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

__

Smoking Cessation/Tobacco Control Litigation I See Is By Design Guaranteed, (Like Domestic Violence Prevention and Services) To Continue Incessantly. Meanwhile, a Wide Swath of Northern Cali fornia Is Smoke-Filled and Lit Up, But Not by Tobacco. (October Local News and Blog Updates) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7Lp”)

Post Technicalities: Tags may be added later. After over a week reviewing and supplementing this post, I’ve decided to “punt” (publish). It MIGHT also be split later, but the sections on exploring national DV networking over the years (from key organizations’ narratives) and “Health as an Asset,” an academy (“ABIS”) globally networking under the “Chatham House Rule” (basically, anonymity)(which brings the topic to the RIIA / Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and its historic intentions, as expressed in its founding documents) towards the bottom, which has a sequel, actually belong together. And this still IS “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” for what that’s worth, in the USA..so I took a closer look at how certain organizations like to collaborate for a unified voice, and consequences of that collaboration, down the road a few decades….//LGH, Oct. 20, 2017

Or, you could call this “October Local & Posts-in-the-Pipeline Update” which is how it started out, attached to another post started earlier I’d hoped to publish with just a brief update.

As my About Holidays / Personal Backdrop” (posted Oct. 10)** says, I took a brief, about half-month, pause while handling (different kind of writing required) personal things and am now catching up on some of the posts already in the “pipeline” referencing, basically and most recently the themes of (a) Big Tobacco Litigation/Smoking Cessation Control (Public policy) Efforts and (b) The Problems with Problem-solving Courts (“Collaborative Justice”), which includes the development and implementation nationwide of family courts, too.  [** after next few reminder images…]

I wrote about an East Coast/West Coast connection involving one government sub-sector (Administrative Office of the Courts, under the Judicial Council of California, the ruling body of the Judicial Branch in the state) with an improperly named non-entity (it’s not its own legal business OR government entity) — the “Center for Court Innovation” in New York.  You will not find it registered under that name on CharitiesNYS.com or Business Entity search, and so far as I know, it’s not a trade name of some registered entity — because the EIN# associated with it, generally speaking, belongs to a private foundation, “Fund for the City of New York.”

Four logos show sponsorship (not membership) of the Executive Session for State Court Leaders” (click image to enlarge, for fine-print commentary) as I recall. Only 1 logo represents part of government (BJA is under the USDOJ) directly; the other 3 (including Harvard) count as “tax-exempt, privately controlled entities” even though the NCSC Board will have public officials on it. 

I talked about how organizations like the NCSC got involved and discovered yet two more (subsequent to “The California Story” published in 2005) 501©3s promoting the same “collaborative justice” concept, keying off the concept of drug courts:

Fund for City of New York is one-half (the Private) half of the Public/Private (agreement, project, collaboration — whoever it’s defined) comprising the “Center for Court Innovation”. Look at the affiliations of the Board members — former NY Attorney General, Designer of the World Trade Center, Adm. Judge of the City of NY…!

(There’s also a foundation to go with this one).

**(The rest of that title, the same link as just given above: “….Speaking Personally (Personal Backdrop to Post-PRWORA Social Policy towards Women Who ~Just Say No!~ to Abuse and Proceed in Misplaced Belief They can actually Exit it) [started Sept. 18, Publ. Oct. 9, 2017, see also Collaborative Justice post/page].”(ends “-7AD”)

The other “Collaborative Justice” non-profit showing clear judicial membership and sponsorship, as well as an MSW involved in “Children and Family Futures.”  I won’t say more on that in this post, just pointing out that the process seems never-ending:

CCJCF-related, image series labeled: “Search for CCJCF President turned up EARLY Annual Rpt (Final Draft) WITH EIN# attached and its Significant Others (Judge Lynn Duryees, Peggy Hora)”

[Image may be added here post-publication, can’t locate a certain annotated one just now. It may be on the bottom of the related page]

One post in the pipeline taken from part (b) above again (“Governance, the Final Frontier,” now in draft, full title further below) reminded me of how early (how long ago) I’d realized that the “powers that be” within the domestic violence field obtained, and maintained, control over the field with an agenda to “therapize” the nation’s language of crime and consequences under the health, social science, and behavioral modification treatment [“therapeutic jurisprudence” and other concepts] paradigm — while still claiming to be tough on crime and domestic violence. And that one of the ways of doing this to mimic popular, grassroots demand from multiple seemingly diverse platforms (organizations) was having already-established tax-exempt foundations first internally sponsor projects, then spin off the projects off into more 501©3s (nonprofits) which, while the names may be new, the world view, personnel, response to the problems and practice of letting philanthropists run government or organize with intent to run it, is not. In other words, by setting up interconnected nonprofits collectively run by people of, except perhaps subject/topic focus area, the same general persuasion, having been so persuaded possibly in part because alternate viewpoints or alternate solutions to the problem were out-funded, and out-maneuvered.    

[Phrases above in this color were added long after the original paragraph; it this is too much overexplaining, read around them.]

Both this post and the one whose title shows next, linked from the “Collaborative Justice/Problem-solving Courts” page, should be published today, Oct. 20, 2017, or within 48 hours of each other.  (That “today” date kept getting moved back as I continued adding to the top part of this post!) The one you’re reading now will be published first.

I’ll repeat that link near the bottom of this post.

VERY early on, assumptions about WHICH are the KEY POINTS IN (foundational to) any new field or regime (for the DV field, that treatments and interventions, such as batterers’ intervention, or supervised visitation, mandatory mediation, parent education, etc.) become foundational, basic for that new field or regime’s claims to even BEING a field of practice or a new profession or area of professional practice (example:  “fatherhood” or “domestic violence PREVENTION”). Assumptions and omissions of relevant information which might speak against that selection of points get “baked-into the infrastructure and system” (including to its literature and downloadable curricula, webinars, etc.) as entrenched positions, and continually a part of whatever solution is chosen.

This proprietary, linguistic control makes later protest by people harmed by such policies, even if among the classes the policies are allegedly representing in the first place — for example, survivors of domestic violence, and/or child abuse who, with full information up front might have made different choices in picking their court battles, or how and how hard to fight back once they were dragged into one — an even heavier burden and uphill battle.  The public is fed information leading (or at least encouraging) readers/viewers to believe (until personally involved) that “the experts are on it,” so where there’s evidence to the contrary, maybe it was just the family’s problem, or one of the family members.’  Or a rogue judge, or a local problem..

After all, don’t we hear about domestic violence on TV shows, sometimes in a movie, in ads, and after headlines involving recent roadkill, perhaps from experts on one of the major organizations’ comments?

A SHORT SECTION ON THIS, FOLLOWED BY MORE ON THE NETWORKS:

Who can even find the long-standing/oft-quoted SF Domestic Violence Consortium?  What does its spokesperson do for a living? Take tax-free donations (It’s not an incorporated entity, but its “Executive Director” maintains apparently a speed-dial on some local news media with each new domestic violence vitality — year after year — or otherwise disaster that has potential for making national news too.

Looking at this one, I also took a quick re-view of California’s registered and still active known major DV organizations, including (but not posted here) the “NNEDV.”  I also added a section in which one of the networked entities did us (belatedly) a courtesy summary of the networks themselves, nationally, that is. Recommendation?  Pretend this is a conversation, and just deal with its about 15,000 words as they come up.  When you see a new section coming up, so be it, and remember that some of the material that inspired a post may (in my writing style) still end up closer to the bottom, while what’s in between is, to say the least, “illuminating.”….

(SFChronicle had a nearly full-page, Page A1 spread, although involving a romantic relationship without children, parallel to the Las Vegas massacre incident. They quoted the same woman, Beverly Upton (<==LinkedIn) from the “San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium” as from years ago, not that this “consortium” is a registered entity in the state). In fact that’s the only professional activity listed on that LinkedIn; frequently cited.  (August, 2013, on the W.O.M.A.N., Inc. blog, a fundraiser hosted by Ms. Upton and friend, a jazz musician): A Jazz-y Night Benefitting the Domestic Violence Consortium, 8/8/2013 (see nearby image).

Aug. 8, 2013, article on W.O.M.A.N., Inc. blog. showing Beverly Upton and jazz singer friend at fund-raiser for the Consortium.

If it’s headline news, high-profile in this area, chances are a comment from Ms. Upton referencing the consortium is quoted, and may be the only organization or “DV” expert quoted.  Here’s one from April 2016 I somehow had missed (dealing with my own issues at the time), this one involving a key official taking flak for even moderate (“probation”) pursuit of a wealthy man who had the support of the Sikh community, despite having beat and kicked more than one girlfriend:  Bay Area tech entrepreneur faces new domestic violence allegations. (4/22/2016 by Vic Lee in ABC7 News; there is a video also):

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) —

Prosecutors asked a San Francisco judge to revoke the probation of a wealthy Internet entrepreneur and they released details of another woman whom Gurbaksh Chahal is alleged to have attacked. ||
Inside a courtroom Friday, bodyguards surrounded Chahal to prevent photographers from taking his picture. ||
Outside the courthouse, members of the Sikh community demonstrated in support of Chahal. They called on District Attorney George Gascon to resign for continuing to pursue domestic violence cases against the wealthy Internet entrepreneur.||

Obviously high-profile, and here’s the quote from the “Consortium.”

The Domestic Violence Consortium has been following the case closely.

“This is a simple case of domestic violence. Had the video been allowed as evidence with 117 slaps and kicks, I think we’d be in a different place,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium.

Prosecutors revealed today there was another alleged victim she says Chahal kicked her leg ten to 12 times during an argument in his bedroom two years ago. But she too refused to cooperate.

KQED Dec. 2002 interview with Beverly Upton of the SF DV Consortium and Exec Dir. of the SF Dept on the Status of Women (“Dept. indicates government), and Chief of Adult Probation for City and County of SF (also gov’g), meaning Ms. Upton is the only private-sector, nonprofit represented. Typical of high-profile coverage, year after year…State of DV locally and ways to improve it (FYI, My TRO at this time had JUST expired and I was being railroaded into “Family Court Services,” ex parte, which I later learned was by then already standard practice.  My DV concerns were merged with a dissolution case, putting the proceedings into a more “father-friendly” and “DV-talk-soundproof” venue).

As far back as 2002, here’s Upton being interviewed, in the same named affiliation/capacity, on KQED Radio (major public radio & TV station) under “Business” on “Domestic Violence in San Francisco (nearby image).

Another search results seems to indicate that now, for forty-five (45!) years, 1982 – 2017, this San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium + Partners Ending Abuse, apparently has preferred to operate as a Tides Center project, rather than file its own tax returns, like other major DV organization in the area, “Futures without Violence” (also a major player).  I do not see that domestic violence involving young children as witnesses or stand-bys (or family courts) are of particular interest here, although they should be…  Press coverage and fund-raising, though, no question.

Caption to “Tides Center” image quotes their website as saying it is a nonprofit AND a project of the Tides Center, but no proof of it being an incorporated, or registered nonprofit at the state level is offered, and after searching by this name, repeatedly (I should try just the acronym maybe), I found none.  That may still be legal, but it’s I think inappropriate to be pushing for public funding for DV services without showing ones’ own.

SF DV Consortium: Under the cover of a well-heeled progressive foundation now, and throughout its history unincorporated? And described — barely — in almost invisible “ink” (font), too. They do have a website, and the website lists the “member agencies” including “Futures without Violence,” several targeted by language (Asian, Chinese, Spanish), and one or two I’ve called or visited before also.  “One of the main activities of the SFDVC is networking. SFDVC agencies share information, learn about issues that impact their work and coordinate their services and activities with a particular focus on public funding, specifically coordinating grant proposals and conducting advocacy/lobbying of government departments as to the importance of funding domestic violence services. The SFDVC is a nonprofit organization and a project of the Tides Center.** The SFDVC is led by its co-chairs and committees. The SFDVC recognizes that San Francisco is a diverse city and domestic violence is a problem in all communities regardless of ethnicity, race, class, physical ability, religion, age, immigration and economic status, sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, the SFDVC reaches out to all communities in order to insure a broad representation in its membership. To provide accessible services for all individuals and communities, the SFDVC strives to eliminate social, institutional, language and physical barriers to its agencies’ services.

The “Tides Center” is “something else!,” with fully FOUR other related non-profits in the same, well-heeled progressive bunch. It’s well-known in the area. It’d take more than a passing comment for those who either won’t look at the tax returns (recommended, ALWAYS) or don’t know it also by reputation or as a type of large foundation (or cluster of foundations under a single basic name — it’s not the only one around — for which you can say “concentration of tax-exempt wealth”) to show the significance or what seem to be upsides and downsides of encouraging this type of organization –whether progressive (as here) or “re-gressive” seeking to counter the progressives.  Like a sort of war between the gods, and we mere mortals are spectators, sometimes pawns, and most of the time, at risk of catching the “flak.”  Unless we’re on someone’s payroll in the process.  (1) Tides Center (SF) FY2015 990 EXCERPTS ONLY ~>P1 and PP47-56 (=SCHED R incl 4pp of Illegible (what belonged on) SCHED I Grants to Domestic (US) govt and private orgs + persons, scanned ho ~| |~ and,  (2)

Two nearby pdfs (One is a Calif. “RRF” 2015, the other, a Form 990, “2015.” attached to show how both government grants TO this Center (on the RRF) (which is just one of five related “Tides” tax-exempt entities on its Sched R) I looked at this time) and its millions of dollars TO grantees, are presented so small (and scanned sideways too) as to be illegible, and I have to assume this is deliberate, as other parts of the return or accompanying information aren’t. 

TIDES CENTER, EIN943213100 ~ RRF 2015 showing legible fund-raisers and ILLEGIBLE Gov’t Agency Sponsors (Horizontal, TINY (6pt?) font 5pp=NO ACCIDENT~~ 1145895 ~| |~Tides.org does post its “financials” (<>annual reports, <>audited financial statements 0(before 2013, (2012 shows) five separate ones, 2013ff, it’s “consolidated” — but not their tax returns.  Instead, of tax returns (of all 5 organizations), it posts less than really helpful <>year-by-year lists of grantees (alpha, without regard to country (Domestic-USA vs. International are mixed throughout, which on tax returns, they wouldn’t be — for a reason), but at least with their websites, and a long column of $$ amounts (LEFT-justified, not decimal aligned for some reason)…

Tides.org Financials page. Click image for better viewing if needed. The normal thing for third column on the right (and much more informative) would be their Forms 990: tax returns — for ALL FIVE entities. But then again, someone might see how illegible the Schedule I of grants was, or see, separated (which these lists don’t), Sched F (non-USA grants) and more details, such as program purpose, street addresses, and where some exist, EIN#s…

See next quote from a Tides Consolidated Financial Statement naming all five (any tax returns would show the EIN#s of itself and the other four too; but these as I just said, aren’t the “powers that be” at Tides haven’t opted to upload them…)

We have audited the accompanying consolidated financial statements of Tides Network, Tides Center, Tides Foundation, Tides, Inc., and Tides Two Rivers Fund (collectively, Tides Organizations), which comprise the consolidated statements of financial position as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of activities and changes in net assets, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements.

The face page from one of the “pdfs” I linked to above, which contains FY2015 Form 990 starting with Schedule R (showing the above “related entities” as a tax return would report them, including with identifiable look-ups such as actual EIN#s, PO Boxes, and stated functions of each, in chart form for quick comprehension:

Clean copy, Sched R p.1 of FY2015 Form 990 “Tides Center” (p 47 of the entire return) showing related tax-exempt entities — four of them. TIDES.org apparently doesn’t post Form 990s of any of the five (5)related tax-exempt entities.

(one of many very-green-themed, large-print messages from “Tides.org”)

BAKING KEY ASSUMPTIONS (and omissions of other relevant points) INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE in favor of fewer, more marketable points with better “curb appeal” (positive vibes for those who will be paying for it) IS ITSELF A REPEATED, INCREMENTAL POWER PLAY.  It happens when decisions are made in so many “roundtables” to which only a token, pre-selected participant representing the targeted demographic of that field — if any — are invited.  This is exactly what happened with the domestic violence field, starting in the 1980s.  Behavioral modification, treatment programs and assumed continuation of co-parenting (when the noncustodial parent was a father) were preferred.  Privatization is also part of this.  The innate and inevitable conflicts this produces are also, apparently, part of the program design.

A belated protest of the system pits individuals as a class against “the new, trained” experts as a class and prior investments by state and federal governments into the systems in question. That’s why the “roundtable” level of developing policy should be watched. Who is on the roundtable, where was it held (public or private places?

For the Wingspread Conference on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment, which I blogged (DNR exact title, though) in Racine, Wisconsin, make that not just “private,” but also elitist, extra-special private in the Frank Lloyd Wright, S.C. Johnson & Family- [major family-based corporate wealth + related foundations] controlled, surrounded by green acreage, and an architecturally notable conference center:  The 2008 Report from Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts, 2007 as posted on an NCSC website.

The same on reference pages at a 2015 AFCC-CA presentation on “Domestic Violence and Mediation“, presenter “William Eddy” (and a retired Judge, Hon Susan Finlay) with what looks like a PowerPoint presentation with footers “© 2014 High Conflict Institute”].

Looking for the earlier “Wingspread Conference” I found a VAWAandcourts.org website (“VAWA obviously referring to the Violence Against Women Act, first passed 1994, and for which the USDOJ OVW was established (as I understand it) to implement the funding) “Domestic Violence Summit” held in late 2010.  I’m quoting the bio blurb of the 2009-appointed (by Pres. Obama) Director of the OVW, the Hon. Susan B. Carbon.  This bio blurb makes it clear she came from a background primarily (right before the appointment) a Supervising Judge of a Family Court division in Grafton, NH – and with references to Greenbook Initiative and Wingspread Conferences involving the “AFCC,” which comes up just after this quote also…

Many women probably know this already about the Hon. Susan B. Carbon, but I wonder how many consider the impact of having an entire VAWA directorship run by someone who comes from the family law perspective venue in the first place, given the ongoing emphasis on “dispute resolution — but with DV protections” and “joint custody” and AFCC’s constant promotion of the terms “high-conflict” and “parental alienation” which typically works against non-abusive, custodial mothers as a legal tactic to counter understandable attempts to set boundaries on access of violent parents towards their minor children.   …. Notice the two logos are NCSC and COSCA, (see “COSCA.ncsc.org” for more info) one of the associations listed on its website as well and that the year for time is two days, Nov/Dec., 2010.  Notice prominent mention of NCJFCJ and AFCC, as well as an earlier Greenbook Initiative for NH…

First faculty bio shown; list is alpha by last name; a few pages’ worth.

“National Leadership Summit on State Court Responses to Domestic Violence/Faculty Bios”

“Domestic Violence Summit”

Susan B. Carbon (starting on p.6 as I recall)
Director, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), U.S. Department of Justice

Susan B. Carbon is the Director of the United States Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). Ms. Carbon was nominated to this position by President Barack Obama on October 1, 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate on February 11, 2010. As Director, she serves as the liaison between the Department of Justice and federal, state, tribal, and international governments on crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking. In this role, she is responsible for developing the Department’s legal and policy positions regarding the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and oversees an annual budget of nearly $400 million.

Amazing; and the USDOJ doesn’t maintain on its site any functional database of all grants, sortable by program area, division, grant name, grantee name, or amount, all years or with the option to select by grantee across the years, or in general flexible and functional for public viewing and comprehension of their own scope of activities…. They do have plenty of program promotion, however…

Ms. Carbon was first appointed to the bench in 1991, and served as Supervisory Judge of the New Hampshire Judicial Branch Family Division from 1996 until 2010. She was a member of the Governor’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and chaired New Hampshire’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee. She was Chair of the Grafton County, NH Greenbook Project, a collaboration of the U.S. Department of Justice and Health and Human Services to improve practice where child protection cases intersect with domestic violence. She was also Lead Model Court Judge in New Hampshire for the nation-wide initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges to improve court practice surrounding child protection cases, focusing on foster care and adoption. Ms. Carbon also served as President of NCJFCJ from 2007 to 2008, and was President of the New Hampshire State Bar Association in 1993-94. Ms. Carbon has also worked with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts** on two of their major initiatives conducted at the Wingspread Conference Center, the Family Law Reform Education Project (FLER Project), and Domestic Violence and Family Courts, dealing with differentiation of domestic violence in cases of child custody.

Ms. Carbon has trained judges and other professionals across the country and internationally on topics related to family violence, firearms, child custody, and child protection. She has published extensively on these and other topics, including on judicial selection and retention

Judge Kluger NYS Unified Court System/Sanctuary for Families, Inc.  also presented:

Next two images reflect another presenter with powerful background and, it looks like, similar “collaborative justice promoting” tendencies, but from New York, not New Hampshire.  Judge Judy Harris Kluger, “Chief of Policy and Planning, NYS Unified Court System. (<==That link, current, is from Bloomberg.com and under “Sanctuary for Families, Inc.” where she apparently is now.  It’s substantially the same bio blurb, except the “Abely Award” mentioned at bottom of image 2 I now see was awarded by the nonprofit Sanctuary for Families, where she as Executive Director is now pulling down over $200K/year (in addition to state pension as a retired judge?).

After those two (heavily annotated) images, my next comments are on the above quote and Hon. Carbon, then recently confirmed new Director of the OVW (established in 1994 or 1995 to implement VAWA appropriations).

Sanctuary for Families web page.

A search on Sanctuary or the Judge brings up plenty of results.  I see she was appointed in 2014, is continuing to promote “One-Judge/One-Family” as a response to DV, and that Sanctuary for Families (HuffPost brief article) has a budget of $20M and staff of over 200, which she oversees as executive director.

Talk about enduring influence, both as a judge and afterwards!  (Her interview on getting the integrated domestic violence courts operational — on Center for Court Innovation acknowledges having inherited the idea from (then-) Judge Judith Kaye (Chief Administrative Judge? over the entire State for many years…) and — why have separate criminal courts for these issues?  Let’s just combine them all in one…  Also that part of the issue is to de-clutter the regular family courts of “supplemental filings.”

What convinced you of the value of this approach?
It is really [New York State Chief] Judge [Judith S.] Kaye’s idea. It wasn’t hard to figure out that if a person wants to get a divorce, has certain issues that have to be resolved in Family Court, and has a criminal case, the cases don’t need to appear in three different places before three different judges. It’s simple common sense. The whole concept of merging our court system, which is a major initiative of the chief judge, is to streamline the process so that this won’t happen.

They’ve “got to” get rid of criminal cases, keep the “DV stats” down for better PR on the DV programming funded through the OVW, for the state coalitions, etc. and, someone has to say this — continue to deconstruct the concept of domestic violence assault and battery against women, specifically, and children (or any number of related entities which would, on their own and committed by a stranger, be called “felonies”) or even domestic violence as now defined, as criminal and even BEING a criminal issue — but instead, being a (collectivist, group responsibility vs. individual accountability) a “relationship” issue. This deconstruction of individual accountability for actions taken under the umbrella of family and marriage, or in its name has been going on for decades now, starting almost as soon as protection from violence orders were being issued and enforced (from what I understand of the history of domestic violence law). It is a ‘soft’ response to hard time for criminal activity, and meshes well with social science theory on the ideal family design.

So, cases will be (and have been) “steered” for specialized handling once the identifiers are understood.  This presents a signficant problem and issue to victims (see annotated images on this judge, below), but you’d never know it from the promotions from many different platforms.

(PRNewswire Nov 2013, “Sanctuary for Families names Judge Judy Harris Kluger as New Executive Director” (para. 1 also shows she was appointed by Judge Jonathan Lippman). Form 990 (FY2015, from the website) shows: majority support ($19M) is government grants — there are NO program service revenues, and (see p.24, “Schedule B” major contributors, organization voluntarily named), the US Dept. of HHS is the largest at over $3M; Robin Hood Foundation, a substantial amount.

Also, our retired judge (no doubt also qualifies for substantial pension after 25 years of service) is paid $204K + benefits, about $50K higher than anyone else listed, and that there is a related tax-exempt entity, labeled as services: shelter. (EIN#s 133193119 (Sanctuary), and 133443893 (“SFFHDF”).  Also that it was founded in 1983.  For results in table format, you can “Search again”

The “Related Entity” (Sanctuary for Families Housing Development Fund Corporation” should probably be re-named “co-dependent depreciation vehicle.”  I’m wondering why it needs to exist separately from the other, which also is showing land, buildings and equipment depreciating, in fact, about the same amounts.   Over time, SFFHDF is just continuing to lose assets (depreciate) while a single, boiler-plate sentence every year says “owns and operates a domestic violence shelter for persons in need of such accommodations.”  Basically the only “program service revenues,” were the identical amount:  $599,736 — from (at least back to ) 1997 through 2006, at which time they ceased abruptly, leaving the entity showing 0 revenues  for several years.  A 2003 return classified the $599,736 as “fees and contracts from government agencies“.  Meanwhile the program service expenses were basically, “depreciation” of the $5M “Land, building and equipment” — until last return showed “$10,000 rents” meaning, perhaps some people contribute to their own shelter…(See Schedules A of support (3 examples shown below for different time spans; Schedules A show five-year spans with line-item labelling of source of receipts (and other details) plus  a total column)

Sanctuary for Housing Devpt Fund Corp. (EIN#133443893, Sched A of Support, #1 of 3 shown, 1999-2002) see also “Sanctuary for Families.”

Sanctuary for Housing Devpt Fund Corp. (EIN#133443893, Sched A of Support, #2 of 3 shown, 2004-2008 with abrupt cessation of Ln2 revs in 2007) see also “Sanctuary for Families.”

Sanctuary for Housing Devpt Fund Corp. (EIN#133443893, Sched A of Support, #3 of 3 shown, 2006-2010 with abrupt cessation of Ln2 revs in 2007) see also “Sanctuary for Families.”

Throughout there is no staff (employees), paid board or officers, and no website listed.  Maybe “Sanctuary” is actually operating the shelter, and this corporation just holding title to it.

Judge Kluger of NY, Midtown Community Court, Integrated DV (One-Family, One Judge), Problem-solving court policies, and consistently high-level authority within the NYS UNIFIED Court System.(#1 of 2 images, my annotations. Faculty Bio from 2010 DV Summit in “NOLA.”)

DV Summit 2010 (@ vawaandcourts.org), Judge Kluger of NYS Unified Court System, Image #2 of 2, See caption to #1.

I left those two images above (on Harris-Kluger) “medium” size but am still hoping people will click or enlarge, and read them both, as they are key to the message of this post, and add weight to its reality.

(Back to above quote referencing 2010 Domestic Violence Summit / Hon. Susan B. Carbon bio):

 **While Supervisory Judge of the Family Division of an entire (though small — New Hampshire) State 1996-2010 and “working with” the AFCC on two of “their major initiatives” — what are the chances that Ms. Carbon, a family court judge, might also be a member of the AFCC, whose primary target membership includes, obviously, family court judges — and lawyers — and mediators — –and custody evaluators — and claiming beneficial leadership and innovation status for the entire field, while publishing the main (if not only) professional journal on the same field, Family Court Review (jointly with the private Hofstra University in NY)–  and that “their initiatives” might be less “their” and more “ours” ?

About COSCA:  “The Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA), established in 1955, is dedicated to the improvement of state court systems. Its membership consists of the state court administrator or equivalent official in each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

(Remember the two logos attached to the DV Summit bio? One was “COSCA.”)

“The National Center for State Courts provides executive secretariat services to COSCA and CCJ.  Headquartered in Williamsburg, Va., NCSC is a nonprofit court organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to the state courts. Founded in 1971 by the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger, NCSC provides education, training, technology, management, and research services to the nation’s state courts.“

NCSC Assoc’ns + Partners page showing COSCA ~>2017Oct20 Screen Shot. Click image to enlarge or just go to NCSC.org + view. COSCA is 2nd to top (and the list isn’t alpabetical).

NCJFCJ’s 2008 SYNERGY Newsltr. Summarizes some of the Networks and Chronology.

I also (just now) found a 2008 NCJFCJ “Synergy: The Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Child Protection and Custody [Vol. 12 Issue 1, Winter 2008]” newsletter, colorfully with call-outs showing the baked-in elements I mentioned above, and referencing (on Page 2) the special issue resource centers (naming organizations) and later on the newsletter, the Wingspread conference. Image is Page 1 only; pdf is all pages.  It’s Volume 12.  Basic math, assuming one Volume = one year, 2008 – 12 yrs = about 1996.  A previous Wingspread Conference involving NCJFCJ and Family Violence Prevention Fund, by the name of that newsletter, had already occurred — this was “dissemination.”

Page 1 (only) annotated image:

My context here is private nonprofits conferencing privately (while involving board members who are civil servants, including judges, incl. family court judges) with each other, while taking public funds, as to how public institutes should be run and public social problems solved, and then writing it up for private (unless diligent and apparently independently wealthy, members of the public can figure out which private conferences took place, get on the newsletter lists, and keep track of them all or all liable to affect areas of deep concern, in their “leisure” time) as “the voice of the people” or at least good people trying to help poor or oppressed people with major problems, like safety and self-sufficiency when exiting violent relationships with children.

If the interest in “the voice of the people” (representative government) is so genuine, how come it must be disseminated:  in private nonprofits, multi-state, in conferences out of state for most victims, and why should these resource centers (whether national OR “special issue”), essentially funded websites, habitually involve named institutes, centers or projects, instead of identifiable and legitimately filing (and continuing to file after they get a few years of grants) BUSINESS ENTITIES with tax returns that match the organization names, most if not ALL of the time?

By virtue of the networked conferencees, dissident voices were guaranteed to be excluded from the decision-making dialogues, while “power” and other collaborative relationships are made.

Keep reading….

(From final page) To clarify, the NCJFCJ gets paid to do this newsletter, by the public (HHS Grant# 90EV0378 shown)

NCJFC’s Newsltr Synergy Vol 12 Issue 1 Winter 2008, of NCJFCJ’s ~>Resource Center on DV|Child Protectn & Custody<~PAGES 1 through 16 ONLY (prnt-to-pdf @2017Oct18) (this saved “pdf” is the whole newsletter, annotations only on pg. 1, in case the official NCJFCJ link to it changes. From this link, you may need a second click on the blank “page” (pdf) icon if after first click, only filename and an icon display in typical FamilyCourtMatters style (as if a post of its own). This instruction goes for any link I’ve provided as my own “pdf” from another source; guess it’s a WordPress quirk.  Or maybe of my operating version of my viewing/input device (i.e., laptop).

Recommended reading for admission of who, what, when, and where the DV field was being “synergized” and how narrated, in hindsight, right after another Wingspread Conference on the same — with AFCC, which the newsletter features some pages on. (See extended quote below from Page 2).

Some of us would’ve done well to be given such a summary as far back as 2008, but we weren’t. (although that would be “belatedly” for my own children, who by then had been not only stolen overnight, contact cut off immediately, AND later abandoned by their father within one or at most one and a half years (apparently), to the care of a non-legal-guardian (so far as I know, and if some alternate form of guardianship was established, it most certainly was fraudulent, as I, the biological mother and long-time (since birth til they were stolen) at all times primary caretaker (incl. some years I worked FT and many other, part-time as much as I could around the DV), was still around, local, and would’ve gladly taken them back!!)

{{NCJFCJ here and next? page or half-page tries to avoid leaking any information which might undo the illusion that the AFCC is not ALSO a membership organization involving judges, with historic obsession in facilitating terminology change, and decreasing actual number of DV cases through “differentiation” talk.}}. In other words, fake a conflict, get agreement, and self-congratulate on being able to overcome their historic “differences.” This is “theater” (storytelling!) when compared with examination of their sources of funding, Forms 990, and publications over time, as well as involved personnel.

Synergy page (partial, two columns, top half of each + callout) tries hard to convince readers that NCJFCJ and AFCC aren’t closely entwined or on the same page regarding diversionary justice, and handling of criminal matters within the family courts, and have no doubt significantly overlapping memberships, especially among family court judges. Or that AFCC, over time hasn’t had its own token (preferred) “DV” reps at conferences (such as Duluth’s DAIP’s (incl. major project BWJP’s Loretta Frederick), with DAIP as a special issue resource center as was NCJFCJ, as to HHS funding….)

Notice on other pages, the entities, some of the non-entities (IDVAAC is one, and HERE, unlike previously, except for some very fine-print navigation, until it spun off in Sept. 2013 (as I recall, or 2011), the BWJP, and the “Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence” [sponsoring nonprofit not referenced on the newsletter, but it was the health forum I’m referencing near top of this post.]

No mention is made that the IDVAAC was a project situated at a major research university (U-Minnesota).

I remember studying the other “multi-cultural institute” that “existed” before 2000 but received funding afterwards.  I’d looked it up at its initial place (a PO Box in NY), with nearly a half-million ($478K) initial government grants not reported on a tax return until the FY 2005, and at that time listed personnel appear to be women.  Continued “gov’t grants” of over $500K/year continued with next to NO other financial support for several years. By 2013, and at its new location in Mexico, the leadership includes two men prominent in the fatherhood field with reference to Latinos:  Etiondo Alderado (ck. spelling) and Fernando Mederos.  Tax return table and images right below this quote from the NCJFCJ newsletter:

Found at Synergy 2008 Newsletter, page 2 here: https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/synergy-12-1.pdf

(2nd para. that page)…As professionals interacting with domestic violence victims became more educated on the subject, the need for promising practices and high-quality information about domestic violence increased. Victims sought practical information about services, legal options, and navigating systems they were drawn into as a result of abuse. It became critical that national domestic violence tech- nical assistance providers develop and implement a shared vision across special issue areas to enhance safety and improve outcomes for battered women, children, and families.

In 1993, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responded to this need by funding a network of four resource centers to provide information, training, and technical assistance to federal, state, local, and tribal agencies; domestic violence programs; local community- and faith-based organizations; and other entities and individuals who provide services to violence victims, and to victims themselves.

These resource centers include the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRC), a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and special issue resource centers (SIRC’s): the Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody, a project of the Family Violence Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; the National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence, [column break,2-column layout, here] a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund; and the Battered Women’s Justice Project, a collaborative effort of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women.

A fifth SIRC, Sacred Circle: National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women, was created in 1998 to address violence against Native women.## In 2000, three multi-cultural institutes*** that were already established with little or no federal backing, were funded to address culturally- specific issues: the Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community; and the National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence (Institutes).**

 

## [[This is an interjection, #1 of 2, this one on “Sacred Circle”.  The quote is finished in similar background color, below it.. ]]  I don’t have this info. at my (mental) fingertips but did research it years ago, probably from having found HHS grants.  As I recall (which might be wrong) this might have spun off from DAIP or Praxis in Minnesota. It is searchable, or that may have been “Mending the Sacred Circle” (or “Hoop”)… Guess I should check:

Viewed 10/21/2017 in reporting “Sacred Circle Resource Center” https://www.nsvrc.org/ (see its About/History) is based in the state capital of Pennsylvania — Harrisburg).

On review, a website at “NSVRC” (Nat’l Sexual Violence Resource Center) out of South? Dakota, you can read that this “NRC,” as reported currently at NSVRC 2017, is operated by Cangleska, Inc., which was caught — by tribal members — in misappropriation of grants!  Guess they or the project needed a new name after that?  (Cangleska, Inc. is an HHS grantee — go check it out, and searchable on this blog; I did post on it years ago).  Meanwhile, after the IRS Form header info questions changed (expanded in details asked) in 2008 (for their fiscal year ending Sep 30, 2009) we can see that the Cangleska reports having started as far back as 1983….

Sacred Circle: National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women a brief  descriptive paragraph, underneath contact info, reads:

Location  777 Deadwood Avenue Rapid City,  SD 57702 United States

Phone: 877-733-7623

Fax: 605-341-2472

See map: Google Maps

Description

Operated by Cangleska, Inc., Sacred Circle aids tribes and tribal organizations to stop violence against Native women. It addresses violence against Native women in the context of the unique historical, jurisdictional, and cultural issues that American Indian/Alaska Native Nations face. It provides the focal point to establish a multi-faceted systemic response to facilitate non-violence in American Indian/Alaska Native communities, and to establish a domestic violence and sexual assault agenda for American Indian/Alaska Native tribes and tribal agencies. It also provides access to culturally specific information, materials, and specialized training institutes. The primary audience of Sacred Circle includes more than 500 federally recognized American Indian/Alaska native nations in the United States. Its focus is directed toward professional providers serving these communities, including tribal law enforcement personnel (judges, prosecutors and court workers), probation officers, shelter advocates, and batterer intervention providers.

Cangleska Inc — this gives an EIN# and shows, no returns, at least here under this EIN#, since 2010, but (see returns, or I’ll post a few images FYI) clearly mostly dependent on government grants — between $2 + $3M a year.  You can see (FY2007) where this was invested, primarily, and what type of liabilities, as well as the name “Artichoker” (related people helping run it) is searchable.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Cangleska	SD	2010	990	26	$2,158,883.00	46-0441476
Cangleska	SD	2009	990	22	$2,377,707.00	46-0441476
Cangleska	SD	2008	990	20	$2,851,816.00	46-0441476

Per IRS Search, it’s not longer eligible to receive tax-deductible donations, but hasn’t been revoked, and doesn’t show as having filed a Form 990-N (postcard).  I checked both EIN# and name-search, as described for “Nat’l Latino Alliance to End Domestic Violence” also on this post. It seems to qualify, then as a “took the money and ran” organization, however, that hasn’t stopped the NRCSV above, from continuing to post it as if legit.

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory) THIS ONE:  $2M into auto/transport and $1.5M liabilities + “cash deficits” of $650K and $804.8K “due to grantor” (i.e., required to reimburse?)??

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

Cangleska Inc (SD, EIN#46-0441476) Forms 990 mostly 2007 + 2008 excerpts~ 2017Oct21 (8 images, self-explanatory)

[End footnote ## on “Sacred Circle” from Synergy newsletter quote, p.2. Now to “Interjection #2 (although written first…]

---

 

 

Regarding, from Synergy quote where I left off…”(page 2 : https://www.ncjfcj.org/ sites/default/files/synergy-12-1.pdf In 2000, three multi-cultural institutes*** that were already established with little or no federal backing, were funded to address culturally- specific issues: the <>Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence; the <>Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community; and the <>National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence (Institutes).***  (“<>’s added this time…//LGH)

*** [[This is an interjection.  #2 of 2.  The quote is finished in similar background color, below it.. ]] Yes, and how interesting that NOT ONE OF THEM was its separate entity in 2000.  APIIDV was under the larger APIAHF (Asian Pacific Islander American Health Forum); The IDVAAC (which by them had obtained special consulting status on some grants under OVW, as I recall) never did incorporate that I can see, and was hidden under the giant University of Minnesota system, within the “CEHD” (Center for Education and Human Development) itself under the School of Social Work.

NY Business Entity search shows “2003” incorporation, although tax returns later claim a late 1990s startup for:

NYSOS, Nat’l Latino Alliance for Elim. of DV (search results/Details – 2003 Inc. date, NM current locale (only level of other info available here without paymt). No other dba (fictitious name) or prior name shown at bottom of this page.

NYSOS, Nat’l Latino Alliance for Elim. of DV (search results)

The National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence (some, shown below) started out in NY but ended up in New Mexico, possibly because of how it handled its NY filing responsibilities (as I recall).  It is active in New Mexico as a foreign (NY) entity but “Not in Good Standing” as we speak for having failed to file “2015, 2016, and 2017” annual reports.  Meanwhile, in NY it was “Registration Cancelled” (CharitiesNYS.com search will confirm this, or I may show, below) for failure to file in New York — after three short reports, 2006, 2007, and 2008.  One of the returns I saw reported over $400K grants received (per its “prior years” schedule on the IRS form) even in 2004 — but where is any tax return for FY2004?  Yet, it has filed no Forms 990-N (post card “we’re basically broke” claims) per the IRS website, ever, and has not been status-revoked as a tax-exempt, by the IRS.

And these are the main Institutes that have a voice — without specific accountability to the public — and are specially featured by this write-up (and plenty of others…).

(Found at Synergy 2008 Newsletter, page 2 here: https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/synergy-12-1.pdf, cont’d.)

Most recently, the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma and Mental Health emerged in 2005. This [[overall??] network, known as the National Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN), will celebrate its 15th year of service in 2008

[[Paragraphing and ALL coloring and emphases — it was B/W inside the newsletter framework in original — added by me.]]

PCADV, one of the larger funded “CADVs” as you see above, was involved in the only “NRC” referenced (until the one on “DV Trauma and Mental Health” in 2005), and in one of only four (later, five) “SIRCs” (Special Issue Resource Centers”), the one labeled (before becoming its own nonprofit later,” for short “BWJP” which I have posted repeatedly on, herein.

“Initial Tax Return” marked for FY2005, despite characterizations above as having been around previously…” Oddly the EIN# above doesn’t display under any of three options under the IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check Tool — either qualified to receive tax-deductible contributions, having been revoked, or having ever filed a Form 990-N (see IRS disclaimers). I checked the EIN# (which had been physically copied from the table above) and searched all three twice.  But when I did a name-search using only the word “elimination” (without specifying any state or using “EIN#)) as an organization name, and found it listed as “Allianza THE National Latino Alliance (etc.)” in Corrales NM — under the same EIN# (See “IRS” image):

(Click to enlarge if needed) Alianza (website DVAlianza.org) per IRS still legit EIN# but says its name begins with the word “Alianza, not “National Latino Alliance… or “The National Latino Alliance”” [my apologies for initially doubling the “l” in “Alianza”and not catching this at first.]

DVAlianza.org (EIN#830389571, Form 990 FY2005 “initial” location- NY; now its in NM).

DVAlianza.org (EIN#830389571, Form 990 FY2005 “initial” location- NY; now its in NM).

DVAlianza.org (EIN#830389571, Form 990 FY2005 “initial” location- NY; now it’s in NM). SHOWING $478,369 gov’t grants rec’d and website name mis-spelled in 2 places within 1 word: “DVAlinza.org”.

And as I’ve shown year, and that (Collaborative Justice) post or page will remind us, the 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) funded through HHS predated by ten years the passage in 1994 of VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act), funded through the DOJ.

Searched and found at CharitiesNYS.com — but click through (must repeat search first) to see it’s “REGISTRATION CANCELLED”

Details (top part of page) show entity was cancelled in NY for non-filing.. Bottom half of page (next image) shows for how long (about 3-4 years only) they managed to stay registered in NY)..”Dual” means it registered both as recipient and solicitor of grants in NY.

FY2005 NY Charities website: report of govt grants breakdown (HHS and DOJ both…)

How often it filed while in NY after getting initial funding (about 4 yrs only)…

In 2005, like other organizations I’ve seen, it apparently confused “grants to others” with “Grants to us” (same amount as recorded on p.1 as government grants TO the entity, 0 grants to anyone else listed, although they managed to over-spend a half-million-dollar budget by $1,000 that year.  ($151K to “Consultants”)…

SUPPORT SCHEDULE DVAlianza.org (EIN#830389571, Form 990 FY2005 “initial” location- NY; now it’s in NM) Tax return SHOWING (on Pg1 and Statemt of Revs) $478,369 gov’t grants out of $505K total Contribs &/or grants rec’d in 2005 and, here, $476,765 (Total) grants &/or contribs rec’d  in 2004 (but no return for 2004 found so far...) [this caption corrected post-publication ]..

That post deals with (talks about, posts information from) an ethnicity-specific group in and named after “health” (as in, a health forum)  taking on the domestic violence which then became “gender-based violence” issue.  I had looked at the tax returns previously; being in California, this entity and its spin-off nonprofit had more documents available to see through the state Registry of Charitable Trust (such as founding documents or the annual RRFs) before, noticed their “FuturesWithoutViolence” connections.The health forum’s familiar name is one reason I noticed the affiliation of the only legislative member of the “Executive Session for State Court Leaders” involving the National Center for State Courts‘ (“NCSC”) © 2013 publication (available for free on-line; and not that long, really) “Governance, the Final Frontier.” A look at the NCSC was natural to my post introducing a page, and the page on “Collaborative Justice: Problem-solving courts…the California Story.”  “Governance the Final Frontier” came up from a recent look at the NCSC website, and this write-up was apparently part of a Harvard-convened or involved “Executive Session.” So that’s where those terms came from (see next small box with names, publication dates, and a link).

All this prompted the title of that draft post, as I looked closer at the Executive Session, and reviewed the two involved nonprofits (which — as these things go — revealed others, including one very large, Buffet-funded tax-exempt NoVo Foundation backing project, “MoveToEndViolence” and its major subcontractor (also running MoveToEndViolence) the Raben Group, LLC.  I noticed “MoveToEndViolence” because of overlapping leadership.  That post was basically written earlier this fall.

https://novofoundation.org; click image to enlarge.

“We are humbled and honored to be able to contribute to building a world based on peace, compassion, justice and love. This is a big vision. We have a lifetime to do our part.”

Guess they are “world-builders.”  Reminds me of some science fiction movies… Would the word “empire” be a fair substitute, and historically, should it be believed?

Today’s update is distinct from my closer look/reminder at the health forum, spinoff, entity based on ethnicity post (still in draft, though mostly written) because I felt it appropriate to first summarize some of the recent complexities around their themes and to include — because it is also headline news meanwhile — the California’s Lit Up, but not on Tobacco references (news) which is major current news and to be honest, frightening.

Both this post and the one whose title shows next, linked from the “Collaborative Justice/Problem-solving Courts” page, should be published today, Oct. 20, 2017, or within 48 hours of each other.  (That “today” date kept getting moved back as I continued adding to the top part of this post!) The one you’re reading now will be published first.

*printed name is “Executive Session for State Court Leaders”; although conferences were evidently involved, I was using the wrong noun to describe it.

It took me years, writing this blog, to realize how pervasive the immense pressure to undermine and reframe the rule of law and definitions of what is and is not criminal in favor of “treatments” under the “health” scenario has become.  I saw it first at the federal, HHS grants level (2009ff)**: I reviewed and reposted again recently (2016?) on how the statewide coalitions against domestic violence (“CADV”) receiving, most of them, much LESS funding, and selected “special issue resource centers” in different states were given extra-large helpings of HHS sponsorship) — including the “NCJFCJ” (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges) had taken economic and funded-PR-time control of the standard “domestic violence prevention and services” protocol, with some nonprofits taking grants streams from USDOJ as well.

• [**Actually, in and/or just prior to 2009, I started looking at HHS grants (TAGGS.hhs.gov) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”) simultaneously — obviously one representing the public sector, the other, a professional/”trade” organization whose target membership were judges, family court lawyers, mediators, custody evaluatres, etc. and representing an emphasis on the behavioral sciences vs. criminal law (stated as part of its historya s far back as 1970s). Those two discoveries and lack of other exposure of them (especially AFCC as a corporation CONNECTED TO the HHS grants systems) were what, as I recall, prompted my starting this blog in the first place.  I had realized that commenting on it on other people’s blogs who were disinterested in keeping the spotlight on the money trails and systems and identifed vehicles for steering them FROm the public sector TO the privately controlled sector, i.e., systems of inter-connected and court-connected nonprofits, were quickly drowned out by “current events.”  I also realized that many bloggers were just re-posting, when not telling their (anecdotal to most people, regardless of how true) stories, and that repostings were often from news alerts or announcements by advocacy groups who had NO intention of reporting on the role of HHS (federal incentives) OR the AFCC as an organization with chapters, a professional journal, connections, and a private agenda to be applied to PUBLIC institutions such as entire state court systems.  I wanted to focus on presenting this information from a platform I could control, and which wouldn’t be serving as a conduit for “disinterested in reporting these things” groups. Hence, this blog.

And some with private sponsorship, and most of them NOT advertising on their websites or, apparently, telling those they “technically assisted and trained” to let slip any mentions or ongoing references to the reality (it does exist! and has for years) of the HHS marriage/fatherhood-promoting and/or much smaller, but still consistently being distributed year after year, access and visitation funding to gender-based (male-favoring) backlash in perception of gender-based favoritism as expressed in the VAWA (1994 passage) Act.  The direction towards males per se as the victims (i.e., there exists across public policy men and boys — males — as the dis-enfranchised gender) in particular was an easier sale to the establishment, including to women already in positions of power (such as those running the DV Advocacy groups among others, including but not limited to women: judges, family lawyers, directors of federal HHS or DOJ offices, and/or already in top social spheres (academic [Ivy League or married to it], marriage, business, i.e., heiresses, with or without their: husbands, brothers, fathers, grandfathers, and/or sons, controlling major foundations from the Board of Director perspectives)  when it emphasized lower-income, urban, black or Hispanic males, something George Soros’ Open Society Institute (Baltimore) featured also.  It’s a powerful calling-card because racism is known and acknowledged — I just don’t think exchanging a stand against sexism for one against racism should be an “either/or” proposition — but my opinion doesn’t seem to be a majority opinion.

Then in 2015 [a year I didn’t publish one post, but I did continue reading and writing it up] through 2017 especially, I ran across documentation (and posted it!) of how far back and how high up (i.e., UN level typically) this goes — whether it be the Global Framework for Tobacco Control, or “Health” as the organizing strategic paradigm or (earlier) the UN CRC (Convention on the Rights of Children) including the right to ongoing contact with both parents, directly related to the concepts of custody and divorce.  I discovered things progressively only as I continued looking more closely at the philanthropy sector and the grants sector, taking “core samples,” doing repeated “drill-downs” like a geologist, of the terrain.

RE:“Health In All Policies” (“HiAP”):  

I have been looking up “Health in All Policies,” “Health as an Asset,”  and  “Health as a Human Right.”  Of these, “HiAP” was so blatantly coordinated from WHO + the EU on down,** I’m showing it on a separate page, now also almost ready for posting.  (**and through federal (CDC), state (Calif. especially — started by Executive Order), and certain kinds of trade organizations representing state-or-lower health officers (APHA, NACCHO are two) and the “public/private promotion campaign (Oakland’s Public Health Institute also heavily involved).

What was found under “Health as an Asset” is also fascinating, and that information, (one occurrence and its significant and inter-connected organizations explored below),  I’ve explored below.  The HiAP post in referring to this one has also a section referring to some of its contents, particularly in reference to Rutgers’ University’s recent interest in things globally connected (it’s GAIA center & its “International Institute for Peace”).  That section makes it longer, but I have to put a limit on moving material around and time spent working on the connective tissue between related posts…

RE: HEALTH AS AN ASSET — SEE RECENT CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS:

The concept of “Health as an Asset” global organization continues: looking for the original reference (which turned out to be the phrase “Health in All Policies,”) I found a international new collaborative network at “ABIS.”  Notice the types of entities involved, and the language (“thought leadership”).

Health as an Asset (Johnson & Johnson CCT, Rutgers University and ABIS)

[“ABIS” stands for “Academy of Business In Society”] [colors and all emphases added]

In 2010-2011, ABIS, Rutgers University and the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust ## agreed to convene a series of thought leadership meetings around the advancement of health related decision-making in the global context. Over time, this became commonly known as “Advancing Health Decision-Making”, and has recently evolved its name to “Health as an Asset”.

The aim of this initiative is to create an international platform for experts drawing their expertise, passion & commitment from across the global spectrum – corporate, academic, donors, public policy and others – and all regions of the world, to meet in different “thinking spaces”, under Chatham House rules, for a “voyage of discovery” which identifies decision making concepts, models and processes that lead to better health outcomes.

After three successful meetings, the international platform of individuals and organisations, has developed a vision recognising Health as an Asset as the common theme and is committed both individually and jointly to realize a world where health is managed as an asset for the benefit of people, communities and society. This initiative will lead us to rethink the choices we make as individuals, communities but also from a systems perspective.

That’s nice, can we talk about how having self-selecting “Chatham House Rule” conferences — only three at this point so far! —  by people committed to “individually and jointly to realize a (certain kind of) WORLD,” and what that WORLD’s organizing principles should be,

(1) might conflict with existing, governmental decision-making processes and organizing principles historically purported to have a primary connection, at least in the USA and its federal and respective State constitutions, to the rule of law, or

(2) how inappropriate to have our (including yours, my, others’) transformations [[health outcomes, and implementation of a new WORLD policy on how to improve them]] being discussed by un-elected representatives with major financial clout at places far distant from the peoples’  home countries, and/or even continents?

##Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust was formed in only 2007 and focuses on the ‘EMEA” (Europe, Middle East and Africa).  Do readers remember what fields of business and trade J&J represents (if not, reminder is below), and that in the US specifically, the RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, originally funded and controlled by Johnson & Johnson family heirs) continues to show up as a philanthropy seeking to influence/steer US health, justice, and family policies, including the family courts?*

• *(I’ve showed it on this blog.  Look up the CFCC in Baltimore, at least one link under “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” sidebar menu deals with it; the same entity also has an “AFCC” connection, as to creation of the family court division in Maryland in the first place, not to mention that on of CFCC’s (startup only as I recall, about 2000 or 2001, right AFTER the family court division was declared by administrative ruling in the first place) major policies:  unified family courts (representing a collective subject-matter jurisdiction grab).

The J&JCT manages programs throughout three major world regions (“EMEA”) and probably is HQ’d in Europe, although the J&J Operating Companies’ HQ is I believe still in NJ.  So, how big are J&JCT’s finances. In what are its assets invested while (as a trust) under private control and without shareholders as a public-traded entity would be?

(Afterthought: Perhaps as U.S. Citizens (if the designation applies, and perhaps all other computer-fluent population living anywhere in the WORLD about to have its operating realities  transformed into the Health as an Asset world vision) we ought to make time — somehow– to learn to navigate ALL countries’ registrations of charitable trusts or private tax-exempt foundation databases, and start doing it, not to mention dedicate perhaps 25 – 50% of our waking / survival hours into ensuring we ALL understand our respective government financials, and accounting/reporting systems of the same, i.e., to balance the power of public/private partnerships with inspired world visions, logically, we must understand both the public and the private parts separately, and how they interact.  Particularly with regards to taxation. AND to the extent we congregate, meet, or develop any DIFFERENT world visions which involve respect of country borders and other such “archaic” (or politically incorrect) ideas, we might want to have these meetings also under “Chatham House rules” — that means, discuss the ideas, but make sure no individual person is credited for them, i.e., Anonymity and GroupThink should prevail.

The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust is responsible for managing Johnson & Johnson’s Global Community Impact programs and activities across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust (Trust) was founded in 2007 as a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. The Trust is funded by the J&J Family of Companies through J&J Global Community Impact and J&J Operating Companies in EMEA.

Operational structure and management

• The Trust is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 14 senior J&J leaders across the Pharmaceutical, Consumer, Medical Devices and Global Supply businesses in the EMEA region.

Notice meetings may occur anywhere in the world. One more reference on this trust, from the EFC (European Foundation Center) apparently in Belgium:

[JJCT] Background (found at EFC.be)

Johnson & Johnson is the world’s most comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of health care products, as well as a provider of related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical and professional markets. The Johnson & Johnson family of companies, consisting of more than 200 operating companies in 54 countries, has its worldwide headquarters in New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, where the company was founded over a century ago. The company currently employs 108,500 people.

Mission To make sustainable, long-term differences to human health

And the EFC (which says it’s been around only 25 years) is the foundation platform for “institutional philanthropy”:

The EFC is the platform for and champion of institutional philanthropy – with a focus on Europe, but also with an eye to the global philanthropic landscape.

With the aim of being the voice of institutional philanthropy in Europe, we communicate to stakeholders the value of organised philanthropy to society, to help nurture an environment in which it can flourish. We serve as a hub of sector exchange and intelligence, to help our members increase the impact of their added value in society.

With over 25 years of experience and over 200 member organisations, the EFC gives its members access to a wealth of knowledge on the sector and to long-term relationships with philanthropic peers and external actors. Building on relationships and dialogue with policymakers which span several years, we help our members engage with high-level decision-makers. We also partner with a range of actors and catalyse joint projects which tackle many of today’s greatest challenges.

Interesting, the Forbes 50 largest charities list (2016) as I recall didn’t even include (consider for the list) institutional foundations — university endowments, etc. — although they tend to be VERY large.. so what they do with their assets (where they’re invested) can make a major difference, if organized and wielded over time as a collective unit.

Going back to the “Health as an Asset” quote from ABIS and its Chatham House rule(s)…

It turns out there is ONE “Chatham house rule” not several, for that phrase. Reference to “Chatham House rules” is a reference to anonymity and reference to “Chatham House” is a reference to the RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs) in London, UK.  Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is an independent policy institute based in London and its is intent is world-building: Our mission is to to build a prosperous, just, and sustainable world.  https://www.chathamhouse.org/about It became “Royal” as opposed to just “British” when it incorporated which at the time 1927 and in that place was by charter of King George V, and subsequently, Queen Elizabeth II, as shown in their Royal Charter and Bye-laws, posted on the site.

Click image to enlarge if needed. Link provided in intro paragraph to quote.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.

For events held under the Chatham House Rule that are not organized by Chatham House, any actions taken because of a violation of the Rule are entirely at the discretion of the organizer.

Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for Members Events; more frequently for smaller research meetings, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive. Most Chatham House conferences are under the Rule.

Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used by local government and commercial organizations as well as research organizations.

From the by-laws (spelled “bye-laws” I gather in the UK), consider the original charter, and what it is by incorporating the RIIA actually doing.  Look at who was first appointed.   If this were done in the USA where we, allegedly, do not grant titles of this nature — because we are not a “kingdom.” (the “K” in “UK” still stands for “Kingdom,” does it not??)  They are creating a corporate person composed of already powerful people which can do, as any other corporate body could, or “our liege subjects,” sue and be sued, acquire and sell land, do business, and alter the seal, etc. etc.

Also notice that the royal person heading the RIIA is still considered (last I heard) Defender of the Faith” and in references to the extensive possessions/dominions “beyond the sea” of the empire, not to mention at the time, “Emperor of India.”

Chatham House RIIA charter, as pdf available on the website site under “About” page.

Chatham House RIIA charter, as pdf available on the website site under “About” page.

…..

NOW KNOW YE, that We being desirous of encouraging a design so laudable and salutary, of Our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion have willed, granted, appointed and declared and do hereby for Us, Our Heirs and Successors will, grant, appoint and declare as follows:

1. His Royal Highness Edward Prince of Wales, Knight of our Most Noble Order of the Garter, The Most Noble Victor Christian William Duke of Devonshire, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, The Right Honourable Edward Viscount Grey of Falloden, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter (also a President), The Right Honourable Arthur James Earl of Balfour, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter (also a President), The Right Honourable Edgar Algernon Robert Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (also a President), The Right Honourable David Lloyd George, Member of Parliament (also a President), The Right Honourable John Robert Clynes, Member of Parliament (also a President), Lieutenant-Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard,** and The Right Honourable James Scorgie Baron Meston of Agra and of Dunottar, Knight Commander of Our Most Exalted Order of the Star of India (Chairman of the Executive Committee of the British Institute of International Affairs), and such other persons as are now Members of the said Institute known as the British Institute of International Affairs or may hereafter become Members of the body corporate hereby constituted pursuant to the provisions of these presents or the power hereby granted shall for ever hereafter be one body corporate and politic by the name of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and by the same name shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to break alter vary and make anew the [page break]

said seal from time to time at their will and pleasure, and by the same name shall and may sue and be sued in every court of Us Our heirs and successors and in all manner of actions and suits, and be for ever able and capable in the law to purchase, receive, possess, hold and enjoy to them and their successors any goods and chattels whatsoever and to act in all the concerns of the said body politic and corporate as effectually for all purposes as any other of Our liege subjects or any other body politic or corporate in the United Kingdom not being under any disability might do in their respective concerns, and shall have power to do all other matters and things incident or appertaining to a body corporate.

2. WE DO ALSO HEREBY for Ourselves and Our Successors licence authorise and for ever hereafter enable the Royal Institute of International Affairs (in this Charter hereinafter called ‘the Institute’) or any person or persons on its behalf to acquire and hold and enjoy to themselves and their successors, notwithstanding the Statutes of Mortmain, any lands tenements or hereditaments now held by or belonging to the now existing unincorporated body known as the British Institute of International Affairs or by or to any person or persons on its behalf, and also to acquire any additional lands tenements and hereditaments which may be necessary for carrying out the purposes and objects of the Institute and to hold all or any lands which the Institute is hereby authorised to acquire in perpetuity or on lease or otherwise, and from time to time, but subject to all such consents as are by law required, to grant, demise, mortgage, exchange, alienate or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof and apply the proceeds of any such disposition for the purposes of the Institute subject however to the provisions of this Our Charter.  [ETC.  read more here:]

**As image above says,Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard, one of the petitioners to incorporate, had provided the moneys for purchase of Chatham House.

Who is ABIS? (Academy of Business In Society) — based in Brussels, Belgium and with members (see map) across five continents (I see only TWO in the US:  “Net Impact” and “Global Sustain.” They have a map).  Co-founders referenced, in addition to the business schools, including “UN Global Compact.”

Our Story ABIS (formerly known as EABIS) was founded in 2001 and launched at INSEAD** in 2002 with the support of the leading Business Schools in Europe (INSEAD, IMD, London, ESADE, IESE, Copenhagen, Warwick, Vlerick, Ashridge, Cranfield, Bocconi) in partnership with IBM, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and Shell.

This initiative was driven by a shared belief that challenges linked to globalization and sustainable development required new management skills, mindsets & capabilities.  || In order to respond to this need and to support research to underpin better education and learning, ABIS developed a stronger role in the arena.

**INSEAD “(graduate) Business School for the World” was founded in 1957 in France, and has campuses in Europe and Asia and the Middle East  “”INSEAD” is originally an acronym for the French “Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires” or European Institute of Business Administration. Wikipedia Address: Boulevard de Constance, 77300 Fontainebleau, France PhD: 80+ PhDs

The Two USA Thumbtacks on ABIS “membership” global map:  Global Sustain & Net Impact

Click image for website in English.

(from the ABIS website, accessed from the map of member location): Global Sustain offers innovative online and off-line services related to sustainability, corporate responsibility, responsible investing, green economy, business ethics and excellence, transparency, human rights and accountability. Its members include corporations, non-governmental and non-profit organisations, municipalities and local authorities, academic institutions, media, professional bodies, service providers, chambers, think tanks and other public or private entities.

---

From Global Sustain’s own website (to access, click on its logo image above/partial list):

Since 2006, Global Sustain provides a wide range of services and solutions to support its members and clients succeeding triple bottom line results. Based in London and Athens, with offices in Berlin, Brussels, London, New York and Zurich,  {{repeats descriptive sentences shown above…}} Global Sustain:

Global Modern Slavery Supply Chain Summit / M2M link…

• Facilitates synergies among members, between the corporate and third sectors as well as key stakeholders.
• Effectively communicates CSR and sustainability news, reports, events and information on behalf of members and clients, with a global audience.
• Is a UN Global Compact signatory and founding member of the Global Compact Network Hellas since 2008 and member of United Nations Global Compact Network Belgium, since November 2012.
• Is a signatory to the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Initiative.
• Is a member and partner of leading global media organisations such as CSRwire, Inc., Ethical Performance, Business Wire etc. …

The only other USA connection in “ABIS,” also an “Affiliate Member” shown on member map was “Net Impact” in California — targeting professionals and students (chapters at colleges), to “make a difference in the world.”  ABIS site described as in SF; its website now says in Oakland (across the SF Bay from SF, in “East Bay”).  Image and quotes from a organization? website:

ABIS affiliate member (context: “Health as an Asset” conference at Rutgers) Net Impact (Calif.) advertising its Oct 2017 conference in Atlanta.

ABIS member description of “Net Impact”: Net Impact is a leading nonprofit that empowers a new generation to use their careers to drive transformational change in the workplace and the world. At the heart of their community are over 50,000 student and professional leaders from over 300 volunteer-led chapters across the globe working for a sustainable future. Together, they make a net impact that transforms our lives, our organizations, and the world.

NetImpact.org page footer with Oakland addr.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

I looked through the website and took many screenprints (images) from a closer look at its tax returns and charitable details available at the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (run by the Office of Attorney General).

I noticed several things (such as claiming 1993 origin on its tax returns, 2004 incorporation, registered only 2006 as a charity, and resisted filing its initial tax returns form FY2005, 2006, and 2007 until the OAG got after them in 2012, leaving the question, what was it doing, if it was, for nine years from 1993-2004?  And why are no founding documents, independent auditor’s financial statements uploaded there? I also looked some more at the incorporating lawyer (2004, Joshua A. Ridless) who has connections to the SF Bar, SF-Marin Lawyer Referral Information and Services (LRIS).  NetImpact is making revenues from its chapters work, and in recent years, its “program service revenues” have outstripped its contributions, which are all, it seems, either private (not government) or membership dues.

Any connection of its incorporating lawyer to Net Impact other than being its original incorporating lawyer is not known.  Here’s a photo (click either image to enlarge as usual):

Top left, standing (blue suit) man was incorporator of ABIS member “Net Impact” in 2004, with Net Impact’s subsequent tax returns claiming a 1993 origin. image from Comar Law

Ridless as part of SFLRIS photo was @ Comer Law (cf Net Impact) SShot 2017Oct16 @ 2.42PM

A conflict of stated dates received from the Charitable Details Page as summarized on the Registry and the request for missing documents many years later (as well as the Received by OAG date & time stamp on uploaded images). Not sure how much of this is of major interest to the post; all of it is simply observation of sources I’ve shown on this blog year after year, and which anyone else who reads these sources, with some attention to detail, could take notes and generalize or compare what’s found to other organizations and their practices.  It is interesting, however, that ABIS references this entity seeking to mentor, direct, and network with new professional talent — internationally.  Here’s printout of charitable details pages (links will be active), and a more recent Tax return (all of it) Net Impact (EIN#030552976, CalEntity#2714384, Reg Charity only 2005 but Forms 990 say started 1993) Calif OAG Chart Details @Oct 2017 — No FoundingDox or Independently Audited FS ~~4pp |  Net Impact (030552976) FY2015 (YE Jun30) Form 990, rec’d OAG Feb 2016 (completed on IRS Yr2014 return) 37pp 958329

What follows are many images from either the filings or (in one or two cases) re: Mr. Ridless’ (his mother’s obituary, a designer, made the NYT, an unfortunate death in her late sixties (with long-time partner, she had been a widow at the time) from carbon monoxide poisoning from keyless-ignition cars which failed to turn off. There was a designer “Randy Ridless” who also died in 2009 and who appears to have known (relative?) the lawyer while young, and if a brother, may not have made the mother’s obituary (although normally this is also reported) because he died earlier — I just do not know. These are less relevant, and are all “thumbnail” size (click to enlarge if you want).  I also notice, sadly, that while his mother lived until 2012, his father died in Florida, 2000, but before hand, was apparently, with another Florida couple, defrauded (grand theft, combined of $85,000) for which a certain attorney, having admitted to this, was disbarred in NY. The guy pleaded no contest (it was before the disciplinary committee).

From “leagle.com”: Matter of Kirschner

 263 A.D.2d 154 (1999)

699 N.Y.S.2d 399

In the Matter of WILLIAM M. KIRSCHNER (Admitted as WILLIAM MARTIN KIRSCHNER), an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

December 9, 1999. (click link to read — it’s a short opinion)..

I’m sorry to hear of this (horrible news for any offspring to hear), and will be careful in the future of keyless ignitions.

J. Ridless a presenter (last named on image) at a brown-bag (lunchtime) event.

There’s also a lengthy article in a Cleveland IndyMedia referencing, among other things, “pump and dump” (pump up value of stocks, then sell them at the inflated value) regarding an “Image Entertainment” company, which Ridless apparently advised regarding; the writer is angry at him for having suppressed indymedia posts using the “anti-Semite” label.  I don’t understand it well enough to comment, but it’s the only negative comment on Mr. Ridless (and not specifically on him only) I found.

He has his own law firm apparently and has been involved with the legal power structure in the state for many years, after degrees (including J.D.) from UC Berkeley, per his LinkedIn.

Here’s the “Cleveland IndyMedia” forum article (several pages long, I’ve annotated (marked up) some of the relevant passages, but I cannot dismiss or validate any of the facts.  Its concepts are interesting.  Cleve IndyMedia (Sev’l refs to Joshua A Ridless, Inc of NetImpact (2004, Calif) re Pump+Dump stocks for ImageEntertanmt+more-Annotate!U.S.SEC Cyber Czar John Reed Stark,Steve Honig, Josh .

Getting back to the nonprofit, not its incorporating attorney (repeat disclaimer; only relationship known with the group).  Net Impact isn’t that remarkable as a nonprofit, and other than its mention by the ABIS as one of only two “US Members,” obviously having some nice start-up funding and aiming for the younger generation of professionals to get them connected with existing professionals, wouldn’t catch my attention.  However, when I did look a little closer at its long-time executive diretor, Elizabeth Maw, I saw her Bridgspan background and Ivy league background, which IS relevant because Bridgespan is.

The website posts no financials, and even the colorful (very) ads for an upcoming (Oct. 2017) conference in Atlanta didn’t encourage readers to see conference registration prices until ready to buy, and even then, in fine print, light-font.

Notice the context and topic; two more images include acknowledgmts citing to Boston Group and Bridgspan, and the 3rd references Ms. Maw of Net Impact as a speaker. I believe conference date was 2014; image shows source URL in two places near the top.

Taproot conference (See nearby image). Boston Consulting Group and a woman as Partner and Head of the SF Office for the Bridgespan Group, etc.

From the Taproot conference, Speaker 7 is Elizabeth Maw.

Net Impact Charitable Registr in Calif (Oakland CA) showing EIN#

Early Executive Director who had salary increases over the years, and more paid officers added to the group, was/is Elizabeth Maw. Looking her up (after viewing the tax returns) I see she is showing Ivy League Education (Yale, Columbia MBA) and work with the Bridgspan Group — which explains a lot about the character of Net Impact! (Bridgspan style of consulting is searchable on this blog; I discovered it as a subcontractor on another nonprofit or foundation I’d been studying at the time).  Bridgspan – Bain – Boston Consulting – HBS (Harvard School of Business) have connections and inter-relationships.  Bridgspan focuses on consulting for nonprofits as Bain did, I guess, more for-profits.)

(No more on “Net Impact”),

Continuing Discussion (from much nearer top of this post):

It must have taken me years, while writing this blog, to realize the immense pressure to undermine the rule of law and definitions of what is and is not criminal in favor of “treatments” under the “health” scenario.

One reason it took so long, (to realize the above situation) despite sensing it experientially and in organizations once I noticed groups like Family Violence Prevention Fund (now ‘Futures without Violence’) going for the funding and focusing on the “health” scenario also, all along, was that the vehicles of organization and financing were often not (1) local or (2) in their names or described activities, primarily specific to the field, and (3) because conflicting but parallel sets of laws were in place** — and systems to go with them — to throw the average person “off the scent.”  The courtroom doors do not advertise which one is in operation at the time.  See blog extended title:  “Family — and Conciliation — Courts..”

• ** Both criminal & civil/Family, and
• within the Family Code as to domestic violence (a) one section talking about rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to the batter, and another  section of the same family code re: conciliation, two different sections of (at least in California) the same Family Code.
  • Courts are not color-coded or clearly flagged; but in metro areas, apparently a presiding judge could declare some docket a “conciliation” docket (I haven’t reviewed this information recently, however).
  • I have yet to see a lawyer (locally, over time, I’d made many calls seeking help, including some that showed up at free clinics, or others in referral services) who likes to or does talk openly, mention by name, the AFCC or about the federal incentive grants — or the difference in these dockets. However, by at least 2010, I noticed in a “Family Court Facilitator” area (help as to format, not content, for pro se people preparing pleadings / paperwork) that the brochures were 90% by AFCC. I noticed this in two neighboring counties in the area.
  • By the time I became aware of the significance of this inherent conflict, my professional life was “gone” and so were both my children, from the household they’d been living in until just barely a teen (for one) and just starting high school (for the other).

By “average person,” I mean people not on the nonprofit/foundation networking roundtables and payrolls — or volunteer boards, being independently wealthy elsewhere. Such people already seem aware of the situation, and view it as a positive. — they are working and IN that public/private arena.  

Other working, or wish-they-were-working “average” people I’ve been in touch with — working now or retired, younger or older, parents or nonparents, married or (some) historically single — and I talk, network, communicate both locally with people I encounter in public, and people on-line over the years who have expressed a concern about safety for women (VAWA and DV issues) in the family court system — just don’t see it relevant to their personal well-being to take a serious look at the accounting and financing of the nonprofit sector as it influences government — outside anything but a political framework. Those who do will not be accepted into the advocacy community unless they downplay, minimize or dismiss the importance of the nonprofit sector or restrict criticism of nonprofit groups to those on the “other” side of any issue at hand.  It is not being studied systematically to grasp the scope of influence it actually has on government.  And most do not see it as anything to organize policy or change around.  They will see, marvel, express indignation or concern, and go back to feeding off media from either a conservative or a progressive viewpoint as “the reality” and rock-bottom truth of situations today.

I consider most of that pre-digested, shrink-wrapped, and often nutritionally deficient information.  It’s food, but it doesn’t generate the kind of thought required to handle issues across subject matters, and across size of operations (large to small), and it doesn’t follow the money.

So, because of my tendencies to want to know this information, over time I’ve deduced I don’t fall into that “average person” even though there are plenty of smart, educated women of my demographic and type of case history (filed for protection, railroaded into family court, and suddenly protection walks off stage, leaving work life, financials, and social relationships exposed to ongoing harassments and escalating events, repeat trips to court — for us each time via a court-connected mediator* who required more compromise and turned a deaf ear and blind eye to court order violations (ongoing), threats to kidnap, and actual kidnapping that just happened (!!) — destroyed there over time — case-churning year after year)… *[some families who are perceived to have more wealth are appointed instead of a single-session mediator,  billing-by-event (and/or time) custody evaluators and supervised visitation monitors and anything else that can be added — GALs, parenting coordinators, re-unification specialists] in many different states within the USA (not including a few who fled the country).

[Repeat sentence from near top of post:] ….the posts already in the “pipeline” [have been] referencing, basically and most recently the themes of (a) Big Tobacco Litigation/Smoking Cessation Control (Public policy) Efforts and (b) The Problems with Problem-solving Courts (“Collaborative Justice”), which includes the development and implementation nationwide of family courts, too.

When “drill-downs and look-ups” are done on either theme (a) or (b), one is all but forced to look at the public/private partnering per se carried through cause after cause, and at the how tax-exempt sector is being used less than transparently to accomplish not just big, but literally global goals.

For example, in a different recent post (“Public Health Service Act Timelines“) I looked again at how the UN (and WHO as a special resource of the UN) “Global Tobacco Framework” requires signing states (and the US signed) to promulgate “National, regional and local laws” to, essentially, push for tobacco cessation.  Doing this then generates, at the HHS/NIH and CDC levels within the USA at least, more and more funded projects — and expenditures which drives money into the private sector — especially the private marketing sector….which is hardly surprising — as marketing any product or service requires campaigns to persuade the public to consume it or, case in point here, QUIT consuming it…. but $54 MILLION from American Legacy Foundation as early as 2002 going to a single marketing firm in Boston — really?  and $11M going to “MediaHead, LLC in Newark NJ — and entity I couldn’t even find!

Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gave the FDA authority now over tobacco and tobacco products.  I checked this out on 21CFR (Chapter 1 = the Food and Drug Administration, although the Act which Title 21 represents is now the “Food Drug and Cosmetic Act”).  This includes the privilege of setting new rules on packaging and advertising (in part because old warnings tend to lose their impact over time, so it was foreseen that newer, even more intense ones, were important)….

Found via FDALabel comment at “SmokersHistory.com”; access the pdf there or HERE: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv1482-58<=== link to the entire Memo. Opinion<==

Title 21, Part 1100, “Scope”: “In addition to FDA’s authority over cigarettes, cigatrette tobacco, roll-your own …and smokeless tobacco…. FDA deems ALL OTHER PRODUCTS MEETING THE DEFINITION OF TOBACCO PRODUCT UNDER SECTION 201(rr) (except accessories) to be subject to the federal FD&Cosmetic Act — except accessories of (the same).

From the recent post, look for the face sheet of the litigation stemming from 2010 rule by the FDA. Some sample images above for points of reference within that post… Keep reading…

As you can see FIVE companies (including RJReynolds, Lorillard and Liggett Co., LLC) SUED the US Government (HHS and its Secretary, FDA and its Commissioner) because of their over-reaching in the new rule adding “graphic images” to packing requirements for the FDA.  The tobacco companies won Summary Judgment; while they had two causes, the main one (violations of the First Amendment!) provided enough basis for the win.  FDA had to back down some.  They’re still at it, though….

So now the FDA and the HHS are causing further litigation (from some of the tobacco who settled) as late as 2012 over requirements to include graphic, symbolic, and intending not to communicate factual information about cigarettes, but provoke a negative emotional response to trigger the desire to quit in viewers.  I’ve posted on this (many images and some quotes — “Public Health Service Act Timelines” post — recently, almost as soon as I discovered it, while trying to sort through the various new components of HHS and NIH geared towards behavioral health modifications and proving they’re doing a great job at it!

Earlier, American Legacy Foundation (flush with awards from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement):

Amer. Legacy Fndtn FY2002, showing major subcontractors — no commas, but count the digits — that’s $54M to Arnold Communications (which by then was called Arnold Worldwide, anyhow — see MA entity records).

<==Look at the numbers on image to left, Subcontractors, including how many claimed but not named, at the bottom of IRS form pg.7)): $54M + $11M + $2.3M (Porter-Novelli) + $7.9M (Research Triangle Institute in NC, well known, for “EVALUATION” + $3.0M to a SoCal (Los Angeles) Community TV = ca. $68.2 or most of the (elsewhere, same return) $87M claimed for “Contractor Services” — of which the next image shows there were still (41 – 5=) 36 other entities paid over $100K as independent subcontractors — in 2002 only!!   {$87M shown on small image with blue border; I’ve posted it before.  Click image to enlarge and see that the largest item in “other expenses” there was Contractor Services — which by definition would include those listed on the other image.}  “Other expenses” of $91M was THE major expense of ALF that year — and I deduce it was going to places where “the sun don’t shine…” at least from seeing this Form 990.  It could very well be going to “fees for friends” set-up within the advertising, public relations and marketing field. … as originally pushed through by the “Lasker syndicate” which wealth itself came from one of the premier advertising agencies of the early 1900s (Lord & Thomas in Chicago)….  ALL of this organized and promoted in good part through funding the private, philanthropic, nonprofit sector with the acquired wealth — pushing for expansion of HHS (well, formerly HEW) expenditures and increase of institutes, centers, etc. — ALL of which will impact the public’s need to support the whole infrastructure, good or bad, honest or dishonest, and transparent, or opaque with black holes of accountability when it hits the 990s or 990PF-filing entities large and/or small.

ALF FY2002, $87M in “Contract Services” is major “Other Expense” of $91M total.

I have some questions about who really set up whom here. The gov’t entities sued, somewhat unanimously it seems, in mid-1990s, and by 1998, they’ve settled and are being paid off, in exchange for giving up future claims.

Eventually “ALF” became “Truth Initiative” and the website talks proudly about its size and purposes (in light-gray font).

 

Question: If we are really being run from afar (that is from global NGOs working to push for treaties that individual members sign to — this being only one example) then what is the point of having national laws and the U.S. Constitution in the first place?  Or even state laws, other than to serve the global beliefs of those working at the global level?  At what point is a bell rung, or a “downbeat” given, and the notice sent out — “TIME!” and the pretense of having national constitutions, including in the USA, go into status “suspended” — or is that never intended, but instead the public should continue to be encouraged to subscribe to the belief that it’s in effect, meaningful, and we have remaining rights under it, enforceable for our own good and personal safety while pursuing:  Life, Liberty and Happiness as UNalienable rights???

Why all this matters to me?  (Read “About Holidays/Speaking Personally” narrative of my experiences leaving abuse.)  When you come that close to losing life itself, and have survived chronic in-home, at-home, battering, assaults, coercion and all things “anti-American” (or so we like to think) from within a committed marriage situation — you come out knowing that “enough is enough!” and not about to condone more of the same — whether from the same individual, others nearby, or anyone else.

You start valuing those “rights,” perhaps more than people without their lives at routine risk and small children nearby.  So you don’t “fit in” with the culture of, in practice, constant compromise — while the DV agencies continue to accept their fundings and run PR campaigns on what’s right and wrong in that category, and get press each time someone else gets murdered locally in the context of the field they are supposed to be making “a thing of the past” — like some wish “smoking” to become also!

Meanwhile — California’s on fire… of a different sort:

On one of the recent posts, I commented that, while working so hard (and expensively) to clean up California’s Air through the Tobacco Control Act and Anti-Smoking Ordinances (much of this coordinated through UCSF Centers (plural) taking NIH and I guess FDA funding, millions of dollars of such funding) — and turning the metro area into a car-unfriendly metro region also (ABAG agenda…) — often on a summer day, when I step outside, the air still smells smoky.

But it’s not cigarettes, or even recreational marijuana — it’s forest fires.  It was so bad today, smelled the way a nice autumn fireplace (controlled, from chimneys) from my childhood on the East Coast.  Only these weren’t “controlled” fires.  California’s grasslands and forests are often on fire.  Right now, there are some in NAPA and Sonoma County.  It was so strong I called the non-emergency local fire department.  The sky is white, not blue (unusual for our region this time of year, and a sudden change for the worse from the days before).  I remember smelling similar (maybe not so strong) in previous summers, especially 2015…cars parked outside would be littered with ash…

Fires seem to have broken out “almost simultaneously” across a “wide swath of Northern California.”

From SFCurbed.com: Map of California N Bay Wildfires, “Burned cars sit idle after a wildfire moved through the area on October 9, 2017 in Glen Ellen. Photo Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

Map of California North Bay Wildfires (update) An estimated 20,000 have already been evacuated. (SFCurbed.com)
BY BROCK KEELING@BROCKKEELING  OCT 10, 2017, 10:48AM PDT

Update: The death toll has climbed to 15, with hundreds of missing persons reported. New fires have also been reported in Marin County, while smoke and ash continue to blanket San Francisco. And as of Tuesday, more than 90,000 PG&E customers in the North Bay are without power.

The North Bay wildfires, which are believed to have begun Sunday night in Napa, have caused widespread destruction throughout Wine Country and beyond. An estimated 1,500 structures have already been destroyed, while more than 65,000 acres burned as of Monday morning.

Most offices and schools are closed for the day. Roughly 20,000 residents have been evacuated. … The series of blazes, none of which have been contained as of Monday afternoon, have spread throughout several counties in Northern California—specifically, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, Lake, Nevada, Butte, Calaveras, Shasta, and Yuba.

And:

This time, click image to access article in The Sacramento Bee.

The Sacramento Bee: Northern California Fires At a Glance

BY DAVID CARACCIO
dcaraccio@sacbee.com

OCTOBER 10, 2017 9:00 AM

Wildfires broke out almost simultaneously across a wide swath of Northern California, then grew exponentially over Monday and Tuesday, and swallowed up properties from wineries to trailer parks and urban subdivisions.

At least 15 people were declared dead as of Tuesday morning. There were reports of 150 people missing in Sonoma County. As many as 1,500 homes and businesses have been destroyed.

Several other major wildfires were raging through Northern California. Here’s a glance, updated at 4 p.m. Tuesday, from Cal Fire estimates (a statewide map can be seen below):

Read more here<==

(I started this post many days ago.  The California fires are now national headlines also, so I’ll keep the references to them short.  I do have a car, and it is typically covered with grit from them, like many people’s, simply coming down from the air — although it’s not from this county, but ones within driving distance in N.California.  I also in the 1990s lived through the Oakland hills fire, although its cause seems to have been different, it was destructive.  In 1989, there was an earthquake, a portion of the Oakland/SF Bay Bridge collapsed on itself.

These types of destructions, however dramatic they are, differ in quality and continuity from that caused by political, economic, legislative and corporate power-mongering, the “expand the nonprofit sector” way, to compromise the rule of law and enforcement of it, with jurisdictions as described in those laws, as a primary value to be respected and upheld.

End, October Local & Posts-in-the-Pipelines Update: