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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) [Publ. July 12, 2017]

with one comment

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) case-sensitive short-link ending “-7bR”

I(Oct 2014 updated July 2017, Pt. 3B, i.e., taken from “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.”

WITHIN that post, I extracted a section about conversations we need to have:  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”).  That brief post ends with a shortlink to this one (although without the fancy title).

That (short) post reminded readers of my Five Related Posts  from the Vital Links menu whose themes continue to prove relevant year after year, no matter which topic I seem to be researching or reporting on.  It also reminded and showed readers an interesting (and so far, typical) response to the relevance of the CAFR (Consolidated Annual Financial Reports) Mass Media Coverups when it’s brought to light.

THIS ONE was first started for technical (length, easier revision) purposes 7-7-2017.  All paragraph breaks had been wiped out…

There were also at least two length issues here.  One is me running my mouth in quasi-PTSD mode back in 2014 (a time of major household stress and transition as I had just outed relative probate/fiduciary abuse in the context of same relative’s prior involvement in undoing my work life via post-domestic violence separation’s family court litigation — on the opposing side, etc.)  Another length issue was technical blogging ability — at the time I hadn’t discovered how to use (smaller) screenprints, instead of quotes, and or begun using condensed fonts inside quotes, or lines to set them off from basic text inside boxes.  I hope to correct both without negating or erasing important content.  But some post “surgery” may be required here….


CAFRs as a system of reporting for government entities regulated by a tax-exempt nonprofit set up by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) only began, at least as regulated by this tax-exempt nonprofit, in the 1970s, by which time post World War II government surpluses were really starting to accumulate (as well as personal fortunes made in wartime).

Key to CAFR coverup is accounting practices which separate “BUDGET” from many other funds, handle “General Fund” as though it was the main source of government receipts (it most certainly isn’t at the federal, state, and most other levels).  Being blissfully (??) ignorant of how to assess, see, or conceptualize just how many assets and in what forms, and under what funds, all levels of (USA – federal) (States — all 50 and territories) governments, plural, exist and where they are pooled, or where held separately, “the people” are easily fooled into accepting the constant talk of DEFICIT without regard to NET ASSETS or even GROSS ASSETS (and taking a look at how liabilities are accounted for).

The problem with showing this information is the “snooze” factor.  It’s not colorful, juicy, doesn’t have major photography involved; it requires actual dealing with numeric and categorization concepts (somewhat abstract) even though they really do apply to concrete situations — like how to make a city go bankrupt needlessly by changing accounting rules.

It also isn’t typically grasped with just 15 minutes of exposure, or maybe even a few days. Constant absorption of current events and news does NOT typically equip or condition a person to absorbing this type of information if one doesn’t already know how to.  Its impact is also so significant, there is a natural desire to go back to the “pristine” innocent belief that the problem wasn’t so fundamental.

The post “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”,) talks about conversations we (the public) should be having as part of normal basic, understanding of life in this country.  These conversations ideally should be with each other in places where we can view the same visuals, charts, and discuss them ideally face to face and ongoing, and with our own families or partners, or friends.  BUT, we have been conditioned NOT to talk about these things, and become focused and engrossed on other things instead.

Business owners who operated in this manner would go under, or get taken over because they are not paying attention to their bottom lines, or the current marketplace and climate — or finding and listening to others who can tell the truth about it.

This information IS “the bottom line” for people living here and subject to taxation, policies, conditions created by various entities, and propaganda, where it may be propaganda, about the where IS that bottom line, really — as a basis for setting future policy.

These more people should be having with each other are talks about money which take into account how the government sector interacts with the public (through taxation and tax-exemption), what’s done with tax receipts (how it’s shown in reports versus portrayed on the media), and how government entities differ from business entities organized under the same governments (guess which one is really on top?).  These conversations cannot occur without at least some basic vocabulary and a bit of “practice.”  That “practice” has to include some financial statements and tax return reading.

I have some very smart, articulate, well-educated friends, who I continue to respect.  Some may say they are no good with numbers, their minds don’t work that way.  How much of this is nature or nurture (or lack of nurture when it come to basic math) isn’t my business.

I realize some people are visual learners, but I refuse to believe there are not more people who are capable of thinking conceptually AND capable of comprehending consequences of having had significant information about how our own governments operate using their financial statements being withheld from the average person, and from open, and frequent discussion on-line and in social media.

Carl Herman, “Nonpartisan examiner” 7/3/2011, leading quotes (after link to a video) in “Debt-damned economics: Learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye (Pt. 1 of 2)”. Accessible also from his article on the $600B fund that can’t fund $27B pension obligations, (below).

I wonder what is the psychological block to facing some of these facts, or understanding that they refer to things which often make headlines in the major media anyhow — for example, constant talk of underfunded pensions, pension liabilities making or breaking some major metropolitan city.  Again — Carl Herman (cited enough on this blog, probably on the post leading to this one) said it clearly enough and he’s not alone.  I just think he expressed it well — why hold over $600B assets (speaking of I believe CalPERS) when it doesn’t adequately fund pension contributions anyhow?  Here’s a paragraph from my lead-in post (with a little extra color for emphasis):

For an antidote, go read some Walter 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 . .

So, this post starts with a slight overlap (naming the five posts and reminding us to go check out the FMS Treasury.gov website (and/or its redirect) to view some reports.

Expanding on that commentary from Burien (2010) above, he gives an analogy (other than the rhetorical response — “Is the Columbian cartel short of cocaine?” which seems a good analogy for the situation! I added a screenprint, then a quote:

(From: “Is Our Gov’t Bankrupt?” WBurien 5/10/2010. Click image to enlarge if needed.) LOOK at the ##s re: Bill Gates example in the image, first, and two ways to present the same information:)

(Walter Burien (May 10, 2010, “Is our Government Bankrupt?.)

Now these are the basics which of course a complete vacuum and void is created in the minds of the population due to the money involved. Focus your attention here to determine if you have a government that is a “for profit and a take-over machine” or a government “representative of the people’s interests

I have looked many a times and know in advance you will not be pleased with what you find when you look.

What is the difference in the presentation of the bankrupt scenario?  ANS: A bunch of spoiled and ruthless yuppies of which most are attorneys greasing the skids as they dot the “I’s” and cross the “T’s” walking with as much cash as they can today as they with a strong arm also lock in the productivity value of the next five to seven generations. Their presentation of prospective has worked easily and grandly for them over the last 70 years and there is nothing of any consequence stopping them as of today so the beat goes on!

Government “plays” great paupers to the media for presentation to the public while at the same time having the net worth of a million Bill Gates. The perspective you are spoon feed [sic] from your government is NOT in your interests but in theirs as the US / local government financial “empires” continues to expand Worldwide..


“I  Love  LA”  and so do the local politicians, government attorneys, and their bloated pockets love LA also!

That page linked to several CAFRs; I chose one from the L.A. County School District, not to show its financial statements, but to show how entrenched is the language emphasizing “Presentation #1” (emphasizing budget deficits) vs. #2 (revealing the budget in respect to total holdings and available sources of income). I annotated two of those image.  Can you not see the language? Even within a CAFR statement by a major California School District, the emphasis — and Governor also working the same rhetoric — is only in the portion of the entire state’s holdings as to the budget.  The public should NOT be encouraged to have cognizance of what else is out there!!

After that, I’m going to also show two Form 990s (one from a somewhat small, the other from a much larger, 501©3.  The much larger one is a community foundation, which exist, to compensate, allegedly, for what people cannot do for themselves and/or what government services are not doing to protect their ability to do so….  It’s easy to see from the larger foundation that once you get to a certain size, “investment income” is huge –whether it’s from dividends and interest, or sales for profit or both.

In this example, the investment income (for a recent year) of this community foundation was actually about a third (more than 33%) of its revenues — for that year only.  Its revenues of about $1.5 billion where, however, only a small portion (roughly about ¼; I’m saying this by memory not with it right in front of me) of its total assets, which assets it had only started accumulating under itself since 2006, but which had been stockpiled over other years by the two community foundations which merged to create it.  With this kind of revenue, ongoing, it was “no big deal” to help their new president with a $500K housing loan at low interest rate, to relocate and keep the good thing going even better.   Hopefully sooner or later the concepts will sink in!

Now, those LA USD screenprints (just three, just a sample):

Title page LAUSD CAFR 2009.

LAUSD CAFR 2009 (excerpt #1 of 2; see image for source url). Notice the language emphasis (deficit budget cut services etc.)

LAUSD CAFR 2009 (excerpt #2 of 2; see image for source url). Notice the language emphasis (deficit budget cut services etc.)

If you have followed ANY of my many posts showing Form 990s, page 1 Summary, those summaries have four sections after (since 1998) first briefly describing the filing entity’s size, number of employees, volunteers, independently voting board members, etc.

Those parts are, on Form 990 since 2008, on ONE page (“Page 1”),  Revenues (several line items), Expenses (several line items), Revenues – Expenses = Excess or Deficit  for that year and at the bottom, “Assets at beginning of year – Liabilities = Net Fund Balances at end of year.  Form 990 now also has a separate column for all of the above for “Prior Year.”

By considering the differences between a year’s worth of revenues and expenses compared to the accumulated (since the tax-exempt entity’s origin) assets it’s easy to see that a budget is just part.  By further looking at the balance sheet (Pt X for Form 990), it doesn’t take long to figure out that what hasn’t actually come in yet (i.e., “Pledges”) can be considered “Assets” and what is incurred debt, but payable in installments, or later, as “Liabilities.”  The form itself coaches each filing entity to think and report in these terms.

Whether it’s from a very large, or a not-so-large entity, within each category, it’s the same basic IRS Form used.  Different “Schedules” will be attached according to need.

So look at two different Form 990s’ Page 1 (the above section) from two very different entities.

One is for the Bill of Rights Institute I quoted in last post (not so large), the other from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, total gross assets recently, $6 billion.  (I went looking for a large community foundation as opposed to some larger tax-exempts which I knew might instead be filing the different Form 990PF for private foundations)…

In the process, because of that database‘s funny labeling idiosyncrasies, I found another recent and much smaller umbrella organization called “League of California Community Foundations” (EIN#45-5125583) only formed (incorporated, that is) in 2012 but it said, functioning as an unincorporated association since 1994, using Silicon Valley Community Foundation (itself a recent about 2006 merger of two other community foundations, doubling size of controlled assets, I remembered) as a fiscal agent (that information, a detail on the League’s (EIN# 45-5125583) Founding Docts).

I found this when Form990finder showed the larger entity’s name (under different EIN#) the same as the smaller one’s.  Like this:

Total results: 3Search Again. (NONE of the IRS returns in this table belongs to “League of California Community Foundations”!  All of them, that is EIN#20-5205488, belongs to Silicon Valley Community Foundation, itself the result of a prior merger of two large foundations and their assets.  Doing a separate search of the “League of” name brought up the other entity with separate EIN#).

League of California Community Foundations CA 2015 990 1460 $6,304,272,612 20-5205488
Silicon Valley Community Foundation CA 2014 990 2970 $5,661,647,798 20-5205488
League of California Community Foundations CA 2013 990 1859 $3,931,040,119. 20-5205488

FY2015 (top row), Mission Purpose – grandiose, and vague, where a description was asked for:

Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities
SVCF is a comprehensive center of philanthropy Through visionary leadership, strategic grantmaking and world class experience, we partner with donors to strengthen the common qood locally and throuqhout the world

Basically, they have donor-advised funds and donate locally and globally.  “World class experience” isn’t exactly defined, but strategic grantmaking indicates a certain strategy.  What is it?  “Strengthening the common good…”  “Thanks for that explanation…” (that’s also what governments are supposed to do…).

If you looked at Year 2006 of this entity’s Tax Return, it’d show “only” $500,000″ receipts but an end-of-the-year balance of over $1 billion ($1,000,000,000) because of the merger.

Image 1, Page 1 Top SVCommunity Fndtn 2006 Initial Form 990 (<=click for entire return)


Image 3, “Statemt 1” re: merger (incl prior entity names and EIN#s…(obviously the money came from prev. orgs’ assets when they dissolved). SVCommunity Fndtn 2006 Initial Form 990 (<= entire return)

Image 2, Page 1 Bottom,SVCommunity Fndtn 2006 Initial Form 990 (<=click for entire return, from FoundatinCenter.org). Notice “See Statemt 2” to explain where the $1B came from. (FYI, Calif. Charitable Registry upload of this same return omits “Statement 2” and all “Statemt” pages for that year…Why?

Image 4, Explanation to Pt III references Emmet D. Carson (new President) who is well known. Searchable on this blog, I’ve probably posted on this SVCF mega-merger before…SVCommunity Fndtn 2006 Initial Form 990 (<=entire return)


















In 2006, the IRS form didn’t have this summary info on page 1, so I’m using an more recent example to compare Revenues – Expenses = Net Balances (or, Deficit if Expenses are higher) BUT that’s moderated by what are Assets v. Liabilities to, the actual “Bottom Line,” what are the NET Fund Balances (collective) for any filing entity).

Bill of Rights Institute (example of Form 990, Page 1, annotated):

(This is a large-size image. You can still click to enlarge if needed). The blue squiggles indicate areas where revs decreased or expenses increased. But, see bottom section (Lines 20-22).As for nonprofits, so for government entities also — there are Revs, Expenses, Assets & Liabilites, and the ASSETS are typically much larger than any year’s budget expenses…

I’m showing these examples for a comparison to similar principles, but in government entities.

Why would people be aware that in private business, and for themselves, there exist revenues and expenses, and likewise typically aware in a private business and for themselves that there also exist possibly ASSETS and LIABILITIES — but not think in those terms when it comes to government entities?

  • a BUDGET refers to planned allocations for a specific timeframe (typically, a year), and that a written summary of a timeframe’s business means: Revs – Expenses = Balance (excess or deficit) at end of the year,
  • ASSETS are things of value, ideally not expended within the budget, and are compared to LIABILITIES.
    • Some people may have assets, but for a long period, no revenues… putting their assets (like homes) at risk of being foreclosed, etc.  Obviously, some people have no real assets.  Some have no stable homes, either — they are on the streets.

And that IF there are reserves  besides the allocation for the specific timeframe of any budget, (Assets – Liabilities = NET reserves), that changes the overall assessment.  The concept of assets and liabilities for individuals (whether small, or even NO assets available for too many) isn’t a completely foreign idea. So why would it be when it comes to government entities which obviously have infrastructure, operations, real estate, staffing, supplies, and all kinds of factors in their “line of work.”??  

Somehow when it comes to household and private businesses, the concept that a single year’s performance, and failure to consider the assets, makes no sense — but when it comes to government entities individually, or — as they actually are– networked with each other (and the public), the primary discussion is mostly budget, and truly fuzzy concepts of what else is out there, and in what forms… 

Then, logically,

public discussion of only the “Revenue – Expenses = Deficit” and fuzzy, if any, discussion of  the governmental equivalent of Lines 20-22 on a private nonprofit, nonstock association’s Form 990, makes no sense, but that’s the basic discussion in most places.

What about the Prior and Past Year’s Revenues and Expenses (Lines 8-19 on Form 990, see above image) in the context of other parts of the return (for example, some organizations have “related entities” and distribute debt to some, revenue to others — in which case only the tax returns compared and the financial (consolidated) statements would give the larger picture)?  A single PART of any government entity (like the federal government is only part of the story, and a single part of any statement (or tax return) considered in isolation, is not the whole story.

Above, you can see easily (blue squiggly lines, large image above) from prior year to this, the revenues decreased and the assets increased — so for that year, it was showing a much smaller “excess” at the end of the year.  But that doesn’t take into account its existing assets (or buffer) or its reasonable assurance from somewhere, so long as the funders want the 501©3 to continue (and it’s been around almost 40 years, so probably — for a while yet…), of ongoing contributions.

The same would be true for the government of the United States of America, and others.  So long as people keep working, they continue to be taxed.  What’s more, there are more assets than it’s openly admitting — and IF the tendency is to say — don’t touch those (let us keep them also producing their own investment revenues, dividends, etc.) — then the tendency also will be to portray liabilities as higher than they need be to avoid distribution, or stop accumulating such reserves.

You can also see at a glance that the Bill of Rights Institute, Inc., above, is splitting its revenues roughly half between Salaries (one line item) and “Other expenses” (another line item, detailed elsewhere on the return).  Nonprofits differ (some put them mostly into salaries, others don’t.  Some put more into grants) and how they distribute these expenses reflects on the purpose and operations of the organization — which also goes for government entities. Viewed over time (also important — for any organization I learned to, if possible, look up earlier returns, and look at their “Schedules A” which show prior years of report)

Now below here is Page 1 of a tax return representing Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF.org) which I picked primarily because I remembered it was large, and it would be filing a Form 990, and for Year 2015 (Gross assets beginning of a recent year, over $6 BILLION).   This image is less clear, finer print, but here it is, starting at line 7a and going to the signature block on page 1:

Silicon Valley Comm’ty Fndtn FY2015 (Lns 7a-signature block) Click to enlarge if you wish.

So you can easily see through Forms 990 that a budget deficit, increase, or decrease, not to mention revenues increase or decrease FOR THAT YEAR is not the whole story.  And it’s that “whole story” we should be interested in, including why so many assets are being withheld from the people, while the tax-exempt sector then partners with government entities to “save” us from our “low-income” situations, or being single parents, or other conditions created, long-term, by the policies set in place a hundred (or more) years ago.  These policies literally discourage individuals from acquiring and maintaining their own personal assets, and letting those produce interest income, dividends or, should they so choose, buy and sell them, through many punitive measures, while discouraging inquiry about what’s being done with those tax receipts, overall.

The fewer people willing to converse and understand these matters, the less safe the place (the country) is, in my opinion.

The dissociation, in a pinch, or knee-jerk reaction, is more likely to rule.  I saw this, again, by failure of so many “advocacy groups” and their followers to talk about the elephant in at least the family courtroom — failure to disclose such a basic, simple agenda in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s as regards marriage/fatherhood programming when I was run through the family court (divorce/custody gauntlet) by a man who, I knew at the time, didn’t really even want a divorce.  But, he sued for it.  I didn’t want to be dependent on child support payments either –other than having this particular individual employed would be good for him (for self-respect) and for myself, reducing the harassment factor, and opening the door to abandoning any real need for child support.

On looking at the TAGGS.hhs.gov database over time, I saw that, as to some of this programming, they could hardly give that money away fast enough, regardless of whether it was well stewarded.  It seemed to be heading towards organizations which refused to even stay incorporated, or file tax returns consistently — but were politically correct color and gender, both, for the decades.  As it turns out, I was not, on either account…. In 2013 I started to publish the WHOLE HHS (TAGGS) database, 500 pages at a time, after discovering how inaccurate it was, and “sort” quirks which would lead to all kinds of odd results.

Eventually, that entire database was altered, with two main changes being — (1) removing the capacity to get search results of 500 records at a time (allowing very useful “browsing” of patterns which would be harder to detect 25 records at a time — like organizations getting really outsized grants compared to the other, with a single program, or grant series), and (2)  the data entry field (it used to be under “Basic Search” menu) prompt or, from what I can tell, even option, to search by EIN#.    When the organization names aren’t entered consistently, the DUNS# (other identifiers) not always that easy to locate, the EIN# was a great identifier tying that grant to a state or territory-based grantee, nonprofit, and related tax returns.  Why get rid of both those useful capacities in TAGGS.HHS.Gov?

ABOVE THIS NEXT DOUBLE-LINE (all text and images) was my 2017 introduction to the October 2014 narrative and links below it, except where below I’m going to add paragraph breaks and perhaps copyedit (or, if I see what looks like a PTSD-driven “rant,” shorten or delete it….). I expect to shorten or break up some grammatically correct but just too-danged-long! sentences.  Also, if the explanations above have helped anyone better grasp the concept, I’d appreciate hearing that in a comment; if you don’t want the comment published for some reason, let me know also.  Thanks.  

Now, after years of this, I see how rare a conversation that still is, despite how important it is.

Related posts, see “Vital Links” on sidebar:

[Commentary on the post, not a quote from it:]

This pain-in-the-neck-to-read post covers major ground. Although it needs to be split, it is worth reading NOW and with its recent update, for breadth of topics, and for asking hard questions I have NOT heard or read others ask yet, to date.

Possibly people operating from a position of lack, or of fear (which I certainly can understand and have experienced), including fear of losing professional connections after having formed them and shared a spot in the sun, published, conferenced, been commended in the family law, or correcting /reforming-it field, are just not going to acknowledge or bring up the topic of blind spots, communal professional agreement to NOT-TALK about certain topics, and will instead of talking about the “elephants (plural, big ones) in the room,”* continue circling around them and associating as if they were just not there.

(* OR the other critters in the shadows outside the politically correct, restricted-topics list of things wrong with the family law system to complain or conference about — like what’s it doing here to start with?)

Well, I may be just dumb enough, or have already lost enough (including professional connections in a field I respect a lot more than this one, in the course of attempting to protect both children and a work life from chronic harm), or I may be smart enough, or it can be that I care more about saying this (so others know) than the social graces and ongoing, and increasing compromises, to just blurt it out.

Someone has to speak up while there is a window of time and a few doors of opportunity.

Regarding those “Related Posts”


The first two links (“Abolishing…” and “Social Sciencification”) talk about the planned reorganization of the federal government through the administration of its income tax revenues and the “professionalization” of administrative practices. The models used were based on industrial and military models and prioritized centralized control and efficiency over due process by delegation of functions and compartmentalization of authority. This is basic American history and should be understood and kept in mind IF the present is to be understood.

The third related link (“A Stunning Validation…”) talks about where the field of psychoanalysis fits in, who pushed it to the forefront, and how, including how much censorship in even the letters of its “founding father” (Sigmund Freud) was involved (next quote is my words on the post, not a quotation from it):

Psychoanalysis and psychology as professions are absolutely related and have leadership in common and have become essential to maintaining and perfecting related arts (as opposed to “science”) of persuasion, confusion, intimidation, and behavioral modification necessary for any government leadership which entails population control for personal riches via perpetual war, eugenics by any other mean, starvation/stress/eviction from housing, and in general, force and threat of force. This field of practice came down through elite university societies (including Harvard, and Yale), and helps facilitate the controlled economy, despite the existence of a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the continual assertion to the public that we are a free nation.

Regarding Psychoanalysis, Psychology, etc.  — My Position:

I have come to a value judgment on the field, and my value judgment, based on investigations of the origins and practices, and experience of the impact of the psychology-drenched family court system and how it covered up significant family criminal activity, including but not limited to domestic violence, and others I am not listing here, is negative.

In order to have a negative or positive value judgment on anything, one must have a standard of judgment.

The field of psychology and psychoanalysis in general says, “we, our profession, our societies, our experts, are the judges, we are the standard-setters,” when in fact psychology is not a science, and is grounded, like any religion, on practices and world-views. It depends on language and professional control and of course funding, to even exist as a profession. The history of the field doesn’t stand close scrutiny, but I am continuing to give it this anyway.

We do not need more psychologists or better trained psychologists on the government or private dole, but we do need an understanding of how the economic and cultic (I’m using that word precisely) are origins of the field and how it is the natural “handmaid” [facilitator] of ongoing war and personal violence and abuse, and the ongoing use of drugs as a form of (a) profit and (b) population control.

My saying this of the field is NOT to say that all psychologists are personally violent or prone to abuse. But they sure have gravitated to a field and associated practices which has been used in this format.


The fourth related link, “NAMES,” (“NAMES: “Center, Council, Judicial, Legislative, Institute…” But WHO they are, and how legit, is in the LABEL. (8/30/2013)“) encourages people who may object to losing individual rights for nebulous or never-delivered benefits, before arguing or engaging in conversation on the merits of any philosophy, to identify the corporate, government, or “hybrid” economic structure of any named group speaking into a situation, and to do this whether the speaker, or group speaking, has positioned himself, herself, or itself as friend or foe.


Show a healthy self-respect and know who’s who in the mix! This simple habit should be PRIORITY, and if made consistent, it would spare much mental grief and anguish.

Or, don’t, and suffer the consequences and diminish the quality of conversations going on, year after year.

The fifth related link, (A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment (3/14/2014)) and among my most recent posts (June 29, 2014 being the last {{at the time of this draft, obviously…//LGH June 2017}}), talks about the intentional burialthrough omitneglect, and {when others bring it up] first try ignore, (no response, often effective in codependent, “follow-the- key-leaders” group dynamics) then dismiss, and derail the discussion tactics of this information by groupsclaiming concern about the damages of the family court system, concern for victims of horrible, life-altering, and traumatizing crimes representing the worst of humanity.

There has been roadkill; there have been multiple-homicides involved in a mind-numbing relentlessness. Sometimes these crimes come in clusters and in fast sequence.

A common phrase among some of the “bury-the-info” groups and their blogging/commenting followers had been for years, “shine the light on the plight.”

The “light on the plight has not stopped the crimes, but it has pre-empted and slowed down informed discussion on the motives for the crimes, which is typically financial profit, not to mention the classic, time-tested means of pulling them off, including the family court venue itself to counter criminal prosecution for criminal behavior.   That’s why the title “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment.”  I’ve since incorporated the phrase into a the blog model and prioritized it by placement on the topmost (always) post, which lists formerly “sticky” (i.e., also highly prioritized) posts.

One thing seems clear:  the current kinds of attention aren’t effective in stopping DV or Child abuse or “custody of children going” (eventually, if not at first separation) to batterers.”   [[Para. is 2017 update]]

Most people don’t bother to understand bedrock truths, to the point they could explain them to others showing some evidence until that truth slaps them in the face, or even afterwards.

In context, I am still discussing the family court, and know the statement “slaps you in the face” speaks to both court actions, and to some people who are in the family court after having been slapped in the face (etc.), with children standing by, or seen their children harmed, and forced to stand by, far too many times physically. It’s not just the very real injuries and damages, it’s also the betrayal of trust.

This betrayal goes, usually and properly, beyond the immediate family line into the surrounding social connections and institutions.

This ongoing betrayal of the public trust includes the accelerating and entrenched [fn1] coordinated systems of increasing control and enforced poverty and economic disparity as a form of intimidation [fn2] which have been for at least a century (let’s say: 1913 – 2013) been set up in the name of freedom and reducing poverty and economic disparities among specific population groups. Which groups can be, it seems, switched within a decade or less, at-will, once the steering mechanism has been set in place, and the “gas in the tank’which I have to say, is the public as subject to the federal income tax and many other forms of taxation.

  • [fn1](the word “creeping” may have described their start, but no longer applies)
  • [fn2] (push economic disparity too far down on anyone, and the result is early death — the threat is real).

So, if we’re going to talk, let’s take the time to establish and talk about the bedrock, foundational truths, make sure they’re understood, and talk according to them. NO field of professional expertise exists in a vacuum, and all of them require funding.

ALL funding and ALL commerce in this country, where it’s not black market and illegal, falls somewhere in the taxation categories, which create incentives to accumulate wealth and avoid being taxed on it.

Generally, this example is only dealing with the federal level of government. I’m not a CPA or attorney or tax professional, this is just to demonstrate a few interesting classifications which speak to an economic caste system with the citizen who doesn’t form a business, and particularly a for-profit paired with a nonprofit business, at the bottom of the heap, UNLESS that citizen is employed by those at the top of the heap, which have certain ways of accumulating, and avoiding taxation to preserve, their trust assets.Corporations and individuals are both considered “persons” although people eventually die, but corporations can be “perpetual.” However individual “persons” with a “Social Security Number” as their identifying commercial tracker, when they receive profits from their labor (or interest profits if there are holdings, etc.), but “Business entities” (corporations, or LLCs, I guess) are to obtain EIN#s.

Increase to individuals from salaries (or interest on other holdings) is called INCOME but increase to governments and nonprofit corporations is called “REVENUES.” So when it comes to taxation, individuals who report using their SS#s are subject to the INCOME tax at under various guidelines, but tax-exempt corporations, report their REVENUES also to the IRS, but that revenue is just not taxed. Corporate profits ARE taxed, which means less profit for them compared to what they earned. And of course those taxes are delivered to the federal government; its operations are not taxable to itself, obviously.

For a corporation which doesn’t want to be taxed too much and lose profits, especially for any shareholders (stockholders) or investors (whether public, and traded so as to come under SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) regulation, a common tactic is for the same individuals owning, or even running the corporation, to form a tax-exempt business or “trust” to go along with it, and funnel profits which would otherwise be lost through taxation, into a nonprofit which they control.

Nonprofits do NOT have “stockholders” by definition, they are controlled by their boards and or officers (however, the by-laws set it up) and are not particularly accountable to the public in the way government is supposed to be. Individuals not on that nonprofit’s board do NOT have rights regarding it unless they have some cause under which to sue it for a violation of their other rights, as in, civil or human rights. In addition, there is the factor in the economy of those who simply don’t bother to file as individuals, or stay filed as corporations — either because their work is so little, or their work is too large, and illegal (as in, trafficking in drugs, arms, or human beings, etc.


Or, another tactic is doing commerce with things legal to sell, but doing it without reporting as required and being taxed on it.

So, one way or another, as I see it, every “person” working above the table in the US economy operates on one or the other side of the taxation spectrum, and some work on the legit side as far as being registered legitimately has but may have illegitimate operations. However, the distinction is between “income” for inividuals registered unde their EIN# (cf. “INCOME Tax”) and REVENUES is applied to both government and nonprofits which report it on their 990 forms.

How ironic that INCOME to some on returns filed with the IRS when delivered to the government is classified as REVENUES (It’s the “Internal REVENUE Service,” right? The IRS works with the Internal Revenue Code, but the IRS is not part of government.). As “persons” (which includes corporations, I hope is understood by now), it’s either: wages income taxed (above a certain limit), and as a corporation, it’s either tax-exempt or taxable.

Let’s talk tax-exempt:

Among tax-exempt there’s the categories of “Must report” or “Doesn’t have to report,” i.e., let’s talk religious-exempt. Governments, plural, function as a business and do business (by sell, invest, receive dividends on their investments, profits and/or losses, issue yearly financial statements (which few people read, but they still exist: “CAFR”) as a business (which it is — it engages in the same types of business as many corporations,) but do not even have to justify the profits not being taxed and, what’s more, typically have the power to tax others. [[Thought not finished in the 2014 draft; I”m finishing where it seemed to be going at the time, now, in the update…this includes next sentence and paragraph.]]

Yet, when it comes to fairness in government and advocacy groups attempting to go get some, the discussion rarely goes to nonprofits AS nonprofits, and the proliferation of those working in networks (Do You Know Your [recite the list again…]) who are setting policy outside the participation of those most affected by it, and using names associated with government.

Talk about nonprofits as nonprofits, when it does seem to come up in the media (not including that obviously sponsored by foundations themselves…) will usually go Political Left v. Political Right, which keeps the pingpong tournament going.  This talk doesn’t lead to sound comparisons on relative size and collective interests of ALL nonprofits in maintaining private control, access to cashflow and (if it’s part of that business plan) privately controlling more assets while influencing public and local populations alike into believing this is a good model.

Left/Right only talk doesn’t really show, although it’s the reality, that in general these philanthropists maintain multiple billion-dollar foundations (or sometimes a series of them) for themselves, and/or heirs or those already managing their personal wealth (i.e., investment managers), and from that platform — speaking of the sector as a sector —  also try to set government policy across the spectrum:  Schools, Healthcare, Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, Family Courts (etc.), and gender-based decisionmaking, often, throughout.

These also set decision-making hierarchies and priorities, which affects entire communities; i.e., deflecting the accusation of racism is more important than deflecting the accusation of sexism when both are true.  Emphasis on treatment and referrals no matter which sector of government operations is at hand (i.e., diversionary justice). And many more. [End of 2017 revision/update since “Thought not finished in 2014” demarcation above].

I could in a 10-minute or less conversation, summarize the significance of these [_______ various organizations] and how they relate to the current state of so-called family court reform (or “Enhancement”) projects, and the “Our Broken Family Courts” movement, as facilitated in good part by groups in my area (Northern California) at least two who seem to have hooked up with an Institute for Violence and Trauma (“IVAT”) at Alliant International University in Southern California, and hooked up with lifelong psychology devotee, Nicholas J. Cummings, former head of Kaiser mental health (and successor to “Turn on, Tune In, Drop Out” Timothy O’Leary of LSD and some say CIA fame).

Kaiser itself represents a number of nonprofit and for-profit health operations which came out of the ship-building industry for World War II.   Kaiser is a significant player in nationalized healthcare (“Obamacare”) and its next head of mental health after Timothy O’Leary, seems to have been Nicholas J. Cummings, who was an enthusiastic promoter of tying the professional futures of psychologists closely to primary provider healthcare, and pushing for advanced degrees for psychologists as a way of obtaining higher salaries and more respect for the field.  I know this because on hearing of his fairly recent (2012) announced involvement in/ sponsorship of the “Broken Courts Initiative,” I simply read extensively on the subject matter, read his 2008 interview on his visions for the field, recognized some of the other involvements, and more.

There MUST be talk about the American Psychological Association, as an association and the origins of psychology in this nation, from two perspectives:  (1) Economic Positioning as a Trade Association, and (2) remembering and understanding at least the basics of William James, widely acknowledged”the father of American Psychology,” which lead, disturbingly, to the “cult” connection. If nothing else, the field is addicted to its own gurus and control of the profession and personal control // mentoring.

(next comment refers to both the fourth related link and the fifth.  One talked about “Centers” as a type, the other — especially as recently expanded– talks about the Center for Court Innovation at the top).

The fourth related link, “NAMES,” (“NAMES: “Center, Council, Judicial, Legislative, Institute…” But WHO they are, and how legit, is in the LABEL. (8/30/2013)“) The fifth related link, (A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment (3/14/2014))

Among the “Centers” listed was “Center for Court Innovation” in New York City, which is FYI, a public/private project taking funding from a private source, Fund for the City of New York, financed primarily at first by the Ford Foundation.

This Fund was set up in 1968, right after major civil rights legislation, and before the feminism (which I translate as women also wanting rights and not to be deprived of them by profile based on sex // gender) of the 1970s, and its increasing backlash in the fathers’ rights (so-called “Children’s Rights’) movement of the 1980s, during which time the battered women’s movement was jockeying for position and, I learned in MY time, which was this century, cutting deals with the fathers’ movements surrounding their mutual funding, and NOT taking on a group such as the AFCC head-on.

All of this was marked and facilitated in conferences, publications, communications, etc. surrounding nonprofit corporations promoting social policy. Recently (within the past two years), articles have been published in the Huffington Post and the Washington Times which had unearthed a line of economic investigation of “court-connected corporations” (my shorthand for a whole host of professions created through a combination of influences on federal grants to the states, and the existence of the family courts ,and the existence of a major economic force in, probably, every American (USA) community, called “Child Support Enforcement.”).

This same line of reasoning had been unearthed, basically exposed, but subsequently and intentionally buriedthrough neglect and redirect the conversation activities in the early years after welfare reform (PRWORA), which is to say, starting at least in 1999.

I have exposed and summarized, with proofs, this burial, neglect and redirect behavior in the 3/23/2014 postA Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgmentand have been speaking out about it for years. This is a substantial post documenting that certain individuals and corporations KNEW about the issues of federal grants to the states (in this case, to the California Judicial Council) incentivizing custody outcomes, and about the conflict of interest and fraud factors in the use of those grants.

In similar follow-up posts in 2014 I have been blunt, direct in confronting the discrepancies between advocacy efforts which censor discussion of financials, particuarly the federal incentives and the public/private (non-profit sector and their “entourage” of subcontractors and related business entities)  and written posts such as these:

My blog would not be needed if previous generations or years of advocacy groups had not chosen to derail of the conversation on economic fraud and the coordinated movement and expansion of court-connected trade associations, meaning that in “trawling for traumatized (mothers, in particular)” each new wash of custody or family disasters is NOT brought up to speed on major factors, financially, causing those.

The psychologists are not going to “out” their field and tell how the family courts were set up to bring the entire field INTO the divorce process — are you kidding?

The lawyers aren’t either (and those that do, can and have been in at least the Richard Fine of Los Angeles Men’s jail case, disbarred).

The domestic violence professionals aren’t going to let go of their entrenched and centralized (and increasingly powerful) hold on the USDOJ grants and a chunk of the HHS grants to support their nonprofits. In California (I cannot speak for other states), the DV movement has also figured out how to hook up with other sources of big money, such as health care or healthcare insurance (Building Strong Field project), the Family Justice Center movement (started in San Diego, “Enron by the Sea” it was called not long ago). They are also at some levels obtaining funds through filing fees under “DV Leadership and Education,” which I discovered only by looking at the list of accounting funds at the state level, as reported in a post; it may be listed under “Top Ten Posts” herein.

At my local level, though I haven’t written this up yet, I also found a smaller domestic violence organization originally protecting battered women, which began running fatherhood classes, merged with around 2010 with another one focusing more on the children/parenting side, and I attempted to look at the tax returns. The tax returns for this organization which SHOULD be showing up on the California Charitable Trusts Registry, which I frequently quote from on this blog, are actually the tax returns of the group which they merged with.  I find this odd, and showed a friend, but as I said it being local, I am only saying this now to leave a footprint.

This organization’s leadership is closely related (as a family) to a high-profile, domestic-violence-related, triple-homicide in the area in which one officer, the father, and a domestic violence advocate also related to the family, all died by gunshot. I am beginning to question who shot whom, and why, in the situation. Did the DV advocate who was shot to death, in the face, protecting another woman (it was reported) and whose funeral I attended, get shot in an act of extreme valor in this situation, because she knew too much about the books, or as reported?


Her family line is getting wiped out.  Also among the three people shot to death that day, there was some overlap of involved personnel (responding officers) with a police unit tasked with narcotics control, whose membership was caught stealing from the seized narcotics and selling them, involved with a brothel, and setting up “DUI” stings in divorce cases.

A Question, Given the Situation:

If the psychologists are not going to “out” how their profession got mainstreamed (rather than outing individual “bad” psychologists or psychological theories as unsound) and the attorneys are not going to betray their sources of income, nor will the domestic violence movementwhich has been centralized and inbred with the responsible fatherhood movement (as to funding streams) and relegated to technical assistance and training clearinghouses and policy-setters, … … where does this leave actual battered spouses (including sometimes men) and their children, when it comes to surviving the family court system at all, let alone intact?Why should we who actually need help, and defense from ongoing family violence after it’s been “decriminalized” through the subject-matter jurisdiction grab of the “Family and Conciliation Court” system with all their major professional invested interests — and long-standing nonprofit court-connected trade associations (such as the AFCC and the Supervised Visitation Network, et al.) whose members include

(a) family court judges, (b) family court administrators, i.e., running the administrative arm of a local family court; (c) Sometimes, state supreme court judges (I know there was one in Texas), (d) in the largest court system in the country, which happens to be California, AFCC members are and have been on the California Judicial Council (recipient of MANY federal grants including those for “access/visitation,” as I recall), and specifically on its Administrative arm, the “AOC/CFCC”) Center for Families and Children in the Courts

sign on the line with our time and energies for any nonprofit, pipsqueak or larger, which continues to refer business and followers to conferences run by some of these invested interests, but not exactly “fessing up” to the connections

? ? ?

Many people and noteworthy investigative reporters, some of them parents and at least one grandparent (Marv Byer) (regardless of whether they were employed by mainstream media, syndicated, or paid for their efforts; it seems most were not) who do NOT now use the phrase “Our Broken Family Courts,” who do NOT habitually focus on picketing, conferencing, and attempting to commandeer/dominate through social media (whether on-line email-based groups, facebook, or otherwise) conversations among battered mothers, abused children, incest survivors, etc., while hooking them up with the same system based on the same categories of professionals (only protesting that better training might produce better, more cleaned up professions) had already previously identified significant problems with private corporations being set up in, specifically, the Los Angeles County Courthouse (111 Hill Street) and directly connected with individuals active in the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, so-called.**

As I recall, several of my “related posts” documented this specifically, both those organized around select, key nonprofits who would not talk about it, and those few, typically single individuals NOT working under the close guidance (or influence) of strategically-aligned nonprofits, who did.  I have posted links, quotes, images, and showed as much as I could, the attached timeframes.

This information, which these individual, sometimes lone bloggers or investigators, personally and at significant effort dug out, wrote up, and posted, has been basically “thrown under the bus” as to social media connections, tweets, re-blogs, posts, and actual debate or keeping the information current, among those who drank the “Broken Court” Kool-Aid, with an adjustment happening somewhere around 2011/12, when Anne Stevenson began getting articles published in major-onlines surrounding AFCC in Connecticut.  Unfortunately my table of contents still only goes back to Sept. 2012, however, earlier posts show I focused a series on Connecticut in support of this line of investigation when it came up (and was active on-line in support of the same).

I again started focusing on the State of Connecticut in 2016 posting, after learning that some of the former “silencing” crowd now considered Ms. Stevenson a colleague (similar information from someone who’d not been published in major on-lines apparently didn’t count, regardless of how valid it was), and have put forth a compromised agenda, hardly missing a step.

Writing this by general recall, I am thinking specifically of (though it’s not the only instance) of Wendy Murphy’s 2014 posting of Ms. Stevenson’s exposes on AFCC and its role in Connecticut Courts, her (Murphy’s) association with New England Law | Boston, and simultaneous featuring of Child Justice, Inc. (and “Justice for Children”), the former only started in “2013” in D.C. and featuring Eileen King, whose advocacy for protecting children features an about 20-year cover-up of the entire HHS funding, and of AFCC itself.

The next few screen-prints aren’t meant as statements, but as markers to further information on the topic (and perhaps reminders for me as blogger).  Notably, while validating Ms. Stevenson’s exposes, links continue on the same blog to Child Justice, Inc. (Eileen King, 2013ff) and Justice for Children (Randy Burton et al. in Texas), BOTH of which have longstanding associations and connections to the groups I’ve been “outing” for failing to report on the AFCC, HHS (HMRF) connections year after year.


(shows the New England Law | Boston connection)

The inclusion of links to Child Justice and to Justice for Children (out of only six links total) is significant to perspective of this lawyer/author/ adjunct professor at New England Law |Boston…

I may have posted some of this already, or it may still (any extensive write-up) be in draft, I DNR which offhand).

Click image to enlarge image, or here for the “Before You Step One Foot into Family Court” article. The content is introduced briefly but seems to be primarily Ms. Stevenson’s. This particular category (from WendyMurphyLaw.com) not too active — most recent entry dated July 2015, under  category “Victim’s Rights

(same page, further down): Child Justice predominantly serves families across the state of Maryland and the Washington, DC metropolitan area. However, the organization has a national footprint, accepting qualified cases outside of the DC area on a limited basis. In addition to Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Child Justice has assisted with cases in Massachusetts, California, New York, New Jersey and Texas and a United States Supreme Court Appeal.












From Child Justice Inc. (the more recent entity), a paragraph indicating connection to Justice for Children Inc.

Since 2001, first as Justice for Children and since April 2013 as Child Justice, Inc., we ## have worked with dedicated pro bono attorneys in top law firms to provide access to justice and give children the gift of a stable, nurturing life with a loving and safe parent or guardian.

“Child Justice seeks and provides pro bono legal services for the non-offending protective parent of an abused (sexually or physically) child in a lower court proceeding where custody and access are at issue. We also solicit counsel for parents who have appealed the lower court’s judgment at the state’s intermediate or highest level of appeal. In cases of public interest we submit Amicus Curiae Briefs through pro bono counsel.”

This “Since 2001 through ___ and ___, we have worked…” is saying there is continuity of persons across the two organizations:  “We have worked.” I’m not sure who, in addition to Ms. King, is meant among those now at CJI.

(FYI, the CJI EIN# is 462493549.  It is filing Forms 990EZ, not full-length returns).

There are “anomalies” between the representations of its financials, depending on which sources one looks at.  For example, the only Form 990-N Postcard (“declaration assets were under $50K) shown is for 2014 — while, separately, a Form 990 says that $98,513 was received for the same year.  Both can’t be true!

Within the same tax return, and in a number transposition, (typo) it looks like on Sched. A of Support, it becomes $95,813, which is repeated the next year.  Meanwhile, the same “Sched. A of support” shows 0.00 revenues for 2013, while (shown below) an annual report posted voluntarily on the organization’s website said they did receive just over $45K “Grants and contributions.”

The Form 990EZ posted (voluntarily) at the website shows Eileen King being paid $55,000; meanwhile, an “Amended Return” shows up elsewhere saying it was $60,000 (the Amended return also seems to coincide with about the same month and year the organization posted its public-consumption Form 990EZ (only one).

Blogger Note re: Images in numbered series  (I’m about to show, all for one organization, a series of five in captions with light-yellow/bright yellow background; then “Image 1/7” etc.  with light-pink background all from the same tax return, and below that, representing a different tax return, with light-blue backgrounds (“Image 1 of 5” etc. ) — these may display out of order depending on the viewing device.  These, I intended to display “two-up” for a laptop or iPad width view.  For example, if a single page of tax return is split in two, ideally Image 2 displays BELOW image 1, not to its right.   However, the “Compose” view mode bears almost no resemblance to “preview” mode. It becomes  a combination of guesswork and multiple trial-and-error edit / preview / edit / preview cycles. At some point, I have to limit the attempts to calculate the balance.  The images also may affect how text wraps around them, i.e.,it may say “above” when the text is actually in the middle of the images it’s referring to.  Hopefully readers on any device will get the sense, just read all the images.

Familiarity with the flow of a Form 990 Return and its accompanying schedules will also help with the navigation..:).. ///LGH (post-publication 7/13/2017).

There should be, but isn’t showing, one for 2013 also. Check “Apps.IRS.Gov/eos/app” select 3rd search option, by EIN#.

Click for details this one-pager passes for an “Annual Report” for CJI. I’ve annotated concerns (I’ve held for some time now) about a certain German lawyer on the board of directors (red annotations) and wish to point out the now “tell” phrase, absent citations, that it’s “58,000 children a year” being ordered by family courts to live with abusive parents. The figure is ridiculous, illogical, and no doubt MUCH higher.

FY2014 for Child Justice Inc. claimed $98,513 in contributions (See Line 1, bottom of image).

CJI Form 990EZ FY2014, click image for commentary to explain the many problems already surfacing in its FIRST identified tax return (one of two conflicting ones). The carelessness involved here throughout is simply stunning. The handling of a simple act of filling out a Short Form Tax return, failure to follow basic instructions, to realize that a typo in a FY2014 total should’ve been caught by 2015, that $$ on returns should be internally consistent, etc. — demonstrate lack of concern for BASIC math, data entry, and following- the-rules functionality, at best.

Same yr, same tax return, Sched A, Total Contribs is now $95,813 ($98,513 – $95,813 = a noticeable amount for such a small org.). ALSO notice — no acknowledgment of support received in 2013 (blank column (e)). Conflicts with other info.





















July 2017 — I’m going to post more on this while I’m looking at it.  Again, CJI’s few (two years, different versions of Year 2014 AND Year 2015, plus what seems to be an entirely missing Year 2013), tax returns just don’t bear scrutiny — there are too many conflicts of information (indicating a lack of attention to detail, and possible deception) for such a small organization with so few details to even keep track of.

If they (or, Eileen King, Exec Director, or the CPA firm hired for this) “can’t” keep track of such basic details, how are they expected to keep track of complex litigation involving child abuse allegations and countering lawsuits — or appeals?

(AMENDED FY2015 990EZ here

will be compared with those uploaded to the organization website):

The first image shows an Annual Report FY2014 uploaded to the organization website showing a basic simple math problem, assuming Contributions $98,513, and what results when the expenses are subtracted from that number.  If this is right, several of the FY2015 (Amended) are wrong, for having carried over the wrong #.  In addition, they don’t seem able to handle a simple change (increase) of $5,000 in allocation to Salaries (for one person only, the Exec. Director).  And, they do not seem inclined to follow basic directions on the Form 990EZ with an emphasis on EASY, in several aspects.

Not documented here — the tax returns I viewed (only two, or three if you include website vs. Amended versions of the second, appear to be available to view – 2014 Form 990EZ + 2015 Form 990EZ.  The 2014 Form 990-N showing up at the IRS Exempt-select check doesn’t provide supporting details) — the “Annual Reports” on website show a different set of “Board of Directors” each year than do any of the 2014 or 2015 Forms 990EZ).

One of the images of Amended FY2015 return super-imposes part of this image on it (it’s a Sched A of Support) to show the contrasting Contributions Total $$.

Image 1/7, Amended FY2015 990EZ, CJI, p.1 Top

Image 3/7, Amended FY2015 990EZ, CJI, p.1 BOTTOM + p.2 TOP thru Line 27



Image 2/7, Amended FY2015 990EZ, CJI, p.1 BOTTOM + p.2 Header Info Only note time-stamp

Image 4/7, Amended FY2015 990EZ, CJI, p.2–note 13 310, handling of Pt III direx

Image 5/7, Amended FY2015 990EZ, CJI, ProgSvce Accompts (PtIII)+ Bd of Direx (click to enlarge for comments)

Image 6/7 CJI FY2015 Amended 990EZ, (Sched A) the issue here is $95,813 vs $98,513 (see superimposed image) not to mention, where is FY 2013?

Image 7/7 this is Sched O (note no real explanation for Primary Purpose or “Other Changes in Fund Balance” (both fr. Pt. III)


Above, (light-PINK-background captions, fine-print, tax return page 1 has some date and time stamps on it, and is marked “Amended” at top left header info), you have excerpts from an “Amended FY 2015 Form 990EZ.”  The major difference, that I can see, is only of $5,000 in ONE category (salaries) which is going to affect of course totals, and anywhere else “salaries” figure is taken into account, yet somehow in the various parts, that filing just couldn’t get it together.

I also find it odd that the public-consumption Form 990EZ (the only one currently uploaded to the CJI website, below, light-blue-background captions, 5 images) appears to have been uploaded in MARCH, 2017, while the amended version (above) is stamped APRIL, 2017 (for a year-ending 12/31/2015 return, that is, over a year ago.

Also, where’s CJI’s tax return for FY2016? (anywhere — a Form 990-N declaration if revenues were way down, or at Form990finder, or on its own website soliciting funds for the cause)  We’re seven months into 2017 now) !!

While I have the momentum (taking screenshots, labeling them, etc.) here, using light-blue-background captions (and you’ll also notice a different, clearer font organizations often use for the public, website-posted tax returns, when they may choose to post some) are several excerpts from the same year’s (2015) Tax return, posted for public viewing at ChildJustice.org.  Which, I notice, still has “website N/A” on page 1.

#1 of 5, Pg1 $132K contribs, $55K Salaries: CJI 990EZ, FY2015 EIN# 462493549, Website Version (Mar 2017 upload?)

Image 3 of 5, Page 2 most (thru Bd Directors listing, showing no real description on main activity, CJI 990EZ, FY2015 EIN# 462493549, Website Version (Mar 2017 upload?)

#2 of 5 (bottom p1, top p2 showing matching #s $$ (Ln 21 + 27) [the Amended 2015 return doesn’t…] and the $55K salaries) CJI 990EZ, FY2015 EIN# 462493549, Website Version (Mar 2017 upload?)

Image #4 of 5, Sched A notice blank 2013 column and $$ amt for 2014… CJI 990EZ, FY2015 EIN# 462493549, Website Version (Mar 2017 upload?)

Image 5 of 5, Sched O showing no real expl given for Purpose or the $9,933 “change in fund balances during 2015” | CJI 990EZ, FY2015 EIN# 462493549, Website Version (Mar 2017 upload?)@












***I say so-called because of the shape-shifting and inconsistently registered (a.k.a. accountability-evading) nature of coalitions expressed centrally in the AFCC website.



Consider yourself notified to start noticing national trade (“professional”) associations that represent specific civil servant or government agency categories within the USA, and being exempt from corporate taxation because of this status. Do NOT kid yourself or allow others to fool you into believing that exposing a single, such as the AFCC, or even a few (AFCC/CRC and others) nonprofit trade or professional associations without being aware of how they interact with the others, and how most of them relate directly to the federal funding revenue source called the public, is a major breakthrough.

Know what time of day it is, and that the increasingly powerful incursion of private-interest groups (which these trade associations are) into the governmental sphere, always has a selling point, is enabled by the people least aware of the process, and unable to defend themselves from it other than by addressing it AS a process and AS a tactic for transforming government away from government sector into “professionals” hands, without citizen interference. The more powerful ones seem to focus on single government functions, and have been The “N” in every single one of those acronyms in the title of this post stands for “National,” and the “I” in the last one for “international,” although at least one of the ones beginning with “N” has added an international component.



That most people do not know, do not understand, and do not talk with each other much about these organizations is not accidental and is significant. Conversations about national policy in ANY of those categories which do not take into account these types of trade associations and their clout, are going to be UNinformed conversations on “how the world works.”

That can and should change.

One Form of “Shadow” Government

(Title added later; but I’ve raised the topic and detailed the elements consistently over time)

We are witnessing one set of government based on geographical political jurisdictions (50 States, Counties, Municipalities, etc.) , and what may be an equally powerful set of government through the trade association (which is to say, in the corporate sector) functioning with similar names, but a completely different economic, transparency, and accountability structure:

[Again, this references the “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC, NCSL…” theme I’ve been posting on…]

Nonprofit “Trade Associations” whose names and program purposes shadow, approximate, but do NOT match legislated purposes. I call them “trade” associations, but another word might be “professional” associations, and by organization and registration, most [not all] of them are under the Internal Revenue Code, “501(c)3s”, which is to say, they are indeed businesses — but their revenues aren’t getting taxed. And because they are not taxed so much, the assets are consolidated and better preserved, unless the organization for some reason does not want to preserve them, as sometimes, they don’t.

This newsletter from 1983 shows that NCSC was giving the AFCC administratively help and resources. That’s a BIG hand up — but you’ll be hard put to find a reference to the AFCC on the NCSC web page. It’s there, but they’re not advertising it. However, from the AFCC perspective, as a younger organization, in 1983, it was I’m sure a major help to have NCSC resources available. See the last three pages of this newsletter, which is on my sidebar also under “Vital Links”

**Keeping in mind that was in 1983; the list now may be different.

  • Secretariate [sic]  Support for AFCC: “Administrative support is provided for membership and financial activities of AFCC, as well as distribution of AFCC publications.## . . . As Secretariat, the National Center [[NCSC]] will maintain all financial records for the AFCC.…in addition six additional services available free to AFCC members.
  • (Listed as Library, Research and Info Services, Washington Liaison, NCSC facilities for meetings, and Regional Offices (one in San Francisco and one in Andover, Massachusetts are mentioned).

In fact (July 2017 comment) this newsletter is only eight pages, so here (below the first, larger image of that issue of the newsletter) are all of them, annotated.  The above link to the whole 1983 newsletter is still valid, and I’ll make sure a copy is also saved to this blog in case it changes.

In reading it, look for conference-supporting or publication organization names or other key events.

For example, notice that it announces a New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean* had signed a family law division into place, or, for example, who sponsored or presented at which conferences.  After one symposium attended by (only) 40 people on standards and practices for court-connected mediation, it was declared, AFCC should follow-up – and the follow-up conference was scheduled just before the next AFCC conference — in Toronto, Ontario!  There is just a lot of detail to pick up on, in this early newsletter.

Thomas H. Kean’s blue-blood, politically-connected family, per a biography (governors.rutgers.edu) at Rutgers State (of NJ) University is pretty impressive.  Or, demonstrates how the political power was kept in certain family lines in the Mid-Atlantic states since colonial times…. (Also notice his private boarding school education, followed by Princeton, that his father was a legislator while he was growing up, etc.).  This is the same man who  in 1982 or 1983, signed legislation (which the AFCC newsletter didn’t bother to provide a name or number for) to create a Family Court (division) for the state.  The “H” is for Howard, and the Howard, probably for his mother,  Elizabeth Stuyvesant Howard, a descendant of Peter Stuyvesant (as in “New Amsterdam”) etc.


At this time, the 1980s, it was about one decade after “no-fault divorce” (California) and a California-connected nonprofit here is pushing — hard — for mediation as part of divorce, mediation as a practice-controlled profession, and getting extra help for the process from the well-known at the time (in some circles) National Council for State Courts, and miscellaneous others….You will also see familiar names such as Judith Wallerstein, Hugh McIsaac, Richard Garnder, Tim Salius (CT Court Services), and this also marks the beginning of a many years of Stanley Cohen as the Executive Director.  Note, his field was psychiatry, which also reflects a general trend of the organization overall.

Re: NCSC’s “Secretariat” status — this seems to copy the usage at the UN and convey a sense of importance and power. It seems from the newsletter (esp. 7), however, like the services provided are those like any other management firm under contract might — except extra convenient access to their: libraries, administration, research services, conference centers, regional centers (MA + SF mentioned), and Staff Attorney — not bad for starters!  I’m not sure how long this NCSC “Secretariat” relationship with AFCC lasted, but I think it may have been short (from recall having looked up corporate filings in Wisconsin — but not recently).

The Secretariat, one of the main organs of the UN, is organized along departmental lines, with each department or office having a distinct area of action and responsibility. Offices and departments coordinate with each other to ensure cohesion as they carry out the day to day work of the Organization in offices and duty stations around the world.  At the head of the United Nations Secretariat is the Secretary-General.

The screenprints contain various markings and some comments added just recently. Click any single one to enlarge as needed.  The filenames and caption (# only) also identify page#s..











AFCC’s organizational purpose by the 1970s is listed as changing the language of criminal law in exchange for behavioral sciences. This topic, as well as the setting up of conciliation courts to for marketing marriage counseling at public expenses, pushing for mandatory mediation, access visitation policies, parental alienation as a theme, and a nice side-income for AFCC membership selling their materials, was thus done in a less than open manner.

If the goal was modifying people’s behavior without their informed consent but at their expense and under the authority of the courthouse, this was an effecive way to do it.

If you’re not a member of the board for any NONprofit (which means, “NON-STOCK) or a personal member of the association, you may not be aware of it, or your input invited.

Moreover, you are unlikely to be able to live a normal life and keep the most important ones on your conference circuit, or being able to bill travel expenses, membership expenses, and training fees (where the organizations run trainings for their own), etc. to keep track of these organizations’ collective influence on the institutions they represent, and specifically, on the use of “public” funds distributed according to this collective influence.

One of them, NCCD, whose charitable registrations I got to look at because it registered in California, I (and now you) can see that this one lists contributions to its tax-exempt self from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and I forgot where else.

But here it is: NCCD Year Jul2010-June2011 RRF form. In the part where one normally lists “government contributions” meaning from within the United States of America. This is not, that I’m aware, illegal — because the NCCD is actually a 501(c)3 and as such allowed to take donations from both government and private sources.


2017 update — I added some screenprints from this link, but believe that there is already a post dealing with the NCCD and its relationship to Children’s Rights, Inc. (see below) published, so will not further elaborate at this time.  Feel free to look at the charitable registry details, compare to tax returns, look through its entity website (NCCDglobal.org) if you wish, or use the “Search” function on this blog for any of the above.

It seems to be stretching the boundary of what was intended in a United States Registry of Charitable Trusts saying “record all government grants” that these should be international in scope.  In addition, the RRF wasn’t filled out correctly (contact information and a person’s name for EVERY gov’t agency cited is requested — read Question 6 on Page 1 of the RRF).  …//LGH July 2017.

NCCD (EIN#131624111, Oakland CA)-FY2010-(jul2010-june2011) RRF [See Inter’l Govt Grants] 9’1M revs 5M assets (5pp)


(2014 narrative, cont’d…):

NCCD, which has been around a LONG while, was an independent contractor I noticed on a tax return of the more recent “Children’s Rights, Inc.” in New York which has not been around so long. It caught my attention because this East Coast nonprofit chose a contractor from Oakland, California. WHY? (Turns out NCCD had changed its principal office; they also maintain a “CRC” section in Madison, Wisconsin around the corner from another nonprofit trade association you should’ve heard of by now, the Illinois-based trade association”AFCC” who sites a Wisconsin street address on its own tax returns. (which must be a coincidence).

How these collaborate, it seems:

  • Children’s Rights, Inc. considers itself a bastion of protecting children and in the light of this,and being tax-exempt, goes around suing child welfare agencies and winning LARGE settlements (split with the winning law firms no doubt) and forcing them to their knees — and to restructure using technologically and trademarked (by NCCD) software or processes, all of which the taxpayers of course, will be paying for through the child welfare agencies to start with. In this way, a justice system can and is internationally and globally aligned not through the representative process really, but through the power of the nonprofit + the courts + the legal profession. I learned this, FYI, after a specific reference from a comment on the blog (an earlier — not 2016 — post about situations in Georgia), I said, give me some specifics. They did, and I followed up.

(again, search this blog — I believe it’s already been posted…)

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    July 13, 2017 at 1:11 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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: