is to say, against individual citizen’s rights and our need to have a justice system which protects citizens from being extorted, bankrupted, evicted from their homes, or having family-breakups without any legal due process or valid legal reason, and the associated years of destruction which tend to accompany the process — in the expert guidance of professionals whose own “raison d’etre” (organizational stated purpose) is to do the exact opposite.

I want to talk about the APA and I am going to. But what kind of conversations can occur without some basic meaningful vocabulary and some grammar (usage) to go with it, based on an acquired understanding of what realities that vocabulary symoblizes?  

Words are symbols and the ability to manipulate symbols meaningfully and accurately IS the ability to communicate.

With the ability to communicate comes also the ability to organize, if one decides to, for mutual help or purposes. 

Inherently meaningless phrases tend to stick in one’s mind because of their meaninglessness, their dissociation from reality. For example, “Our Broken Family Courts” is meaningless in its phrase as a whole and in using the word “our” or “broken” to refer to the family courts.

Conversations need to occur about why taxpayers and citizens nationwide should continue to put up with the mainstreaming of mental health systems, and the profession of psychology, which is not properly understood as to where it came from, what role it’s played so far in expanding certain government spheres of control of individual privacy, private household integrity and private enterprise

By which I mean, enterprise (employment or self-employment) which isn’t attempting to run the world, just a local portion of it called one’s own life, yet retain some food, housing, meaningful (or at least paid) life work, and some freedom of movement.

Government functions and titles we may be familiar with (governors, mayors, state legislators, state court systems), including some of the government functions that administer cities (i.e., city managers), courts (i.e. court admistrators), and of course let’s not forget the people who also help administer and manage a major portion of every state’s budget, their HHS grants through Social Security Act (First passage 1934, major revisions 1996), for example, the child support enforcement function.

Tax Exemption Stacks the Deck against Representative Government Have National Trade Associations Replaced Representative Government?

Examples of Governing Functions and Their National “Hear our Voices” “trade”organizations (some are nonprofits, some are “instrumentalities” of government but own and operate nonprofits or foundations along with their primary instrumentality.). Notice some are organized into heirarchy by political distribution (civil servant job function).  [[2017 comment, as I have been blogging since, “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC…” etc. — see recent (late June, early July) posts on these topics, including the mental health focused entities.]]

The APA and the ABA [state chapters, + county, area, and city and area of special interest other chapters] and groups such as the AFCC or the NACC fit into this is by their areas of practice.

However, the memberships of any of the above could be, and often are, civil servants, including judges.

I am listing several and went into more detail on a single one which represents the Child Support Enforcement professionals — which is to say, civil servants in the child support field. So these are good groups to be aware of, however, my main point is to understand how any civil servant — and even any government agency or sector, such as “the courts” — could be operating in both its legislated position AND coordinated with a related “trade association.”

Therefore when dealing with ANY civil servant leadership individually, or as a sector (for example, “judges” or “family court judges”), being unaware of the existence and having some idea of the age and size of the related nonprofit trade association, IS indeed like “driving blind.”

The more I look at this situation, the more it resembles the ideal network for anyone intent on undermining the legitimate government and replacing it with a privately controlled one. When people like to talk “conspiracy theory” or ‘Shadow Government,” whatever they may be referring to, I don’t know — but through these many organizations, I have come to understand a replacement structure being set up consistently, “off the public radar.” It seems increasingly coordinated, expanded, and for most of them, internationalized for a globally-aligned justice system.

This organization, named after a Roman general who won gradually by avoiding open conflicts he knew he could not win, may help with the understanding that gradual, incremental progress in certain directions is still progress, and has intended outcomes, and often is intended to “overcome.”

(In fact it seems many of the programs incorporate the word “overcoming” (“overcoming barriers to ______”) in their rhetoric. It’s overcoming real or perceived resistance and asking public (and/or private) support to therefore strengthen (said program, when using this phrase) itself.  (Example:  Access/Visitation grants helping “overcome barriers to father involvement” because of the bad guy, fatherlessness.  In effect, it established and supported a court-affiliated infrastructure which created another barrier — undermining the legal process and facts-based court proceedings; shifting the balance of power from IN the courtroom to OUTSIDE the courtroom, where different rules, obviously, apply).

Here’s one I’ve probably quoted before, from ACF.HHS.Gov itself — a Child Support “Fact Sheet” on one of the many circles surrounding their central premise or purpose — “Father Engagement Since Birth.”  The rationale is presented in the details. Although the initial wording is “overcome obstacles” the phrase “overcome barriers” occurs three more times in the short pdf.  Click either image to read the pdf (so long as the HHS link remains valid):

(interesting logic about the strategy of insisting on early father engagement to improve child support payment outcomes (click image to see, it’s the next section) while claiming that partnering with DV programs will safeguard the children…

(Same image, less text; click for the whole fact-sheet)

Another (family court-related) use of “overcoming barriers” in an organization name relates to reunification camps for alienated children in “high-conflict” divorces, etc.  Use your search feature — it’s a common phrase.  (Overcoming barriers to Medi-caid Enrollment for children and families). (Or search “overcome barriers” for yet more results in related fields).


Here’s an interesting one — “overcoming barriers” (that housing developers find) to housing affordability. A Marin County (area near SF with a lot of agricultural land and local zoning laws discouraging major development, caused the existing parcels to become too expensive for people that work in the area, and just might want also to live there), this is a recent (April 2017) report by a “Civil Grand Jury” and the image I’m showing refers to the recommendation of “public/private partnerships” to overcome affordability – -and some commentary on “RDAs” (Redevelopment Agencies), a political hot-button; California just shut down the RDAs in 2012.  Read on from: https://www.vinnies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/overcoming-barriers-to-housing-affordability.pdf (refers to colorfully annotated image, NOT the quote from Britannica.com).  I don’t know anything about that Civil Grand Jury or who called it, am just referencing because of the terminology, and its reference to RDAs in California and property taxes.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/199691/Fabian-Society socialist society founded in 1883–84 in London, having as its goal the establishment of a democratic socialist state in Great Britain. The Fabians put their faith in evolutionary socialism rather than in revolution. The name of the society is derived from the Roman general Fabius Cunctator, whose patient and elusive tactics in avoiding pitched battles secured his ultimate victory over stronger forces. Its founding is attributed to Thomas Davidson, a Scottish philosopher, and its early members included George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Annie Besant, Edward Pease, and Graham Wallas. Shaw and Webb, later joined by Webb’s wife, Beatrice, were the outstanding leaders of the society for many years. In 1889 the society published its best-known tract, Fabian Essays in Socialism, edited by Shaw. It was followed in 1952 by New Fabian Essays, edited by Richard H.S. Crossman.

This incremental privatization (takeover) is being done gradually ONLY until the balance of power (economic clout, decision-making influence, control over the population through privatized control of all major institutions).  It is being done TO Americans (in context, I’m talking USA) and it is being done OUTSIDE government but with collaboration throughout government, which has now become “normal,” by means of specific individuals who join these tax-exempt organizations.

This has to do with cash flow (what direction it’s flowing to and away from as attracted by tax-exempt groups that take government financing directly, or indirectly).

In searching the term “Fabianism” for another quick reference I found an article from Forbes, which barely pre-dates the 2008 Presidential Elections, called “Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist.”

(Link to “The Folklore of Capitalism” referenced in the image blow):

That reference speaks especially loudly to me, as I have observed these tactics at work within my family line, which while played out over a longer period than my assault-and-battery, job sabotage, direct confrontation and intimidation AND the subtle undermining, verbal abuse, grabbing and controlling “our” household’s economic identity, leaving me with small children at home, and nearly no economic footprint (not even a shared bank account, ever, in that marriage, and several years forced to function without my own until I regained one on taking a full-time night job, and even then, was subjected to objections from not just one, but two ultra-religious, so-called Christian adult men in our own home and in front of our (his and my) young children so-called “marriage.”


When I myself worked, even full-time, after the initial attacks began, I had to fight and protest, insist (over sullen resentment and even a religious “friend” flown in to support him in the control and abuse tactics– they got relay tag-team relief; as the target of dominate-control-intimidate, in that situation, I did NOT. Sleep deprivation was a definite issue over time) that I was going to retain a bank account in which to deposit my funds I’d earned working full-time nights and responsible for the children during the day. Not long after getting this work, then my ex wanted me to sign for his credit application, which wouldn’t have been obtained otherwise, to provide for a credit card account which would never have my name on it, or be accessible for my use — and this insistence after all this abuse and weapons in the home..This violence and repeated violent confrontations by my husband resulted in multiple incidents involving the police being called to my home, or me fleeing that home usually with, but on at least one occasion without our young children, and as such others were made aware of the situation. While none of these others actually produced much help until through process of consistently asking for help (“process of elimination”) I finally was given a referral to a domestic violence support group which at least informed me of some (not all) of my legal rights — that there were specific laws against this behavior….

Thereafter — after we separated because I filed that protective (restraining) order with kickout — when my immediate sibling (witness of much of this) and in-law determined to take up that man’s cause, they, possibly being college-educated and more literate, were already more aware, or had simply learned from witnessed how violent confrontations worked against my “ex” (father of our children), and themselves adopted a relentless bullying policy which incorporated the same elements except the property destruction and physical attacks (which are more reportable and which evidence is easier to see) and focused on economic, psychological, and ongoing emotional forms of abuse no less violent in intent, and no less devastating in the long term.

There was almost never a personal, physical confrontation which others might witness and which might have resulted in a call to the police for imminent physical threat. They often worked through third parties (hard to explain without more details than I’m going to post here, not hard to detect). Verbal denigrations, or accusations (unsubstantiated) were sent me, copied to each other, or sometimes each other and even my ex’s ex-girlfriend, notifying me that they were signaling others, including others who had control of one or both of my children, how to respond to any perceived (real or imaginary) challenge to the coercive, controlling, and essentially violent (abusive) status quo.

They (referring to the local married couple/relatives) also never showed up in any family law proceeding, including ones for which an affidavit by one of them had been submitted, and there were MANY family law proceedings over the years. I had to handle them, most of the time without an attorney, alone.

However, the one time I myself made a second attempt at a restraining order, which was much needed, my sister showed up with my ex and his girlfriend in the courtroom (and our older daughter was subpoenaed out of her new high school I’d just enrolled her in — one of the best public schools in the state), and somehow he being significantly in arrears had received funds “from a friend” for a lawyer, who was also present, while I, as the working custodial mother, had none, and no one to sit with me, either, during the actual hearing, and while the father was at that time a few thousand dollars (almost $4K) in arrears on child support.  What a mess! This also naturally communicated to the daughter, then still living with me,  that the hearing was about “taking sides” and not about protecting mother’s right to work safely. Without an additional court order, I was left to then negotiate — week by week, and involving police station-exchanges — for the closest substitute for a safety zone AT LEAST around my own physical household, removing any excuse for hovering, while father continued to see the children with no interference from me every single weekend, as before — unless he declined.

Part of this as it later developed — in my assessment — included literally taking of family members as hostage to the”siege” on my independence as a human being, let alone as a mother. I had seen this coming (most aspects of it) from the start, and witnessing it might be compared to an aggressive, but not yet fatal, form of cancer.

At all times, telling the truth _going public, or “outing” them — is feared by the perpetrators, and in my case has (2009, 2012, 2014 as I write) resulted in escalation of tactics to induce harm. One point may be grudgingly conceded — but not without regaining that lost ground.

So, I understand the “gradual elimination of the ability to resist,” as an ongoing siege situation, and have experienced both tactics in my lifetime, within the past 25 years, and between them, FOR the past 25 years (I married in 1990, physical l violence, repeated, began at my best recall (and I did journal) in 1992, with significant assaults late that year and early the next. But economic control, control of access to transportation, and the initial attempt to shut down my connections within my previous profession, and more, had already begun).

From this and from looking at many of these nonprofit trade associations doing the business of government and attempting to set its policy from OUTSIDE the normal legal processes, I can understand the power of gradualism which “Fabianism” represents, and I say any such tactics for any purpose are NO less evil in purpose or nature just because it may, overall, be less violent in tactics. The question is, in which direction is it moving?

Is it moving away from informed consent, personal liberties except where genuine crime has occurred, and from due process? Is it leading to slavery or economic dependency of major population segments and increased disparate economic status — without the people knowing how this is done?

I say, in this country, YES — and I am in the public interest, saying, pay attention to the societies, the associations, the nonprofit trade groups and understand that at the core of this is the core issue of individual taxation for most, and tax-exemption for far too many. The flow of wealth towards the tax-exempt sector is a given, and that the corporate sector is going to pour wealth into the tax-exempt sector in order to influence government and pass legislation for ITS interests (corporate interest) characterized as for wage-earners’ (individuals’) interests, is a given. It’s a given because of the economic setup, and because corporations (and trusts) can outlive individuals. Therefore those who control long-term corporate wealth, or long-term tax-exempt (trust wealth), are the controlling factors in the economy.

Here’s another reference to “Fabianism,” Keynes at Harvard. I may have cited this before, but am again here because it is pointing out that the permeation tactics to set up elite control of (the masses) is run through the universities, and what’s more, specific universities, including Harvard.

This comes into play when we also consider the role of psychology as a profession and William James (Father of American Psychology) who established a lab at Harvard in 1875. I do not recall offhand at which university either the APA was established without looking it up (Yale comes to mind), but both are obviously in a certain category of elitism.

As with any source, judge the viewpoints for yourself. I have not read all of this one, and am using it to make a certain point about how professional societies (associations) work when there is a specific agenda.

2017 post update notes (see next screenprints from KeynesHarvard.org” which site just uploads a 1969 book, adjusted for web 2009).

If I’d run across this now, I’d be more inclined to look research the publishing company, Probe Research in NY.  Use of the Latin (“Veritas”) and other indicators make it plain this is a conservative point of view.  However, as I saw fit to quote and follow-up on it (looking into “Rand School of Social Science” and “The New School” history and exploring connections between the social science / socialism themes), I’m leaving it.

Author does point out that whether it’s fascism or the supposed polar opposite, both are tending towards complete tyranny anyhow.  He’s also pointing out Harvard University leadership (something I can hardly disagree with, what I’ve learned over the years writing this blog, and as referring to the topics on it).

I’m concerned overall with the setup of systems of indoctrination, for which all people are expected to support the infrastructure of their own increasing disenfranchisement, by sector — or race, or gender.  So, most of the rest of this blog is quotes from this, or related lookups, until the closing paragraph.

Do consider, while reading from Keynes at Harvard, major events and concerns of the 1960s (by then, Harvard didn’t even have women undergraduates — they had Radcliffe, but they couldn’t enroll as undergraduates — does Zygmont Dobbs protest that?). There’d been McCarthyism, and hunts for communism in the fields of arts, film music, politics, etc.  There’d been a major civil rights movement and civil rights act passed, plus major assassinations of leaders in the same — and a President (JFK), and if I remember the dates right, his brother, an Attorney General (RFK) , and there was an imminent/emerging/eventually disastrous war (against the Communists) in Southeast Asia.

So, if I’m going to read this 1969 book, almost half century later (which it was — 2014 – ca. 1970 first published = nearly that long!), I’ll read it with a grain of salt, but also with an ear for what may still ring true.

I’m also going to remember, from other reading on Keynes (and David Mitrany) that both men had major influence on in what direction the European and American worlds were going after World War I, (let alone WWII) and are seen so still, in the 21st Century.  (Two screenprints for a brief recap of that situation also).

Before launching into my previously-written post (quotes and lookups), then, here are two screenprints (for readable sized font) from the Keynes at Harvard Table of Contents and acknowledgments (author publisher, dates, etc.) and two other screenprints from a document I just found Keynes and Mitrany as Instigators of European Governance, from 2004, University of Trier (Germany), referencing both Keynes and Mitrany (whose work was known to each other, and possibly worked together also) both were looking for a differently organized world.  Keynes had written the well-translated “The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” 1919, meaning the Versailles Treaty of Peace (1919) for which Keynes was the negotiator for the British Treasury. (The Keynes & Mitrany images come first and with the other will probably overlap with the quotations, depending on how any viewing device used for this post (whether mobile phone, tablet, or computer) may display the images and the quotes).

Click image to enlarge, or go to KeynesHarvard.org for active links to this book. Contents page, Image 1 of 2

(Contents page Image 2 of 2)

Click image to enlarge or HERE, to read doc’t on-line. This caption contains imp’t. missing text from BOTTOM of Page 2 (incl. footnotes) and I added a bit of Page 3 here: ** With these remarks Keynes referred to the fact that he himself was in the forefront of negotiating the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919. He was chief negotiator for the British Treasury. He resigned from public office in order to have the liberty to propose an alternative “governance” of a future European peace order – largely in opposition to his own government which, like in particular the French one, still thought predominantly in terms of 19th century concepts of military power.
[Page 3, Para. 2:) What were the elements of the just mentioned European ‘new world’ which Keynes was imagining as possibly unfolding in his days? They were to be found in the diagnosis and in the prescriptions of his 1919 book. It was its purpose to offer “remedies” (so the title of his final chapter), namely for a potentially catastrophic European future. 
1:For a more detailed elaboration of this characterisation of David Mitrany see Ambrosi [1998]. 2:See Ashworth [1999, p.35]: “whereas… the reforming economics of Keynes focused on domestic politics, Angell and Mitrany made the focus of their work the study of international relations.” 3:For a survey of some of the issues involved see Ambrosi [2003]. **

From Keynes and Mitrany (as shown in image) Jan. 2004. Click image to enlarge. This caption contains imp’t. missing info from BOTTOM of Page 1/TOP of Page 2 here: **” “…Although Mitrany [1965] himself later denied intellectual kinship with the then just founded and slowly developing European Economic Community (EEC), one nevertheless may see many of the mechanisms presently at work in the European setup as being related to visions which Mitrany propagated for trans-national governance in a seemingly distant future.1 **

Economic Deception as a Political Credo
The permeation of the United States by British Fabian socialism proceeded primarily through the universities. The main root of Fabian “permeation” was Harvard University. Fabian socialists as well as Marxian socialists selected Harvard as the fount from which leftist ideology filtered through to other educational institutions. Later the communists borrowed from the socialists the formula of incubating revolutions through universities.(1)

Bela Hubbard in Political and Economic Structures states; “By the close of the nineteenth century they (Fabians –ed.) had made converts in the United States. Under Fabian influence and guidance, the Intercollegiate Socialist Society {{I.S.S.}} was founded in New York City, in 1905.”(4) During this same period the Rand School of Social Science was formed by Fabian Socialists and became the New York headquarters of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society.

Rand School link — “NYU Tamiment Library and Roger Wagner Archives

Confirms the language and school connection between “School of Social Science” and Socialism.

The Tamiment Library was originally founded in 1906 as part of the Rand School for Social Science, a pioneering workers education school sponsored by the American Socialist Society. In 1917 the school moved to 7 East 15th Street near Union Square where it remained for almost fifty-five years. The Rand School was modeled after the Socialist People’s Houses in Europe and it soon became a cultural and educational center for the Left in New York…

The Library was named the Meyer London Library after the long-time Socialist who represented the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Teachers included Scott Nearing and Betrand Russell, who lost teaching positions because of their political beliefs. Charles and Mary Beard were also members of the faculty. …

After World War II when many returning soldiers began to take advantage of the G.I. Bill of Rights to finance their college educations, the Rand School fell on hard times as enrollments dropped dramatically. In 1956 Camp Tamiment, a socialist summer camp in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains, purchased the Rand School and its library. It closed the school and attempted to integrate its educational and cultural programs into the Tamiment Institute. The Library was renamed the Ben Josephson Library.In 1963 New York University acquired the Library. In 1977, the Tamiment Institute, New York University, and the New York City Central Labor Council founded the Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives in order to preserve the historical records of the New York City labor movement. With the support of Harry Van Arsdale, president of the Central Labor Council, the Wagner became the designated repository of the Central Labor Council’s member unions and affiliated organizations. Updated 1/9/07

Wikipedia on the Rand School of Social Science has more information on its funding and purposes. Paragraphs may not be in order…

. . .The idea of a permanent socialist school in New York City, which took form as the Rand School of Social Science, began with the Christian socialist minister, George D. Herron, and his mother-in-law and financial patron, the widowed heiress Caroline (Carrie) A. Rand. After marrying Mrs. Rand’s daughter (also named Carrie) in 1901 — regarded as scandalous owing to his divorce and abandonment of his first wife and family — the Herrons moved to New York City, where George became a prominent figure in the fledgling Socialist Party. The school was established in 1906, made possible by a $200,000 endowment by Mrs. Rand at the time of her sudden death in 1905.[5] The fund was administered by Rand’s daughter, Carrie Rand Herron, and Morris Hillquit.[6] A total of about 250 students were enrolled for courses during the school’s first year.[7] ...in the fall of 1917, with the assistance of a significant financial gift from international gem merchant A.A. Heller, the Rand School moved into a new headquarters facility located a 7 East 15th Street in Manhattan‘s Union Square neighborhood — a building which it purchased from the YWCA.[13] The new “People’s House,” as it was called, was a six-storey rectangular building about 75 feet wide by 100 feet long.[11]The lease was formally held by the Society of the Commonwealth Center, which sublet all of the 2nd and 3rd floors, as well as parts of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th floors to the school.[11]

Interesting how the School purchased the building, but someone else held the lease and rented parts of it back to them.

…In 1921, individuals close to the Rand School opened a summer school in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania called “Camp Tamiment.”[18]The summer camp idea, pioneered by the Fabian socialist movement in Great Britain, allowed socialists and trade unionists the opportunity to escape the summer heat in the city and to attend courses with their fellows in a pastoral setting

During the Socialist Party split of 1936, the Rand School of Social Science followed the Old Guard faction out of the party and into the new Social Democratic Federation. During this final interval the school became to be supported in an increasing percentage by the profits generated by Camp Tamiment, the SDF’s country summer camp for trade union workers. By the late 1930s more than half of the Rand School’s operating expenses were generated from the proceeds of Camp Tamiment, rising to more than 75% during the last years of the school’s existence.[20] Indeed, as one historian of the Rand School has noted, “the School’s continued existence was possible only as long as the Camp continued to pay the bills.:[20]

The Split was over whether to endorse militant, and illegal confrontation (as the younger more militant people wanted, from what I can briefly tell reading it) versus “Old Guard” which, obviously, had different (Fabian) tactics.

…Beyond its general educational purposes, the Rand School was envisioned as a mechanism for the training of dedicated cadres for the Socialist and trade union movements. An article in the Socialist New York Call likened the school to a “sociological seminary” in which “men and women prepare themselves to be evangelists of a new faith” in which they would go forth “not to fat parishes and prosperous careers, but to hardship, maybe to martyrdom.”[10] As such, the school drew close scrutiny during the years of World War I as part of government efforts to suppress opposition to the European war effort.

……The Rand School maintained a close relationship not only with the Socialist Party of America proper, but also with the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and such trade unions as the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.[12] The Rand School is not related to either the New School for Social Research, a separate and unaffiliated institution of higher learning also located in New York City[21] or the RAND Corporation, a non-profit global-policy think tank.

Camp Tamiment (some photos –hover cursor over “see more” for a brief description of it, and the Institute):

Back to “Keynes at Harvard”

The pattern of operation in the I.S.S. was the same as that pursued by Fabians in England. During the first two years (1905-1907) its activity was mainly that of distributing literature and giving lectures in the universities. By January 1908, the first professional paid organizer went into action. His task was to consolidate in organizational form the results of the previous propaganda. A chapter of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society was formed in Harvard. Other chapters quickly followed in Princeton, Columbia, Barnard, New York University and University of Pennsylvania. All these chapters were organized in the first four months of 1908 at a cost of only 521 dollars.(5)

Active in the I.S.S. were Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfurter, Roger Baldwin, Harry F. Ward and Stuart Chase. The following I.S.S. supporters among many others became leaders in the communist apparatus: Ella Reeves Bloor, Louis Budenz, Jay Lovestone, Alexander Tratchenberg, W.E.B. DuBois and Robert W. Dunn.(7)

Walter Lippmann and Felix Frankfurter managed to attach themselves as special assistants to the Secretary of War in 1917. While there, Lippmann and Frankfurter became closely associated with the then Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt.(11) F.D.R. later rewarded this friendship by appointing Frankfurter to the Supreme Court and American Fabians capitalized on this connection by grabbing hundreds of jobs in key Government positions.

It seems similar tactics are used among other trade association, the ‘AFCC.’ one gets in power then refers others into associated positions. This is SOMEtimes done actually referencing “AFCC” but often done referencing whichever institution (for example, court administrator position, judge, law school professor, or proponent of some other nonprofit association) their colleagues are already at, which it makes an idea to be more independently popular than it is, because of “stacking up of credentials.” In fact, sometimes, the common bond is the UNacknowledged association (AFCC, in this example), and the ideology can be recognized by watching the main group’s propaganda. This is what I would call cult behavior (stealth permeation) and among many reasons I consider that organization itself basically a cult.

Lippmann and Frankfurter, as socialists used their influence to aid left-wing conscientious objectors during World War I. The “objectors” were extremists who refused to support “any war under the capitalist system.” In the New York State Joint Legislative Inquiry in 1920 the following Frankfurter-Lippmann collaboration was disclosed… (etc.)

After World War I the Intercollegiate Socialist Society changed its name to The League for Industrial Democracy (L.I.D.). The parent Fabian Society in England had always urged that the word “socialist” be pushed into the background. Socialistic policies were considered more important than the mere name “socialism” itself . . .

Leading American Fabians activized several organizations as instruments to put over left-wing ideas. One of the more important of these is the New School for Social Reserach.(19) Another such group was the Bureau of Industrial Research.(20)

The New School for Social Research, which operates as an accredited educational institution, has been sold to the general public as an independent and politically neutral institution. Actually the New School was cited as: “established by men who belong to the ranks of near-Bolshevik Intelligentsia, some of them being too radical in their views to remain on the faculty of Columbia University.”(21) When the above characterization was made by the New York State Legislative Committee (1920), the New School Fabian socialist nature was not too well defined but its extremism was recognizable even then.

The New School for Social Research (the University in Exile) now refers to a graduate division, after a name-shortening to “The New School. Their website * shows it was formed after faculty were fired from Columbia University for being too radical, and of their protests of American involvement in World War I. They were an early recognizer of the threat posed by Nazi Germany in part because the school maintained contacts with Europe and was modeled in part on schools for adults in Germany (emphases mine, and I have added a very few paragraph breaks for easier reading. (*hover cursor to read more, or I see I also quoted it, next paragraph..///LGH)

* The New School was founded in in New York City 1919 by a distinguished group of American intellectuals. Some of them were teaching at Columbia University during the First World War. When they took a public stand against U.S. entry into the war, they were censured by the Columbia’s president. The outspoken professors resigned from Columbia and joined with other progressive educators to create a new model of higher education for adults, a school where ordinary citizens could learn from and exchange ideas freely with scholars and artists representing a wide range of intellectual, aesthetic, and political orientations. The original faculty of The New School for Social Reseach, as the founders named it, included Charles Beard, Thorstein Veblen, James Harvey Robinson, Wesley Clair Mitchell, and John Dewey. Other brilliant and innovative scholars of the period, including Franz Boas, Harold Laski, Bertrand Russell, Lewis Mumford were associated with The New School for Social Research. From the beginning, The New School maintained close ties to Europe. Its founders had, in part, modeled the school after the Volkshochschulen for adults established in Germany. Then during the 1920s, Alvin Johnson, The New School’s director, became co-editor of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. While working on this massive undertaking, Johnson collaborated regularly with colleagues in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. It was they who made him aware of the danger the Nazi movement presented to democracy and the civilized world before many in the United States had grasped the seriousness of the situation. In 1933, when Hitler came to power and began to purge Jews and politically hostile elements from German universities, Johnson responded. With the financial support of philanthropist Hiram Halle and the Rockefeller Foundation, he obtained funding to provide a haven in the United States for scholars whose careers (and lives) were threatened by the Nazis. This University in Exile was given a home at The New School and sponsored more than 180 individuals and their families, providing them with visas and jobs. Some of these refugees remained at The New School for many years and some moved on to other institutions in the United States, but the influx of new people and new ideas had a an impact on the U.S. academy far beyond any particular university’s or institute.

The New School and sponsored more than 180 individuals and their families, providing them with visas and jobs. Some of these refugees remained at The New School for many years and some moved on to other institutions in the United States, but the influx of new people and new ideas had a an impact on the U.S. academy far beyond any particular university’s or institute.

in 1934, the University in Exile received authorization from the Board of Regents of the State of New York to offer master’s and doctoral degrees. The New School became a university, and the University in Exile became the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. …

Other leading figures of Europe’s intelligentsia joined the Graduate Faculty, representing the breadth and depth of social sciences and philosophy and further enhancing the reputation of The New School for Social Research. Several members of the Graduate Faculty, including economist Gerhard Colm, political scientist Arnold Brecht, and sociologist Hans Speier, served as policy advisors for the Roosevelt administration during the Second World War.

As a group, they helped to transform the social sciences and philosophy in this country, presenting theoretical and methodological approaches to their fields that had been poorly represented in American universities. When, for example, Max Wertheimer came to the United States and joined the faculty at The New School, he challenged behaviorism, the dominant paradigm in American psychology, with his Gestalt, or cognitive, psychology. Cognitive psychology has become a major subfield in the discipline today

It references early scholars include John Dewey. Interesting, he was a psychologist:

John Dewey, American Pragmatist. Notice which profession is listed FIRST.

John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American psychologist, philosopher, educator, social critic and political activist. He was born in Burlington, Vermont, on 20 October 1859. Dewey graduated from the University of Vermont in 1879, and received his PhD from Johns Hopkins University in 1884. He started his career at the University of Michigan, teaching there from 1884 to 1888 and 1889-1894, [TEN YEARS] with a one year term at the University of Minnesota in 1888. In 1894 he became the chairman of the department of philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy at the University of Chicago. In 1899, John Dewey was elected president of the American Psychological Association, and in 1905 he became president of the American Philosophical Association.

(See below this quote)

Dewey taught at Columbia University from 1905 until he retired in 1929, and occasionally taught as professor emeritus until 1939. During his years at Columbia he traveled the world as a philosopher, social and political theorist, and educational consultant. Among his major journeys are his lectures in Japan and China from 1919 to 1921, his visit to Turkey in 1924 to recommend educational policy, and a tour of schools in the USSR in 1928. Of course, Dewey never ignored American social issues. He was outspoken on education, domestic and international politics, and numerous social movements. Among the many concerns that attracted Dewey’s support were women’s suffrage, progressive education, educator’s rights, the Humanistic movement, and world peace. Dewey died in New York City on 1 June 1952.

This doesn’t mention him teaching at the New School for Social Research, but at Columbia. However, notice that his platform throughout was from the University professorship platform, first UMichigan (Minnesota), about 10 years, then University of Chicago, sounds like perhaps for about 10years,and then for 24 years (until retirement) at Columbia.

The APA was assembled in 1892 at Howard University by G. Stanley Hall but incorporated only in 1925. I am writing this post in part because I want an understanding of “trade associations” in order to discuss this one!


APA was founded in July 1892, at Clark University. Its first president was G. Stanley Hall and it began with 31 members. After World War II, it expanded and grew quickly. Today, APA is the world’s largest association of psychologists, with 54 divisions and nearly 130,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Fernberger/1932/history.htm:

Classics in the History of Psychology

An internet resource developed byChristopher D. GreenYork University, Toronto, OntarioISSN 1492-3173 (Return to Classics index)


SAMUEL W. FERNBERGER (1932)University of Pennsylvania

Some time ago ex-President Coolidge wrote a history of the United States in the compass of 100 words. If such a tabloid history of the American Psychological Association were to be written it would run something like this: Organized in 1892, Incorporated in 1925, and in 1930 it had 530 Members and 571 Associates.

…in recent years [[written in 1932 by Fernberger…]] the character of the Association has changed from that of a very modest organization into that of a “big business,” or at least so it appears to the eyes of an academic psychologist….But inasmuch as the character of the Association has so definitely changed it seems worth while to record a picture of the old scheme of things and of the period of change before they are so dimmed from the memory of living man that it would take a real historian to write the account.

Fortunately for the historian, the records of the Association have been well and faithfully kept since its beginning and preserved in readily available form. The Proceedings of the meetings, in which [p. 2] will be found accounts of both the scientific programs and the business meetings were published from the first to the eleventh annual meetings (1892-1903) in the Psychological Review and, since its founding in 1904 (the account of the 1903 meeting) they have appeared annually in the Psychological Bulletin.


At the invitation of G. Stanley Hall, a “group of rugged pioneers” met at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., on July 8, 1892, to discuss the feasibility of having some sort of an organization. There were present at least seven who are specifically mentioned: G. Stanley Hall of Clark University, George S. Fullerton of the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph Jastrow of the University of Wisconsin, William James of Harvard University, George T. Ladd of Yale University, James McK. Cattell of Columbia University, and J. Mark Baldwin of the University of Toronto.

It seems worth while to stop and discover what psychology was like in America at this moment. According to Garvey’s list[1] only nineteen laboratories had been established at that time. They were in order of their founding: Harvard (1874), Hopkins (1883, but closed 1887-1903), Pennsylvania (1887), Indiana (1888), Wisconsin (1888), Clark (1889), McLean Asylum (1889), Nebraska (1889), Michigan (1890), Iowa (1890), Columbia (1890), Toronto (1890), Cornell (1891), Wellesley (1891), Brown (1892), Illinois (1892), Kansas (1892), Catholic (1892), and Trenton State Normal (1892). Yale opened its laboratory in the autumn of 1892 just following the preliminary meeting of the Association. It will be noted that five of these laboratories were in existence less than one year, two more for one year only and four more for two years only. Thus only eight of the nineteen laboratories had been founded more than two years before the preliminary meeting and one of these had already closed.

Further details inform us that this year Münsterberg came to Harvard from Germany and Titchener came from England to Cornell. Only two psychological journals were as yet published in America, both founded by G. Stanley Hall, the American Journal of Psychology established in 1887 and the Pedagogical Seminary established in 1891. The PsychologicalReview did not appear until two years after the meeting. At this period, then, any man with some- [p. 3] thing to publish in a psychological journal had perforce to send his manuscript to Hall as Editor.

When the student of 1892 wanted to consult a textbook, only two major texts were available in English — G. T. Ladd’s Elements of Physiological Psychology (1887) and William James’ Principles of Psychology (1890). The student who was competent in German had available the third edition of Wilhelm Wundt’s Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (1887). This was a two-volume affair, the first volume of 544 pages and the second of 562 pages. The fourth edition did not appear until the next year


Both my ex-batterer and my family line were quite aware of the power which economic control gives to subject another person to ongoing other forms of abuse to which they may wish to subject the targeted person.

Both (I am referring mostly, but not exclusively, to one married couple and my ex) obviously, understood the devastating impact of cutting off a parent’s communications with children she had raised, or other family members and this was done to my children and to me.

This is essentially a hostage situation, in which the innocent party is silenced on reporting through concern about harm to the one at the other household’s mercy, in addition to the harm done to children cut off in this manner, especially without identified legal cause of action, proof of any such cause of action, or legitimacy in the claims put forth.

Unlike those mentioned above, I did not put my children in this situation EVER previously; their father’s court-ordered visitation was from the start liberal: weekly, and rapidly became weekly overnight;  and I did not interfere with it until the day he cut off communications overnight, and ceased giving any real regard to any existing court order as to visitation, or even phone contact, years ago.

[[original wording ended there, this is an epilogue.  I thought about deleting it, but three years ago, and now, I still believe that these major forces influencing local environments have to be looked at more closely, and from a more honest perspective on who the various players (system elements) are, AND with respect to what the CAFRs also have to say about government.

Along with this also, erosion of any regularity of child support payments (overnight, not that they were at the time coming that regularly) and later reduction of them. For years, I had sought help, and brought before people in positions implying the ability to help (facilitators’ offices, when I had one, a lawyer, when I was there, judges or court commissioners, etc.) that I was willing and able to support this family financially alone IF one of two conditions were met:  (1) restraint, safe boundaries around my household, person, and time so I might work without traumatic, repeated incidents and ongoing arguments often involving police officers, either to get my children back from a visitation when withheld, or the “retaliatory call-the-police” when I was allegedly a minute or more late (whether or not this was the case).  I innocently believed that there was public resistance to domestic violence, and that this actually mattered in family court too, not just in the process of getting the initial protection.

Or, at a certain point when it was clear that protection and that safety zone were not voluntarily going to be provided, I told others, including authorities (as I recall) that if you will not provide protection so I can work, you must then enforce child support, precipitating perhaps a seek-work order for the father which, ideally, would help with his self-respect (through a work ethic) and would help me at least during the days when he might be occupied — working — and thus not free to cause trouble at this end.

This seemed like a logical “either/or” — ONE of the parents ought to be working, and if it can’t be me because of a lack of public will to continue enforcing protection AFTER domestic violence had been identified as my cause of separation, then the authorities should go after ideally the other parent, the father, and demand he at least look for work (at the time, I actually had a profession, still).

As time showed, and later, research, the logic we are often told about why systems do what they do, was not shared with those at the local or street level.  For example, I hadn’t factored in that my being female and a mother was allegedly a social risk factor for our daughters, and the world would be better off if I had a local “handler” and the children were in someone else’s hands, regardless of actual character traits, or the facts of the case. This heavy hand of the state is felt at many points in the system, and has long-term and wide effects.

The long-term influences and significant clout through these two professional associations, the ABA and the APA, should not be underestimated.  I hope this post may have inspired more lookups, and (it now being years later) don’t want to re-hash the personal situation, as outrageous as it was, and as symptomatic of problems with honesty about the actual policies throughout.

//LGH June 2017.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: