Archive for August 2019
Reform, Solutions, Enhancements, Adjudication Improvements Built on WHAT? (Unproven Because Unspoken Assumptions about the Deliberate Design = the Deliberate Purposes of the Family Courts in the USA?) [Started May 2, 2019, Publ. Aug. 29].
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
Today’s post is:
TITLE COMMENTS: “Why I changed “The Dangers of Derailment” to a rhetorical question: “Reforms …. built on WHAT?..“
As originally summarized in early May, 2019:** for context, see April/May posts…
WHO BUILT THE FAMILY (and “CONCILIATION”) COURTS?** WHEN, WHERE, AND ON WHAT MODELS — WHAT WAS THE DESIGN? WHO HIRED THE BUILDERS? WAS THIS DONE OPENLY, OR PRIVATELY AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE PROTESTED, OR VOTED AGAINST IT IN PLACES WHERE VOTES MATTER?
**In the USA, in the UK…in Canada, in Australia and New Zealand… in Europe. But my main perspective is the USA because I live here.
The WHEN is an important part to understand and, if possible, prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Family Court Reform conversations from what I can see in public somehow never get around to the admitting that just perhaps, their actual current form is intentional, by design, and that this design ideally suits the purposes of those who set them up in the first place, whether or not it suits the purposes of the public at large, or people outside that apparently powerfully inter-connected inner circle.
IF an open discussion and genuinely seeking answers* with a sense of urgency existed in the first place, why rule out, eliminate by silence, consideration of any realistically potential or even probable causes or conditions?
*Answers to the problems typically cited/characterized as failure to protect/inflicting harm on children, custody of children going to batterers, children getting murdered, and (to a lesser degree but also reported), murder/suicide events of varying scope, long-term traumatic distress..
~ ~ NOW, for THIS post….~ ~
Today’s post is called:
It originally had three section titles (my spinoff post above may mention this):
1. “Preliminary Chat (Health System Flush with Cash),” 2. “Intro,” and 3. “If it was built, there was a plan.”
After trying again to wrangle (condense) the discussion, I’ve booted “2. Intro” off the list. So now we only have two sections, BOTH of which were written, primarily, in early May, 2019:
1. “Preliminary Chat (Health System Flush with Cash)” and
2. “If it was built, there was a plan.”
It was written starting with what became — it’s my writing style — the third (now second) and final section. In that section, I take the common-sense admission (“if built, there was a plan”) to prod readers, using basic logic, to look at the self-declared** family court builders for some clues as to the blueprints, (<~brief Wiki explanation) rather than the interior decor (furniture, fixtures, etc.) ignoring the architecture itself. **(The “we built it, we’re leading it” declarations seem accurate, and I haven’t found others disputing the claims. If you know of others, please contact me here or on Twitter, and publish a link to that information in a comment ASAP!).
Over the nearly four-month delay publishing this post, besides working (hard!) on the blog appearance (sidebar, top posts, table of contents, etc.) and publishing three spin-off posts directly related to the first section above I also:
<>noticed more current events in “family court reform” including legislation proposed to better protect children in the courts (task forces, commissions, study work groups, etc. in different states (USA) and countries, and a debate at the level of “WHO ICD”), and as I could, explored (extensively) included in my posts and publicized them on Twitter. (I am not a lawyer and did not delve so much into the legislation as the types of responses to them and people involved, which had people in common across several jurisdictions).##
<>continued to develop understanding and I become more acutely aware** how the AFCC has now established a firm connection to the UK’s “CAFCASS” which was established by government — but independent from the main branches — by law in 2001. This connection was predictable and seen coming, however it’s still a significant turning point. Some of this has been expressed in the top two sticky posts on the blog, the second one in more detail; the first, in a footnote: **(i.e., I continued researching and doing targeted look-ups and drill-downs…)
FYI, a CAFCASS member is now on the AFCC Board of Directors, while throughout 2018 it’s become more clear how professional perspectives — moreso than individual parents’ or families’ experiences and perspectives (on either side of the “Pond”) — are being unified in a network which extends obviously beyond the reach of the average citizen or working parent with minor children (or, domestic violence or child abuse survivors) in either country… unless they form and obtain sponsorship, somehow, for their own advocacy groups which might be heard over the already entrenched ones… I’ve been Tweeting on this since at least Sept. 2018, and again on August 9 in more detail, as well as studying it, and talking it up, generally.
## [Paragraph copyedited after posting to clarify that I didn’t propose legislation or respond officially on legislative websites, task forces, etc. I am considering how to draft and deliver/publicize a universal, formal response incorporating key things I’ve noticed which, it seems, those involved did not, or ignored..]
Trying to tweak any system designed to produce a predictable outcome, to instead produce the exact opposite: i.e., justice, and with it, protection from (for example) abuse, or keeping little children — or older ones — or in fact, anyone safe — to me is a form of insanity.
Re-reading this post before publishing it occurred what I mean by “predictable outcome” might still be unclear there. Here’s a short-list (impromptu, four short paragraphs inside maroon & teal borders) of procedures and specialized terms, professions I’m referring to, generally:
Among what seems to be the “designed to produce” structure is diverting people from the criminal justice system when dealing with potentially criminal issues into “dispute resolution” and referrals to further treatments, evaluations, and other handling by a combination of private (but court-connected or pay-to-play certified to get on the referral list) or directly court-funded professions, some of which have been created to accommodate the deluge of repeat visitors when the first sets of referrals intended to “resolve” conflict instead enabled further abuse.
Another intended outcome, it seems to me, is minimizing violence against women and children while insisting on restoring and preserving relationships — at any cost — including supervised visitation, batterers intervention, psychological assessments, custody evaluations (I forgot — start with “mediation), and after the courts allow or facilitate total separation of one parent, then putting it back together through “reunification” camps, programs and services. Parenting Coordination has been set up and tried as a profession; almost as soon as it was started, parents(USA) began suing the courts over violation of their rights.
In the process of adding in as many behavioral scientists and mental health specialists as possible and setting up professions (and making fortunes for some when these can be marketed electronically: Our Family Wizard™, Online Parenting Education programs, etc., specialized jargon increases (“differentiated domestic violence” “parental alienation” being one of them also, and my favorite now engrained one, “high-conflict,” applicable to almost anything — and with specialty courts (see Middletown, Connecticut for a good example).
Overall, increased privatization of the (civil) courts and sharing/spreading around the immunity and quasi-immunity of professions just helping, advising, supporting and encouraging the judiciary in its decision-making seems an intended outcome.
(This text added pre-publication Aug. 28, 2019//LGH)
Whether those engaged in this are themselves as “insane” or illogical as it seems — or perhaps NOT insane or illogical, but instead simply unethical (dishonest, i.e., playing assigned roles in staged battles whose goal isn’t to defeat the opponents on stage, but win over the audience, the spectators), is a good question. These are tactics many of us already know from having lived with controlling, abusive, and violent individuals with whom many of us also had children.
I have my own opinion this, which doesn’t make me welcome in many support circles. Over time, I’ve learned that weakness among protective mothers, including weak focus, follow-through and inability to make wise choices in support groups in the long run, isn’t “supportive.”
Nor is joining, essentially, court-reform cults, and turning on or harassing (passive/aggressive) those who choose not to join.
1. “Preliminary Chat (Health System Flush with Cash),” 2. “If it was built, there was a plan.”**
(**Part 2’s premise: once you admit that, generally, builders have plans and (specifically) the family courts were indeed built, by definition raises the next basic question: By Whom? Who planned it, built it, and holds the blueprints? Answering that question FIRST seems far more sensible than trying FIRST to apply solutions to make the family courts and everyone working in them (judges, and all the others) or taking business from them function to produce, perhaps, the exact opposite outcomes that their design illustrates they, most likely, were built/designed and thus intended to produce.
Section 2 delivers the content most directly related to the title. Sections 1 should provoke more thought and reflection on the much larger framework in which the family courts sit before my call to common sense and attention to specific facts countering said unspoken assumptions which have become built-into the typical solutions demanded.
I might have placed the Section 2 title up a little higher. However, right now it’s pretty far down on the post. I am also exhausted trying to complete this one, and as of Aug. 29, have opted to “punt” and publish it as-is (at this point of development). The second section is actually less complete (other than its plentiful exhortation parts) but I think towards the bottom you’ll see exactly where I’m going. Remember that originally (May/April 2019) the context was questioning the assumption about the “Safe Child” premise in association with “HouseConRes.72.” MUCH has transpired since then, nationally and internationally, so I am just going to publish now — and will update post-publication as I sometimes (often) do… Comments remain open…
1. Preliminary Chat: A health system flush with cash## through anti-tobacco litigation (MSA and the STMSA, two master settlement agreements with “big tobacco” after class action lawsuits instigated by attorneys general of the USA) and ongoing add-on taxation.
## while claiming efficiencies through increased centralization and complaining about any reduction in ongoing funds, …even when that results from successful efforts to change the public’s unhealthy habits (like smoking…) through financial penalties, deterrents and massive media campaigns …
I developed and further detailed this theme on a new post August 7, but some of my exhibits and narrative still remain on this post below. Look for the ones labeled “father-friendly”
A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) (Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.” Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.
That post and two others posted August 14 and 16 (basically one exhibit and an update, the latter providing a link to and sample of the financial statements originally missing) develop and further detail the “health system flush with cash” theme I drafted (early May) as you see here…
This system has by legislation poured even more revenues at state and local (county) level into fields and programming which closely overlaps with those already run through the family court systems: early childhood development, parent education and coaching, consciousness-raising, behavioral modification, and building bodies of evidence that whatever each field proclaimed originally to justify the programming (and build-up of infrastructure within that field) was, of course, right all along, etc., but more research and resources are still needed…
I am certainly not the only person to have written or summarized this information, but I’ll bet I am the only one who has (correctly) connected it to its predictable and probably intentional impact on contested family court proceedings (outcomes) in the 21st century — often contested over the issues child abuse, domestic violence or other criminal behaviors by one, not necessarily both, parents.
I also wonder if anyone else has put both this extra financing together with welfare reform as heading in similar directions administratively and as to intended “designer-family” outcomes, based on gender and marital status of the ideal environments for “human development,” i.e., compliant and correct-ideologically-infused [future] corporate and government workers of [the United States of] America.
Drenching the landscape with fatherhood collectives, councils, and collaboratives, including county-based councils and collectives operating with the label “domestic violence intervention” and of course (as always) “child and family strengthening” policies, increases the likelihood that any man (including a father) or woman (including a mother) in the course of protecting a child, or seeking to retain custody of a child in the family courts, is likely to interface with someone (male or female) who has already been trained — if not brainwashed — into prioritizing “father-friendly agenda” at all levels. Keep reading, please!
-
- The compound adjective “Father-Friendly” is used 35 times in 9 pages or here to see more). Same link provided in nearby text (Post, short-link ending “-a2y” in draft still 5/31/2019.
-
- (There are 9 pages. My original page-count was somehow just 8; I didn’t correct the “8 pages” annotation on page 1. Whether 8 or 9 pages long it’s still language saturation).or here to see more). Same link provided in nearby text (Post, short-link ending “-a2y” in draft still 5/31/2019.
SHARE THIS POST on...
MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]
You are reading:
This must be on my mind, because it came out as I was working on another post which just won’t deliver itself in usable format I feel comfortable publishing yet. I’ve put that other post’s name out so many times now, this time I’ll just skip the reference if you don’t mind….
Things with far more fine-print detail like this:** “no problem.” Putting together generic statements, even ones I’m convinced of and have done my homework before making, sometimes for some reason is personally more daunting. (**referring to the post before its Aug. 29 update, which section, explaining my use of the verb “emerged” which gets into a nonprofit by that name and by association a key theme in at least two countries’ innate system response to the abuse of women — run behavior-change (counseling, intervention, etc.) classes for men taking agency or court referrals — appears at the top. The specifics of that section tie directly into entities referenced in “Dangers of Derailment” and this preview of it, BOTH show how certain things date as far back as the 1970s and 1980s in system set-up. But, after that, get to the bottom segment of this post and you’ll see what I mean by “fine-print detail“!)
Perhaps this concern may stems from personal gut instincts — for example, having endured a decade of domestic violence (but so long ago!) then almost two decades more of an extended/expanded form of it involving the remaining, surviving (so far) immediate family members on MY side, and an assortment of non-relative strangers who chose to get involved in how I separated from abuse and was at the time raising our children — less expansive than he’d had as an ousted, violent,wife-batterer parent — constantly rejecting, debating, and arguing with each basic point I’d raise as a human being regarding.
Whatever the reason, this segment is in better shape than the post from which it “emerged”** (coincidentally, when I copied it, deleted it from there and pasted it here).
** This “Day-After” “discussion” (elaboration) also just emerged on the post.
**(That’s a joke in case you haven’t been reading enough literature about how theories and practices, concerns and psychological beliefs about the cause-and-effect relationship of human [parenting or co-parenting] behaviors mysteriously “emerge” throughout the family court systems in various countries to see how often the word “emerge” is used as a substitute for the underlying truth of who lobbied for what and how…). Let alone the batterers intervention program from Boston called “Emerge.”
…Emerge is one of 17 certified programs in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, programs such as Emerge are called Batterer Intervention, but we try to be clear that this terminology does not speak to the services we provide.
The term “batterer” often has very negative connotations and is typically defined as someone who repeatedly physically abuses their partner. In fact, many people who have come to Emerge report that they have not been physically abusive, but have been quite emotionally, verbally or psychologically abusive. Despite the fact that these forms of abuse are not physical in nature, we challenge group members to recognize that they are still harmful and in fact can destroy relationships.
People coming to Emerge are asked to recognize how they have chosen such behavior as a pattern in their relationships and families and how those choices have harmed others.
Approximately 20% of clients at Emerge are self-referred, although we still see many people who are referred by the court systems or through child protective services (Department of Children and Families).
Does 20% (of how many “clients” in what timeframe?) + “many people” referred through one of only two other named sources = 100%?
20% of what, regarding when? Are there any hard (absolute) numbers (total people run through programs [starts vs. completes], calling for help, stepping in the door for informational interviews, submitting their emails to find out more, etc.) attached to any time frame (like last year, meaning 20__ __?)
Emergedv.com also runs (ran?) a “CaringDads Group which I found as a program associated with the London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse (“LCCEWA” |<~~History page) in Ontario, Canada. Look at the geography compared to Massachusetts, US Eastern seaboard (Mid-Atlantic / New England states) (Boston is actually north-east of London, Ontario, Canada) across the national border).
London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26
The purpose is to take CaringDads™ global, of course. It must have just “emerged” as the most logical thing to do in preventing violence against women: Run “responsible fatherhood” (if the context is, within the US) programs. Get public funding to do so.
This light-gray, tiny-font descriptive page refers to 2018 as “next fall”…. From that page, a sub-link titled “Program Model” reads:
Emerge currently provides three annual Responsible Fatherhood Groups. The Responsible Fatherhood Program utilizes an adapted version of the Caring Dads curriculum, a model developed by the Changing Ways abuser education program in London, Ontario** and specifically intended for fathers with histories of domestic violence. Emerge was the first American pilot site for this model in 2002 and has been refining the curriculum since then, particularly by making it more culturally relevant for the men we serve.
Though originally intended just for men who had completed or who were still attending the Emerge Abuser Education Program, these groups are now available to fathers referred by the Department of Social Services, District and Probate Courts, other agencies, and self-referrals. Currently, about 45% are referred by Emerge, 30% from the Department of Children and Families, 15% from the courts, and 10% from others.
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Dangers of Derailment from “First Things First!” in Family (and Conciliation) Court Reforms to Save Children from Violent Parents (and/or Prevent Violence Against Women) (+/- Aug. 20, 2019)
First published August 24, 2019. For the full title with link, short-link, word-count, keep reading…
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
UPDATE : Aug. 25 — expanded. Contractions (extraction of contents) is tricky and may require consultation within (sic) Blog Admin…
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
Today’s post was extracted, like a Caesarean section, from
<~~that is, a post I’m still trying to get out…
And I’m calling it, all (for now, with footnotes) 10,000+ words,
The international family law reform aspects addressed here were also raised in my (second to top) Sticky post, published just last month: July 31 — mentioned near the top and footnoted at the bottom. See its title (for the link) and a single image excerpt from it (text-only/summarizes):
[2nd from the Top Sticky Post on Blog** is:] Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 9,900 words. That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.) (**as of August, 2019. Sticky post order and contents of course changes periodically — but not that often…)
Intro (Pls. Click image (or link here) Read) to my recent post, Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky)
Some of the length here comes from me detailing a certain document full of its own lengthy footnotes.
Footnotes in public documents seeking major legislative change at the state, national, or here it happened to be, global (or at least UN-related) level illuminate many things which might otherwise escape attention. Often I’ll focus more on them than on the (usually predictable and repetitive in the field) main body text.
Some of the phrases in the post title come from recent campaigns discovered via Twitter* and/or a combination of the USA’s “VAWA” act and more international “CEDAW” which I’d been exploring, especially after discovering one of the concerned thought-leaders (self-described, some of them) and other types of experts referenced on Footnote 1 of the Canadian-based CREVAWC‘s** @{{website “LearningToEndAbuse.org.ca” and @learntoendabuse on Twitter}} recent Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about the inclusion of “parental alienation” in the ICD-11 classifying kinds of disease also had US/Israel/CEDAW*** ties (along with a law degree from Yale and outstanding qualifications and dedication in the field), which brings up, again, the topic of the significant challenges to obtaining a divorce in any primarily patriarchal religion and associated systems and courts.
(I will repeat this paragraph further below before detailing the “*” “**” and “***” references)
CREVAWC = A centre which began (‘was founded’) as a collaborative venture spurred in response to a federal study on (VAW) triggered by the 1989 murder of 14 women at a specific school (“Ecole”) in Montreal. As described in the website which doesn’t contain the letters CREVAWC, but references another collaborator (the third link, next paragraph) whose website does reflect its actual name (“LCCEWA”).
The third website shows clearly this is a previously coordinated network arising out of a situation dating back to the late 1970s, early 1980s. Yet somehow, a decade later, women are still getting murdered violently, generating yet more studies and centers (or “centres”) on the same, overall, topics: WHY? and “HOW STOP IT?”
The Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children (CREVAWC) was founded in 1992 as a collaborative venture between The University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College and the London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse. The Centre was established in response to a federal study on the problem of violence against women, triggered by the 1989 murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
CREVAWC joined the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario in 2001.
Where was it before, and how does a “collaborative venture” join anything? Does this refer to website hosting, faculty salaries, or what? I do know that once I looked at the London Coordinating Committee (and the networking) I instantly (sic) understood the Ellen Pence (USA, “The Duluth Model,” etc.) concept of “Coordinated Community Response” meaning — NETWORKED. She has studied institutional ethnography, it’s said, in Toronto (Ontario, Canada). [Bears elaborating, “explicating” separately. What’s taken place here is a window to the types of “fixes” being circulated through (existing) networks which I’ll bet the public at large (in either country — US or Canada: we share a long border!) still doesn’t comprehend, even after experiencing it with their/our own families personally or witnessing/hearing about others who have. In SYSTEM terms (public vs. private, national (federal) vs. local (here, provincial – Ontario — or more local “London” | US this’d be (mostly) State — or within states, “Counties” with inclusion, separately, of Indian tribes as their own governments within state borders, or if any cross some state borders)….
-
- CREVAWC (about|Home page)
-
- CREVAWC (more awards)
-
- CREVAWC (Collective Memo of Concern)
See the 2016 Politico article by Mike Ross quoted (imaged) here. It was written before the most recent US Presidential election, features a U.S. woman (Susan Murray) who can barely see her own children due to the rabbinical courts in Israel. The article also mentions AIPAC, a sea-change politically rolling back concessions or movement towards equality (i.e., for women). Not my area of personal expertise (or experience).
Catholics make it hard. Conservative evangelical Protestants in the US (whose nonprofit networks are identifiable, often predictable in board leadership, and most definitely well-connected to “go forth and multiply”) want restoration of “covenant” marriage and have pastors signing up for it; Mormons, well, have another unique perspective on the eternity of marriage (Reminder: we’ve had a Mormon contender for U.S. President not too many years back); there’s the issue of attempts to blend in ‘sharia’, while honor killings are still happening, and there’s the ongoing difficulty of getting a “get” (permission to divorce) with the Jewish traditions, in the USA and Israel both.
In this post, I have intervening comments before the explanatory *, **, and *** points which are their own section, not just a sentence or two each. I’ll enclose the intervening comments in a thick, ORANGE box and repeat the above paragraph when I move on to discussing those points. Then the *, **, and *** became its own major section. At the bottom I have the part which was extracted, like a Caesarean section,” from my other post. Look for this color scheme (and that’s the first part of it):
(Internal reference from my own post due out, I hope, Aug. 23, 2019)
Below that I have some footnotes originated in this post, different color schemes. Why? It’s complicated, if I explained it here, I’d have to footnote it, again…
Intervening comments before the *,**, and *** references:
This also brings to this discussion (it’s not “news”) the consequences of ongoing entrenchment of any theocracy in government and significant differences between civil and criminal (public and private) courts in different countries.
Obviously Israel’s (or Iran’s) or Commonwealth countries’ and the USA’s will have major differences among each other on views towards marriage and divorce and who controls it i.e., conditions of separation, divorces or annulments. Just like major powerhouse countries now (most formerly empires or kingdoms, some former colonies of the same, before organization on more massive scales, including building of infrastructures, military conquest and acquisition of enslaved populations etc as normal part of their respective “developments.”), major world religions too as ever and now, too, are naturally also concerned about controlling breeding and reproduction practices to provide more workers, followers (including volunteers in outreach and social services) which may affect, respectively, each one’s intergenerational continuance as a “going concern.” (See Footnote “USA: No Official Religion, Just the IRS.“).
One big difference (between major powerhouse countries and major powerhouse religions) is that the former are designated territorially/geographically and those subject to their ordinances and laws determined by birth or by some other elements of choice. Within the U.S., in addition to having a national citizenship, some may have allegiances and loyalties also to world religions while living in different geographies. While this is true in other “developed” countries, our public schools do not, last I looked, require a moment of collective worship as part of building national character and unity.
History shows that being the wrong religion in the wrong place has varying risks, up to enslavement/deportation, attempted genocide, dis-enfranchisement, or harsh laws creating dependent castes within a country, depending on time and place, up to and including death penalties for attempted conversion.
Yet, in a country where neither divorce nor failure to marry or stay married when having children (i.e., conceive, gestate, give birth) is a crime, and where assault, battery, stalking, kidnapping, extortion, terroristic threats, and very many other categories of person-to-person behaviors ARE crimes, still children and at times their mothers and at times, their fathers (sometimes, as individual judge, jury, and executioner when the family court or other courts’ decisions are rejected; sometimes as victims of perpetrating women, too) are paying the ultimate penalty: “Version one” death by violent means; or, “Version two” long-term enslavement — ongoing litigation draining resource and the ability to continue obtaining them through normal means (i.e., stable, ongoing work where it’s available and a person is qualified — without the abuse).
How “nuts” is that? How dangerous are the courts which precede or preside over it? [This para. added shortly before publishing and shortly after hearing of another little three-year old girl Autumn or Zoe Pereira (mother Cherone Coleman, father Martin Pereira, Court Referee who ordered the visitation on which little child was murdered (BUT no judges name turned up so far, that I saw) Margaret M. Mulrooney; burned alive, alone in a car whose back door had been chained shut, by (her father) after a so-called “bitter custody battle” in Queens County, NY. This para. was not in my earlier drafts.] This is not the first child-burned-alive-in-car we’ve heard of over many years. Perhaps these men learn from each other.
Over time, I’m realizing how much, in whichever country, the existence of “family courts” (however designated) as opposed to other kinds, is itself a major reflection of the country’s religious values — and this is very much so in the USA too. We just don’t admit it so openly.
That’s another reason why I believe the family courts’ respective blueprints, designers, approximate age (when came into existence) in the USA, in the UK, in Canada, Australia, Italy, and Israel, as to the countries primarily referenced above in “Collective Memo of Concern to WHO) should be made known — honestly.
We (USA) have a tendency here to substitute social science, psychology and population rationale studies for religious tenets on the role of families, the roles of fathers, mothers, and children and the rights of each. It’s more politically correct, especially the more the words “evidence-based” or ‘promising practices” can be attached. How much of this is functionally the expression of a religious belief, whether conservative, progressive, or “humanist” (new age)?
That’s also another reason, I believe, to also take a closer and (more) honest look on the correspondence between the development of the field of, specifically, psychology (and from which quarters/countries as to the USA, and from which dominant perspectives)…alongside the development of the family courts.
SHARE THIS POST on...
UPDATE: Truth Initiative Financial Statements (YEJune2018) Surface Within 24 Hours of My Post Noting Their Odd Absence (This Update Publ. Aug. 16, 2019)
I also (below left) don’t particularly appreciating seeing typos in basic English four-letter words which are to be linking to how a major public program, ongoing now these twenty years at least, is managing itself and with itself, the public interest…. while investing in (it says here) five different countries outside the USA (not major amounts shown, but still…) (below, right).
(Reminder: what’s now “Truth Initiative” was formerly “American Legacy Foundation” and before that, I just learned, “MSA Foundation” when first formed in 1999).
For why we’re bothering to update, please take another** look at some of the numbers on the FY2002 tax return of the organization whose independently audited financials I just couldn’t find on its own website, clicking on the link which said “audited financials.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
What’s happening to the Tobacco MSA Billions? From American Legacy Foundation (2002 Form 990 for EIN #911956621) to ‘Truth Initiative Foundation’ (Same Entity, New Name), Audited Financial Statements Promised but Not Produced (Publ. Aug. 14, 2019).
“MSA” stands in this context for “Master Settlement Agreement,” and the field is “big tobacco” to be countered with big health and public education/communications infrastructure to persuade everyone, especially young people in the United States, to quit smoking tobacco, among other things. See recent posts (and I also blogged this extensively in 2017; see Table of Contents).
There is an update. Perhaps this phrase should be part of the header to every post as I added to the recent top (Sticky) posts:
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
Update on What?: See end of post title.. “What’s happening to the Tobacco MSA Billions? . . . Audited Financial Statements Promised but Not Produced (Publ. Aug. 14, 2019).” (shortlink ends “-aE7”, about 8,855 words, including the following insert explaining that I just found what the title says, couldn’t be found.
NOTE: This is an update, not a retraction. I keep records via screenprints, and will double-check my own various screenprints — because it was so odd that a link promising financial statements didn’t (at the time) produce them. I also noticed (via “statcounter”) two government entities (US Dept. of the Treasury and State of Minnesota, which comes up in one of the nonprofits discussed below) on the website August 15 (after publishing Aug. 14, late). However, meanwhile, I feel obligated to post the functional link to at least the:
Truth Initiative Foundation & Affiliate Consolidated Audited Financial Report | Title page (with url displayed at the top)
You can read the rest here: https://truthinitiative.org/annual-reports/financial-statement/2018-financial-statements
TO SEE THE REST OF THIS UPDATE (about 2,500 words only) and how it happened, go here:
As this says:
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
I first typed the Updates here (complete with annotated images and some drill-downs, as well as explaining how I found the MIA financial statements), then moved the text to its own post, above, with a quick introduction.
Now that this was just published, I’m going to remove the material from here.
BEFORE all that update, the post started here:
I grabbed the closing text and screenshots for this QUICK post, What’s happening to the Tobacco MSA Billions? From American Legacy Foundation (2002 Form 990 for EIN #911956621) to ‘Truth Initiative Foundation’ (Same Entity, New Name), Audited Financial Statements Promised but Not Produced. (Publ. Aug. 14, 2019) (shortlink ends “-aE7”, about 7,800 8,855 (with update above) words)
from the bottom of ” A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’
(1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts)… post short-link ends “-a6m,” published August 7,
both posts pointing towards another long-delayed one, which is up next.
The “next up” post urges readers to answer a few tough questions I deduce are not being addressed in public reporting on the problems with “custody courts” (family courts). Nor are these questions addressed or even being raised in the coordinated, multi-state and at some points, international efforts to correct course within the family law courts (Canada, USA and the UK) by a variety of means. That “next up” post is currently called:
What I have here is just paving the way, featuring some details which don’t really belong at the bottom of the previous post. The cause, the situation, and the organization (referenced in my post title) and the tobacco-sales-based resources coming its way — and coming from similar sources but through other conduits — is just too big. As I discovered taking another closer look this time, networked with certain other name-changing, trade-name using entities. As usual, at least one of these operates out of a university law school, helping to promote the law school’s and the individual running the nonprofit’s reputation as “one of the good guys” too.
An AFCC law professor also has for years worked in another part of the same school; seeing this setup reminded me again of the pattern of utilizing college connections to promote interests of private 501©s, utilize any available interns (graduate or undergrad students, giving them extra clinical experience) and portray it as in the public good. This leverages an obvious advantage to the general public in “priming the perspective” of future lawyers before they’re out the gate…
Non-professors and people who can’t afford to fund centers at law firms are at a disadvantage when conflicts of interest may indeed exist, but leverage to show (publicize) it does not.
As to the anti-tobacco (stop-smoking) public-interest nonprofits — why do the good guys have to employ chameleon tactics, wear in effect masks, and direct public resources to places unknown? For “ALF,” now “Truth Initiative,” that’s measured in billions, not millions. And we are twenty years into it as of 2019.
More on the sequence of posts here: Before the about seven recent posts cleaning up the blog’s sticky posts, sidebar widgets and producing a table of contents for 2019 (so far), on June 22, 2019, I was on the topic of things about which we should know by now. “By Now We Should Know“*** post indicates where I’m going; I just had to show why “A Health System Flush With Cash” is not something to be safely ignored, and give some indicators of size and scope.
***“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019). (short-link ending “-9NU”.. as insert to “More Perspectives” late April: 6,000 words; latest revs for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).
This post prepares people for another post, already written [[next up, not published yet, as shown above//LGH Aug. 2019]], which asks a hard, “what-if” rhetorical question. I hope readers on considering that (coming post’s) rhetorical question have the integrity to consider where they may have been radically mis-led about the real purposes of family court reform/fix/correct movements. Even though it may be embarrassing, confronting, or disturbing.
After ten years of blogging, I’m confident to say, I wouldn’t trust ANY group which has been around ten or more years — or drawing policy off any other which has been — who has failed to point this out. We are dealing with massive resources of the state’s health agencies, which are somewhat inexhaustible to the extent they continue taxation to replenish them…
EIN — Employee Identification Number. (Sometimes called “FEIN”).
ENOUGH INTRODUCTION. I have some things to say, to show also, and towards the bottom (clearly marked) a series of “clean-copy” tax return images (huge) from the organization on post title.
I may add some VERY much annotated ones I see made in 2017 on first discovering this, below them. Again, they’ll be easy to find. (May be 2002 annotated, or even some 2003). Or, more likely, a link adding to where they might be found. Those annotated tax returns should raise some serious questions about why we aren’t asking more serious questions about what kind infrastructure has been created here, and how FEW people, really, were behind its creation.
My reading shows that this was built up and primed intergenerationally. I believe it should be seen in that context because that’s how the largest foundations, and people drawn to powerful positions within government tend to operate.** Once in power, they don’t like to reliquish it easily. Embedding their programs within it and creating a public/private co-dependency “in the public interest” seems a great way to ensure continuity – – not matter what it costs the taxpayers.
**When it comes to the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes (now plural) of Health, that’s been documented. I have, on this blog; the HHS has, others have. One of the most powerful lobbyists was the widow (twenty? years his junior and outlived him by about 40 years) of an advertising giant: the heiress (because of that) Mary Lasker.
Now a large chunk of the ALF (as seen 2002) is going to advertising campaigns seeking to effect behavioral changes in youth, kids, and adults, massively so. Coincidence?
Is this all really science, or just the science of public relations, advertising, persuasion, and coordinated special interests in the public sphere? Take a look…
CONSIDER: PUBLIC (the State or Crown prosecutes) vs. PRIVATE (FAMILY/CIVIL) PROCEEDINGS:
Both types co-exist, parallel to each other, with major differences in ramifications.
Examples: Child abuse protections/dependency proceedings, or criminal prosecution of some forms of violence upon the person, i.e., domestic violence, stalking, kidnapping, etc. versus settling other issues and private debates about divorce, custody, visitation, etc. NOT involving criminal actions or allegations of them — just arguments about the best arrangements
While the USA and Commonwealth countries characterize, name, and it seems run these differently, similarities exist in that some involve the state in taking action to protect children or at times adults. In other words, a PUBLIC (dependency) aspect and the PRIVATE (“family courts”) one.
NOW CONSIDER: All family (private/civil) courts (USA or Commonwealth countries) will be at some point intersecting with national health systems (US: The Federal Dept. of HHS) and resources, especially where there are child protection proceedings. So will some of the dependency proceedings (criminal prosecution of child abuse & neglect) resulting in children needing new homes — i.e., foster care and adoption.
NOW CONSIDER: The size of the USA and its habit of taxing income of citizens, even income earned outside the country, and of (especially at home/domestically) promoting the proliferation of tax-exempt entities to assist it in delivering services is a major issue.
NOW [THIS POST] CONSIDER[s] ONE, SPECIFIC, BIG, TAX-EXEMPT, USA (“D.C.”) ENTITY…
which <> has already changed its legal name once from the already-broad reference ‘American Legacy’ to an even broader one ‘Truth Initiative’ — neither of which had the word “health” “tobacco” or “smoking.” which <> characterizes most of its expenses at “OTHER” (unidentified) on the tax returns, and <> which, while promising audited financial statements are available on-line on both its tax return and even on the (newer) website fails to deliver them (as in 2017, so still in 2019), despite initial billion-dollar assets held, and plenty of ongoing revenues.
Also, <> granting out, the year 2002, $27M, which grants are shown on the tax returns in close to invisible font-size, shrunk more than any other portion of the same tax return, and adding needless extra columns the IRS didn’t ask for. Many of these (visible, sort of, if you squint or utilize a magnifying glass (or, on-line, zoom function) while switching views back and forth because “grantee” name is so far away from the $$ amount) are to local health departments, which residents in any recipient state have a right to know its outside (private) revenue sources. These practices obscure that information and erect barriers to finding it.
(html error? loops back to requesting page, or a look-alike).
In that context, for this post, two other tax-exempts with, at least now, common leadership also came up. One of them has so far had several name changes since its startup (about the same time as American Legacy) and the other, which a closer look just brought to my attention through a detail on the first one, was a DC-based 1967-founded nonprofit, with leadership (at least in the last decade or so) in common, and definite global ‘health” goals.
I’m not doing a timeline on either of these two, but post here a few choice screenprints from website and/or excerpts from a tax return or two. Below that I’m going to post many from American Legacy Foundation, FY2002.
All this further illustrates what happens once such an issue-specific infrastructure is created, a few, privately controlled and funded, much smaller surrounding ones whose leadership was directly involved in the same issue, as both media and legal “technical assistance and training,” before, during and after.
The connections between those who helped set up the infrastructure and those who are still administering it remain strong. The connection to telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing BUT the truth,” remains weak, it seems, by design.
This post continues to look at how some of the health-related revenues here, not directly from income taxes, but dealing with the aftermath of United States attorneys general going after “big tobacco” for reimbursement of health costs, are being reported on the recipient entity (“American Legacy Foundation,” now called “Truth Initiative Foundation,” EIN #911956621) tax returns.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) (Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019)
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) ((Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.” Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.
This post represents a preview to the preview of a draft which when published may be found, with a short-link ending “-9PC,” HERE:
I was working towards getting that one published, while (as usual) stating my concerns and explaining the basis for them. Neither this post nor that one are “PC” / politically correct no matter which political party you may favor.
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for blog overview, recent years).
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)
To understand this post (and when published [it finally was: Aug. 28?, 2019], that one) it may help to realize how much time I spend “underground,” looking at organizations and their interactions with government using both their own descriptions (however mis-leading) and the ones available to me as a common person with normal internet access (i.e., not most specialty-journals, i.e., JSTOR, Wiley, many other publishers catering to the social science or legal sectors).
Not being in academia, or a member of some ‘consortium’ on specific problem-solving topics, I mostly look at public-access databases, whether on state or federal agency websites, at IRS.gov listings, and, where possible, tax-return databases (for USA), where tax returns may be posted. Or, at times, financial statements of an organization of interest. Because my lookups feature things that do NOT require special membership or journal subscriptions, I can say that those with basic internet access and willing (or able) to put in some personal time, can, and could have, found out the things I am reporting. Why so many haven’t may vary by personality, motivation, or opportunity.
I may seem “alarmist” but be properly alarmed about things which have missed observation while people are busy reading mainstream media on their favorite subject matter and following the thought-leaders often featured in them, for a good, general-interest story line.
In this post, I will be talking about some very large numbers. They are still just numbers…**
**CONSIDER WHY “NUMBERS” ARE STILL IMPORTANT, NOT TO BE IGNORED: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (8/11/2019):
As measurements, numbers serve as a point of comparison other numbers: bigger or larger. They can be compared across the same named categories, or different ones. They can (ideally) be compared within one organization’s reports for a single years, across the years (one organizations), or cross-organization.
NUMBERS on tax returns (or federal grants databases) should provide a general sense of size, of the various categories (public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit (a technical term which ends up meaning almost the exact opposite: functioning NONprofit actually increases, preserves profits (through tax-exemption), depending on management). So is a general sense of growth (what direction business — or government — has been moving over time. Individually we (I hope!) do this for our own households and lives, maybe of our children’s — but what about of our own governments’ (plural), or the organizations dealing with them?
By “NUMBERS” I’m not just talking about dollars (revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities) but, for example, how many subcontractors (few or many?), grantees (the same), how many collaboratively networked organizations focused on getting a single — or a selected SET of — transformations in (A) practices, then (B) legislation to further regulate (endorse or prohibit) practices. They shouldn’t be ignored in the reporting of family court fiascoes, complaints about individual judges or associated professionals, and numbers that bear no resemblance to reality when quoted consistently by advocates should be taken as the red flags they are.
That’s my mini-spiel to counter a common protest at my continuing to look at the numbers on tax returns while others are posting head-shots and dramatic accounts of “judicial decision-making” gone horribly wrong….
…Their sheer size (see post title) is itself a message. Then, there’s a message in who, if anyone, is reporting anything credible about them, and in where the force of those numbers ($$) is applied, through whom, and how.
But, like welfare reform of 1996 and subsequent varieties, it is a United-States-specific situation (while impacting other countries and I imagine echoed by campaigns in other countries also; in fact WHO is known to be involved in the quit-smoking field, and as recently as 2009 the United States apparently became subject to a treaty related to this, which I posted in 2017 the first time I worked through much of this tobacco litigation situation).
Below in this post, I remind us of the American Legacy Foundation (now called “Truth Initiative Foundation,” dba “Truth Initiative,” which seems an even more grandiose title than “American Legacy” (and minus even any geographic or political/country reference). I had posted a link to a pdf which I’d in (it turns out) in late July, 2017, of its FY 2002 Form 990 IRS tax return (not the first one). I’d posted on this almost exactly two years ago (as I write on this update). Among several posts at the time, the level of detail on this next one will reward anyone who goes through it with better understanding of current, ongoing situations in the U.S. government.
By that I don’t mean just this Presidential Administration but the major, and often invasive, role the state (in the form of the DHHS) takes in dominating most of us, and between US DHHS and the USDOE (which, you may recall (or, see ALLgov.com or any other history) from 1953 -1980 used to be both under one federal department called “HEW — Health, Education, and Welfare.”
Another way to look at this — it was built up substantially after World War II.
More recent changes nationally and internationally (Brexit, mass shootings & the prospective of major changes in gun control legislation**, executive-branch USA initiated trade war with China affecting US farmers who sell much food to it (today’s local headlines…) continue fast, and furious, and altering fundamental relationships between (and within) countries I realize — but it really does help comprehension to take an overview (timeline) of key players in key federal agencies, and see mass movements in action from a structural/operational viewpoint.
**Searching just “gun safety” on this blog (for the posts I remembered writing, but not exactly when), one from December, 2017, comes up (I plan to off-ramp this next section to its own post, soon, however for which post is likely up (to be published) next, see the very bottom of this post…).
[SECTION REMOVED; PENDING POLISHING OF ITS DESTINATION POST, IT IS NOW OFF-LINE, THOUGH I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT ON TWITTER, TO A DEGREE. August 10, 2019.]
Here, doing the “drill-down” (looking at actual nonprofit filings and how organizations refer to themselves and any related entities (or don’t when ought to) quickly leads to information which speaks loudly about their character (founders & funders’ intents as seen by design and, again, their reporting).
**[NOTE: THIS NEXT SECTION LIKELY TO BE NOW HAS BEEN SPUN OFF SOON, DUE TO NEW DISCOVERY DURING ROUTINE POST-PUBLICATION COPYEDITING. MY POST IS ABOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE, DESPITE MASS SHOOTINGS/GUN CONTROL ISSUES AND DRAMATIC DISTURBING CURRENT EVENTS. MANY HIGH-PROFILE EVENTS AND SCENARIOS ARE CAPABLE OF BEING SET UP TO PROVOKE BASIC POLITICAL RESPONSES WHILE A POPULATION IS IN TRAUMA. REGARDLESS OF WHO PERPETRATED WHAT, EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS AND POWER STRUCTURES ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF EXPLOITING THINGS THEY MAY HAVE HAD NO HAND IN CAUSING (OR, MAY HAVE HAD SOME HAND IN SETTING THE SCENE FOR; EITHER WAY. SOMETHING, AS INVESTIGATIVE BLOGGER ON DV TOPICS, I SEE DAILY, AND HAVE ALSO PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FOR YEARS.]
** The next three paragraphs: (inside this box) paragraph from the removed section still apply. I’m still hoping to discover if there is — or definitely is NOT — any parallel capability in other, case in point of interest (for “FamilyCourtMatters.org”), Commonwealth countries as we have — though certainly not in full force, comprehensive, timely or accurate — in the USA).
MY MAIN POINT WAS THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT TAX RETURNS in the US. THE RECENT DISCOVERY of a CERTAIN Cafcass/Nuffield-Foundation connected, City University of London-educated on AFCC’s Board of Directors generated extra posting here… It caught me off-guard, although the friendly relations between the two organizations are not news.
In the US, we have an Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and individually, corporately (including nonprofits) file tax returns. That’s one reason some people understand, for example, how AFCC’s incorporation and state-level nonprofit registration behavior has been, er, ah — not up to standard (and at times non-existant when it should’ve been). Yet it wants to set international standards for divorce, custody, mediation, how to handle domestic violence, and has a news letter (or had) called “Kids Count on Us.”
These are posted — not fully, not always timely, not always filled out right — but they ARE posted and the IRS (federal) can and does automatically revoke organizations which simply don’t file three years in a row. They can then re-instate (and may already have by the time the IRS data is updated to show they were revoked — which can take a few months, a half year, or it seems sometimes longer)..
My August 5, 2017 post (“An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers…”) (full title — yes it’s longer and explains the first part — shown just below) is a good preview for the post you see now, which exists to previews another (pending) one asking some very hard questions — hard because they are in fact common sense questions with heavy consequences if actually answered — about the Family Law System.
I expect to re-post or at least Tweet a link to that well-developed one written almost exactly two years ago, knowing I may not be able to keep up that level of research much longer “pro bono.”
So much of our basic health infrastructure is, when you look closely, heavily about publicity, advertising and media campaigns. Similar things could be said about the educationalestablishment (which this post goes into towards the bottom — the “RELs” (Regional Education Laboratories) — and in general, how scarce actual fiscal accountability can be and has been through-out.
“TruthInitiative.org” home page (top) viewed Aug. 7, 2019.
If you can understand some of the reported realities on such large-scope activities driven by so very few people, I hope that understanding just might transfer (and it must — soon!) how the same vast discrepancies in the number of family court “reformists” and the population of this country whose voice is NOT being heard about the family courts, in part because the history of those courts hasn’t been considered or understood, especially how heavily tied it is into the existing health apparatus.
It seems we want diversity in almost anything else, but when it comes to something this important, it’s basically one of only two sides, Pro/Con (for the courts).
That alone should signal something might be radically “off.”
And there are ways to look at some influential things which have NOT changed in decades — simply grown in size, scope, influence and (as this post says) the amount of assets privately controlled…with the public footing the bill, eventually…and/or up front.
An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na” (15,400 words, “Fasten Your Seatbelts –this one’s details are SO still relevant to FAMILY COURT issues!! <~That comment, Aug. 7, 2019. I’m re-posting this (or Tweeting, etc.) in preparation for a follow up post//LGH)
I’ve been working diligently for some weeks on related but larger, in fact, macro-financed systems affecting the collective state (and county-level) health departments and agency systems which in turn influence the family courts.
Tobacco Settlement Payments to Counties and Cities, 1999-2019 (shows California only…). NOTE: One full page = one year’s worth; there are 20pp., so the total $$ showing at the top of page 1 first seen is for 1999 only. Some years have more columns (categories of payments) than others.… While CA and NY got the largest settlements (of those that signed on for the MSA), all other states and territories were also being paid..A separate quote below (from PHLC) says that by July 2018, these two states had received (combined) 25% of the total. Thus, what you see about would be about 12.75% or one-eighth. “Do the math….“
The Mary Lasker Papers (from profiles.NLM.nih.gov). I have posted this in context of big tobacco litigation, as I recall in 2017). See also her bio section there (wealthy ad agency owner Albert Lasker was nearly 60–nearly 20 yrs older– when they met after her prior divorce from an art gallery owner).
I’ve been revisiting the connections between tobacco litigation and tobacco-tax-revenue money and the expanding (yet consolidating) administrative levels of early-childhood (starting at age “0” at the latest) development seeking to swaddle entire communities/ counties/ states with early childhood development theory, practice, resources (curricula) and of course interventions —
— the same fields which dovetail naturally with divorce and custody proceedings and social science R&D on poverty (and abuse, and juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, etc.) theory as this blog has been reporting for years now. In these fields, psychology seems to reign supreme.
I’ve been trying to summarize, succinctly enough but still showing first, the billions of dollars per state per year, and “in perpetuity,” of extra financing which has been funneled through additional infrastructure (both public and private) set up specifically to handle it, and second, evidences of the impact.
CLASS ACTION MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN MOST STATES AND FIVE TERRITORIES AND USA’s LARGEST CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS…
This doesn’t include, additionally, revenues from extra taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products some states (like California) enacted as well, then and/or later, all of which created revenue streams received SOMEWHERE within government and distributed FROM there, as authorized legislatively when those streams were created..
Master Settlement Agreement (<~From the Truth Initiative website): between 46 states and 5 territories (on one one hand) and the largest U.S. tobacco manfacturers and trade associations (on the other), after which, per this, 40 more tobacco companies joined. State attorneys-general sought and apparently got, billions of dollars of payments every year going to the states based on costs of treating “smoking-related illnesses” (quotation from above link):
SHARE THIS POST on...
Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31(complete list).
(Post updated month by month since first posted Aug. 5. Some updates include explanations or commentary..//LGH Dec. 19, 2019
I added the last post published in 2019 (Dec. 21) to this Table on June 10, 2020; dates covered are later than date first published//LGH.
YOU ARE READING:
Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31 (complete list).
(Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 9,600 words (w/ monthly updates extending the table; word-count high in part because of the post “tags” added to the table as their own rows). Last update Dec. 19, 2019, adds all Nov. posts and all Dec. posts so far (@12/19).
Post published August 5, and updated periodically as the blog grows. The post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th, but being marked “Sticky” remains in top position of “Current Posts.” TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading for my current research focus (browse titles) as is anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget. Direct links to both this post and TOC 2018 show on my right sidebar, and both also are marked sticky, so TOC 2018 is also stationed among the top 12 posts. I’ll explain this again below with some images.
Within the table of contents, you’ll see this August 5 post easily from its white-on-black color scheme:
| 2019 | FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org The Year in Posts & Pages (so far, through Dec. 16) (with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some) |
URL: short-link ends: |
|---|---|---|
| (Normal color for a row containing a post title & link) | ||
| Aug. 5 STICKY, & THIS POST |
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far). (“Sticky.” About 6,000 words initial; the word count growing month-by-month with each update of course) |
-ayV |
Table of Contents Post PREVIEW
Table of Contents 2019 here, unlike TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, and 2017, incorporates any new pages by date published. Individual TOCs for late 2012 – 2017 can still be accessed within the top dozen sticky posts through the one for “2017” which internalizes links to the others: full title: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. Shortlink-ends 5qZ,first published Jan. 9, 2017..
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 