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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

To Identify and UNDERstand is To Know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (The Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order). [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update @07/18/2017]

leave a comment »

Post title reflects both the subject, and part of the originating (updated) post title from which it was taken to shorten the original:

To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (The Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order). [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update @07/18/2017]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”) (That post’s full title shown next…).

Like many of my posts, it will undergo some post-publication editing, usually for clarity or layout (how images display). [[In fact,  this next segment added post-publication update, on 7/19/2017.  I’ll mark where the added segment ends.]]

 [[Segment added post-publication update, 7/19/2017]]

The ongoing theme has been …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?” that is, do you know? about the network of private nonprofit associations named after public offices or officials who are networking together to function as government without being government entities? In this theme, drafted October, 2014 under basically that title, I split it into three basic parts, with the last (“Part 3”) about the ABA (Bar) and APA (Psychological).  I also wrote at length and an extra post about the pushing of the mental health/illness theme when it came to the NASMHPD (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors) which is operating under a cooperative agreement with the “NGA.” (National Governors’ Association).

The NASMHPD is problematic through:  (a) involvement with the objectionable TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project), a way of getting around failed clinical trials to promote excess and more expensive types of (unsafe, injurious it turns out) medication for use statewide, an area over which, obviously, groups like the NASMHPD would have some influence as its members are state-level heads of “Mental Health Programming.”  (b) in general, taking funding from some of the same “Big Pharma” (Rx) companies developing and pushing some of the drugs, including several who are now being sued by state attorney generals and others for their responsibility in current very unhealthy (except for business profits) opioid abuse epidemics and ===>>> (c ) patterns of networking AS nonprofits with a specific theme intended to go national, which brings it into an area I have now researched as to several different fields (including marriage/fatherhood, domestic violence prevention, child abuse prevention, supervised visitation and related, and more recently, school reform initiatives (public/private liaisons with big foundation money behind them).  I believe that the extent of such networking when it comes to mental health (and related Rx possibilities = major financial incentives to at times inappropriately control population, and bill the public for it) is pervasive and should not be ignored.  However, it’s the organizational tactics in the nonprofit sector (regardless of “theme”) to also be aware of, and how organizations copy other organizations’ successful models.

Another factoid is that many of these same pharmaceutical companies can ALSO sponsor or get to government officials more easily ( for membership or Corporate Donor/Partner fees  — which they can certainly afford to pay) — which brings us back to the NGA, NCSC, NCSL, etc. list above.  The fact that the organization (as to that list) is in the private sector makes it legal, and because these organizations themselves are not usually in the headlines AND on Forms 990, donations are aggregated, at least as far as public gets to see (i.e., contributions are lumped together into a single number on the return), harder to follow. The collective influence is also harder to see simply when it is dispersed among many entities. This influence is not less for being less seen — it still is there, but when results are showing up inappropriate, specifically WHERE to resist or protest should be known.  My point is, the nonprofit sector PER SE sets the stage for this.   The nonprofit sector understood as a factor of everyone else (incl. corporations) getting taxed, brings it back to the point of taxation, specifically the income tax.   

That’s also WHY the “CAFR” material is so important to grasp!

re: (a) TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) (just a reminder):

Two screenprints, one from TMAP Wiki (part not shown describes whistleblower Alan Jones’ experience, including being fired from his state’s OIG after reporting on this).  You can see readily how it would intersect with politics and government:

Annotation bottom right actually comes from p.2. Click image to access the 2-pager document (but p1 w/o annotation) as found at BHRM.org (in IL)

Texas Algorithm Project “wiki” (click image to see) also references the whistleblower and “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” connections (i.e., from Texas governor George W. Bush to U.S. President George W. Bush (pls. read if unfamiliar with it!) [NOTE: WIKI References insufficient: 2 link to CCHR, one to AHRP (which quotes an Oct. 2005 Alan Jones interview w/ Rutherford Institute (VA, John Whitehead), link broken and no search site there. AHRP doesn’t post its financials (which I looked up to verify its statement that whistleblower Alan Jones was on its board) and I found a tiny and irregularly-filing NY entity, no Forms 990 [vs. 990EZ] showing (which’d show date founded) before ab. 2008, no return found readily before then either (perhaps filed Form 990-N). A 4th Wiki “Reference” viewed, it said, 2006, and not well framed, misdirected to a site MHC on “trucks” and the one to “Texas Dept. of Health” lacked specifics, leading readers to flounder (there are algorithms for many different diseases, not just the psychiatry-related ones for which TMAP became so (IN)Famous.

While I didn’t quote “CCHR,” in Los Angeles, formed in 1982, however for more info on the TMAP details, you can see its “psycho-pharma front groups” page.  (See organizations on its right sidebar).  Just be aware who you are dealing with (as I recall, which could be challenged, as having its roots in Scientology — in other words, rather than having people drugged up, perhaps it’s better the become “clear” through other means). (Or, see CCHR and its 6166 Sunset Blvd Los Angeles “Psychiatry: An Industry of Death” Museum opening, featured on Scientology.org). That said, they provide a lot of documentation, and are not the only people protesting TMAP, “Big Pharma” or in appropriate over-drugging of vulnerable populations under state control! I have quoted CCHR before, much earlier on the blog and in passing, probably re: the New Freedom Mental Health Commission.At least they post audited financials and Form 990s.  Mission description from a recent 990. (EIN#680005541):


re: (c ) patterns of networking AS nonprofits with a specific theme intended to go national (just a reminder):

I  also looked at, if you read these (my) posts, other mental health/illness-named nonprofits, which have “umbrella” or “parent” organizations (Mental Health America, National Association on Mental Illness, now branded as “NAMI”) and “DBSA” (Depression Bipolar Support Association), including in “Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA.…”  Each of the above associations has spawned, launched, inspired, and helped support (including sometimes through direct grants ) the creation or organization of many — several dozen similarly-named (after originating nonprofit) for each, or more, for some, as I recall — but I did post sample screenprints showing the list– fiscally independent (filing their own tax returns, not under a group membership) and “unrelated” (NOT referenced as “related entities” on the main group entity’s tax returns — MHA, NAMI, or DBSA) nonprofits also, typically named after a state, metropolitan region, or county.**  Each entity may have different by-laws on how this works (for example, I believe it was NAMI which allowed only ONE state-level affiliate per state).  In other words, networks of “kinda/sorta related” organizations, but not really when it comes to the IRS.

**So does CCHR (look at its organization-posted FY20015 Form 990, Schedule C (Schedules come after all Roman-numeral identified Parts of the Return, That is, I, II, III etc.), which provides a two-page list of affiliated entities all named “Citizens Committee on Human Rights” — and add a geography identifier (i.e. state or city name, etc.).  While there look at its Schedule B named contributors and see that one couple gave $886K and other individuals over $70K each such that ⅓ of its contributions/donations (See Pt I and Pt VIII) came from just a few people.  Advertising (Pt IX) occupied about ⅓ of its functional expenses, while a pittance (Sched I) was returned to affiliates and some to the Church of Scientology, nearby on the same street.  There  were some membership fees and there was some (Schedule F) recorded international activity.

The APA and the ABA are also so organized, which I also gave in sample screenprints in previous posts. My point is become aware of the networking in the private, nonprofit sector as organized nationally (or, internationally) targeting specific functions or services provided by government, with the purpose of controlling in which direction they are moved.  Also become aware of them as a financial force if and when their assets and investments are collectively pooled.  This happens in both the private and the public sectors, which also interact (trade, buy, sell, etc.) with each other.  This type of information isn’t “journalistic” and doesn’t tend to sell newsprint and may lack social media “curb appeal”– but it’s part of how our country operates, and has its core basis in WHERE one falls along the tax spectrum or continuum (exempt, or not).  It’s essential to know and come to terms with!

 [[This  ends a segment added post-publication update, 7/19/2017]]

I have been putting out some long posts recently.  But this one is shorter at about (with above addition, now) 8,800 words. It introduces the concepts from and links to some of my key prior posts on the same (I picked out five specific ones), then continues on a post that references them, published 07/12/2017, called Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update).  That continuation post has more substance on the Five Vital Posts.  This one (that you’re now looking at) serves as an introduction, and has some extra material not on the continuation post (in light-blue background section).

The originating post itself actually I see reflected three major subject matters, although that length of title also reflected what was actually covered in the post three years ago.  The three subject matters are reflected in the post title’s three sentences:


I have now published parts 1, 2, and 3 of the original, and, separately, an extension of this post (link appears again at the bottom) as Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) (with short-link ending “-7bR”).   <==almost 13,000 words, contains about 50% update and addition of images to explain concepts.

So this represents the last piece (Part 3 of 3 in effect) extracted from the original, with the important concept in its title:  To WITHstand one must UNDERstand.  On UNDERstanding, one begins to comprehend why one must WITHstand.

The huge October 2014 post may have not been published possibly from my awareness at the time that it contained personal narratives, and being under considerable pressure at the time, I was probably not comfortable with hitting “publish.”   I had blogged for several years without identifying myself by name, except as “Let’s Get Honest.”  In spring 2014, I had reason to post a public petition for help and at that time, while not focusing on my name or current case, at least stated it on the blog.

Not to mention, on re-visiting that huge October 2014 post which, throughout 2016, somehow I thought HAD been published (without remembering the date it was written — or I’d have remembered that I stopped posting June 29, 2014, for a year and a half), a major section’s paragraph breaks had vanished (been erased somehow).

Now that the major work was done for this portion (on  “Featuring Five Vital Posts,”) and it’s now published, I feel OK about putting out this shorter segment.  There is some overlap; the main reason I’m putting this one out also is the section linking to financial statements of the US Government, and the colorful section showing at least one response to the topic of those financial statements having been brought up in public.  (Next two images, in miniature):


Part of my “Accounting Literacy Matters” post of 5/3/2014. Click to enlarge or better, visit that post and read the rest at least of the bright-colored, two-column part shown here.

ANECDOTAL: I remember Fall 2014 as an ongoing crisis in my personal situation / family dealings (my generation), which had followed a very tough few years. We were about to go back into court about the situation.  In hindsight, I can see why I was so intent on piecing together HOW could certain types of things continue to happen, year after year as types of basic abuse of persons (not to mention theft of property) in the USA, as well as how could the same types of aggression (with only slight variations by “venue”) keep occuring so long after originally identified, protested and legal intervention sought, and after (in my individual situation) I’d taken all possible actions I could to protest, resist, and separate myself from the offending persons, yet continue working to support my household and participate as a human being in non-family-strife/litigation parts of my community and of, in general, society.   I was already worn out from excess litigation stretching out years; THE primary legitimate, legal as to existing family court orders, and normal life activities (primarily relating to work and family) I’d been involved in before the litigation had been, literally, stopped.

So in October 2014 and earlier, and as you can see from the recent posts, I was hammering on the ABA and the APA in large part because of where they “met in action” in the family courts, and because both are so large, have been around so long they may seem immoveable, and as to the APA, an acceptable ongoing feature of the country, while functioning entrenched, and controlling major networks of power and influence.

The post draft showed that in 2014 I was already aware of the “Related Entities” concept and had noticed them for these two organizations, the APA and the ABA.  I’d referenced it, as well as a good deal of the organizational timelines.
Separately, I’d read extensively on psychology in general (especially after 2012) because it kept coming up as a topic, and among professionals striving to control the “fix the family courts” and so-called protective mothers/parents movement.

In 2017, during the update, I decided to put these ABA- and APA-related entities on display — another reason the post became so long.
A third reason was a lot of the earlier narrative dealing with my personal situation.  However, understanding why this type of narrative came up still relates to why I’m writing. It reflects some of the power dynamics I’ve been writing about, so just cutting out the entire discussion didn’t seem to work.
I went to work on the updates.  Because the topic focused on “related posts” (i.e., I’d already been publishing on these topics, steadily), at least one of those also had to be reviewed and reformatted somewhat (“A Different Kind of Attention“).

I’ve already been working on this post nearly a week (see Archives showing last published dates) in fact, before the “Even More on…” post, regarding (four mental health-focused organizations) post was published ca. July 8).

From the top of the “Even More” post…

The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”

Post full title: Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic [July 2, 2017 review + updates] (with short-link ending “-79i”)

This post being published July 6, 2017 evening is about 8,000 words (shorter, for a change!). It comes in two basic sections — ICMA-related,** and The Four Organizations (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA) related.

[**The section there on the ICMA — International City/County Managers Association and its related? entity ICMARC.org (the ICMA Retirement Corporation) is significant, and valuable information.  As the ICMA people are who, probably, manage local government investments (including whether to pool them up to a larger state level, such as county or state, or into the PMIAs or LAIFs (see “State-Run Banks” 7/17/17 post for discussion), this would also be relevant to Walter Burien’s TRF solution, which entails, I believe, keeping the same fund managers in place — they’re already experienced — but consolidating (at each government level) the funds for transparency, and let the investments fund the budget, so phasing out taxation.]

I hope that by removing this section from the original, I can get that one out, and follow up with this material.  SOME of the material was left on original site.

Below this next line reflects basic writing from October 2014, except for

  • except for the added images section in this background-color where I began elaborating on the references to prior Carl Herman’s writings, and in the process was reminded of his “hook-line-and-sinker” position  in favor of public state banking. Since then, another theme, “Postal Banking” is being put out from the same quarters (at least from Public Banking Institute).

    No idea what “Postal Banking” is (yet) but I see who’s promoting it…

  • On at least state banks (so-called “public banking”), I recall one Walter Burien 2010 article, response to another one, as characterizing the concept as “you can kiss the United States goodbye” and “NWO (new world order) signed, sealed and delivered” (the Government AS orchestrating the NWO through strategically positioned in certain things which can then be “shorted,” using major institutional funds).
  • search for that article on-line found it here * (scroll below the initial poster’s intro.**)


The Pro/Con of State Banks coming from at least two men I’ve believed, in general, to have studied and written enough about the CAFR issue that they understand it, reveals how — possibly through associations, possibly through previous political inclinations, they have taken opposite sides on the very related issue of State Banks.  I quoted and “line-item-reviewed” both arguments in a later version and the earlier versions, again, on an associated post, published 7/17/2017 which should be read alongside this one:

State-Run Banks? — at Least Two Activists Who Understand CAFRs, How Governments Stockpile Assets, Take Polar Opposite Stances on What to Do About It (Burien, Herman). And Perhaps Why.. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7gN”) (About 11,500 words).

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 is 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 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 over link for an 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 did a deceased person, deceased not long after posting a guideline how to locate and research CAFRs and about the budget surpluses accumulating year after year:  Colonel Gerald R. Klatt (Qualifications) (Review Process, a walk-through to total the funds for any CAFR once it’s been located, “computer not needed.”  By design CAFRs follow a certain format. They do have tables of contents and explanatory notes, and introductory Transmittal letters also. So, that link walks you through the format.) Colonel Klatt also set forth a “CAFR Budget Process.  I think Mr. Burien may not agree with his proposal, but I want to point out what Klatt said about “Problem #1” of the budget process in most state and local governments.It would seem to apply to the federal and I think may help people understand what’s going on, what’s being referred to, when when “DEBT” and “BANKRUPT” claims are being pushed through the media:

The funds not spent in one year are seldom recycled and considered in the next years budget, and tend to increase and accumulate year after year. The potential surpluses disclosed in the State and local government reports on this site clearly proves that surpluses are allowed to accumulate, and do not receive adequate consideration in the budget process.

Or, you could even read some of my posts on this since discovering it, Spring 2012, and relating this to the family law field and welfare reform over at my “Cold Hard Facts” blog.  I actually started posting CAFRs on the sidebar there while pulling strands of information, really chronologies from corporate, economic, academic, and family law fields together.

So, if you still think that those in power (whether at the top of the government or the top of the philanthropic heaps, so to speak) are going to give a more honest, more expert acknowledgement of the above section, good luck!

If this non-response or “change the subject” response is still unclear, watch the response when someone in power is challenged on their facts: Carl Herman couldn’t get an answer when he attempted to characterize “omission” as criminal fraud.

Here’s the famous (in my book) section regarding a $600B Pension fund — if it’s not enough to fund the (much lesser) payments, why have it?

These writings are typically FULL of links, so following all of them would take much time.  However, I took some time to follow more of them, at this update, and especially after I was reminded of the overall solutions being recommended, given an understanding of the CAFR situation.

CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?

Note:  there are obviously many different funds in a state CAFR, also reflected in County (Here, Los Angeles County is referenced) and in other places within a single state (like, California, the example here, again — it’s where author lives).  But the “$600B” one he was referring to was CalPERS. I think (reference checked again below this large image, link from the first indented bullet shown (turns out, not specficially…))…..
After checking that number, and in review, look how many times the phrase “$600 billion” is used in the articles (several, not just one) and with what surrounding phrases. But which of them, when linked, actually lead, if link wasn’t expired, to evidence of that number?
THAT’s also why I like to use, since I learned to use, screenprints.  They are (much!) more work than just a link, but unlike links, they show.  And, they do not expire once uploaded to this blog.  The blog may expire someday (or this upgraded version of it), but til then, the uploaded documents, including images/screenprints taken from other places, to it should not.

Links in this image not active. See link to original article [Carl Herman, 6/18/2012 in Washingtons Blog] for more active links. Some may lead to “wayback machine” (internet archived) versions, some may be by now. broken, and others are still valid. LGH, 7/18/2017

5/31/2012 Carl Herman in “Examiner.com” (archived) citing Clint Richardson on $577B in California’s CAFR (presumably for 2011) and Burien video on CAFR explanation, then proceeds to recommend state banking, further down.

“California holds some $600 billion in taxpayer cash and investments ($50K nondisclosed per household” is actually quoting Clint Richardson’s work (on California CAFRs), which, however, on the surface of the connecting article, says, “$577B.”

[See smaller image, “Does Calif. Need a $600B investment fund given our austerity?“]

Most people don’t know this, but Californians have been overtaxed by $600 billion dollars at the state government level. This is documented in California’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Clint Richardson details $577 billion in investments and cash in this annual public document.”

The screenprint of top of this article shows Herman referencing both Clint Richardson and a video by Walter Burien.  I reviewed Clint’s summary again — he is basically transcribing totals from throughout the state CAFR, as recommended (since the site was up) by “CAFRMAN.com / Review Process“** — simple go to the sections and write down the totals (There’s a sample Table of Contents and highlit places in red, there).  So, Clint Richardson’s article being cited, as you can see, extracts and puts into list format (with $$s in bold red font) from the financial statements, like the bottom line of each one, by column and by type of funds.  He is essentially announcing that CAFRs exist, and that Budget Reports don’t take them into account, then giving those totals.

**”CAFRMAN.com / Review Process” (Gerald Klatt website)

1. Get a copy of the governments/school districts most currrent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).

2. Go to each fund/subfund section , locate the accounts with surpluses based on the steps shown below; total them for each subfund, and write them down as shown below. In addition the Exhibit A in each of the State reports provided in this writing. The Exhibit A is the complete review. So a person has over 40 examples to use in the learning process.

3. Total the list of subfund surpluses to arrive at the total surpluses for the government.  [[note — meaning, for that CAFR-filing government entity and that year..]]

4. Divide the result in Step 3. by the population and you have the per capita surpluses.  [[Klatt (“CAFRman”) also had a Step 5, Economic Impact Analysis..]]

See also Klatt’s table of contents, re: “On-site audits“…. for example, read at least the opening and concluding sections, including expect opposition, and “he who sets the rules wins..”

$600B” or “600 billion” is continually referenced in CH articles, but where that figure comes from is not. This number being often used as a supporting point to recommended solutions, that’s an issue! Even if weren’t a supporting point, frequently mentioning that number absent direct connection to proof, or a statement of the proof, discredits other reasoning from the same writer. What the public needs is proof and accuracy, not claims and ballpark figures stated as real.  If they are acknowledged as “ballpark” (i.e., qualified  “give-or-take” or “about” that would work).  When the numbers are billions, and error of +/- $23B (rounded) is still a lot of money / significant!

So, I see $577B is mentioned by Richardson as a total, not $600B.  I see no reference in the cited (Richardson) article to any figure $600B, or where the difference might be referenced and add up to 600.

Both figures get the main point across, but the two figures are not the same, which is a problem coming from an expert in economics and teacher of economics.  I do not see where Carl Herman got his $600B figure from, if that is the reference, which is a presentation weakness.  What’s in the title should be clearly shown in the contents without having to go through 5-10 different clicks wondering, where is the connection!  Shame on me for having quoted it so often in this blog without reference to the difference in numbers.  (If the number had been $575B, that’d be like 25% divided by 6 or roughly a small (4%+) difference — but symbolizing a disconnect in the points of reference.

Further down on the  (5/31/2012, Examiner.com) “Does Calif. Need a $600B investment fund given our austerity?“]” article I just quoted (and “screen-printed”) above citing Burien and Richardson (Realitybloger.wordpress.com), Carl Herman starts to promote debt-free money (as opposed to what’s owed, with interest, to the Federal Reserve) and, if you read carefully, state banking, i.e., let California become its own bank.

These tragic-comic cover-ups of what the public has the right to know, and that state has legal fiduciary responsibility to clearly communicate for public consideration also include California’s policy option to issue its own credit, and the national policy option to issue money (not credit/debt) to directly pay for public goods and services.

And what does this mean?

A future of credit and money brighter than you imagined possible:

If California had a state-owned bank optimized for public benefit, a possible structure to pay our entire state tax burden would be 2% mortgages. This interest charge, as homeowners understand from typical 30-year mortgages, is significant money; it could be a public benefit rather than the privilege of our “too big to fail” bailed-out banks (more public banking information here). [#1#]

Public banks could provide at-cost credit to cover any budget shortfalls from year-to-year, and eliminates the need for overtaxation “rainy day funds” in these thousands of government accounts. These facts at the state level in California are repeated by the two main political parties’ “leadership” in all states (explore here). [#2#]

At the national level, we could create debt-free money rather than allow the private banking system’s pinnacle bank, The Federal Reserve, lend to us.

Read my associated posts on “State-Run Banks” (Published yesterday, 7/17/2017) and you’ll see this is also what Ellen H. Brown and others are promoting.  If you read the whole post, especially towards the end, the company we are running with here, is closing ranks with socialist (and UN-style socialism) ranks.

[#1#], [#2#]That (five-years-plus-old) quote has two links, and I’d like to look at both of them, particularly as the argument seems to be “bipartisan leadership is pushing this theme,” i.e., “go-with-the-flow,” crowd appeal.  Reassuring maybe for people who don’t like standing alone on their premises — but that’s still not logical argument — it’s appeal to peer pressure, adult style.

[#1#]is promoting the “Money in a Finite World” conference, and Ellen Brown, both in the title, and in the closing comments, and doing this April, 2012 (also the time of that conference):

TITLE: $ Trillions to the 99%: Ellen Brown explains monetary & credit reform


Obviously, monetary and credit reform benefits 100% of humanity because it guarantees full employment, optimal infrastructure, and no government debt/interest cost. The current parasitic system benefits a 1% banking oligarchy that causes cyclical unemployment and poverty, decays infrastructure (especially as debt and interest costs accelerate as they do today), and damns the 99% to permanent and escalating debt.

Americans cannot be responsible citizens without understanding this fundamental structure of money.

Ellen Brown is probably the world’s leading writer** to explain monetary and credit reform. Her articles are here; her work initiated the Public Banking Institute for 17 states at various stages for credit reform.

I’ve been seeing the writing, and believe there’s a difference between a leading writer, and a persistent writer!**  Not to repeat the statement without the evidence, this tendency is persuasive writing, not expository.  It lacks accuracy, staying on point when challenged, and doesn’t really want to take into account the gravity of the situation whereby public entities accumulated such assets.  (Again, see associated post published 7/17/2017 on this blog!)

My general impression that there is agreement among many (as I’ve seen in other sectors) to allow a single person to take a front (public personality) role in pushing for a certain agenda as though it were their original creation and idea, independently.  I wonder how this individual is currently making a living (book sales or royalties, conference circuit, consultancies, or did the time as an attorney — or if still active as one — provide enough to live on for several years…

Click Image to Enlarge. From “PublicBankingInAmerica.org” yesterday (7/18/17) however today, site won’t load properly. Most of the links on it didn’t load yesterday. The one labeled “Coalition” leads to a different domain entirely now. The Contact us page still shows a PO Box (next image).

The Public Banking Institute (other link — also web-archived), as I showed in 2014, was operating as an UNincorporated project of the Inquiring Systems Inc. along with a bunch of other projects which, somehow, often managed to have websites with their hands out (“donate” requests) and global/sustainable descriptions — all using the same fiscal agent, which couldn’t keep itself properly registered or incorporated over time, though it had been founded by a number of PhDs… Eventually it registered out of state (as I recall).  Feel free to check yourself — apparently Mr. Herman didn’t at the time.

In California Registry of Charitable Trusts “PBI” is “Not Registered” still (this result may apply, it says for recently-incorporated entities which might be religious or mutual-benefit exempt about which the Secretary of State has notified the OAG), but due to changes in the OAG display, the associated EIN#s are shown now.  I think this may be the first time I got an EIN# for Public Banking Institute in California — but so far, not one tax return.  Next few images show probably why…(Click any image to enlarge).

Public Banking Institute EIN# shown in CA as EIN# is 35-2406989.

EIN#35-2406989 IRS Pub. 78 search at apps.irs.gov/app/eos says PBI IS available for tax-deductible contributions (searched 7/19/2017)

EIN#35-2406989 IRS Pub. 78 search at , Option “Ever Revoked?” produced this result: YES. (May 2014) showing no reinstatement, though (@7/19/2017).

That EIN# is 35-2406989, which allowed me to search it on the Exempt Check IRS website, discovering (per that website — see its disclaimers and CALL them if you want most current info) it (1) IS available for tax-deductible contributions, (2) WAS revoked (May 2014) which was published by the IRS (May 2015), and shows at no time was a Form 990-N (declaration of income under $25K shown).  (Those search results don’t display search conditions, so I didn’t provide an image).

Putting this timeframe together with its 2011 founding, that means it simply didn’t file: 2011, 2012, and 2013 (or at all) while elsewhere claiming it had a fiscal agent (ISI); was revoked in May 2014 (which the public was notified of only a year later, standard practice there), and another nonprofit tracking source (not governmental) showed it with a “December 2014” ruling meaning it went legit again around that time. So all of this gets down to reliability of documented sources, and the question of — why have an unregistered nonprofit with its own EIN#, but then use a “fiscal agent” — which is exactly what I asked in my earlier (and I believe THAT date was around May 2014 also) post?


Knowing (from back in 2014 and in general) that this samePublic Banking Institute” was claiming Inquiring Systems Inc. (“ISI,” at a different PO Box 2037, I see) in Sonoma CA also, was its “fiscal agent,” I again went looking for that on Form990 finder and at the California State OAG (by EIN#).  Form 990finder results showed ONLY two returns — “2004” (FY2003) which was handscrawled and claimed 0 assets and 0 cashflow/activities.  The “2003” one shown (again, by namesearch “inquiring systems” showed, strangely, while also handscrawled, little to no revenues BUT $121K of “Program Service Revenues” which I think you should see, as they are Alameda County (not where ISI is located)-related and deal with “senior services.”

Important post-publication update re ISI. (see also prior discussion in my 5/3/2014 post “Accounting Literacy Matters…,” although at the time I didn’t have all relevant IRS information posted just below, as it wasn’t posted til 2015…).  I included extra captioned, annotated images to illustrate some of the problems.

Name Search of Inquiring Systems Inc brought up only two results with two different (by a single digit) EIN#s — the ones I couldn’t find as described above.  I looked closer and found that neither of those was the accurate one — probably because of the illegible handwriting on the earlier ISI returns (sample from 2002, below). I don’t want to bury this information in the middle of an already long post, and hope to address separately, BUT, the actual EIN# of ISI appears to be “none of the above.” It is current as a California Charity, but didn’t file for many years (until April 2010 for several years’ worth of returns). I may get around to reconstructing and posting the filing chronology soon, or may not. Anyone reading this, also feel free to.

Here’s a link from CitizenAudit.org to a FY2000 (typed) return with the correct ISI EIN#94-2524840 and showing what line of work it was in (“Training and Technical Assistance”) and kind of revenues being received for it ($278K), as well as expenses (most of that put into salaries).

Why do a typed return one year, neat and clean, and a hand-scrawled one the next year whose EIN#, and several of the names listed as well, not to mention what it’s doing, as barely legible?

Contrast the next 4 ISI’s FY2000 (EIN#94-2524840) typed, caption background light-yellow) screenprints from the above link to what seems to follow, (caption backgrounds bright yellow) as found on sources at California OAG (which hasn’t uploaded this fiscal year’s return), Form990finder (Foundation Center) which doesn’t have it accessible either, that I could find.

For that FY2002, you can see that $15,000 revenues (p.1) came from just one (unidentified) person (Sched. B), and that somehow S. Lauren Cole PhD was loaning the entity $31K (or $31K twice?) in 1997 with a “maturity date” of 2010 at 10% interest (huh??), and (Sched A) the erratic nature of its contributions in recent years, as well as when a sudden spike in “program service revenues” took place.  While it may seem that most of this is “fiscal agent revenue” other details in the return show, not so. All in all, things “just don’t add up” to “credible.”

(Among early officers shown, C. West Churchman, Ph.D, 1913-2004, <=Wiki). Arnold M. Schultz (“What is EcoSystemology?”) and if you read that carefully, you’ll see “Loren” (S. Loren Cole) as one of his students in it.  Arnold Schultz was 1920-2013. (<==Senate.UniversityOfCalifornia.edu, In Memoriam).  S. Loren Cole apparently has a PhD in it, in the only reference outside of “InquiringSystems.org” itself I could find much about him:

For this image (only) click image to access whole return: “2002_01_EO/94-2524840” from CitizenAudit. Note, a Form 990O isn’t being shown despite the “EO” designation in url.

ISI’s FY2000 (EIN#94-2524840) from CitizenAudit, SCHED A of Support back to 1996. Notice funding pattern (Ln. 15 vs. Ln. 17 figures).

ISI’s FY2000 (EIN#94-2524840) SCHED B (excess contributions) — note, the $15K shown on p.1 (as the only contributions to the entity) came from one (name redacted) source, possibly S. Loren Cole?

ISI’s FY2000 (EIN#94-2524840), Loan from an officer to an entity, self-explanatory. Nice % return, too. The officer, I believe, was retired UCBerkeley Faculty and the loan probably not a stretch, but I DNK personally, of course.

Name-search on “Inquiring Systems Inc” only produced two results because the other ones lacked the suffix “inc” in their labeling. a closer look shows different EIN#s (one ends 840, the other 890. Both begin with “99.” BOTH appear to also be the wrong #. Compare to handwritten sample Form 990 nearby image.

Form 990EZ FY2002 EIN#992524840(<=click for whole return) for Inquiring Systems Inc, then PO Box 2037 in Sonoma, CA.Further look-ups show that this EIN# is wrong, probably through illegibility of Form 990EZ — it should be #94… not #99….

This situation is just the start of how “screwball” ISI as a fiscal agent for anyone else, let alone a responsible entity for itself, really is. Of yet more concern, it appears (or at least claims) earlier to have been around since 1978, and early in the 21st century, contracting for a Bay Area county, neither one of the two its entity address showed, and advising other 501©3s and on senior services — while (not long after) itself out of compliance, and (just prior) coughing up handwritten, illegible tax returns. ANYONE continuing to promote a public banking institute using this fiscal agent should be asking themselves, by now, WHY didn’t I do basic checks first? OR, have their motivations checked for ethical content. (OR, doesn’t compliance with basic state law matter when a NWO is en route?). This isn’t just craziness, it’s a crafty cover-up!


Click to enlarge image, here’s that FY2002 Form990EZ for ISI, EIN#992524840 as posted at “990finder” (=see the same for other image).




The last “here” ( a CH trademark link label) shows EHB articles back to just before 2007 with a common drumbeat theme — we don’t have fiat money (this is, I would think, pretty common historical knowledge over the decades.  I learned it back in the 1970s as a young woman.  Why is it now suddenly news decades after the fact?).   The list includes two I just blogged and, for one of them, re-blogged, and the two earliest ones as:

EHBrown articles archive (as cited by CH), the earliest two shown are July 2007. Click image for the whole list

And here are the two I’m discussing, one for the second time, in the associated posts on State-Run Banks.  I’ve shown each (see blue oval) in context showing how relentlessly the theme is being pushed, as also compared to what Australia, Canada, other states are doing…(2 more similar images).

#1 of 2

#2 of 2


In another link, the timing is May, 2010, (I THINK click-through from the previous one), Burien and Klatt are declared national leaders over exposing the CAFR issues:

The date (5/2010) is obscured, but click image to go to (WayBackMachine) archived article.

CAFR: US agencies have billions, trillions in investments while crying budget deficits (POLITICS May 22, 2010 Carl Herman Examiner.com) and <==Related image:



Here are some screen prints from either that Carl Herman article or others it links to, including to at least one quoting Walter Burien, suggesting to write our legislators to question why the omissions in public discussion about budgets, and (some), whether this might not be criminal. CH gives examples of writing to his own representatives on this (CAFR stockpiled assets + talk of budget deficit) issue.


In advance, I should note that (1) Herman is pushing for a state bank, referring to North Dakota’s state bank (i.e., has  fallen in line with the “Public Banking Institute” promoter (Web of Debt), and at one point Green Party candidate for State Treasurer in California, attorney Ellen H. Brown. I don’t agree with this, however, what conclusions one comes to from evidence presented, and the evidence presented are two different things.  Mr. Herman’s writings indicate he is National Board-Certified in Economics, taught AP Economics, and is a Harvard grad.

In fact, here’s a presentation at Claremont Colleges (California) re: “Monetary Reform in a Finite World) with a seven-expert panel.  Ellen Brown presents first, Carl Herman presents last. I couldn’t download the presentations, but (separately) he presents his paper from the 2012 conference, unfortunately in “Washington Examiner” blog format (lots of white space with a narrow column of written information, and in several linked parts — and links are tending to expire on this blog).  The good guy/bad guy portrayal here (1% – 99%) sounds typically progressive (and idealistic, in my opinion) and doesn’t talk (as I do) about any governed population’s natural duty as citizens to seek out the truth about the operations, and develop the “chops” to detox from propaganda not tied to things verifiable and stated with details, and support to the argument.

Money Creation in a Finite World Apr2012 Claremt Colleges (CA) presentation (CH + EHB

#1 of 2 of a 2012 conference

#2of 2 of a 2012 conference

If I were in this panel (which obviously, I wasn’t and am not degreed/qualified to participate), I would ask them — what about the roles of the nonprofit sector, now entrenched, and of religion (as religious-exempt facilitation of non-disclosure of assets)?  This quote cites Carl Herman’s credentials, however:

An education breakthrough by the 99% in any of these three areas of banking, government, or media makes the other two areas easier to accomplish. Because monetary and credit reform might be the most difficult educational breakthrough, those of us competent in economic language might benefit from seeing and communicating the broader political and media conditions closer to the 99%’s existing understanding.

I teach Advanced Placement Economics, and regularly interact with 2,000+ AP teachers from around the world on our listserve. The consensus among AP Econ teachers is that the subject of how credit is created (what we use for money) is particularly challenging, even to our brightest students. AP teacher training includes the recommendation of teaching this topic with a physical demonstration or other teaching aid (I recommend Paul Grignon’s movie Money as Debt). It is the only curricular topic with such emphasis. Therefore, we might also find this topic particularly challenging to communicate to citizens.


One way to make this educational challenge easier is to prove mouthpieces of current monetary and credit policy, US government and corporate media, as lying in omission by ignoring credible monetary alternatives today and extending back in history, and lying in commission in central policy areas, such as current US War Crimes and a history of lying with US wars.

Importantly, “crime” is the game-changing proof that discredits the oligarchy’s voice. When “emperor has no clothes” obvious War Crimes are recognized, this triggers a significant population with Oaths to uphold US law to arrest the oligarchy’s “leadership.” Upon the 99%’s recognition that government and corporate media voices are literally War Criminals, we remove current economic policies’ voice and open public consideration to historic and current wisdom for monetary and credit reform.

Also (2) Herman talks about money as debt (to the Federal Reserve) also in terms of “the 99% to the 1%,” and in reference to the 1913 Income Tax.  I don’t know if that’s even debatable at this point, it should be common knowledge.

Other CH quotes and referrals promoting Public Banking or conferences about it:

In 2013 — Washington’s Blog — “Want your Trillions Back? Better Learn the Basics” (the first link is to 2013 PublicBankingConference– ℅ Public Banking Institute, founded by Ellen Brown in 2010):

First bullet referenced is promoting North Dakota’s state-owned bank. Click image to enlarge, or HERE for (archived) article

This is that “2013 conference” held in San Rafael, CA (North of San Francisco, SF Bay Area). MOST of the links lead (for either 2012 or 2013) lead nowhere (dysfunctional), and the contact us page leads back to a PO Box in Sonoma, CA, and a few paragraphs on EHB’s sudden awakening to how great the BND (Bank of North Dakota) was. Carl Herman article (see nearby image) also references this.

Here’s a 2016 promo, same general idea, from Washingtons Blog, referring readers to Public Banking Institute and pushing the idea, working in some references to CAFRs in the mix:

3-minute video: Public banks and monetary reform generate ~$1 million near-instant benefits for every US household: 2nd American Revolution more important than 1776
Posted on March 25, 2016 by Carl Herman
3-minute video from the Pennsylvania Public Bank Project; an expression from the Public Banking Institute:

And the image to go with it:

Burien couldn’t get an straight answer from Public Banking promoter and Green Party Candidate for California State Treasurer Ellen H. Brown in 2010, nor I in January/February 2014, but it didn’t take long to find out who was coming from a more honest question, and who was dodging answers.  [[Reader note:  this post wasn’t published til summer 2017, but it was originally written in fall 2014.]]

In the last situation (Herman, Burien, “Let’s Get Honest,”) I came out of “left field” to Web of Debt author and website, Ms. Brown, apparently as a nobody on “Web of Debt” blog.  I asked the same individual some very simple, very basic questions, noted the responses, and posted the responses on my blog. Being a woman myself, and knowing how some of our gender operates (playing the group-association mentality when they don’t have the “stuff’ to give a straight answer without their “friends” validating it), in my own email inbox, I watched Ms. Brown’s attempt to “divide and conquer” three men (Clint Richardson also (“realitybloger.wordpress.com”)) who were all informed about CAFRS, and later paid more attention, myself to what was going on in this field.

See my 2014 posts, probably within the last ten, on my sidebar. {{@Jun 2017, obviously no longer true — that section holds only most recent posts.  See Table of Contents pages, access from top of blog.//LGH}}Look for the ones with the brightest colors so people with short attention spans, might still read them.  Like Accounting Literacy Matters. Cause-based Literacy Doesn’t. (Spring 2010, Ellen H Brown tangles with Walter Burien’s info, or at least tries to.)May 4, 2014.
Look for this section of the post, although know that I did update it some just now, 2017:

Part of my “Accounting Literacy Matters” post of 5/3/2014. Click to enlarge or better, visit that post and read the rest at least of the bright-colored, two-column part shown here.

(Original context for next, bolded statement (written in 2014) is missing-in-action, that is, the action of editing and splitting the posts.  If found, I’ll post it here again; the organizations referenced probably related to NGA, AFCC, etc. and others promoting marriage/fatherhood and in the process, changing or worsening the existing culture and dynamics of the family court systems towards minimization of criminal behavior, in attempts to therapize the entire family wherever possible, or simply extort them or turn them away if no real money is to be made from churning specific cases.)

I have run across every one of the organizations they represent (where they actually do) in the course of researching and writing this blog, and essentially NONE of them outside it.

I have also been subject to policies set in many of [said organizations referenced in the “Accounting Literacy Matters” post] against the concept of individual legal or human rights, in favor of relationship talk and gender-based rights, and as a woman and like many women subjected to having national policies set, coordinated, and even legislated through these networked, often elitist groups, some of them historically entrenched in their influence for decades groups.

I learned about them {[said organizations referenced in the “Accounting Literacy Matters” post and similar ones] “piecemeal” (piece by piece, parts of a larger puzzle) while looking up other information, and gradually gained the vocabulary to talk about them to others. Some of them I know more than others about.

Several (not just one or two) have set policy and practice affecting people who divorce or two-parent households, particularly those with kids. Please notice I didn’t even list “AFCC” (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) or “CRC” (Children’s Rights Council, despite its name, an acknowledged fathers’ rights group from the mid-1980s), yet both those groups (certainly their leadership) know about many (if not most) of the above organizations and do some business with some business with some of them.

So how come people who can now (finally) recognize SOME acronymslike “AFCC” or “CRC” and know or even recite by rote a few pieces of information, probably not well-processed, which have finally seeped into the consciousness of SOME parents concerned about the family courts in SOME circles don’t know about ALL of those in the title of this post?##

Be assured, that’s only a partial list of ones that have come to my attention, which by no means guarantees is a complete list of major influential groups whose names begin with the letter N (or, I) who may be (and have been) affecting their take-home pay, or civil, legal, or human rights?

  • {{##Post was split in three, this was referring to title of the original (Oct. 25, 2014) draft reciting a list starting [approximately] “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC, NCSL…etc.” //LGH Jun 27, 2017}} 

Maybe we were barking up the wrong tree, as coached to, and forgetting to use our other senses, like, seeing, hearing and smelling something out of place, bloodhounds for the truth, we treed some quarry, maybe, but the hunt was staged.Maybe part of this is because of running with a pack of dogs instead of thinking like their masters, like full-status, intelligent human beings.

Maybe we weren’t meant to know. Maybe some of us should ask all those groups presenting, consistently for ten years at Battered Mother’s Custody Conference and running with California Protective Parents Association/Mothers of Lost Children (et al.) I’ve been posting on this spring, and ask them how come it took about ten years (and exposes by politically incorrect and/or “excommunicated” mothers not presenting or hanging with the same crowd, “lone wolf reporters,” ongoing and ignored meanwhile) to even utter the words “AFCC” in a group mailing, habitually on a website, or (“God forbid”) from a podium. And whether that has anything to do with the correspondence between professionals in at least three fields (psychologists/mental health; lawyers, or one prominent ex-(disbarred) lawyer, and (whether JD, Psy.D. or not), DV leadership among all of the above?)

Again, I’ve been blogging it independently and consistently between major family incidents and setbacks (like other parents) since 2009 and have brought it up to many of the groupies year after year, but I’m not seeking major journal publication, so apparently that doesn’t count, although what’s on this blog, alone (even reduced to its bare bones) would still make a book significantly addressing the awareness gap. I’ve also seen blogs (and at least one forum) with plenty of my expository comments on them go down or be shut down; which is one reason I started a blog that wouldn’t go down that easy.

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 instead of talking about the “elephants (plural, big ones) in the room,*” 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? continue circling around them and associating as if they were just not there.

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.

I’ve published an update on that post.

Further discussion (on earlier post) removed 7/7/2017, published 07/12/2017 as Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) (with short-link ending “-7bR”)

Remember also to read the more recent post to supplement the middle section (above, light-blue background) re; Carl Herman’s positioning on this issue and some ongoing publishing associations… I took the time to do this in part because of who else has been pushing that issue, and on what basis:

State-Run Banks? — at Least Two Activists Who Understand CAFRs, How Governments Stockpile Assets, Take Polar Opposite Stances on What to Do About It (Burien, Herman). And Perhaps Why.. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7gN”) (About 13,000 words, posted 7/17/2017).

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: