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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

NAATPN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (Hattiesburg, MS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe. [Publ. Aug. 28, 2017]

leave a comment »

Post title: NAATPN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (Hattiesburg MS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe. (with short-link ending “-7rm,” started 8/15/2017).   [Published 8/28/2017 evening and as usual may be updated for clarity, basic copyediting, or length (splitting)//LGH].

In my world, entity or non-entity is a very big deal; I don’t like the pretense that a “non-” is a real one. Or that those real entities whose track record of filing is absymal and whose IRS returns that do show up are themselves questionable (which in this case includes both groups mentioned in post title) are appropriate role models for training and technical assistance, consulting, or promoting a cause, even a noble cause.  If people or groups want to lead, steer, or serve as positive front groups for social policy, let them first show credibility — not just the ability to parrot, to make friends in high places without specifying how this was done.

The alleged cause is not being helped much by very highly-positioned, and “flush” foundations continuing to churn the tobacco litigation master settlement agreement, RICO and other tobacco lawsuits, and exploit the networks formed as a result of it, and doing this as publicized through centers of dubious fiscal independence from law school “centers,” thus creating another barrier to disclosing conflicts of interest among the sponsors and more work for the public to untangle the mess.

I also don’t like* having to then figure out, which I’ve been attempting, how to present it coherently on my own non-sponsored blog.

*I’m doing this (a) as a parent (for beyond my lifetime) and a witness of developments in the 1990s forward and (b) and because over the years (decades) I have really grown to hate the bullying, lying, and spin from official sources who meanwhile fail to disclose their own financials, while the public (at the end of the day) bankrolls the profits.  You cannot have a decent justice system saturated with bribes the public is forced to pay up front AND as consumers of government services.  I don’t like scenarios that are basically built on extortion based on PR/negative publicity with a heavy dose of censorship of the facts — and these are doing a good imitation of it.  I hope this blogging makes a difference in the freedom and at least secrecy in which it continues.

I’m ready to publish now, just about two weeks later (8/28/2017), and have yet to locate any real entity called “CALIFORNIA” “CALIFORNIA’s” or “….OF CALIFORNIA” associated with any “group” by the name of “African American Tobacco Education Network” although it was repeatedly referenced as if it were real.  Just one example from within this post:  ~RI State Legislature May 3 2005 Commends Bell Caffee’s African American Tobacco Educatn Network of CA (a non-entity?) for Not in Mamas Kitchen H6451 (printed Aug 2017) (two-page pdf, click page icon to see if first click doesn’t produce it.  Two annotated images; my comments raise the question of “Who IS it?” and why not mention an real, identifiable entity where one is available instead of one strangely “not found” when looked up?

What does this say about the state legislators who will make resolutions without fact-checking first?

Click image (as needed) to enlarge, or see nearby pdf link for the whole resolution (it’s not long…)

Here also (shown near bottom of this post again) is a 1996 article referring to just the “African American Tobacco Education Network” without the word “California,” but quoting the same person (whose corporate entities identified so far are in NC and MS):

Rise of Discount Cigarette Stores Vexes Health Officials  January 27, 1996 JILL LEOVY | SPECIAL TO THE (Los Angeles) TIMES

…Brenda Bell Caffee, coordinator for African-American Tobacco Education Network, contends that discount cigarettes are aimed at the poor and at minorities. Rates of smoking among African Americans are among the highest of any ethnic group in California, according to the CDC…

So where was the link to either the entity she’s associated with (or its website), or the CDC claim? It may be a program or project, rather than a corporation or association.   That’s the problem I have with journalism style attempting to put together facts into a story line– just not, typically, the fiscal or corporate filing facts.  The hunt is always for a person with knowledge of the situation to quote, and an organization name to stick alongside the quote lending an air of authority on the facts…  Whether or not the organization ends up existing, or has $10M, $1M, or $0 assets if it does exist, or is fiscally independent of government grants, doesn’t typically make it into the story.

A previous quote, 1995,  (again, from near the bottom of this post) repeats the association, but with the word “California” prefixed:

Offended L.A. Groups Help Snuff Out New Menthol X Cigarettes : Protest: African Americans help get product shelved, saying the package used images linked to Malcolm X and racial pride. Maker denies trying to lure black smokers.  March 17, 1995|PETER Y. HONG | TIMES STAFF WRITER

Brenda Bell Caffee, coordinator of the California African American Tobacco Education Network, said her group became aware of the cigarette brand last month through a computer bulletin board for African Americans in California.

Where’s the evidence other than allegations that it existed, of the group?

Also as a Californian (currently and for over one generation now), I have certain issues with people from North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi and/or Georgia with known connections and support from a law-school nonprofit in St. Paul, Minnesota characterizing themselves as representing the best interests of people who, like I do, actually live in this state and must deal with some of the crazy policies set in place through social engineering here since 1996 Welfare Reform, PRWORA, let alone since the (two years later) Tobacco Litigation Master Settlement Agreement, not to mention the (in this state) increasing consolidation of control of the courts at the top level and in the administrative sector over time,** some of which I blogged about four years ago as it pertained to AFCC inordinate influence over family, divorce and custody courts, and ongoing reversal and erosion of whatever gains were made by laws against domestic violence and spousal battery.

(**Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Unification Act of 1997 (<==2005 Fact Sheet (partial image shown below) from Courts.CA.gov on this); then consolidation of already statewide Family Court Services with Children’s Services ca. 2000/2001 into the “CFCC” (Center for Families and Children in the Courts) under the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC), and gradual but consistent movement of operational (jursidictional?) responsibility for the court buildings, employees, and judges away from local upwards towards the state level — and we are a large state.)

(2pp, Click image to read the rest)

This abstract from NCJRS.gov Virtual Doc’t #NCJ 200028 (28pp, 2003) references some of the events I just described between 1997 and within the next five years… These were occurring simultaneous with the “Big Tobacco” Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, and major transitions affecting divorce, custody and the future of domestic violence / child abuse protections within those family courts re: child support enforcement responsibilities (a consequence of PRWORA Act of 1996, nationwide) from local District Attorneys to SDUs (Statewide Distribution Units) and facilitating the incentive payments for increased noncustodial parenting contact (access and visitation program support) at $10M a year nationwide, and (later established as CFDA 93086 under HHS) the nationwide promotion of marriage/fatherhood in the form of federal grants which tended to land in organizations willing to run downloadable curricula, and intermediary organizations chosen to  “train the trainers” in doing so and in general, set up new professions and the infrastructure to support it, in that field, as I showed in part in my previous post).  This NCJRS Abstract, however, refers to only California:

Four major reforms have enabled the creation of a stronger infrastructure for the State’s judicial branch. The goals of the reforms were to bring greater efficiency to court operations and improve public access to court services. The first reform was to consolidate all funding decisions at the State level. The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 did away with the system under which courts were subjected to two separate budget processes – at both the county and the State level. The second reform was the 1998 voter-passed constitutional amendment that provided for voluntary unification of the superior and municipal courts in each county into a single countywide trial court system. The third reform was the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act in 2001, which mandated the transfer of 21,000 court employees from the counties to the courts. The fourth major reform was the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Sen. Bill 1732) that initiated a shift in governance of more than 450 court facilities from the counties to the State over a 4 year period. These changes have reduced budget requests and absorbed reductions to date while avoiding serious compromises to public access and to core duties. In the future, the judicial branch will continue to strive to achieve these goals by further organizational restructuring and possibly the raising of court fees.

Follow-up information adds depth and documentation to my summary paragraph above on this post, but after writing it ON the post, I’m taking it to a separate page. //LGH Aug. 29 6:20pm. See (page)  How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov (in draft temporarily)

That page also contains more links, images, and points I raise on the Tobacco Control Law Consortium at Public Health Law Center, Inc. (℅ / related entity of the nonprofit Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, MN; keep reading it comes up soon…), which “Consortium” doesn’t seem to be an actual entity, but slid in alongside several powerful ones that ARE (American Cancer Society, etc. — and the one I’m blogging here) in 2006 to defend the American Legacy Foundation when Lorillard Tobacco sued it in the State of Delaware.

(original print quality is poor, sorry…)

It’s also not clear (to me, yet) whether “Tobacco Control Legal Consortium” is a real entity; as described with this Amicus (alongside many that obviously are organizations), it would seem not, but to be rather a series of projects at a nonprofits, said nonprofits typically if where they may exist, at law school centers…the language is evasive.  Elsewhere on the same Amicus, descriptions of each entity include words which could correspond to registered “persons” with the capacity to file, i.e., corporations, associations, or societies…  The phrase “national network of legal centers” doesn’t correspond to a business name with a home legal domicile, and registered as a “foreign corporation” in any other state where it may operate… Take a look at the description, most of it on a footnote:

Does any descriptor here identify TCLC as a “person” with standing to file, even though this is the section where such persons are identified individually? No start date, no legal domicile, no word which might be tied to a state-level incorporation or unincorporated but legit association..

The focus is on the tobacco industry’s and cigarette manufacturers‘ dishonesty — but how much dishonesty should be allowed among entities filing major lawsuits with focus on global control (with intent to eliminate it) on an entire industry??  And why won’t PHLC post its EIN# and tax returns; why also did it need to change its name at least 3x in 10 years (1998-2008), with each new name bearing little resemblance to each predecessor name?

Both these larger trends (Big Tobacco litigation social policy + PRWORA-related social policy) continues to reveal the good guy/bad guy (both of them focused heavily on marketing and advertising, and maintaining their funding sources) dynamic over tobacco which in some ways reminds me of the similar good guy/bad guy dynamic regarding marriage promotion vs. domestic violence prevention (i.e., the gender wars…) BOTH of them waged in good part using HHS funds, and private, too.

NAATPN, Inc. (now the legal name) was formerly National African-American Tobacco Prevention Network. The first three images from “CDC.gov,” the federal agency website, give an idea (along with this entity having shown up as USDOJ “intervenor” in Big Tobacco civil RICO case which followed the class actions suits by state attorneys generals, with Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) in 1998) why I’m blogging a nonprofit in North Carolina with repeated tax returns showing zero ($0.00) assets, and another one from Mississippi (ditto on the tax returns) whose main leadership (Board Chair, Brenda Bell-Caffee) somehow claimed a California connection as far back as year 2000, and was credited with the same up through at least 2005….

Those next three images from CDC aren’t immediately below.  On re-posting summary of the situation from a Public Health Law website, I felt it important to identify who was that website.  It comes up in the context of NAATPN also.  I also have a number of sections in this post, including one that deals with the American Legacy (Truth Initiative) Foundation’s mega- and, some of them, “corporate or LLC entity NOT FOUND) independent contractors.  When I say, “mega-” the tax returns inform us these are at times over $50M (in a single year), other times north of $5M.  That takes a while…

Look for the CDC images under a paragraph (which may be wrapped around other images) which looks like this:

NAATPN is also referenced prominently on HHS/CDC Websites under “Tobacco-Related Disparities” links

I haven’t published for over a week, so for a reminder, here’s a brief (considering the length, scope and size of the litigation) from “Public Health Law Center” at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  It’s the same resource, from the website, I posted in my Dec. 15, 2016 page (not post) referencing specifically the intervenors mentioned, and a Georgia connection complaining about the usage of the vast funds once obtained.  http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/ tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

That page also can be accessed through my About Blog Motto post, and/or found near the top of the right sidebar under “Vital Links,” (scroll far down to see), about fifth from the top of those links.  I put 990 search database link closer to the top.

However, I learned in researching today’s post that this same “Public Health Law Center” was involved (deeply) with one of the executive directors of NAATPN, one of the two named entities in this post  title (see “Delmonte Jefferson” section below).

I also see in re-reading this summary and “Source Documents” listed on the same page (below section shown) that the “Tobacco Resource Center” analysis of the lawsuit posted is actually a dsyfunctional link (“tobacco.neu.edu …/DOJ opinion summary”) and that other sources referenced there (at the publichealthlaw.org summary on tobacco litigation page) represent a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF”) and American Legacy Foundation-sponsored center at UCSF, and as such should not be considered conflict-of-interest free.

The “tobacco.NEU.edu” link expired apparently because “NEU” changed its domain name to “Northeastern” representing Northeastern University School of Law (<==search results) in Boston.  Quick search for tobacco litigation there came up with their own “PHAI” (Public Health Advocacy Institute) one of whose predecessor (before merging out) nonprofit was founded much earlier (1970s) under a variety of different names:  http://www.phaionline.org/history-of-phai/  This timeline seems to match what I found similar to California’s predecessors to American Nonsmokers Rights and related foundation.

If you recall from previous posts, while the Lasker Foundation was operating decades earlier (since ca. 1942) and a National Cancer Act was passed in 1937 and revised in 1971, it was in 1989 that Research! America was founded (in part by Edwin C. Whitehead (? as I recall)) and consistently funded by Lasker Charitable Fund or (its successor) Albert D. & Mary Lasker Foundation. What I’m saying is the timeline for the goal of “doubling biomedical research funding for the NIH in five years” started at least back in the 1989s, and Mary Lasker’s involvement in pushing for this research, still earlier. So it should not be surprising to find on both coasts (NE – Boston Area and in California) “no-smoke” and “clean air / nonsmokers’ rights” entities starting up in the late 1970s early 1980s.

(This Public Health Advocacy Institute/Public Health Law Center section may be moved to a separate post after publication, especially now that I’ve seen the PHAI tax returns — for at least one of its merged entities which terminated in 2005…)….

 At Northeastern University School of Law, see its ABOUT page.

PHAI opposes several unhealthy corporate-promoted things including “obesogenic foods and beverages,” sunlamps and “motor vehicles,” however it seems to have started with interest in anti-tobacco/clean air litigation (the only sub-menu under “History”). PHAI (which has gone through name changes and mergers since 1979) is based at a Boston Law School, Northeastern University. Referenced (not by name, but by now-broken link) at a separate Public Health Law Center, a related-entity at a Mitchell Hamline Law School in St. Paul, MN…(fka Wm. Mitchell College of Law)

PHAI references its “sibling institute” and a merger which could of course be further researched at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Business Entity search site.

See next image which is all of their “history” page citing organization events in 1979, 1992, 2006 and 2014.  The right sidebar on that site also shows that there may be endless sources of work for lawyers in continuing to take on any large corporations perceived (by them) as dangerous to the public, including tobacco corporations, STILL, in 2017

Somehow, endless public litigation and proliferation of nonprofits to support this, doesn’t seem to be considered by the same groups economically dangerous to the public, and a possible health hazard to the chronic stress related to paying for all of it (as we will either as consumers, and/or as supporters of nonprofits resulting from each new politically correct social policy change…).

Meanwhile, Public Health Law Center at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in MN About page offers a description that it started in 2000 (interesting timing) to help state and other governments promote healthier lifestyles (including as towards tobacco), and a cheerful assembly (no caption or label) of the “us” represented by the Center, I guess.  Noticeably absent (if the unlabeled photo is an indicator) of people of color, specifically African Americans, while being sponsored as part of a “Consortium” to work with NAATPN executive director Delmonte Jefferson to further develop relationships, and as funded in part by American Legacy Foundation (now “Truth Initiative”).

To review:

Public Health Law Center, Inc. = St. Paul, MN, associated with Mitchell Hamline School of Law (and fiscally, controlled by it as a related 501©3, I found from the Forms 990). Mitchell Hamline is the former William Mitchell College of Law. It does not pre-date the tobacco master settlement agreement.

PHAI – Public Health Advocate Institute = Boston, MA associated with Northeastern University, and its origins include some mergers and name-changes as a result also.

A FY2005 tax return (2003 was the earliest I could find), when Public Health Law Center was going by “Tobacco Law Center f/k/a Centers for Law and Leadership”  states this clearly:

(This is from FY2005 statement of Program Service Accomplishments, “Statement 2”):






The above-named Tobacco Resource Center IS now “Public Health Law Center.”  It’s the same corporation with the same EIN# — just a namechange… It is also controlled by the School of Law, formerly called a College of Law; either way, IT as a nonprofit, has its own EIN# and funds are exchanged between them, and staff allocated back and forth, I learned.

Total results: [3]Search Again.

William Mitchell College of Law MN 2015** 990 54 $61,146,610.00 41-0518750
William Mitchell College of Law MN 2014 990 51 $67,398,415.00 41-0518750
William Mitchell College of Law MN 2013 990 46 $76,051,487.00 41-0518750

**The fiscal year ends June 30, so this is only FY2014.   As you can see, the name change to “Mitchell Hamline” isn’t reflected yet; the group hasn’t posted (or, this database hasn’t picked up) even its FY2015 Form 990 yet, which just ended two months ago (but how long does it really take to file a straightforward tax return for a stable, ongoing institution?)… Also, while the FY2014 return reads “F/K/A William Mitchell College of Law,” the tax return says the two schools (the other was Hamline University School of Law) actually didn’t combine until December 2015, after close of the FY2014 year:


There are three total related entities; one is the Public Health Law Center, another the Student Bar Association, and a third one (not controlled by the college, but still related) in Houston Texas.  Look for Schedule R for more info. (3 images self-explanatory; click image to enlarge):

Here’s some similar information but from the Public Health Law Center, Inc. point of view.  For example, it doesn’t really have any assets other than “Other Assets” defined as the amount due from the college (entered on the College’s tax return, obviously, as “other liabilities — due to PHLC” as shown above). Other than listing the college (only entity) on its Sched R too, and mentioning that it uses the college as its “common paymaster,” the other image I’m uploading further solidifies who calls the shots:

PHLC (EIN#411896367 in MN) “$394,135 Other Assets” are what its controlling (related) entity owes them.  Without this, the Statement of Balance (Pt. X) shows few assets; they without this, cash-poor.  Their Program Service Revenue (over $4M) probably comes from the College/School of Law as well.. (See Pt. VIII revenues or Pt. I, Page 1, Program Service Revenues line)

A minor reference (Schedule L Transactions with Related Persons) mentions $10,000 to Executive Director Doug Blanke’s “Action on Smoking and Health” (strategic acronym – “ASH”!).  That minor mention seems to carry a large load (he’s the only officer directly paid by PHLC — others are showing pay from “related” organizations (like, the College) and I just learned that Action on Smoking and Health has a US and UK charity, and a global agenda (per the Wikipedia, which  mentions Banke on its board, currently).  There are ASH in several countries near or within the UK (i.e., also in Scotland and Wales).

(look this up on Wikipedia, which is where I found it. I published the post it’s in 8/29/2017 and it’s already a VERY long post, or I’d include more lookups with this mention).







FY2005 Tax return for the DC-located ASH, showing John F. Banzhaf III (b.1940) as primary officer (there are only 2 paid officers — the size isn’t that large).  Another interesting figure (alongside Douglas Blanke, who founded the PHLC and has a BA from Michigan State, J.D. from Yale School of Law, and who was formerly Assistant Attorney General of MN involved in the tobacco litigation):

“Previously, as an assistant attorney general of the State of Minnesota, he played a key role in the historic Minnesota litigation that resulted in the release of thirty-five million pages of secret tobacco industry documents.  He was the 2004 recipient of the American Lung Association’s C. Everett Koop “Unsung Hero” Award for his contributions to tobacco control.”

(C. Everett Koop having also been involved with Research! America). Banzhaff III graduated early (15yrs old) from Stuyvesant HS (one of 3 academically elite in the NY public school system), electrical engineering from MIT, J.D. from Columbia.  See the Wiki..)

(“…Banzhaf has utilized a clinical-project format in some of his law classes, rather than a more traditional lecture and academic study format. Students are divided into teams and asked to work on some genuine consumer problems.[2]:33“).) (I also found a website — at a center University of Chicago “Div School,” but written by a professor from Brigham Young University Law School — relating how Banzhaf sued Catholic University for discriminating against Muslims because it didn’t have private places without religious symbols, i.e., the cross… apparently being in D.C., it was not necessary to have an actual student complainant to file for human rights violation…. My “take-away” from this (important find) was that the D.C. Human Rights Act allows complaints to be filed without a specific member of the class even involved:

John Banzhaf’s Fatwa Against Catholic University, by Brett G. Sharffs (Jan. 10, 2012)


…Banzhaf’s website quotes descriptions of him as “the area’s best-known ‘radical’ law professor,” and asserts that he teaches a course in which his students “sue for credit.”. Banzhaf has engaged in high profile fights with the tobacco and fast food industries, among many others, and has even filed a previous Human Rights complaint against CatholicUniversity, alleging that the school engaged in sex discrimination when it returned to single-sex dorms. That complaint was later dismissed.

This time around, Banzhaf apparently tried to identify some Muslim students who would complain about their treatment at Catholic University, but finding none, filed a complaint with the Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights on his own behalf.

Banzhaf then issued a press release trumpeting the complaint and claiming that CatholicUniversity “illegally discriminated” against Muslim students, and acted with “malice.” His 60-page complaint included a claim that Muslim students had to pray “at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

Ordinarily, a case like this would be thrown out of court for lack of standing. But under the D.C. Human Rights Act, which contains particularly strict anti-discrimination provisions, anyone can file a complaint with the D.C. Office of Human Rights, including general allegations of discrimination that are unrelated to specific persons or instances.

Nevertheless, the Act provides broad exemptions for religious and political organizations, including the right of religiously affiliated schools to “giv[e] preference to persons of the same religion . . . as is calculated by the organization to promote the religious or political principles for which it is established or maintained.”  || As its name announces, CatholicUniversity is a private religious academic institution. Neither U.S. Constitutional nor federal law prohibits religiously-affiliated universities from displaying religious symbols relating to their own faith. Indeed, any effort by the government to limit such expressions would almost certainly be struck down as a violation of free exercise, free speech, and free association rights.

From Banzhaf’s George Washington U. (in D.C.) website:

J.F. Banzhoff III

John F. Banzhaf III [pronounced Banz-half] is a nationally-known professor and practitioner of public interest law. Professor Banzhaf has been called the “Ralph Nader of the Tobacco Industry,” “Mr. Anti-Smoking,” a “Man Who Lives by his Writs,” the “Father of Potty Parity,” a “Legal Terrorist,” a “Legal Flamethrower,” and one of the 100 most powerful persons in Washington (twice, by Regardie’s).As a young lawyer, John Banzhaf brought a legal action which required all broadcast stations to provide free time for anti-smoking messages. Subsequently, after founding Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) to serve as the legal-action arm of the antismoking community, he helped drive cigarette commercials off the air, and started the nonsmokers’ rights movement by first getting no-smoking sections—and then smoking bans—on airplanes and in many other public places. Professor Banzhaf and ASH have played a major role in the war on smoking and for nonsmokers’ rights, including promoting and helping to mastermind law suits against the tobacco industry, and in defending the legal rights of nonsmokers in hundreds of legislative, administrative, and judicial proceedings.

And I notice from the (equally self-promoting) personal website, after the paragraphs on tobacco, one on obesity.  In fact, the ASH logo probably says it all.

(found at Banzhaf.net)

Click image to reach website; this is the main page.

   Recently, Prof. Banzhaf started a movement to use legal action as a weapon against obesity modeled on his earlier successes in using legal action as a weapon against smoking [CBS1,CBS2Canadian TV].  So far, ten (including two threatened) fat law suits have been successful [link], and have forced McDonald’s, Kraft, KFC, Kelloggs, and other major companies to make significant changes likely to help reduce obesity.

Banzhaf has also filed lawsuits involving women’s rights in certain situations… But you can see the general theme and tenor of the activism, and the tactics including persuading and mentoring law students to learn-by-doing and filing public interest lawsuits.  As Public Health Law Center’s executive director Doug Blanke seems to be on about the same page, they are in general indicators of tactics and intents; once applied to tobacco (which seems to be the main though certainly not the only claim to fame here), why not apply the same tactics to any other cause which comes across the radar?   In fact, if there is an ill or wrong globally, perhaps the best approach is to file those lawsuits…

The area of “public health law” is obviously being developed as a specialty…

Moving on…

I get the sense this school (Wm. Mitchell College of Law) isn’t that large.  Student Bar Association return said about 900 students. Hamline University (I see) is much larger; the tax return says about 5,000 students.  Incidentally, its Board of Trustees has to be ratified by the Minnesota Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church… and the President of the University and Bishop of the Conference are “ex-Officio” members with full voting power (that information found on its Schedule “O”).  Date of origin:  1854.

Total results: [3]. Search Again.

Hamline University MN 2015 990 64 $224,727,310.00 41-0693960
Hamline University MN 2014 990 60 $233,530,811.00 41-0693960
Hamline University MN 2013 990 57 $232,538,706.00 41-0693960

Sched O from FY2014 “Hamline University” (dba for The Trustees of …) in MN referencing its religious affiliation with United Methodist Conference…Click image to enlarge.

The Public Health Law Center

The Public Health Law Center helps create communities where everyone can be healthy. We empower our partners to transform their environments by eliminating commercial tobacco, promoting healthy food, and encouraging active lifestyles.

Because we provide legal and strategic support to so many local and state health departments, health advocacy organizations, attorneys working on public health issues, and community coalitions across the country, we are helping drive many of the nation’s cutting-edge public health initiatives.

We believe that our legal knowledge can help bring justice to public health as we support our partners in reducing health disparities. When all people are healthier, the communities they live in are happier, safer, more vibrant places.

Founded in 2000, the Center is located at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Our Mission

Improving health through the power of law.

Our Services Include

  • Helping our partners shape local, state, and national policies that prevent heart disease, cancer, lung disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.
  • Creating publications, presentations, and resources that help others understand the legal opportunities and barriers to improve the nation’s health. [[I.e., marketing and PR, media communications]]
  • Bringing together and collaborating with the nation’s leading public health experts to find strategic solutions to pressing health problems. [[Conferencing, building networks with the powerful and already sponsored sector…]]
  • Defensing groundbreaking new policies by assisting government attorneys and writing expert friend-of-the-court briefs in important legal cases.
  • Tracking and interpreting public health laws in all 50 states

(Color, bolding (except titles), underline, and italic emphases are mine…)

CRITIQUE OF THIS SUMMARY:  Leading statement “empower our partners to…” grammar is awkward.  The word “help” would be more accurate. Empowering refers to getting and delegating that power to another.  What that other then does, is its action.  Helping, is not exactly the same, and implies active ongoing collaborative help.  Either way, the description here makes clear who the entity (if it is one and not just a project of the school of law) considers “its” partners — and it’s not “the public” but government.

First service listed lines up neatly with Lasker Syndicate and HHS/NIH, NCI, and (this post references) CDC program office purposes:  “…prevent heart disease, cancer, lung disease, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.”

In other words, they are lined up with the most affluent sector (governments) and some of the largest charities in the nonprofit sector (American Cancer Society, American Heart Association (Lung disease), and of course the American Legacy Foundation… to help the poor and oppressed, without real input FROM the same…

With goals like this the sponsorship of this Public Health Law Center is important to know.  Is it a separate legal entity where grants might be tracked by the public in whose interest it is operating?  Or is it buried underneath the larger funding of its sponsoring website/law school?  Only the Forms 990 (of either law school or Public Health Law Center) will answer at least part of that questions, but they aren’t posted on the website.  Hmm…

At least three name changes within three years, and mis-leading casually mis-stated characterizations of salaries throughout (one of the name changes includes when the IRS altered its Form 990 in 2008 to ask questions about number of employees and, one the page requesting statement of Key Officer Directors and Trustees salaries, add a column segregating what was paid by the entity with a column for “by related entities.”).

This nonprofit continued filing claiming it had “no” employees on the altered IRS Form 990 Page 1, while posting substantial amounts (including some causing operation deficits) under “Salaries and Other Compensation” (specifying that this doesn’t refer to fees for professional services or independent contractors by the lines on the “Statement of Expenses” (Ln 15 of Pt. I) actually referred to.  And we are talking here, lawyers, and law students on work-study…


What I’ve found so far regarding both the American Legacy Foundation use of funds, including choice of multi-million-dollar contractors in the field of advertising and marketing (i.e., where the money is going, and format of reporting its multi-million-dollar grants) as well as National African American Tobacco Prevention Network‘s relationship to promoting the cause (as to both filing habits, filing content and — most recent discoveries — both US HHS (CDC’s) and USASpending.gov’s database reporting of its own grants to NAATPN not to mention NAATPN’s ability to properly identify by name the Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control on its own IRS returns (year after year) raises, to say the least, legitimate questions about the legitimacy of this entire RICO lawsuit.  If the concern was RICO, how was involved yet another network (but framing the subject matter differently) going to correct the situation?

For a timeline, be aware when reading the summary of the case that American Legacy Foundation’s tax returns claim a 1999 date of origin (although its Schedule A of Support reports $275M of funds received in 1998) as a domestic Delaware entity with (at least now) a Washington, D.C. address and over $900M total gross assets, and NAATPN was incorporated in 2000, as a domestic North Carolina entity, but as to its tax returns, I haven’t found anything pre-dating FY2005, and even those tax returns appear to have not been submitted before Fall 2008.

NAATPN is also referenced prominently on HHS/ CDC Websites under “Tobacco-Related Disparities” links …

…and program descriptions targeted to selected populations — obviously re: African Americans — but so far, any direct grants to it (as claimed as main source of revenues!) claimed on many recent tax returns were not found on TAGGS.HHS.Gov.  Until (see next) I did find it — in the wrong state and under the wrong name with mis-spelled grant awards also…

My apologies; I forgot TAGGS’ behavioral trait of making up or strangely abbreviating, curtailing, misspelling, dropping critical words from and otherwise mischarac-terizing organization names, thereby defeating normal types of search results of its data based on entity names.  It also in a recent (two-three years ago?) restructuring removed the option to search by EIN# which for people aware of this flaw might overcome it by simply getting 9 digits (or more, if an extended EIN#) correct.  Previously, when one would search by EIN#s, it didn’t display them in the results; and the option was NOT available under “Advanced Search…”

So this time, not being such a frequent user of TAGGS the past year (or so), I had tried “NAATPN” as an acronym and written out (National African-American Tobacco Prevention”), but until just now (as this post is nearly complete) had forgotten cast a still wider net by typing in just “National African American” as a search category, which reveals how TAGGS names the entity — it just leaves off the words “Prevention Network” completely, revealing two entities, and NAATPN showing $5.5M of grants over time as having received (by easy deduction) $5,582,520 of grants.

TAGGS-generated shortlink to these search specs is http://tinyurl.com/yc4f68hh. The search can be repeated using the DUNS# shown to display just NAATPN (as named by TAGGS). Entity name on search (not this image) is clickable.

The details on this (click link in above caption, then click on Org. name under “Recipient Name” column) show more inconsistency in abbreviation (NATL vs. NAT’L), use the “&” character (which can’t be entered in a search field), and for its first five-year award (2008-2013) at $400K/year containing (unlike organization name as entered on TAGGS database) the word “PREVENTION” mis-spells it, omitting the “V” as follows. The award name also uses  “African American” as a noun, where the singular makes it odd (if it’d been an adjective, singular would be normal). Moreover, common reference is to “Tobacco Prevention” not to “Tobacco & Prevention” even if the “Prevention” had been spelled correctly.  The word “Nat’l” on a US Federal Department database implies “IN THE US” so why not just leave it off?


(Emphases added to show the odd wording)

On constructing an Advanced Search at “TAGGS,” (this search field strangely doesn’t have a place to enter DUNS#, or a generic “key words” field, so I had to re-enter the incorrect / partial entity name under “Recipient”), as you can see only two principal investigators are referenced, William S. Robinson and Delmonte Jefferson, however, “DELMONTE” is entered first correctly, then with an “I” (“DEIMONTE”).

Also, the entity is throughout referenced as being a SC not a NC entity, while its tax returns refer to it as a NC entity  — so a person attempting to locate grants to this organization, realizing from some other source they must exist (and failing to find it under its full, or mostly full organization name including the word “Prevention” or find the grant with the phrase “Tobacco Prevention” spelled correctly) who might have gone to the entire state of NC, narrowing the search down by some other field, would not have found it anyhow (!!). Apparently TAGGS “state” references don’t represent the legal domiciles, although legal domiciles stay the same when any organization may changes its place of business or main office.  If the “legal domicile” is to change, the actual entity becomes a different one…

These mis-spellings, omitted words, and strange choices of abbreviations are characteristics I also noted in the marriage/fatherhood promotion field under TAGGS listings also.  Combined with the 990Finder’s (a project run by a private NY entity, not a federal department) strange way of getting entity names completely wrong (sometimes substituting a project name), this feature of TAGGS presents further obstacles to investigators who may have gotten past one or two initial hurdles, such as wrong organization name, and the removal of ability to search by EIN#.

This internal discrepancy (to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under which “Centers for Disease Control” operated) should be resolved.  Unfortunately, most sites promoting the programs on HHS (and CDC) also fail to link readers to the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database which claims to be (see image of its homepage).  I did find (Unlike most promotional pages over at ACF) a link on the CDC to two databases I already know about, which don’t correspond with each other:  USASpending.gov (required by a law passed only in 2006) and TAGGS.hhs.gov.

https://www.cdc.gov/grants/resources/AwardData.html  (This doesn’t actually show recipients…)

TAGGS.HHS.Gov home page with self-described claims as to its quality. Unfortunately, my (years of) experience with the website, both pre- and post-restructuring of its user interface/ Search options, makes it clear the claim is (false). Its data is neither reliable nor consistent in design or in data entry protocols (style charts for names of organizations / grantees). I do think it helpful for providing at least clues, but due to inconsistent data entry (and apparent shortage of proofreaders) not so good for an overview. //LGH Aug. 2017

In addition to prior awareness of the acronym, I also looked up HHS grants to the American Legacy Foundation on TAGGS.HHS.gov (<==TAGGS-generated shortlink to saved search), noticed an unusual acronym, “NCCDPHP,” (for “NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION & HEALTH PROMOTION) among the Program Office categories as engaged in its largest grants, looked at the CDC organizational chart and timeline, and under not NCCDPHP, but “OSH” Office of Smoking and Health, discovered this on the sidebar:

HHS unsorted (default) “Recipient Search” currently for 2017 (so far) shows $485 billion grants distributed, which can only be viewed (all 1118 awards) over 318 pages sorted to 25 items/page, with the column headings shown here.  I clicked on the Amount (rightmost) column to sort from largest to smallest (click again if it doesn’t show in this format) only to find that it only sorts those 25 records largest to smallest (ranging quickly from grants of $33M to negative entries of 9ver $9M) and page 2, starting again with a positive number and those 25 records only sorted.  This raises questions during ANY basic search (or advanced one) of what the results obtained actually represent…)

#2 of 3 from HHS/CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health (“Tobacco-related disparities”)

#3 of 3 from HHS/CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health, under “Tobacco-related Disparities” top population referenced (African-American) see only two websites referenced…

#1 of 3 from HHS/CDC’s Office of Smoking and Health.(annotated)

NOTE:  This post is going to be published August 28, 2017 (It’s been in the works nearly two weeks).

Having just now located the record of TAGGS grants to the entity I’m reporting on, as mis-labeled, I studied further “mistakes” in labeling organization name, award name, and for one grant under a different “Program Office” from NCCDPHP, Principal Investigator First name.

I went looking for a specific award number (the one shown above) and finally went back to USASpending.gov which had changed significantly since I last used it.  It’s much harder to get an all-year overview of any entity, or significant detail on the awards than before.  Nevertheless, by looking up each of the grants reported by TAGGS.HHS.Gov to “National African American Tobacco” (sic) also at USASpending.gov, I found $300K (two out of three $150K/year awards) MISSING under USASpending.gov.

I ALSO found that USASPending.gov used one version of “NAAT” (the one shown above) as reflected on HHS, and continued to call it a “SC” entity, for all years reported (2008-2017) EXCEPT 2017, when the entity name and address was corrected to NAATPN (written out — which incidentally is no longer its name since the North Carolina entity changed its name to the acronym sometime between Jan. 2013 (its uploaded records) and April/May 2014 (NC State informed).

USASpending.gov chart for grants to entity in question; this seems to be its primary source of revenues (as opposed to program service revenues reported on any tax returns) throughout. As you can see they started increasing a certain year after 5 yrs at $400K (representing a single grant).

USASpending.gov notice the wording and spelling, locale (PO Box 833 Summerville SC) and a DUNS# on left, and that it’s Year 2016 shown, on right.

Same DUNS#, different phrasing of the ENTITY, FY2017 (notice has more words and the “o” on ToBACCO is lower case. TAGGS.HHS sorts are case-sensitive; I DNK about this database. However now (finally) it’s a North Carolina entity…

MOREOVER, … the details in the USASpending.gov which I had to view a year at a time, sometimes (ca. 2014ff) showed sub-awardees, which I made a note of and looked up one of them which was in California.  Or (same DUNS#) is it Washington, D.C.” (National Reach Coalition)…  But also of interest, for ALL years except the last few, the “Place of Performance” was shown as FLORIDA, then NC (while as I show below, for a few years only — and before its very first HHS award shown above at TAGGS (or USASpending.gov which now says it goes back only to 2008 — I remember a time when it went back earlier)  had registered as a foreign (NC) entity in Lake Mary Florida.

I think this type of information belongs on a separate post, although it’s intrinsically related to this one, and confirms my instinct that there is something “off” about the whole picture.  I will blog it separately because of the quantity of images needed to make my point.  Here are, however, three images (from most recent to earliest) representing just one search result from TAGGS which show some of the many issues raised between the two databases and the record from the IRS Form 990PFs.  For the search, I chose which fields to display, and searched by DUNS#.

(Larger view of same search results FY2016 USASpending.gov/Recp’t Profile with my comments.

TAGGS srch 21 awards (incl some amount “0”) 2008-201. 7 representing NAATPN (DUNS# search) IMAGE 1 of 3, see annotations This TAGGS-generated shortlink saves search specs (not results — but specs. If the data changes, the results will change, however this saves the trouble of re-selecting the columns to display, DUNS# and other filters).Of course without annotations — click above IMAGE (or most images on this post) to enlarge as needed..

TAGGS srch 21 awards (incl some amount “0”) 2008-2017 representing NAATPN (DUNS# search) IMAGE 2 of 3, see annotations


TAGGS srch 21 awards (incl some amount “0”) 2008-2017 representing NAATPN (DUNS# search) IMAGE 3 of 3, see annotations

SAMPLING OF TAX RETURNS, with links to each and excerpts:

FY2005 seems to be the first tax return for NAATPN (The word “Network” at first appeared in its name, then for a while disappeared until FY2010) strangely has a header referencing “2008 Alisha Simmons” and shows $492K contributions on page 1, then page 2 calls that “grants receivable” and from “Robert Wood Johnson” [an incomplete name — it would be Robert Wood Johnson Foundation unless it’s a personal bequest from the Johnson & Johnson heir, hardly likely] while in a separate place on the same return, mentions another $281K of contributions from “5 or more exempt organizations” not found.  For this filing also $206K of “Other Expenses” meanwhile are supposed to be detailed in an Attachment, but that Attachment was not found.  Not starting out on the best of feet as to filing integrity, or demonstrating Form 990 literacy.

The tax return for this year 2005 on Page 1 top is marked both “Initial” and “Final” return; but it is certainly not the final one.  The next few years returns are also marked “Initial Return” at the top.)

At this time, this NC entity had a SC address and no officers who even lived in North Carolina; but at least two who lived in Florida — until that version was “Status revoked for Annual Report” in 2007 (i.e., it registered as a NC entity in Florida from 2003 – 2006 only).  However, when I looked up the federal grants to the organization on USASpending.gov, oddly, the “Place of Performance” for its first many years (starting in 2008) was actually “Florida.” (See blue-bordered, white-background section on the TAGGS.HHS vs. USASpending.gov discrepancies in grants reporting to this org. Or, see USASpending.gov).

In 2007 FL annual reports stopped being filed, resulting in an “inactive/REVOKED” status ever since..

From FL registration (2003), this year only reported Ms. Scrutchins of Chicago as on NAATPN. See “sunbiz.org” to look up.

Officers, Directors, etc.  for NAATPN FY2005 (although possibly not filed until 2008 — see header —  by someone not listed here yet, which is the year its website admits to receiving CDC funding) showing two officers in FL, One in MS (OnJewel Smith, later associated with a group in CA working with a later Exec. Director of this group; image below), (and HERE) and Donna Scrutchins with a governmental (Public Health) connection in Chicago…

Referencing the mysterious liability for $22,000 “Law Suit Settlement.” at NAATPN

In FY2006’s return, which is a little disturbing, but just not explained on the return, a liability for 22,000 shows up for “lawsuit settlement.”

Does this refer to them being sued (already?) or is this some oblique reference to THE MSA major settlements (but, that wouldn’t be a liability).

Even more disturbing when one considers the wide acceptance currently of this organization, is to see that for FY 2007 (unlike in 2006 when the math apparently was done right), the IRS instruction to “Subtract Line 26 (expenses) from Line 12 (revs) where this would obviously result in a significant negative number (total revenues $94K, total expenses that year, $303K), the reverse was done, showing a positive math result of $215K instead!  This error affecting their statement of EOY (end of year) assets, considerably, was then carried over to the next year, 2008’s returns. (See images with yellow, blue, red, and some teal annotations below).

I should note that so far on the returns I’m discussing here, Brenda Bell Caffee’s name doesn’t actually show on a return…she was one of the original incorporators, however.  And, starting in about 2010, she appears year after year (latest yr. 2015) as a 1hr/week “Board Chair” with a Hattiesburg, MS address corresponding to the other company mentioned in this post’s title, and there are similar (but not identical) basic math, basic labeling, basic following instructions on the form problems with the tax returns for that nonprofit also.

(Two more NAATPN images from FY2007 illustrating some basic math problems in early filings…., and a third showing it carried over to 2008 filing…)

More than disturbing basic math (+ vs. – numbers) symptoms already.

From the same year’s return, the basic math error (concealing a major EXPENSES = $215K more than REVS on another part of the return), the $215K brought forward as a + which then was reflected in a sum of over $400K. This however, didn’t reflect reality (if indeed any of the returns so far did) and was quickly “adjusted” by simply entering the number “7” where the correct # if other parts were correct would’ve been a sum, described clearly by the IRS form itself. This is about organization BOTTOM LINE REPORTING…

For example, FY2015, filing a Form 990PF  (odd) not a Form 990, managed to overspend its $703K receipts by $15K.  The EIN# is 562211875.  Here, we see that $349K of “Other Expenses” (in addition to such things as $56K on travel, $119K on salaries with $87K of this going to the Executive Director in Georgia) includes $320K to “Consultant” (no name provided) as those Other Expenses are detailed.

Listing officers, directors, trustees and key employees on the IRS Pre-printed (or electronic) form was also avoided.  Readers must scroll through to the separate record of each return (2010ff) to view this.

FY2008 NAATPN return (all of it) doesn’t seem to demonstrate comprehension (or concern about accurately producing) a “running balance” from year to year, and distinguishing “Beginning of Year Assets” from “Contributions” received DURING the year, which would (along with expenses) change that balance, resulting in a different “End of Year Balance” all of which consists of filling in the blanks, and exercising BASIC MATH.  Where the entity “lost it” (or seems less than concerned with gaining it) is comprehension of which figures to plug in where.  I’d call that at least a significant red flag when American Legacy Foundation, and the US CDC offices concerned with Health Disparities re: Tobacco Use by “Priority Populations,” decided THIS is our main organization to represent the African-American Tobacco Cessation Movement…

NAATPN 990PF FY2008: I’ll narrate rather than “demonstrate” this one: “Contributions” received of $214,800 on page 1 would seem to pay compensation of $129K (and other expenses shown on p.1) until you get to page 2 and see that this $214,800 at beginning AND end of this year was in the category “Grants Receivable.”  And unless one remembers the prior year’s record.

Which brings up the question, then how was the $129K paid, because end of last year’s fund balances were labeled as “$7” and there is no land, equipment, investments, or “related organizations” for that type of cash injection, or notice of any borrowing to pay those expenses.  Meanwhile, on page 2, apparently they did start the year with $2,042 cash, claimed (looks like falsely) that they took in $14K more than they spent (p.1 line 27a) and on p.2 bottom, counted the promised grants of $214,800 as real assets at the end of the year. I also note that in the section which directs entity to list ALL officers, directors and trustees — they don’t.  NO directors, trustees, or board members are listed — just an executive director (Wm. S. Robinson, by this time in Durham, NC, and who would be an employee) and a Financial Director, Alisha C. Simmons in Summerville SC.  So it’s possible that actual board members, including Ms. Bell Caffee and others who show up later, or some combination of them, WERE involved during the early years of their filing, but just not wishing to be named on the return.

Also a bit disturbing from my perspective is the inability to locate its primary grant that year (per Sched B) of over $650K from “Department of Health Human Services” in Georgia — which isn’t even the proper name for the federal Department (HHS) featuring this nonprofit organization in the first place!  Schedules B are for “Excess Contributions” (I think it’s over $5,000) from individuals, and I believe reporting them to the public is optional (but not to state agency which oversees nonprofits — in California, that’d be the Office of Attorney General, Registry of Charitable Trusts).

This mis-labeling continued several years in a row (under key officer William S. Robinson also), and under current Executive Director Delmonte Jefferson (some information coming up below).  I’m pasting several images without captions or annotations; click on each to enlarge and see just how much was coming from this same place.  I googled the address, and it reflected a CDC address (but now showing up different).  Another problem — so far if this were an HHS/CDC grant it should show up on TAGGS.hhs.gov — but I’ve yet to find even ONE grant directly to this entity over at TAGGS.

I made the first one (*FY2010) larger image; the others are all in the hundred-thousand (six-digit) category, and some have more than one Sched B contributor listed.

If this was indeed from “CDC” as I think it might be, then that should be indicated.  Keeping it vague as to “WHERE” under HHS and mis-labeling it “Health Human Service” (singular) instead of “services”) and missing the word “and” is simply crazy.  Pardon me, but “WTF??”

Meanwhile the Schedule B street address (2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta GA) is one of many listed under THE CDC, as “Grants Management and Office of Procurement,” while the 1600 Clifton Rd address shows up as associated with one of the more recent board of directors for the NAATPN:

(This excerpt is from my lookup of the donation from Charles Evans Foundation in Princeton, NJ, FY2010. I found it in FY2011…

Although on this from CDC, the words “Health AND Human ServiceS (plural) are clear enough at the bottom.  On this list, NAATPN (written out) is the first grantee organization listed (click link provided to see).

Page from Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (that part of banner not shown) lists awardees for this program, the only one representing African-American populations is the one I’m posting on today.

NAATPN Exec. Director Backgrounds:

Meanwhile, Delmonte Jefferson (Exec. Director listed on that FY2015 return) LinkedIn shows he’s a NC Certified Grants Management Administrator under Office of the Governor since 2007, has worked in government before, including for a parallel department to the one mis-spelled/labeled on NAATPN’s latest Form 990PF, Schedule B.  The LinkedIn shows a 1987 in B.S. in Computer Science from Southern University and two years in “secondary teaching and education” 1996-1998 from St. Augustine College.

  • Public Health Program Consultant II / North Carolina Dept. of Health and Human Services Division of Public HealthJune 2007 –  June 2011 (4 years 1 month)

    Evaluation Team Lead for the NC Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Program. Diversity Grants Manager for the NC Tobacco Prevention and Control Branch.

LinkedIn also claims to be Chair in 2015 of Georgia Statewide Tobacco Prevention Coalition, so I went looking for it.  A 2015-2020 plan at DPH in Georgia describes the Georgia Statewide Tobacco USE Prevention Coalition (and prevention programming), in a pdf funded by CDC, and lists Mr. Jefferson, as affiliated with the NAATPN, in a list of its members (notice American for Nonsmokers’ Rights — a California org. — is also on there):

Knowing one entity was California-based, I was curious whether “The Health Initiative” was Georgia-based, and went to look. It is: http://thehealthinitiative.org/about-us/mission-history/. Started in 1996, and representing LGBQT community — see website, incl. its funders.

Here is a 2017 page at Public Law Center (Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, MN) which we know to be recent because American Legacy Foundation is referred to a “Truth Initiative” (which it wasn’t earlier) page under “Stories” featuring Delmonte Jefferson and describing how a Consortium (project of that Center AND “Truth Initiative”) and NAATPN hooked up and began helping each other.  This story features why didn’t the Tobacco Control Act target menthol cigarettes, used more by African-Americans, and show some of the travel expenses which NAATPN might have incurred for the cause:

“We couldn’t get any of the other national partners to take up that menthol mantra, but finally we noticed that the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (a program of the Public Health Law Center) and Truth Initiative*** started saying menthol tobacco products should be banned as well,” Jefferson said. “All of a sudden, we had allies.”

The Consortium and NAATPN began to partner, and create connections for each other with new partners. “They did not back down,” Jefferson said. “In fact, they would ask people in states considering legal options for flavor bans to consider banning menthol as well. If they hadn’t considered it, then their attorneys would say, you should talk to NAATPN.”

Jefferson helped the attorneys at the Consortium understand the horrendous impact of menthol on minority communities, and soon they began making joint presentations around the country. “We do tag-team presentations very well,” he said. In 2013, both organizations were heavily involved in creating the Citizen Petition Asking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to Prohibit Menthol as a Characterizing Flavor in Cigarettes, and continue to work together on this issue today.

A few days after publishing, I ran across the description of this “Consortium” as having the capacity to file an Amicus Curiae brief, although the same basic website claims in this write-up it’s not an entity, but a program of the Public Health Law Center (which, above, I already showed is totally dependent upon William Mitchell College of Law, which has by now changed its name through merger (with a United Methodist Affiliated university) to Mitchell HAMLINE School of Law).

Both that description and the one filed with the courts n Delaware 2006 are not likely to be both true, although even the one filed with those courts is still somewhat evasive, describing this “Friend of the Court” more in a footnote than in the text.  Here’s the page with that footnote; I’ll repost the face page also for context:

This filing goes on to describe each Amicus Curiae separately, but at a certain page (about 5) I noticed stops referencing when (with about two exceptions) each was formed. This is the part referencing “TCLC” which as you can see, is listed as having filed — but as the footnote does NOT specify, may not be a real entity and have had standing to file…. See next image

Where it references the Wm. Mitchell College of Law’s “Tobacco Resource Center,” remember that is now as a nonprofit titled “Public Health Law Center, Inc.” the namechange was apparently not long after this document (i.e. it was in or after 2008 — see tax returns or, better yet, corporate entity filings in the State of MN).

I haven’t parsed those organizations yet, or looked harder for the TCLC, but plan to.  Readers, feel free to as well — comments field remains open!


Before I talk [more…] about the NAATPN and its related and/or underlying apparently connected entities, most of which are either small,  — or status “not found” (i.e., not actual entities though spoken of as if they were) despite how well-referenced they seem to be** — I want to bring up again the monster-sized Truth Initiative Foundation (a recent name-change from American Legacy Foundation (“ALF” for short in some of this post)) and what it’s been doing with the hard-fought prize from the tobacco litigation, in the 21st century since it was formed, the year after, 1999.

** (See 3 links labeled “~1~, ~-2~ and ~3~, a few several inches and images below, and include a House Resolution 6451 in 2005 from Rhode Island which explains what I meant by “referenced as though they were.” …) The follow-up will be signaled by this:

(** from near the top of this post)

To qualify “monster-sized” — it’s not the largest or oldest around, but it was (recently) over $1 billion gross assets. By contrast, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in Princeton, NJ(<==describes its establishment in 1972 by a bequest of Johnson & Johnson shares) holds over $10 billion gross assets – not including a separate Robert Wood Johnston Univerity Hospital Foundation (both in New Jersey) of ca. $55M. (Searchable here) and any other charities named after the Johnson & Johnson heir.  But, it’s still large!

Truth Initiative (formerly American Legacy) Foundation excerpts from most recent uploaded Form 990 (“Public Copy”), YE June 30, 2016 is FY2015:

Page 1, Header Info only (notice “G:  Gross receipts” are $203.8M), and that it was only formed in 1999; Delaware legal domicile, but Washington, D.C. entity address…

Page 1, Bottom (the “meat and potatoes” of Summary Info, but not lines 1-7 which describe org. size in terms of directors, employees, etc.). Line 12 (current year) is only $32M, but “Gross receipts” were $203.8M, this type of difference in a 501©3 typically means difference between Gross and Net when selling securities / investments. Notice also major difference in revenues between prior year and this (Major change from Prior to Current Yr. columns in Ln 10 Investmts is the cause; Ln 12 is the Total Revenues (Ln. 10 approx. decrease of $57M) and that expenses exceeded revenues (Ln. 19 if this were a government entity, we’d be hearing about the “budget deficit”) by “only” $86M (!!). But, “not to worry,” there’s plenty left over (see bottom line). I also note that this is not showing as an executed copy of the tax return, but “for Public.” Prior yr’s budget deficit was “only” $18.7M…

For comparing sizes, measurement standards, and categorizing types of tax-exempt entities:

Even before much more on American Legacy Foundation’s subcontractors, I talked about the admittedly large differences between tax-exempt foundations with $1 billion total gross assets, as opposed to those with, like RWJF, ten times the amount.  This led to a discussion (well, my report with examples of others who discuss) of relative size in the entire tax-exempt field, especially in the USA, and how size gets measured:  whether Total Gross Assets (The Foundation Center, itself a $40M (Gross assets) NY-based nonprofit with offices in several cities including Los Angeles and San Francisco), features that category in its 3-row search results tables I keep posting), Net Assets (Wikipedia article on the 37 largest tax-exempt charities), or Private Donations (Contributions portion of total Revenues) Private (vs. government) donations, as a Forbes Article on the largest US Charities did last December.

In addition to assets reported on single entity tax returns (or on consolidated financial statements for primary entities), there’s the factor of where are those assets being stored and who is managing them, which brings up a different category — not “Who’s Your Daddy?” (Who owns the most assets in accounting terms) in terms of 501©3, ©4, or ©6 categories (terms referring to the US Internal Revenue Code for category of foundation, that is, “nonprofit” only)  but who is managing them — Assets Under Management, i.e., who exercises active control under where they are invested.

Also, for a reminder, the entire nonprofit-sector comes in many different flavors, including “DC” (Defined Contribution”) pension (government and private) funds, or other institutional funds such as university (or other) endowments, resulting in (collectively) huge amounts of “AUM” (Assets Under Management) as, again, a recent (May 2017) article from PIOnline.com (Pension & Investments Online). I remembered this publication had listed the largest privately-controlled foundations in America (it’s referenced on my TOC), and found a more recent article.  This amount, they say, is over $5.9 trillion. Three major managers are referenced (Vanguard, Blackrock and Fidelity), and the article compares actively managed returns from passively-managed ones, stating that passively-managed ones — especially with such “arsenals” of assets (AUM) under management — are making good returns on investments.

Principles: ANY time we are dealing with nonprofits, we are dealing with non-stock-issuing corporations, meaning there are no shareholders exercising control as in public (or even private-) traded stock-issuing corporations.  Therefore when nonprofits working for government purposes (including the major category of “health” as part of public welfare overall) proliferate and are not monitored, responsible control and response TO the public is reduced.  When the program purpose is as high-profile as getting an entire nation, if possible, to simply stop smoking, and these networks proliferate, it’s time to pay attention to the various components, of course, and understand the overall system in terms of its various components.

I brought this up here so we do not forget the entire situation of WHO’s HOLDING WHICH ASSETS? and WHAT RETURNS ARE THEY BRINGING THOSE WHO HOLD THEM? when it comes to discussion of what the public owes the government in terms of tax receipts based on its need for funds for services to help us. It’s all a matter of perspective….

Forbes 2016 Largest Charities Image #2 of 4

That discussion holds some overlap involving RWJF and associations involved in the CDC-funded, “Lasker Syndicate”-endorsed Stop Smoking! (“Tobacco Cessation”) campaigns, which are still earning revenues for the subcontractors and advertising agencies involved, and making headlines characterizing good guy, bad guy — mostly because some of the organizations / associations (like American Cancer Society, Dana Farber Institute for Cancer Research, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) were on someone’s measurement of the largest nonprofits around….

I moved it to another post:Size Still Matters — So, Who’s Got the Biggest (Most) Assets, Who Manages the Most of OTHERs’ Assets (AUM), How Much are Americans Bankrolling Both, or Should We Be Measuring Something Else, like Donations? (short-link ending “-7up” and this short, but illustrated post, currently in draft).


The ability to assess size, age and functioning (as well as relationships) of tax-exempt foundations and related nonprofits remains as important as ever in the US economy, and others… In this post, it may seem like I am “picking on” the little guys in the mix — however, these “little guys” still don’t meet minimum credibility standards for a nonprofit (so said the IRS in at least one) — or basic literacy standards in filling out a tax return; the failure being in both math and labeling. I’m not.  I learned that where inordinately small and poorly-behaving nonprofits are receiving major publicity through some of the MUCH larger and established players, there’s a reason why.  Among the potential reasons that should be ruled out is whether or not some of the smaller ones are functioning as politically correct (in this case) front groups for the larger ones, and as a distraction from those larger one’s agenda.

For one, political correctness is so important these days, that challenging a politically correct group’s legitimacy, or filing patterns, might easily bring counter-accusations of being racist, (I don’t say “sexist” because when it comes to tobacco use, gender (male/female) isn’t referenced under “population disparities, although gender or sexual orientation IS).

Add to this situation, here (in NAATPN and associations of its only three listed incorporators) I see:

  • groups posing as entities which don’t appear to be incorporated anywhere;
  • named individual leadership from the SouthEast (NAATPN) and “Deep South” USA  (identified related nonprofit) referred to as if in Northern California,
  • A legislative commendation on the same from, of all places, Rhode Island,
  • A website “NotInMamasKitchen.org” named as the website of Caffee, Caffee and Associates  PHF, Inc., being repeatedly referenced by others, but no longer functional,
  • Caffee, Caffe, and Associates PHF, Inc. tax returns consisting year after year of (basically) family members — and containing apparent mis-understandings of parts of an IRS return and internal (within single Form 990) inconsistencies.  Also found in named entity of another incorporator of NAATPN, Inc. (Wm. S. Robinson), and
  • The connection of the entire thing to parts of HHS and the CDC involved in behavioral modification for better health programming targeting specific populations — and the populations targeted are part ethnic, part sexual identity and part income based (!)

If the Tobacco Cessation operation from the federal level, through American Legislative Foundation (Truth Initiative), has been from the start legitimate, why specialize in what seems like less than legitimate mouthpieces for the campaigns?  In other words, who is counting on the US Public not to take a closer look at the private-sector collaborators, so long as enough experts are cited or quoted?

Not the main topic of this post, but I still also wonder, if a Form 990-filing 501©3 set up with hundreds of millions of dollars from “big tobacco companies” and government grants starting in the very late 20th century, as early as two years into the 21st century managed to sell $8B of its acquired SINCE 1999 and taxpayer bankrolled assets at a $35M loss — why grants of any amount should continue coming towards it from government.  Would individual households, who well know they can’t afford to “sell all “at such phenomenal losses, have stewarded those funds any worse, including by smoking a few packs a week of cigarettes?  I showed one of these images before, and the second one is Schedule A of Support (showing contributions and interest/dividends on assets acquired by year for 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (note, ALF didn’t incorporate until 1999 says its 2002 return, despite  receiving $275M contributions in 1998, per this schedule of support…):

FY2002, Pg1 Summary Revs (thru Ln9 only) Entire return viewable HERE

Sched A of Support 1998-2001 doesn’t total $8.5B (!)Entire return viewable HERE

American Legacy Fndtn FY2003 (Entire Return Viewable Here), prior yr lost $35M selling over 8B assets; this year somehow they profited $46M. Where that many assets came from, I still don’t see reflected on tax returns.

American Legacy Fndtn FY2003, Details show major markup on cost of goods (goods not identified by type or name)

(I’ve not been able to locate a tax return before FY2002 for ALF so far).

So I think it’s still important to document. It’s less than personally satisfying to look up extinct, missing, or miniature nonprofits while realizing the billion-dollar ongoing ones are affecting daily options for Americans with what’s left of their “discretionary spending…”  but for these reasons I decided to write and publish this post anyway.

Program Description (partial) from FY2003 ALF return.  That year, they distributed $29M of grants, making it particularly hard to read (some, presented horizontally when there was no need, some unnaturally condensed down to near-invisibility…).  This part references “Priority Populations”

(From p.58 of 60, FY2003 American Legacy Foundation Form 990)

Legacy has a steadfast commitment to help address the tobacco-related health disparities among underserved and disadvantaged populations.Legacy provides support for culturally tailored approaches to prevent and control tobacco use among seven priority populations (African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, Native Americans, gayllesbian/transgender, and low-income populations .In addition, persons with combined health problems, especially mental illness, alcoholism or substance abuse, will be counted as a seventh group for priority focus.). In 2001 and 2002, Legacy made available $26 million in grants over three years. Focusing on disparities, these grants funded community-based prevention and cessation projects.As of 2003, the Grants Department assumed oversight of these grants.In addition, to developing grant initiatives, Priority Populations is responsible for fostering partnerships and outreach to non-profits and leadership organizations serving disadvantaged populations.

Legacy has a commitment to learn from the best minds and share best practices with those in public and private organizations at both state and local levels. We provide high quality proactive and reactive technical assistance and training to increase capacity and build skills among foundation-sponsored projects and grantees and within the larger tobacco control and prevention community . This includes, on the state and local level, assistance such as:

  • ” Sharing information from model and demonstration projects;
  • ” Providing technical consultation to programs on promising and best practices ;and
  • Sponsorship of appropriate skill building training opportunities.

Legacy is a sponsor of the national Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium, which handles requests from the tobacco control community for technical assistance in order to identify and address gaps as well as obstacles to build successful programs (etc.)…..

Illustrating the problem with the grants:  Here’s as uploaded to 990Finder database (go to p. 42 where grants start — they’re rotated 90′ so unreadable without individually scrolling back and forth). Here’s my version (which only starts from the “Grants” page — Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 (quote above is from Exhibit 3 near end of the tax return — when it actually belongs at the front, in concise form…)

(The colorful annotations are my sounding-off about the lousy presentation by AFL FY2003 of $29M worth of grants. Image is p.1 of the 19-page printout shown in nearby link. Another image (not marked up) shows the format “Exhibit 2” grantees’ list, same FYear. Priority Populations grantees (focus of this post) start on p.9 on the pdf). NAATPN is not on it but NAAPI (Philadelphia) which comes up in similar contexts, is, am’t. $113K..

Exhibit 2″ has oddly huge margins and oddly illegible font-size with no lines connecting grantee to the amount. This is disrespectful to the public; tax-exemption is a privilege, and costs others. One of the conditions is filing Forms 990. While they’re not a requirement for posting on entity websites (maybe that should change!), they are known to be available elsewhere. Producing this inferior submission on such a major entity is insulting to all, and serves only to seemingly attempt to conceal favored organizations while the settlement-fueled (and federally supported in addition) Tobacco Control industry organizations proliferate and establish their relationships.

ALF FY2003 (YEJun2004) Form 990 GRANTS (p42) + final pages (19pp printed 2017Aug26 Sat) (<==Click, may need a second click on blank “pdf” icon, to read; p1. looks like the image above.  More Program Service Details shown in the last few pages of these 19)

(** from near the top of this post)

**Preliminary reference, for an example, in form of a Rhode Island legislative resolution commending the work referencing a website (now not-found) associated not with “NAATPN” but with one of the three individuals who incorporated it in NC — but talking about activities in California around the theme of smoking cessation among African Americans… ~(1)~NAATPN INC (current name dates to April 2014 only) NC CreationFiling_201585050 (3pp) ~s 3 original incorporators Headen, Robinson Caffee, one from CA ~(2)~RI State Legislature May 3 2005 Commends Bell Caffee’s African American Tobacco Educatn Network of CA (a non-entity?) for Not in Mamas Kitchen H6451 (printed Aug 2017)

Please click on the pdf (you may need to click twice; second time on the page “icon”) to see my annotated version which introduces some of the identified and as-yet unidentified organizations named, as well as challenging the logic, and in general (I wonder) how this came up in, of all places NOT involved or referenced in the resolution, Rhode Island.  I also looked it up on a RI website, which you may see (minus the commentary) here: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText05/ HouseText05/H6451.htm. That resolution “H 6451” in two short pages references several different organizations which I attempted to track down, including one from Pennsylvania, which I even paid to access (as PA’s corporate website doesn’t allow access to underlying documents without significant fees — let alone anything “certified.”)

Apparently we are to believe that if enough important people reference some group, it must actually exist — whether or not it existed for long, or as an entity registered anywhere, or, if it did, complied with state law for annual reports (where applicable) AND stayed on the good side of the IRS if a nonprofit required to file.

(and ~(3)~ is the next image, taken from “~(1)~“)

From NC incorporation article of what is now called NAATPN, one would think that Ms. Bell-Caffee was from or functioning in California — when in fact her (and family’s) nonprofit hails from Mississippi. The entity referenced here, I have not been able to find anywhere, and I’m blogging from California, and looking up nonprofits here and nationwide, for nearly a decade now….

I am wondering how a Year 2000 incorporation record (pdf) at a state website could reference William S. Robinson & Associates, when it was only incorporated in FY2012, the year BHMI (below) was status-revoked as a nonprofit by the IRS..).  (Oh, I see, in NORTH Carolina as opposed to South. Looking the same business name up in South Carolina (search site here), as listed in the above image, it says “This name is available” and not much more.)

This is a for-profit, and it is listed as having ONE (“1”) share of stock…

2012 NC filing for Wm S. Robinson & Associates showing a single share of stock and a street address (no “associates” are shown on the filing).

William S. Robinson, who  doesn’t occupy much space in this post as I was focused more in the other entities, as well as the NAATPN/ Americans for Nonsmokers Rights – American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation // CDC and (American Legacy Foundation, obviously) connections, on searching, I find is listed as staff and “our Founder” at BMHI.org (Black Men’s Health Initiative), incorporated it says “2005” in South Carolina (but now in NC) — and part of his page describes how it was originally funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at first, then later by the CDC.  Here he is listed as staff, not board, but also “Our Founder.”

BMHI – Our Founder (p. 3 of 6, all of them in very light gray font for some reason).

…Mr. Robinson served as the Project Manager for SC Project ASSIST (American Stop Smoking Intervention Study), Co-Chair of the Multi-cultural Subcommittee of National ASSIST and is a founding member of the SC African American HIV/AIDS Council, Diabetes Today Advisory Council, and the SC African American Tobacco Control Network. {{see note, below}}Mr. Robinson is co-author of a National Cancer Institute training module, From Sensitivity to Commitment, which features strategies, activities and plans on how to effectively engage diverse communities in tobacco control. Mr. Robinson has trained persons from more than 40 states on the module. Mr. Robinson has co- facilitated the Diverse Cultures course for the Centers for Disease Control/University of North Carolina Summer Tobacco Institute in New Mexico and Georgia. In 2000, he joined a number of African American tobacco advocates from around the countryto create the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network which was funded first by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He served as NAATPN’s initial Chair of the Executive Council (two terms), as a founding “Elder” and Executive Director from August 2006 until June 2011.

After discovering the really tenuous existence of the BHMI, somewhere between 2007-2008 only (as an IRS-compliant nonprofit), I also in South Carolina looked for that African American Tobacco Control Network in case it might give me some clues as to where was the one supposedly in California and associated with Brenda Bell-Caffee.  Unfortunately, South Carolina, unlike “North,” and some other states, doesn’t provide uploaded images to go with the filings — so all I can see is that it was indeed formed in 1998, and only two amendments in 19 years (one in 2000, the other in May 2017) clue me in to whether it changed its name — completely — to “Family Engagement and Support Services” back then, or this past year…  (The images may be illegible; search can be repeated at S. Carolina search site shown below):

That new name is too commonplace (“Family Engagement & Support Services” occurs in state departments of health) and refers to too many programs, as opposed to corporate entities, to be worth (my) time for look-up just now. I do note that the Master Settlement Agreement and this incorporation coincide — both were in 1998.  I found no tax return so far under either name…

BHMI, William S. Robinson & Associates filings (a short section here):

Naturally I looked this BMHI.org up; I found exactly ONE tax return marked “initial” for FY2008 only, which has internal discrepancies (It claims to have sold goods for “0” at a $7K loss, says on Page 1 that it gave out NO grants (but manages to spent most of the $17K contributions anyhow), then on page 2 in describing its “program service accomplishments” listed grants of $15,000 for a total expense of $14K, showing that someone doesn’t comprehend what “Grants” as part of “Expenses” means, although to me the word “including” (which occurs on IRS Forms 990, not on the 990EZ here) pretty much labels it.  It also fails to list any actual board members (only “Advisory Board”) in that section — and I think you’ll get the general idea from simply looking at the return.

Also the Total Program Expenses on page one say $10K, on page 2, but page 2, it’s $18K… i.e., internally not even close to consistent….

Black Mens Health Initiative NC 2008 990EZ 4 $1,850.00 59-3801733

An EIN# check on this shows that it filed a Form 990-N postcard in 2007 (registered at a University Drive address in Durham, NC and to Wm. S. Robinson), it was Status-revoked for non-filing (3 yrs in a row) in 2012, which was posted Feb. 2013, and is no longer listed as legitimate for tax-deductible contributions (although its website with “DONATE” button still remains up).  If that’s how the individual handled BMHI.org, how much better would NAATPN be handled, although others are of course involved?

IRS “Status Revoked” screenprint (note, it always comes with a disclaimer, although it doesn’t show “Reinstated” here. To get revoked one must NOT file (not even a Form 990-N postcard stating revenues under $25K or (after a certain year) under $50K) for three years in a row. Call the 800# to verify at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos.

Black Men’s Health Initiative, p2 part (annotated) Form 990EZ FY2008, apparently the only full (almost) Form 990 filed, ever. It only incorporated in 2008 and was status-revoked by the IRS within 4 years (but remains active as a Corporation at least on NC’s State records — with “annual reports” marked N/A. In other words, it wasn’t status revoked for not-filing because possibly it’s not required to file annually?)

However, at the State of North Carolina Corporations Search site, the entity is still status “Active” as a corporation… THere is only one filing, the creation filing which says it was formed in 2005 — but only incorporates in 2008 here, and again references the “Officers” not by officer names (President, Chairman of the Board, Director, etc.) but as (except Wm. S. Robinson) only as “Advisory Board Members”

Above, I mentioned the RWJF because they are involved in the tobacco control field, funding, for example a National Alliance for Tobacco Cessation (public/private partnership) from 2007-2011; they contributed $720,000, but the American Legacy Foundation contributed over $12M, it says (Program Results pdf from RWJF website see last page for participants):

Click if needed to enlarge; this is a page from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation website dated August 6, 2011.


Next, I look at some of the American Legacy/Truth Initiative subcontractors in turn, from IRS Form 990s FY2002 and FY2015, which brings some surprising and discomforting discoveries what types of organizations are major subcontractors — particularly realizing that the impetus behind some of this whole push came from, originally, advertising wealth pushing its programming THROUGH the federal department of HHS (formerly HEW, but it began even before HEW was formed in 1953, let alone HHS in 1980).

This preview look at the “ALF” foundation funded initially through settlements with between the tobacco industry and the state attorneys-general (see “Cessation” image above which also says this) juxtaposes the huge, well-connected, and long-standing foundation/s with what might, being so small, recent, and poorly documented NAATPN, and related entities to one ot its founders (this will come out towards the bottom of the post), be legitimately interpreted as just one of a series of “front groups” from the ANTI-smoking side, even as the same side is complaining about the tobacco interests’ own front groups and conniving, deceitful advertising practices.

  • Somehow, overall, and again as a “layperson” (not a scientist, lawyer, or CPA that is, accountant) I get a sense that the public is in the larger view, being played.  I get this sense when I look at the types of filings that I cannot seem to persuade the public “at large” it’s vital to notice, and look at, individually (YOUR eyes on the documents, not waiting for someone else to do the “Cliff Notes” or pre-digest them for you to quote).  

I have learned so much from that simple process, year after year. It takes persistence, diligence, and a motivation helps.  

My original and continuing motivation is what happened to my family line through the family courts, and realizing with a shock of betrayal, how my gender (female), demographic profile, and decision to protect myself and children by  filing for protection, was viewed in the larger social sphere. I am still thinking in terms, as the years go by, of a less, rather than more, tyrannical and “profiling” country for my children to live in as they outlive me.   I know personally that along with the abuse, a whole lot of lying was necessary to rationalize it and deflect attention.  When the lying and dishonesty gets beyond a certain point, that is an indicator of abuse — or why the need to cover up in the first place?

And typically, this is about finances — profits.  I think a priority for the country and ANY of its various systems has to be first, eliminating the criminal element (i.e., anything RICO) and systems and practices which facilitate it.  There’s no legitimate competition between the law-abiding and the criminal when the criminal is entrenched in the very government systems which are supposed to be helping restrict criminal activity so we can live in piece.

On monitoring where this stands, we can’t just continue “passing the buck” and “leave it to the experts” (so-called) to decipher right from wrong, or good from bad.  We also cannot rely solely on mainstream OR alternate media, which also require their sources of funding (such as advertising or donations….). A functional language has to take priority, and DYSfunctional language, should be discarded, to sort it out minus the propaganda.  That language should be accounting-based not “righteous” or “self-righteous” cause based with a major PR spin, paid-for — shown on both sides of most major issues (including “To Smoke or Not to Smoke?”)

In other words, …if it’s so bad for deceptive advertising and setting up “RICO” when the originator was major tobacco corporations, what should the same type of practices  and organized interests be called when the originator are the anti-tobacco foundations and their own networked corporations, and funded university centers, endowed professorships, and sponsored research?  

Whatever they should be called, I have some to show.   The comments function on any post is open — if you have a better way to describe what I’m showing, feel free…..

I talked in last post quite at bit, and posted images from, the American Legacy Foundation (now, most recently, called “Truth Initiative Foundation” with “Truth Initiative®” being a registered trademark, apparently.  I am still stunned at how blatant is the movement of public funds into private hands, frequently in marketing, public relations fields (from which the Laskers’ wealth originally came — remember?) and in stunning amounts — $54M here, $58M there, and to which entities?  Sometimes, private ones, LLCs barely registered, other times (such as Targetcast LLC in a more recent year’s return), one acknowledged to be owned by other major media partners — but the LLC only was formed in 2012).

I looked it up by name on TAGGS.HHS.Gov (which only showed $18M grants spanning 2006-now).  Here, FYI, is a TAGGS-generated shortlink to a search result of those grants (the link save search specs only, not actual results.  If data changes meanwhile, so will its results), showing 51 grants spread over 3 pages — now that TAGGS (for some years) has declined to make available showing more than 25 results per page, facilitating large-scale browsing of results, like it used to (up to 500 items per page) at least until about Fall 2013.

By sorting on any, or several in turn, columns from that link, you can get a sense of which NIH “Program Offices” (including the NCI — National Cancer Institute) are providing larger, or smaller, grants, at least directly to the entity.  (Any active link — for example, the Award Title — if clicked on will lead to a subset of the grants).

The NCI grants aren’t the largest — in fact, nearly half ($7.35M out of $18M) came from just two discretionary grants to:  NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION & HEALTH PROMOTION (NCCDPHP). Next image shows its 2016 Budget (summarized).  An organizational chart (see sidebar of home page for the link) also gives a visual on its 8 divisions (only half of which are run by someone with an MD), its six administrators, and one medical and another science director (an M.D.) there reporting to the Center director, who has a PhD, MPH, but no medical degree either:

NCCDPHP’s 2016 budget (organizationally under the CDC) was $1.17B, of which $210M (nearly 20%) went into Tobacco Prevention and Control. The four programs listed account for only $590.9M out of $1.17B ( or 59/117ths); wonder where the rest went…

The NCCDPHP being under the US HHS “CDC” (Centers for Disease Control), I wanted to know when it started. Basic page to CDC shows it started in 1946 in Georgia, occupying buildings which had been for controlling Malaria during wartime (i.e., communicable diseases).

There is a timeline, from which I learned that this NCCDPHP, now receiving over $7M discretionary grants TO the American Legacy Foundation (none before 2006), I learned started in 1988:

1980s timeline at CDC also shows AIDS empidemic (1987), establishment of this CHRONIC (not “Communicable”) Disease center — with specific focuses — and an earlier reference to establishment of the Office of Smoking and Health.

Apparently the 1980s were a major decade in the 60-year history of the CDC….

From CDC timeline (1980s), this frame shows the establishment of a specific center, focused in large part on reducing people’s smoking habits…

Office of Smoking and Health was “becomes part of CDC” in the 1980s. (Where was it before?)

Note: in FY2002, American Legacy Foundation’s** own tax return reported $307M of government grants*** — so obviously from the federal department at least of HHS direct to the entity is not the main direct connection.  FYI, of the “51 awards” several are amounts “$0” and two, of ca. $190K and $131K, are in the negative, and the largest is $2,000,000. (**I may call it “ALF” in this post if referring to pre-namechange documents.)  (***Principle:  “government grants” could be federal — from a variety of different departments not just HHS, although HHS seems the most pertinent federal department– OR state OR county/local or any other “authority” classified as a government entity.  This is how tracking of where our public dollars went gets complicated….).

Dismay and discouragement at seeing the use to which these funds have been put, as reported in the various tax returns.  Subcontracts exceeding, at least twice I saw, over $50M for a single year to ONE entity are shown.  At this point, I admit to being both frustrated and disgusted, let alone alarmed, at the reporting habits of this major entity and what it’s reportedly been doing with its assets and revenues.  They are starting to look more like fees to friends, and/or moving public funds (once obtained en masse) from the public to private hands — hands that are already global multinational companies — or subsidiaries of them not even formed that long ago (in a few cases).

ALF (The Truth Initiative® Foundation no longer needs grants, obviously (other than possibly to retain its tax-exempt status?).  Here’s one image from FY2002 Independent Subcontractors, Pt. VIIB IRS Form 990, and then a heavily annotated one from Truth Initiative, showing Part VIII Revenues (most) with a dramatic drop in government contributions — but still, producing revenues in amounts such as $12M (Interest and dividends), or $16M (sale of securities), plus functioning somehow as landlord (“rents”) with 0 expenses — quite a feat in D.C. if that’s the property in question. Not shown, in 2008 there was also a tax-exempt bond for $28,000,000 (provided by the District of Columbia) to purchase a building.

Not only are the funds flowing to subcontractors in huge amounts year after year, and their (FY2015) around $5M (when benefits are included) salaries for key officers, directors, and trustees — but there’s $154M held in “other investments,” which I’ll also show — Hedge funds, Hedge Fund of Funds, Private Equity, Private Equity Fund of Funds, and so forth.

This tax return is uploaded under “Annual Reports” at TruthInitiative.org.  The website doesn’t post even one past return, so you might want to print and save this one before FY2016 shows up which, hopefully, it will one of these weeks.. Anything NOT black and white (or, I should say, light-gray) is my annotation.

American Legacy Foundation Subcontractors – FY2002 includes $54.5M with Arnold Communications in Boston, which hadn’t gone by that name since 2000…, $11.8M to Mediahead, LLC in NJ (not found in NJ, although did find one in Dallas-Fort Worth area, consumer electronics..), Porter Novelli $2.3M, the RTI, Community TV of S California ($3M even) AND 41 others paid over $50K each — probably a LOT more….

(I also pulled up a FY2003, same section; this year it’s MediaHead that got the giant contract, and Arnold Communications a smaller one, although still several million dollars’ worth):

FY2003 American Legacy Subcontractors, the top two seem to have switched places…

So who is Arnold Communications, Inc. in Boston?  Well, not that name any more, and its original grew by repeated mergers inside and outside Massachusetts, as a look at the files shows.

This is no longer the company’s name…

Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (its current name SINCE 2001!!) may be seen at ARN.com (You’ll probably recognize some of the ads) with main offices shown in Boston & NY

Edward Eskandarian (Pres) was one of the earlier officers or directors (I looked briefly at the past filings / merger documents available on the Mass. Business Entity Search Website)

Company Overview of Arnold Worldwide LLC (now operating as a subsidiary of Havas North America, formerly “Arnold Communications, Inc.” says this Bloomberg.com snapshot: (Information obtained, says the website, from S&P Global Intelligence).

Arnold Worldwide LLC, a creative company, offers advertising, digital, promotion, design, and branded content services. It provides marketing services, including marketing direction, CRM/retention, experiential/events, social, content publishing, and multicultural services; creative services, such as art, copy, design, content, UX, and technology services; strategy services, including business strategy, planning, comms planning, platform strategy, and analytics; and production services, such as broadcast, print, digital, studio/AV, art buying, and business affairs. Arnold Worldwide LLC was formerly known as Arnold Communications, IncThe company was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts with additional offices in New York, Toronto, Canada; London, the United Kingdom; Madrid, Spain; Milan, Italy; Prague, Czech Republic; São Paulo, Brazil; Shanghai, China; and Sydney, Australia. Arnold Worldwide LLC operates as a subsidiary of Havas North America, Inc.

They’re big, famous, and global, and parent company isn’t even in the USA, so “why shouldn’t?” US taxpayers donate to American Legacy Foundation (excuse me, “Truth Initiative Foundation“) so it can contract out $54M (after losing $35M THE SAME YEAR on sale of over $8.5B of securities it had previously acquired — through multi-million-dollar grants….) to the same — under an out-of-date by two mergers ago company name?!!      Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (per Massachusetts’s governmental records posted on-line) merged with Arnold Worldwide, LLC, with the LLC as the surviving entity, now owned by its parent company, HAVAS (based in France).

Commonwealth of Massachusetts record (excerpt) showing Arnold Worldwide, Inc. merged into Arnold Worldwide, LLC in Dec. 31, 2001, with the latter as the surviving entity.

These next quotes are from Arnold Worldwide’s Wikipedia:

Arnold Worldwide is an advertising agency headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The agency is part of Havas, a global advertising holding company based in France.[2] Some of Arnold’s clients include Progressive Insurance, Jack Daniel’s, CenturyLink, New Balance, Titleist, Ocean Spray, Carnival Cruise Lines and The Hershey Company.[1]

The agency has 10 offices in nine countries, including Boston, London, Madrid, Milan, New York, Prague, São Paulo,[3] Shanghai, Sydney and Toronto.[4]

Arnold Rosoff founded the company in 1946. Upon retirement in 1986, Rosoff sold the agency to his employees. Ed Eskandarian, a former partial-owner of the Boston Red Sox,[5]acquired the agency in 1990 and grew Arnold “through about a dozen acquisitions”.[6]Eskandarian sold the agency to Snyder Communications in 1995, and Havas acquired Snyder Communications and Arnold in 2000.[7] Eskandarian retired at the end of 2010.


In 2010, the agency formed Arnold KLP, which was the result of a merger between Arnold London and Euro RSCG KLP.[14]  In December 2013, Pam Hamlin was named Global President of Arnold Worldwide, after having served as President of Arnold’s Boston office since 2006.[15]

Arnold Rosoff lived until 2009, to be 93, and apparently was a decent and progressive guy.  Obituary; he was also born in Boston, and “Harvard-educated.”

Ex-ad exec Arnold Rosoff Dies (By Paul Gianatasio, 11/20/2009 in AdWeek)

Arnold Rosoff, one of the pillars of the ad business in New England, a stalwart champion of social justice and the man who in 1946 founded the shop that ultimately morphed into Havas’ Arnold, has died. He was 93. || A funeral will be held at 11 a.m. Monday at Temple Shalom, 175 Temple St. in West Newton, Mass. || Edward Boches, CCO at Mullen in Boston, said of Rosoff: “Arnold was one of the kindest people who ever worked in the business….

Stop & Shop, long before it became a regional household name, was among his agency’s first accounts. Key clients that followed included Fayva, McDonald’s regional co-op assignments and John Hancock.

During his tenure, the shop became known for fusing intensive account service with creative concepts designed to grow brands over the long haul. As a leader, Rosoff was noted for his keen business insight, intelligence and for running one of the most progressive operations of its time, particularly in terms of employee relations.

…By the time Rosoff retired from the shop at age 69 in 1985, Arnold & Co. claimed some $50 million in billings. He sold the company to his staff through an employee stock ownership plan, but remained active in the ad community and in public service.

The current Arnold, now a unit of French communications conglomerate Havas, was formed after Rosoff left by fusing the agency he founded with numerous firms throughout New England and the Northeast.

He remained in the thick of the action at the larger, reconfigured Arnold through the 1990s, sharing his wisdom and insight with then-CEO Ed Eskandarian and the senior management team.

Said current Arnold chief executive Fran Kelly: “Arnold Rosoff was a smart, creative, empathetic, charming adman. No one cared more about his clients or his employees than Arnold. We are all proud to still have his name on our door and on all of our business cards. He is an inspiration and he will be greatly missed.”

And here’s a bit on HAVAS (based in France): (the gist of the Havas Wiki):

Havas (French pronunciation: ​[avas]) is a French multinational advertising and public relations company, headquartered in Paris, France. It operates in more than 100 countries and is one of the largest global advertising and communications groups in the world. Havas consists of two main operational divisions:

The Group offers a broad range of communications services, including digital, advertising, direct marketing, media planning and buying, corporate communications, sales promotion, design, human resources, sports marketing, multimedia interactive communications and public relations.


The company which today bears the name Havas is itself a former subsidiary of the original Havas which acquired the rights to the name in 2002. It is a holding company headquartered in Puteaux, Paris, and listed in the Euronext main market.

Havas was the first French news agency, created in 1835 emerged in the age of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Agence France-Presse (AFP) news agency comes from it. Havas was acquired by Vivendi in 1998, and renamed Vivendi Universal Publishing. VUP in turn merged with Lagardere to become Editis in 2004.

French corporate raider Vincent Bolloré, through his holding company the Bolloré Group, is the main shareholder, controlling 32.84% of the share capital as of 7 May 2012. Bolloré himself took over the chairmanship of the Havas board (Président du conseil d’administration).

Recommended Vincent Bollore FAQs: Take a look, from three sources: Vivendi, Forbes & Variety, about Vivendia’s attempted takeover of Mediaset, with ties to Italian premier’s family (Dec. 2016)!):

Vincent Bollore, per Vivendi.com |

Mr. Vincent Bolloré was born on April 1, 1952. He holds a master’s degree in law and is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bolloré Group. In 1970, he began his career as a representative at Banque de l’Union Européenne before joining Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild in 1976.

In 1981, he became Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bolloré Group and its paper business. Under Mr. Bolloré’s management, the group became one of the world’s 500 largest companies. As a listed company, the Bolloré Group holds a strong position in each of its businesses, which are organized into three divisions: Transport and Logistics, Communication and Media, and Electricity Storage. The group also manages a long-term investment portfolio.

per Forbes.com Profile (net worth $6.3 Billion, currently):

Vincent Bollore, French investment titan (and billionaire) who controls most of Havas (based in France), parent company under which former American Legacy Foundation subcontractor for $54M in 2002, Arnold Communications, Inc. (sic) now Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (per website) or LLC (per Massachusetts Sec. of State latest merger doc’t shown — where the “Inc.” merged into the “LLC”) now exists..

One of the titans of the French business world, Vincent Bollore runs the diversified holding company Bollore Group, which has been in the Bollore family since 1822. When Vincent assumed control in early 1981 — not long after starting his career at Edmond de Rothschild bank — the family business, which made paper for cigarettes and bibles, was strugglingHe overhauled it and turned it into one of the 500 largest companies in the world, with holdings in media, advertising, shipping, construction, logistics and more. The renowned buyout artist holds sizable stakes in telecom conglomerate Vivendi and advertising giant Havas. As chairman of Vivendi, Bollore has drastically increased the company’s stake in Mediaset SpA, a TV company founded by Silvio Berlusconi, threatening to set off a battle for control with the former Italian prime minister. He’s also been busy expanding Blue Solutions, the manufacturer of electric car batteries that he took public in 2013. Bollore is reportedly close friends with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whom he’s hosted on his yacht. He is said have collections of sparkling mineral water bottle labels and comic books.

And the Dec. 2016 article from Variety.  Again, an American Legacy Foundation FY2002 contract for $54M went to Arnold “Communications” (although at the time it wasn’t called that) in Boston, which eventually (founder Arnold Rosoff having died in 2009, and mergers and acquisitions continuing) became Arnold Worldwide, Inc. which merged into Arnold Worldwide, LLC (still in Boston), which then was taken over or became part of Havas (based in France) which was majority controlled by Bollore who controls Vivendi.  If I have the “chain of command” right —

(Timeline from the “Havas” wikipedia).

5 Key Questions About the Vivendi/Mediaset Faceoff Pitting Vincent Bolloré and Silvio Berlusconi by Nick Vivarelli, Elsa Keslassy (photo caption Dec. 15, 2016; article is undated)(I’ll quote through the first two questions to give a flavor of the respective “clout” involved):

In the past two days (mid-Dec. 2016 apparently), French media conglomerate Vivendi has swiftly snapped up 20% of Italian broadcaster Mediaset in a surprise move that pits two European media tycoons and former friends against each other: renowned corporate raider Vincent Bolloré  and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Mediaset is accusing Vivendi of preparing a hostile takeover attempt after a partnership deal between the two companies, signed last April, fell apart. The Italian broadcaster has slapped Vivendi with a 1.5 billion euro ($1.56 billion) lawsuit stemming from Vivendi’s decision to pull out of the partnership, which would have seen Bolloré’s conglom buy Mediaset’s loss-making pay-TV service.

Here are five key questions about this tussle between two European media giants:

Will Bolloré keep going, or will he stop at 20%?

On Thursday, Vivendi’s buying spree of Mediaset shares subsided. But it’s unclear whether Vivendi is stopping altogether or just pausing. “I don’t think Bolloré will stay at 20%,” says Francois Godard of Enders Analysis. He may stay put for a while, but Bolloré is not making moves to remain the minority shareholder. He wants control of Mediaset. He will use the 20% to try to get representation on the board. He may try to develop alliances with the smaller shareholders. He may buy more. He may go to 30%. “A full takeover on Mediaset seems out of reach for Vivendi at this point, since Fininvest has 40% of voting rights,” says French analyst Jean-Baptiste Sergeant at Main First. Italian brokerage firm Equita said in a note that Vivendi could keep buying, but the more likely scenario is “the start of a negotiation.” “Vivendi possibly orchestrated this aggressive push in order to intimidate Mediaset and coerce the Italian broadcaster to withdraw their lawsuit and get them back to the negotiating board,” says Sergeant.

What can Berlusconi do to stop a Bolloré takeover attempt?

Berlusconi has vowed to fight any move by Vivendi to take over the media empire he created, which is run by his son Piersilvio. The former premier also said his family, which holds 39.8% of Mediaset’s voting rights through its Fininvest holding company, was increasing its stake in the Milan-based TV group. But there are limits on how high the Berlusconi camp can go without being forced to launch a total takeover bid, and they are not flush with cash.

The newly formed Italian government is in Mediaset’s corner; it depends on Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party’s votes in the Senate. The economic development minister, Carlo Calenda, warned Wednesday that, while Italy respects free-market rules, Vivendi’s move on Mediaset “doesn’t appear to be the most appropriate way to proceed” to boost Vivendi’s presence in Italy. But what the government could do to block Bolloré is unclear. He is well-connected in Italy: His daughter Marie is on the board of powerful Milan merchant bank Mediobanca, along with Berlusconi’s daughter Marina, and he controls Italian telco Telecom Italia with a 24.9% share.“Bolloré understands the Italian system, he understands what rules apply and how to work the system,” says Godard.

What about MediaHead, LLC at PO Box 19502 in Newark, NJ?  I didn’t get much farther with that one, although similar — NOT identical — names showed up in Texas, and one in NY, and again, not identical.  No such name showed up in NJ business entity search….  and between 2002 and 2003, this subcontractor allegedly got over $65M of fees from American Legacy Foundation (!)…

There’s a woman-owned (K. McDaniel), formerly “Colormark” “MEDiaHead!” in KCMO, a media warehouse, with a timeline back to the 1990s, but it doesn’t claim this name started until 2013:

I realize companies change names, get bought and sold, and so forth, but for this level of expenditures, there should be a record.  Where’s that record?  A PO Box with no contact person (and it not being a 501©3, no EIN# is offered) isn’t that “revealing” — and again, this problem is intrinsic to 501©3 reporting, just magnified when the amounts are larger.   As the tax returns say originally it was hundreds of millions of dollars entrusted to this single organization in its first many years, plus the ability to buy and sell billions of dollars of assets otherwise (a $35M LOSS in 2002, the FY2003 return shows another $8B+ sale for a $46M profit…)….

Looking for subcontractor MediaHead, LLC in Newark NJ — not found. Media Head LLC (NY) and Media.Head (trademark, and in TX) were found (various images).

This isn’t the same contractor, but has a similar name and is in a related (i.e., marketing communications) business</span

The FY2002 image posted (NAATPN post) above is superimposed [@ bottom right] onto a FY2015 “Truth Initiative Fndtn” Revenues, with plenty of (my) comments after weeks of these lookups…

For comparison, Pt. VIIA 2002 (above) to 2015, in FY2015, $58M went to Targetcast, LLC… (next annotated image, similar appearance to this one above):Again, a much smaller amount spent on research as opposed to “marketing” still.Also, who is GFK Holdings, Inc. in NJ and what’s “research” about a business labeled “Holdings”?? (NJ business entity search function doesn’t reveal much…)  Try looking here (FundingUniverse.com only goes partway into the 21st century, remember).  “GfK” stands for “Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung” (Market Research company goes back to the 1930s, rebuild — applying for a license from the Allies — after WWII, and is more than international in scope.  The “GfK” motto became “Growth from Knowledge” (probably more user-friendly motto).A recent (2016) notice informs the public that the US part of GfK sold part of itself (Kynetec) and panelist data to a US subsidiary of (UK-based) Project Farm Bidco, Ltd., and “not to worry” about the consumer privacy or panelist data collected.Translation?  IN my terms, Truth Initiative is spending MILLIONS on marketing, and a few million, this year (FY2015), for a nice multinational corporation for research on the marketing. (next 4 smaller images, 3 of them orange = from GfK website, another references the Project Farm Bidco Ltd., Click any image to enlarge), and whose loyalty and profits, most likely, like outside the United States of America.

NAATPN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (HattiesburgMS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe.(case-sensitive short-link ends “-7rm”) Post started ca. 8/15/2017.  Title may change, link underneath shouldn’t.

In the first image below, the face sheet of a USDOJ legal action, notice the last two intervenors mentioned in the face page of the 2007 “Amended Opinion” by the USDOJ against “Big Tobacco” identified as “Phillip Morris et al., Defendants):

  • “National African American Tobacco Prevention Network” (tax returns shown below, and its legal name was changed in 2014 to reflect the acronym in post title, above).
  • The second-to-last identified intervenor,  “Americans For Nonsmokers’ Rights” showed up briefly (just once!) on the tax returns of ___________.

Because of the craziness of the tax returns of the entity where it shows up, which never (not once) lists “AFNR” as a “related entity” — but it probably is, for a point of reference, AFNR’s last three tax returns (IRS Forms 990) — and the related foundation, which is larger (ANRF — American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation) are shown below.  These represent together one 501©3 and another 501©4…


As it turns out, it’s the 501©4 (action, lobbying) and there is a related 501©3 (information, education, and technical assistance), so I’ll show both.  As you read this post, it’ll become clear that the “National African American Tobacco Education Network” is a North Carolina entity formed (per NC records) only in 2001, but one of its three incorporators, Brenda Bell Caffee, has been sponsored, and referred to repeatedly, and even had a (2005) Rhode Island legislative bill commending her work in the “stop-smoking” field, and repeatedly referenced as associated with a “California African American Tobacco Education Network” or some variety of that name (with California appearing both after and before the “AATEN” basic part of the name.

Meanwhile Ms. Caffee’s separate entity registered 8/2003 with board and apparently some employees consisting MOSTLY of individual family members by last name Bell, Caffee and one other, is called “Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. is from Hattiesburg, Mississippi.  So I’m not surprised that there is at least one of the intervenors based in California and associated with one of Bell Caffee’s nonprofits which possibly lends some legitimacy to the “California” in its name.  Meanwhile, when those Forms 990 do get around to naming a website, it’s called “NotInMamasKitchen.org” which no longer exists (although its nonprofit seems to), but is referenced repeatedly as a wonderful campaign, in getting mothers to pledge to stop smoking….

In case you’re not getting the picture yet, it seems that one or more of these entities are functioning as “front groups” for other interests.  This won’t be easily seen without looking at the financials, particularly tax returns AND looking to identify specifically the entities named.


Which brings me to this SoapBox Moment:

We, the People” could and should put some brakes on the consistent habit, on-line, of groups refusing to call themselves, or reference others when positively (or even negatively) covering them in the press, by the legitimate, correct, registered entity names (with the suffixes “Inc” or “LLC” or “Co.” included), accompanied by at least a legal domicile and year of incorporation.  Entities also tend to change names — some more than other — and excessive name-changing is also a red flag to possible dishonest operations, although obviously it’s not illegal to change a nonprofit’s name in the usual manner. If the entity is also repeatedly “status-revoked” and stays that way (while still soliciting donations and running the campaigns) at the state — or IRS status — level, that should also be referenced as a red flag.  

First, it’s disrespectful to the public the groups, typically, say they are rescuing, helping and so concerned about, to violate state laws regarding incorporation and filing tax return, and where appropriate, maintaining a current status as a registered charity.  One key example that comes to my mind, having blogged this, is the “Center for Essential Schools, Inc.” parent organization first in Rhode Island, then in California, then back in Rhode Island (and associated with Brown University, whose own “AISR” (Annenberg Institute for School Reform) with direct involvement with the CES founder/s Ted (and/or Nancy) Sizer, filed for incorporation, but from what I can tell, has not produced a corresponding tax return.  

That information is on this blog, however, just now I am looking at the anti-smoking organizations and crusades, after publishing many posts on school-transformation nonprofits as networked, AND a review of those organizations such as NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NAMHPD (Mental Health Program Directors), the ‘Big Seven” of these types of organizations which seem to, collectively, compromise our “shadow government” in the US, or at least a way to coordinate legislation so as to overcome the natural legislative process by Constitution to occur within the states themselves.

One of habits we’ve become conditioned to, and which I take time, as much as possible, to correct when and where I see it, of referring to a PROJECT or CAMPAIGN as if it were an ENTITY.  This is a linguistic trick, it’s not accidental, and its purpose is to downplay, minimize and coverup the actual sponsoring enemy, throwing obstacles in the readers’ path in seeing and understanding the money behind any single, let alone any coordinated, campaigns.

Total results: 3Search Again. This is the 501©3 FOUNDATION, says incorporated in 1983, address, Berkeley, California.  I have lived in Berkeley (and Oakland) before and know exactly where it is…

American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation CA 2015 990 37 $1,832,880.00 94-2922136
American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation CA 2014 990 34 $2,354,564.00 94-2922136
American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation CA 2013 990 30 $2,706,156.00 94-2922136

Looking this up (it being in California) at the OAG’s Charitable Registry, I see that although it’s missing several years of Forms 990 (not uploaded to the site or marked as received) and is itself larger, it’s not yet marked “Delinquent.”  Meanwhile, the smaller, related organization (tax table shown below), which seems to have actually been more compliant (judging by its charitable details) is now marked “Delinquent” for missing just FYE Dec. 2016 report, apparently.  A “Notice of Delinquency Letter” dated Nov. 2008 for this foundation showed it hadn’t submitted for Years:  2002, 2003, 04, 05, 06 and 07…” (!!)… Pardon me for not annotating the following images which support what I just wrote here (and the link leads to a pdf of a few pages also):

This crusader for clean air didn’t keep its nose clean as a charitable organization with the State of California… but wasn’t caught (despite its high-profile officers) until 2008 (??)

(Click to enlarge but not links on image are not interactive) – The EIN# is shown, as well as status as a California Charity. This larger entity is marked Current, although historically, it behaved worse as to filing its required annual RRFs.

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Fndtn (501©3) Char Details shows sev’l YRs 990s Missing, yet it’s not marked DELINQUENT by OAG (viewed 2017Aug22)


Formerly website “afnr.org” (in FY2009), it’s now “no-smoke.org” You can see “total assets” steadily declining, in part because it’s claiming expenses in excess of revenues for several years, while apportioning cost of employees between the two related entities (see a Sched R for any return).


I should also mention that its founding document shows it went back to 1973, not 1983 or 1986, with prior names apparently, GEF, GLF, then GE&LF, where the “G” apparently stood for the acronym GASP.  As you can see from in part from these images, or the link to those founding documents (but, beware it’s long! probably in part because of all the name changes over the decades).  This information blends into info posted in my previous post referencing UCSF Professor and sponsored Center Stanton Glantz, who shows up consistently as an officer (sometimes President, sometimes Treasurer) of both nonprofits shown here…along with several other notables.

GASP = “Group Against Smoking Pollution” (Legal Fund) as shown in this 1973 registration (later became CNR, then ANR) in Richmond, CA. (see Founding Dox for the 501©3)

CNR 1983 internal communicatn? (1 pg in 2 images, P.1 of Founding Dox pdf) showing predecessor entity names — or at least acronyms (per Irene Peterson, lawyer)

CNR 1983 internal communicatn? (1 pg in 2 images, this is #2, see p.1 of Founding Dox pdf) showing predecessor entity names — or at least acronyms (per Irene Peterson, lawyer)

In 1979 it was Californians for Smoking and Nonsmoking Sections.. a PO Box in Berkeley.











Then in 1986, here are two more images (one showing letterhead, the other naming two officers) showing the namechange from “Californians for” to “AMERICANS for Nonsmoking Rights.”  This was also referenced in the 2000 Tobacco Wars: Inside the California Battles section (which I quoted in last post)….

For the “whole deal” (as provided at least on California’s OAG Charitable Registry site), here is pdf of those founding documents:   American Nonsmokers Rights Fndtn (Page 1 shows preceding GEF, GLF, GE+LF from 1973ff) Founding Dox 217pp (!) from Calif OAG Details

Next is the related 501©4 which (minus the word “Foundation” in its name) must be who the USDOJ lawsuit referred to as an intervenor.  Interesting how one acronym is ANRF and the other, ANFR…  (although it seems to go by ANR). 

The name-based search for the related organization also pulled up a Year 2007 result which (look closely at the EIN#s) seems to be a typo in the EIN#.  Looking through that return, the cover sheet simply lacks a digit in the EIN#, some places then correct it, and in general, places where the form prompts for information, it says simply “See Schedule ____” and then attaches them.

Total results: 4Search Again.

AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS RIGHTS CA 2015 990EO 5 $75,273.00 94-2598713
AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS RIGHTS CA 2014 990EO 7 $64,328.00 94-2598713
AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS RIGHTS CA 2013 990EO 6 $52,483.00 94-2598713
Americans of Nonsmokers Rights CA 2007 990O 20 $144,312.00 94-2589871

AmericansForNonSmokingRights (1979-now 501©4 in BerkeleyCA, Stanton Glantz Dir) Founding Dox-(64pp, fr Calif OAG Details @ 2017Aug22)

Calif. OAG currently has this marked “Delinquent”

They maintain two separate websites — with the larger one (the Foundation) keeping a MUCH lower profile, although that’s the one where donations are tax-deductible and to which the HHS/NIH donations are acknowledged.  The 501©4 (Membership) entity (shown above) has a more developed website at “no-smoke.org”, references the other one, and even explains the differences between them.

However, I noticed that NEITHER has provided any audited financial statements on their websites, that the 501©4 provides NO tax returns (either); the foundation (501©3) at least provides a few years of Forms 990.  The omission of audited financial statements (probably consolidated) is significant.  They aren’t on the OAG website either.

(from the ANR website, a short pdf showing the difference between the two entities; notice one has blue logo, the other, spring green…)

(just the Calif Bus. Registratn of ANR, 1979)

So you know I’m not making up the EIN# typo, here’s a screenprint of search results (from “990Finder”), too, and of page 1 from the 2007 filing showing the wrong EIN# was entered on Page 1, top, right, which is corrected in attached schedules.  Also shows that the “Website” was left blank on this return, although I checked (with correct EIN#) year 2006, and somehow that one acknowledged the website “nosmoke.org”

Namesearch for “Americans for Nonsmokers Rights pulls up a Year 2007 “Close, but not identical” EIN# and (990-finder, not the filing entity) org. name mis-fire (bottom row; interactive, 4-row table above copied from the same search results). The “E” in “(990EO) represents filing of the shortened “EZ” IRS return.

NOW (finally) about the NAATPN:

The NAATPN is cited as a USDOJ Tobacco RICO (Civil Suit) Intervenor, so I looked it up, attempted to jam it into the already full contents on a previous post, and realized that a systematic, organization-by-organization, post-by-post look at the named Intervenors is in order.

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (¼ images; cover page

NAATPN (EIN#56-2211875) FY2013 Sched B grantors volunteered (I THINK, filing entity doesn’t have to post these, although they must file with the IRS, but did. Or perhaps for Forms 990PF, they do…), Notice another nonprofit in D.C., and “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,” related entity to one of the other intervenors in the USDOJ lawsuit. My 12/15/2016 page has shows the returns..

Post title: NAATPN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (HattiesburgMS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe. with short-link ending “-7rm”  Post titles get revised from time to time (while in draft, or even post-publication), but the links underneath them usually don’t.  This one I started 8/15/2017.


Several of the larger, and older organizations (American Cancer ? Heart Association, and ? Lung Associations) are discussed in the related posts because of their connections to the so-called Lasker syndicate, which at this point, I believe is an appropriate label.

As with in any syndicate, it’s never just one person or personality (or organization) involved.  First, the term isn’t always negative and doesn’t always imply involvement of criminal activity.  Still, it’s amazing how many sources credit Mary Lasker (and associates) specifically, with having increased the NIH budget, helped takeovers of the American Cancer Society’s predecessor, successfully promoted that the National Cancer Institute be given greater budgetary discretion and access to the White House, thereby becoming a model for other NIH institutes to, following its model, seek their own special authorizations, and radically expanding the domain of the NIH itself.

Since I’m continuing with this claim, it’s appropriate to review:


(I dig further into that, including some of how the name “Lasker Syndicate” seems appropriate, at: Basic Definitions and Etymology (Roots) of the word ~syndicate. Syndicates can be formed for legal OR illegal purposes. Know the Difference! (8/26/2017) (shortlink ends “-7vi”)) (It’s a short post).

INTERVENOR “National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, I couldn’t find as an incorporated entity in 2016, but did this time around.  It apparently registered with the IRS in 2001, and began filing returns (earliest I found) in FY2005 (but possibly not delivered until 2008), and marked all Form 990PFs for years 2005, 06, 07, 08, and 09 “Initial Return.”  Only one of them would’ve been an “initial return.” Those returns do not contain the word “network” on them, although as you see below, the labels do.  The word “network” on the organization name only shows up from the 2010 return, forward.

Money to this organization seems to be coming from mostly the CDC (i.e. U.S. Dept. of HHS), but as this is a Form 990PF (private foundation) and not a Form 990 (representing a public charity or organization), some of the usual questions (govt/private grants, acknowledgement of date founded and legal domicile) are not answered.  This gets interesting as — also in my previous post — another foundation exists in Atlanta named “CDCFoundation.org” which is donating consistently for anti-smoking, tobacco cessation purposes, both domestic (USA and territories) and global (overseas).

Total results: 3Search Again. (the “0” assets doesn’t mean “0” revenues…but I have one question, why does it continue to exist with consistently 0 or below 0 assets?)

National African American Tobacco Prevention Network NC 2014 990PF 26 $0.00 56-2211875
National African American Tobacco Prevention Network NC 2013 990PF 25 $0.00 56-2211875

I just browsed every tax return from 2005 – 2015; in 2014, more funds from CDC and other organizations started flowing in, and the Excess Contributions Schedules B (optional to post) were included).

Too many pieces of the puzzle do NOT add up (when it comes to the tax filings + corporate side of things), but DO start to make sense when the overlap of personnel involved and quoted, are showing up.

On looking up the organization on the NC Corporations Search website and recognizing the gap between formation (2000) and website’s acknowledgement of the CDC involvement (2008), I added four more images (one from NAATPN.org, the others from NC Sec. of State on the entity) to document some of this.  I realize most images may be a little small to read — click any image to enlarge as needed; that standard is generally true on my posts, unless I have tied the image to the original website.  To read earlier returns than shown above, (from this database anyhow) “tweak” the year in the URL (web address displaying in your browser window), which is towards the end of its URL, before “pdf”.

Largest and fifth image: one of the “Excess Contributions” (Sched B) donors in 2014 was the American Legacy Foundation (now “Truth Initiative(™) which as I understand it was the foundation formed to receive tobacco litigation settlement funds.

Tax return “2014” ends with a power of attorney signed over to: Thomas E Spivey 3308 Durham-Chapel Hill Blvd #165 Durham NC 27707.  FY “2015” shows even more (and sole excess donor) HHS grants given (Sched B towards end of the return), with about half of them being spent on “other expenses — “consultants” who are not named, at all.  Basically this is an HHS (Probably CDC) conduit.  The organization (per NC records) changed its name to the acronym (NAATPN, Inc.) by amendment in Jan. 2013, which was notified the state of NC apparently April, 2014.  It first incorporated in 2000, with only these three incorporators (one from NC, one from SC, the other from Sacramento, CA, which is the state capital):

From formation document (3pp pdf, click HERE), only 3 original incorporators shown. See additional links below re: Brenda Bell Caffee-cited entity in CA (the word “California” apparently missing from its name; no such entity found (I did look!) in that form within California.  It may have been a project and not an entity).

Of the three original incorporators of this NC-legal domicile entity, whose tax returns before 2005 are “NF” currently, one was listed as if an organization existed in in California — but the woman involved, Brenda Bell Caffee, in fact has a Mississippi-based nonprofit, first registered 8/6/2003, and comprised mostly of extended family members. I looked at those tax returns also; and they do not stand up to scrutiny (the ones available through 990finder) — at all. Yet HHS grants continue to come in, somehow… ALL THIS WILL MAKE MORE SENSE WHEN IT BECOMES CLEAR HOW HIGH UP THE FEDERAL/ UNIVERSITY/ FOUNDATION/ CAMPAIGNING/ AND RESEARCH-GRANTS SPONSORS LADDER (AND HOW FAR BACK IN TIME) THE “SMOKING CAUSES CANCER” NETWORK ACTUALLY GOES.

NAATPN – a Guidestar Listing (see category, top left) gave me an EIN# and said ruling date, 2001, and it’s required to file

NAATPN (EIN#56-2211875) early return (2005 probably) notice third activity says that 20 grants of $2,500 each (plus contracting with someone to figure out the “to whom”) = $21,000 spent. Interesting math…

NAATPN, (EIN#56-2211875) a FY2005 return with header indicating possibly 2008 date (signature block same return seems to match, though it’s partially obscured). A few officers from FL and MS, but the volunteer Board Chair, Chicago.

NAATPN (EIN#56-2211875) earlier return, Income-producing activities show over $400K from “Robert Wood Johnson” (probably the Foundation — RWJF — was meant) but no description whatsoever of the type of activity….

NAATPN (EIN#56-2211875) FY2013 Sched B grantors volunteered (I THINK, filing entity doesn’t have to post these, although they must file with the IRS, but did. Or perhaps for Forms 990PF, they do…), Notice another nonprofit in D.C., and “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,” related entity to one of the other intervenors in the USDOJ lawsuit. My 12/15/2016 page has shows the returns..

Looking for one of the California associations of a Yr2000 incorporator of what is now called NAATPN, Inc. (and earlier, was a USDOJ lawsuit intervenor).  A 1995 Article in the Los Angeles Times:

Offended L.A. Groups Help Snuff Out New Menthol X Cigarettes : Protest: African Americans help get product shelved, saying the package used images linked to Malcolm X and racial pride. Maker denies trying to lure black smokers.  March 17, 1995|PETER Y. HONG | TIMES STAFF WRITER

…The removal of Menthol X cigarettes marks the second time a manufacturer has pulled a brand after objections from African Americans. In 1990, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. responded to protests by black groups and criticism from U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis Sullivan** by withdrawing Uptown, which the company said was aimed at blacks.

With cigarette consumption falling in the United States, tobacco companies have increasingly directed their marketing at specific groups such as minorities and women.

Nearly 44% of black adults smoke, compared to 37% of whites, according to the Simmons Market Research Bureau. The incidence of lung cancer among blacks is 70 per 100,000, compared to 52 per 100,000 for whites.

Brenda Bell Caffee, coordinator of the California African American Tobacco Education Network, said her group became aware of the cigarette brand last month through a computer bulletin board for African Americans in California. || Caffee said the brand had developed a following among young African Americans in New England.

At this time, HHS Director Louis Wade Sullivan (b. 1933) had, after founding Morehouse School of Medicine, had been a George H.W. Bush HHS appointee (1989-1993), after which he returned to Morehouse and was its president until 2002.  The wiki has several flags (because of a living person), but it conveys a basic outline of his career and reference the “Uptown” initiative:


Among his efforts to improve the health and health behavior of Americans were: (1) the introduction of a new and improved FDA food label; (2) the release of Healthy People 2000, a guide for improved health promotion/disease prevention activities; (3) the public education program focused on the health dangers from tobacco use (including the successful efforts to prevent the introduction of “Uptown,” a non-filtered, mentholated cigarette); (4) the inauguration of a $100 million minority male health and injury prevention initiative {{why not named here??}}; and (5) a greater emphasis on gender and ethnic diversity in senior positions of HHS, including the selection of (etc.)….

and in this century, notice work with also Sen. Paul. G. Rogers:

The Sullivan Commission[edit]

Established in 2003, the Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce [was] an outgrowth of a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to Duke University School of Medicine. Named for former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., the Commission [was] composed of 16 health, business, higher education and legal experts and other leaders. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole and former U.S. Congressman and Congressional Health Subcommittee Chairman Paul Rogers [served] as Honorary Co-Chairs.

Meanwhile, as I recall, Democrat and Sen. Paul Rogers was a major figure for Research! America, and probably Dr. (while HHS director, “The Hon.”) Louis Sullivan also was.  Paul Rogers Wiki also notes he worked at a certain law firm (Hogan & Hartson) which shows up under one of Research! America’s related campaigns (501(c4 Campaign for Medical Research), not to mention also for Merck:

his “Wikipedia” (some excess links removed)

Paul Grant Rogers (June 4, 1921 – October 13, 2008) was an American lawyer and politician from the U.S. state of Florida. A Democrat, Rogers served in the U.S. House of Representatives as the member from Florida’s 11th congressional district. He was chairman of Research America from 1996 to 2005.[1]

… Rogers worked as a lawyer in private practice and was a member of the board of directors for Merck & Co. and Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York.

Political career[edit]

He was elected as a Democrat to the 84th Congress in a special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of his father, Dwight L. Rogers. Rogers served for and was reelected to the eleven succeeding congresses, for 24 years from January 4, 1955, to January 3, 1979. He chose not to run for reelection to the 96th Congress. While a member of the House, Rogers served as chair of the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment from 1971 to 1979. Nicknamed “Mr. Health,” he was a key representative behind the adoption of the National Cancer Act of 1971, the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, the Health Maintenance Organization Act, the Emergency Medical Service Act, the Medicare-Medicaid Anti-Fraud and Abuse Amendments of 1977 and the Clean Air Act of 1970.

Rogers was a resident of West Palm Beach, Florida and a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Hogan & Hartson.

Interesting that all all three Wikis (1) Paul Rogers (2) his father, Dwight L. Rogers, and (3) Hogan & Harton were flagged by wiki for over-reliance on in-line sources, or other reasons.  I looked elsewhere and found that Hogan & Harton merged in 2011 with a UK firm “Lovells” helping it make the global “top 10” in 2011, that is, the top ten largest world’s law firms by revenues.  See next chart, and comment from “AbovetheLaw.com”

The only other new entrant to the top ten is Hogan Lovells. As you will recall, Ho-Love resulted from the mating of Hogan & Hartson with U.K.-based Lovells.  {AboveTheLaw.com, read more)

The Biggest Law Firms in the World: Meet the Global 100
Say hello to the Global 100 for 2011. This is the American Lawyer’s list of the world’s 100 largest law firms, ranked by total revenue. Lawyers are a competitive lot. So you’re probably less interested in the overall figures than in how different firms fared in the rankings….”

Notice the 1996 LA Times article above doesn’t specifically claim that smoking causes lung cancer; but by this time the infrastructure asserting that it does was well-heeled, well-established, and very well synchronized.  Research on other potential causes (such as infection) existed, but wasn’t as well-funded, and in the campaigning groups, apparently, was ignored, according to several pages at smokershistory.com  Apparently the “California” or “African American Tobacco Education Network” (AATEN) with or without the state name prefixed, isn’t an entity, but a program, per this website, which lists its street address in Sacramento and which focuses on communication and social media for “behavioral change,” while showing a very international list of “partners” (among them Bernard van Leer Foundation and DFID have been referenced in my blog (as related to “EDC”), as well as you can see the USAID, UN, etc. ….

Reference to group or networks as if they were entities doesn’t make them entities. This one doesn’t appear to be. Ms. Bell-Caffee has a different entity whose name (or initials, PHF) ends “Public Health Foundation,” but it’s not in California.

Here’s a similar, 1996 Los Angeles Times article on discount cigarette stores (targeting low-income people).  It quotes a few customers, and only two health-related sources, one of which is Bell-Caffee and the other, from the Office of Smoking and Health at CDC Atlanta, GA. Notice it’s a “special to the Los Angeles Times.”

Rise of Discount Cigarette Stores Vexes Health Officials  January 27, 1996|JILL LEOVY | SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

…Brenda Bell Caffee, coordinator for African-American Tobacco Education Network, contends that discount cigarettes are aimed at the poor and at minorities. Rates of smoking among African Americans are among the highest of any ethnic group in California, according to the CDC.

“It’s not as if . . . they are making housing affordable. You are taking something that is bound to cause you health problems, and making it affordable,” she said.

Such talk irritates the entrepreneurs leading the discount store charge. Like many in the business, Mark Baldwin, 34, president of Cigarettes Cheaper!, not only resents the regulation of smoking, he opposes government regulation and taxes in general. His stores sell copies of an anti-government book written by Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne, and employees get $10 if they read it.

Baldwin is so anti-government that he says he won’t vote for the Libertarian candidate; he doesn’t believe in voting. || A nonsmoker, Baldwin says smokers are “maligned and oppressed. There probably are health risks associated with smoking,” he added. “But everyone who smokes understands the possible trade-offs.”

last three tax returns for the next-to last one:

Total results: 3Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

CAFFEE CAFFEE AND ASSOC PHF INC MS 2015 990 21 $6,491.00 42-1627128
CAFFEE CAFFEE AND ASSOC PHF INC MS 2014 990 22 $14,034.00 42-1627128
CAFFEE CAFFEE AND ASSOC PHF INC MS 2013 990 17 $10,432.00 42-1627128


I took screenprints of current and earlier Forms 990. This post didn’t detail why I labeled the tax returns “questionable.” I believe I said what was important at this time above, and intend to post this information; however, using how I looked at NAATPN above, and in general over time how I look at tax returns on this blog, others could do it independently. This organization is interesting in that so many related family members are involved. I also (while here) looked up and for the third incorporator of NAATPN (Sandra W. Headen, Ph.D.) and got a basic professional identity but most publications were joint authors with four or five others, and so did not include. Maybe this should be included with the closer look at Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. tax returns…

I also have not solved the puzzle of who — if it is a who — is the California African American Tobacco Education (or “Prevention”) network referenced near the top of this post, in part because the typical places it would be registered are coming up empty, and the street address given seems to be in an office building in the state capital, Sacramento).

I remain a sole, and unsponsored, public-interest, investigative blogger, i.e., just one person.  There is no staff or even organized volunteers.  Most people prefer to organize, apparently, around telling their stories and within the warm embrace of some of he advocacy groups (as to at least family court and domestic violence) issues.  I admit it’s not a popular viewpoint I hold, however it is I believe still a valid one — the problems I’m documenting are not just innate to certain nonprofits, by cause, but are innate to the existence of nonprofits in general — and especially when undertaking to work as extensions of government services, or to redirect governments.

Nonprofits are dependent financially and as such, subject to takeovers, functioning as front groups for “the big guys” who are prone to coordinating internationally (at a minimum, nationally) for their private interests, and invest MUCH in persuasive media that their private interests = our public interests, in fact in “the” public interest.  I was glad to read at least one website re: the tobacco litigation situation at “smokershistory.com” which holds a different viewpoint, and I continue to check this out separately, with what existing tools I’ve acquired over the years on this blog and personally.

Meanwhile, feel free to contribute links with helpful information on things I’ve noted as “M-I-A” registrations (or other related info) at any time (use comments field)!


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

August 28, 2017 at 7:58 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: