Archive for December 2017
Parent Coordination Central (.com) isn’t. Unless Coordinating a Sequence of Adm. Dissolutions was part of the plan? Neither “is” (as a Georgia nonprofit) either The Cooperative Parenting Institute, Inc. or Nat’l Parent Coordination Association, Inc. (Susan Boyan, Anne Marie Termini joint websites and “flash-in-the-pan” Georgia nonprofits, revisited, Dec. 2017)
I was looking at Massachusetts AFCC filings and website again recently, in the context of reunification camp “Overcoming Barriers” being advertised on the site; a topic I’m posting on currently, and very concerned about; the practice seems so aggressive towards minor children and can involve and has involved hauling them (transporting, including by airplane) cross-country for group therapy and re-indoctrination, “deprogramming parental alienation” camps.
MA AFCC “Resources for Families” page, featuring, among other offerings, the 501©3 “Overcoming Barriers.” Parental Alienation-antidote,a.k.a. reunification therapy (or camps)….
(Overcoming Barriers website detail: Our Approach) viewed 12/19/2017
MA AFCC web page featuring Parent Coordination (see website for active links)
Anyhow, I noticed that the MAAFCC.org website, which is pretty basic, not overly populated with information, does take time to advertise and talk about Parent Coordination, and its certification (i.e., get trained to be listed as a provider). It also shows this to have been, it seems, a very recent (2017) administrative ruling to make it, or some new element of it, happen.
Home page of AFCC chapter in MA. Fairly straightforward.
MA AFCC Articles of Incorp (partial, from state business entities search site)
So… on the topic and title of “Parent Coordinator,” like others AFCC members (under its name or under other significant organizations or center they may have been involved with) helped sponsor as professions, such a dispute resolution, or mediator, or the concept of “collaborative divorce,” etc., just because this may not be making headlines on “outraged parent news” journalism, including about parents periodically suing over it in protest, doesn’t mean the court-ordered practice or judicial involvement in certifying or training people for it (to get referral business from the courts) has ceased operations.
Click to enlarge. Self-explanatory. Found on MAAFCC.org website on a page dedicated to “Parenting Coordination” news.
Some apparently have, though, it seems ceased staying legally registered at the state level. The ones in Georgia here, I DNR whether I ever found related tax returns. There may have been Forms 990-N filed (or, maybe not), but it’s not on my priority list to check the IRS individually for these.
Post title:
To be honest, I wanted to refer to this, check back because I referred to it, but not clutter up the original post. Parent post (this will probably be published right after it, and before Christmas Day, 2017) is “Incentivizing Reunification Camps while Family Policy already sets the stage for Familial Abductions.” (short-link ending “-8fE”). The post you’re reading now IS short; consider it a footnote only (not a major expose!)…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Incentivizing Reunification Camps While Existing (Family) Policy Already Sets The Stage for FAMILIAL Abductions. [Publ. Dec. 23, 2017]
This post is: Incentivizing Reunification Camps While Existing (Family) Policy Already Sets The Stage for FAMILIAL Abductions (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8fE” published Dec. 23, 2017).
On a Saturday night after working more on this and a related post, including processing new information, and Monday Dec. 25, 2017, being a well-known major holiday (for which I have no particularly different plans — there are no family members, at all, to contact with whom I have any ongoing communications or that I have seen face to face since, oh, about 2011.. Which isn’t to say they aren’t missed!!), I’m going to publish it, although there is obviously more subject matter to cover. I know it’s interesting and has some good links, and images too, within.
This post might be a wake-up call, and I hope it will wake some up to what is, literally, being set in streamlined infrastructure, to use the fields of mental health, particularly psychology, to justify taking children by force and separating them from one parent, driving and/or flying them out of state (or country!) to be deprogrammed on the premise that failure to bond with both parents is evidence of having been brainwashed (Regardless of bad behavior including chronic abuse, by the one they don’t want to see, which these courts are pre-set to tune out unless it qualifies under their unique definition of abuse: reporting it) by one or the other.
In the process, both children AND the caretaking parent (often a mother) can also be threatened with jail OR jailed, be ordered to lie to the children, leaving them subject to additional stress and trauma, not to mention the caretaking parent, and in general raise hell via the family courts in almost any neighborhood.
Now that enough people are being constantly traumatized through these means, and on the advice of the group(s) which repeated, like a mantra, the real intent was to reduce the adversarial nature of divorce and destigmatize it,** then it’s time to hold conferences (one shown below, coming up this next summer) on compassionate and trauma-informed courts. This is fun and obviously profitable for those involved.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].
I started this on and as a post update to one I wanted to cite to (first published June 15, 2011, already with a 2016 update; apparently the topic retains its relevance…), but from slightly different angle of approach, as it explains in the first few paragraphs.
- Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case and “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-JR”. Publication date added to title later]. Originally about 11,200 words. Some image links have been broken, a few (not all) replaced later.
This post title: Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC,” written Dec. 16-21, 2017.
Some extra length comes from extra findings during the write-up, my discussion (including a footnote) about the “transformative grammar” involved in the phrase “Transitioning Families,” preliminary information discovering that an LLC of that name formed to hold the trademark Nov. 30, 2016 only lasted (was voluntarily cancelled before even one full year) until July 19, 2017. Although there were documented major fires in the area (Northern California, Sonoma County), California Fire report (and news) showed them as occurring after the LLC shut itself down voluntarily the previous summer. (The fire, burned over 56,000 acres, reported in Oct. 2017). The cancellation remains unexplained — I note that the existence of the LLC wasn’t exactly made public on the website anyhow.
USPTO.gov/TESS search results (nearby images = details from this one)
Regarding the “(™)’d” comment in the post title, here’s some proof, for the phrase referenced. I looked it up at USPTO.gov, “TESS” (Trademark Electronic Search System) by individual name (after not finding the longer phrase, “Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model” (or “TFTRM”) trademarked) and, it was registered — just recently and just a month before an article citing to it came out in the April, 2016 Family Court Review (Patience!, I show that below) — and as I suspected, owned by a single individual, giving that individual the appearance of an actual business where none is recorded:
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages? [Published Dec. 17, 2017]
The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:
This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.
It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)
Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages. But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.” All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the higher the bills, the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies to change the outcome.
But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts. The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.
That’s why I say the game is “rigged.” It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it. Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.
Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.
We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a. Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:
QUESTION: What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….
LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners
…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.
Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.
…why is the same basic routine under “family-friendly policy,” and when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse — somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017)).
Post title and case-sensitive shortlink (this time, ending “-87w”):
The best way to explain this post straddling two different ones (“NRA (not) on the Record” and the original “RHF”/ Robin Hood Foundation ones) might be as unfinished business unearthed right AFTER I posted (admitting that the information was not pretending to be complete on the topic) on several inter-locking gun control organizations in DC, and in SF, being funded (some of them) from Chicago, and with connections at some level to Arizona because of the 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords…
(I’ll say that again below…)
The post title with shortlink and start/publication dates usually shown here, at the top of a post, but this time comes after long “foreword” on a recent headline involving the Law Center, among the (now they’re called) “Giffords” organizations I was researching at the time.
That post title with shortlink, shown about halfway down the page (of course and in the title space above, just without the link) represents the main and original post topic, which follows up on this information only discovered just before I published the last NRA (not on the record) post also covering some of the gun control organizations, including this and related ones…
Labelled “Giffords PAC” (OpenSecrets.org, courtesy Center for Responsive Politics) as of the 2018 cycle but “Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC for 2016 and previous 2014 cycles. Statement of Organization with the FEC was only in 2013. “NOTE: This committee is a so-called Carey committee, a hybrid PAC/super PAC.”
- Carey Committee: A Carey committee is a hybrid political action committee that is not affiliated with a candidate and has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate’s committee, and as a super PAC, which makes independent expenditures. To do so, Carey committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee can collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions. See also: Super PAC, Independent Expenditures, Political Action Committee
The “foreword” identifies the GIFFORDS PAC organization, or at least a Giffords organization, I was researching as making current headline news (in addition to that mentioned in the title about Mr. Mostyn). Not to lose the opportunity, I talked about the presentation, front-page USA Today, with some exhibits.
To be honest, despite only a brief reference in passing to the Giffords Law Center, the USA Today major spread reads like an ARS/Giffords press release presented as news.
This foreword section also posts tax returns of one foundation mentioned in the article, and the much larger (“elephant in the room” if “gun control lobby” is the topic, which topic did come up in the article) foundation not mentioned, the NRA both of which filed Forms 990O, and are trade associations.
Before I get there a “preface” I’d added refers to the constant political left/right fights occupying media space, when in fact, some of the biggest influences on the operations and policies of governments (federal, state, and local) are a different type of organization — the ones (such as ICMA and ITS retirement organization, ICMARC) I’ve been posting on that control, collectively, and cross-borders (including sometimes national borders) major government investments (including pensions and retirement funds), again, at the federal, state and local level. With some show-and-tell and centered around a recent (Dec. 6) quote by Rep. Paul Ryan and “Welfare Reform” plans for the GOP in 2018. I bring up, again, what he, again, didn’t…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
Post Title (as published): The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
What would you call this post? After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me. Until then, in full, it’s:
But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, which may save some blog’s sidebar vertical acreage under on “Most Recent Posts,” making for a subtitle:
This material was formerly (but before publication there) labeled and in place as the Preface and “Pre-Preface” (I already had a “Foreword” and was starting to run out of meaningful section names) to:
The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”** + preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts. Both those posts had been weeks “in the pipeline”. The case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink to this one ends “-87w”). [[for what those “** / ***’s” refer to, see “The Money Maze / Giffords PAC” post referenced here.]]
This post as first published (including an extended footnote) is 16,000 words. Where it started may be seen by what looks approximately like this (next image) and is about halfway down the post. Feedback welcome — use the comments field. Keep it relevant, please; I won’t publish ads disguised as comments.
(Screenshot from my post of similar name, to be published Dec. 14, 2017. The image to left is from another blog I started in 2013 around the theme of the [poor, unreliable and dysfunctional, though still informative] condition of the TAGSS.HHS.Gov database)
For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?
Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”). See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)
Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming … and that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which nonprofit within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control/Gun Violence Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!! [Started Nov. 4, Publ. Dec. 3, 2017]
This post is more about what’s not on the record regarding an organization behind the website “NRA On The Record” and ones with similar backing, networking, and interlocked purposes than about the NRA. It’s an outsider’s look into the network of the gun control lobby — and lobby it is; a recent Super PAC was discovered in the mix… Labelled “Giffords PAC” (OpenSecrets.org, courtesy Center for Responsive Politics) as of the 2018 cycle but “Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC for 2016 and previous 2014 cycles. Statement of Organization with the FEC was only in 2013. “NOTE: This committee is a so-called Carey committee, a hybrid PAC/super PAC.”
- Carey Committee: A Carey committee is a hybrid political action committee that is not affiliated with a candidate and has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate’s committee, and as a super PAC, which makes independent expenditures. To do so, Carey committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee can collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions. See also: Super PAC, Independent Expenditures, Political Action Committee
Giffords (or ARS) PAC in FY2016 registrant, Texas lawyer John Steven Mostyn, #16 of top 20 fund-raisers for Hillary Clintons SuperPAC in 2016. Click HERE access website or just the image to enlarge it..
This PAC was registered under John Steven Mostyn, whose name is on many of the tax return images shown below. I see that in 2016 he, with his wife, are listed at #16 of (Forbes’) Top 20 contributors to Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC. I am shocked to learn that in November, 2017, while this post was still in “pending status,” and before I knew much about Mr. Mostyn, he was reported as having committed suicide, by gunshot wound to the head. ”
Steve Mostyn, Texas Democratic Fund-Raiser, Dies at 46″ 11/18/2017 by David Montgomery in NYT (Obituaries).
AUSTIN, Tex. — Steve Mostyn, a Texas trial lawyer and one of the nation’s leading Democratic donors, who spent a fortune in a long effort to turn his reliably red home state blue, died on Wednesday at his home in Houston. He was 46.
The Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences ruled the death a suicide resulting from a gunshot wound to the head. His wife and fellow lawyer, Amber Mostyn, said his death had come after a “sudden onset and battle with a mental health issue.”
The death jolted Texas politicians in both parties and left Democrats grieving the loss of a friend and wealthy patron who had been at the center of the party’s struggle to wrest power from Republicans. Texas Democrats have not won a statewide political office since 1994.
This Post:
NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control/Gun Violence Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!! [Short-link ending “-7Um” started Nov. 4, 2017, published Dec. 3]
[[Dec. 1-2 pre-publication context: I have been working on several posts identified as “in the pipeline” over the past few weeks, some of which work entails exploring new ground, other, reviewing or reformatting/updating references to earlier posts which mentioned some of the same subjects. THIS post is not meant to be complete, but on what it says, it should be as authoritative as the entities’ own tax returns and filing history, subject to IRS and state registrations/filings, and the reliability of any database claiming to get their data from the IRS. It is also a stark reminder NOT to just rely on an organization’s website, or high-profile spokespersons, or a recent dramatic event demanding a swift response, in judging whether to support, ignore, or oppose their various agenda.]]
How are we to identify and recognize, other than when they show up in press releases and mutual self-promotions, the many organizations who manage to get laws passed, including organizations of nearly 100% lawyers, and among these any groups who are engaged in deceptive “naming and framing” practices over time? (Naming themselves and framing the issues, that is).
I have a problem with ANY organizations involved in deceptive naming practices in ANY field effectively getting laws passed, but especially when the topic is gun control. In addition when modeled after domestic violence laws (something I have direct experience with, as a protected person with minor children, also protected persons initially) and then when, as has happened within the “violence prevention” and “abuse prevention” fields, a push to expand under the mental health umbrella. [[*This 2nd opening paragraph was re-written after I spent more time on the web pages — and multiple tax returns — of some of the nonprofits referenced for this post, and picking up the topic nearly a month later.]]
Brief summary of organizations and issues in this post and what inspired it:
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 