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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Read (with the goal of understanding!) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019)

leave a comment »


This post is:

The National Science Foundation (“NSF,” 1950ff, under President Truman) history ties in closely to Vannevar Bush. So does the history of Abt Associates (1965ff) as it intersects with Raytheon.  In many ways the history of the NSF illuminates the history of the United States in the 20th Century.  You can’t understand much of where we are now, and why, without some acquaintance with it.

BRAINInitiative.NIH.Gov (Google the term; many web domains will come up describing it, and President Obama’s 2013 launch of parts of it!).


The NSF website has a nice version, but this enthusiastic short summary is from Research! America, a nonprofit I also researched because of its involvement with (and dependency on) the buildup of the HHS and NIH especially as promoted Mary Lasker, and because of other certain Brain Institutes (as I recall) funded by, well, rich people….

Any history of the NSF will mention how it arose after World War II and in the early years, USA was caught off guard by Russia in the “Space Race.”  “What’s it to me?” (Keep reading…)

I have a short post on Abt Associates who, possibly because of its data-crunching ability, like many companies formerly involved in U.S. government military contract, found purposes in both consumer electronics AND continued dealings with the might of the U.S. government built up for and during wartime as turned to “health, education, and welfare” purposes (1953-1980) thereafter, at least that “health” part called “Health and Human Services” — the largest grant-making department.  Other groups  (like MDRC or the Urban Institute) would run the social science R&D on poor people and certain types of consulting agencies would then analyze and write up the projects — like Mathematica Policy Research, MEF Associates, and Abt Associates.

Some companies, also specializing heavily in federal contracts and consulting, seem to have managed to both get grants to run the projects AND be on the evaluation teams (I’m thinking of ICF International which got so wealthy doing this it continued acquiring other companies and now is a multinational for-profit (i.e., global) corporation.  Its advice was sought during the 2000 Greenbook Initiative on Overlap of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence, with participation from (then-called) Family Violence Prevention Fund, which has also since gotten fairly fat on contracts and grants — and become a real estate investor in the San Francisco Presidio, too. (Searchable on this blot).

My recent, short, Abt Associates post:


Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends. “-abD” only 3,000 words)[Devex.com is a media platform for this industry; Abt Associates also has (or at one point had) advisory board member on its board].

While NSF as a backer of some reports came up periodically in my blogging, it only hit home recently (when I took a closer look at its Annual Financial Report for Year Ending 2018) just how much its purposes, while primarily scientific and technology-driven (and preserving a national workforce capable of working in the fields) still overlap, and historically overlapped with “Social and Behavioral Sciences” — and that’s my turf when it comes to activism about the destruction-dealing family court systems whose “reason for being” centers in and is justified (still) under social science, public welfare, and psychological (i.e., mental health) theories about what’s good for people, what stops crime, what deters crime, what promotes prosperity (reduces poverty) and — of course — what’s best for little children, and all children.  Low-income and middle-class kids in public school systems or headed towards them, primarily, that is.

When I say “my turf” that doesn’t mean I’m in one of those professions.

It means that I’ve seen what that theory driving these systems does to the other professions when people (particularly women) opt to (try to) stay alive and functional by separating from an abusive parent (particularly men who have threatened to kill, destroy, kidnap or drive them into poverty, and some still succeed).  Count me as a skeptic, especially after years of reading the studies and comparing their contents to their originator’s (institutions’) tax returns, which often lack just as much connectivity to reality.

Again, this post was started on my Front Page, has been referenced for a few days on Twitter, and for now is called:

This comes in two sections I, embarrassingly, typed right into my own blog Front Page (“FamilyCourtMatters.org”), and a third one you’re about to see (on the NAS) before them. Plus tags.

This post holds a lot but not pretensions to completeness; it’s a general alert, reminder to maintain awareness of what areas public/private partnerships are flowing towards (nationally and internationally) and to keep following up by looking ALSO for the respective (public AND private) financials.  I’ve also been Tweeting about it recently.  Here’s a short-link to the NSF AFR I’m referring to in the post title, where the key phrase “International Brain Initiative” caught my attention.

Not mentioned in the post title, I also (for now) have a significant section on the NAS (National Academy of Sciences.  Note: that’s ONE “academy” for Sciences (plural).  It has more than one related entity, but from the start was intended as a singular, as was THE National Science Foundation).

After all, anyone in this country and others is going to be and already has been affected by the program purposes (example:  Mapping the Human Brain, exploring how to activate neurons “non-invasively” with light delivered by non-harmful viruses (optogenetics; it comes up below), and based on how important the early years are, investing more and more money into partnerships at university centers named after this cause — whether or not their finances even this far are even partially trackable, or being handled responsibly (I’m referring to more than one but thinking specifically of some investors in the Harvard Center on the Developing Child, and what I found just within the last few days on the Kavli Foundation, pre-merger (Operating Institute) — below.


So first, you get my SECOND summary (written Oct. 15 to warn about what I added Oct. 14, based on what I’d been reading Oct. 12-14).

It seems as those “synthesizing information components” of* my not-neuron-by-neuron-mapped YET brain which, ideally speaking, I retain proprietary control of while still alive, are working over-time to process the new information about in how many ways our own government boasts about its human-welfare-advancing activities while we already deal with in how many other ways it’s been set up to betray us and getting too many killed domestically through welfare reform policies.

What with optogenics and human gene manipulations/nanoscience etc. advances as they accelerate, I thought I’d better mention my reservations aloud while I still have an intact brain attached to a still-alive-and-kicking body, with fairly decent communications internally among its various parts, I feel.

The first section within maroon borders was the intro to this from my home page.  Below it is the original section (I think much longer) with also several image galleries and similar color schemes — but I will mark the separation between the two.

Rich field for further 501©3 drill-downs which, I assure you, are in process as we speak, and overall, continue to reveal disturbing gaps and raise more questions.  But this began with the most simple one — WHY would a government agency be called a FOUNDATION when as major tax-exempt foundations established by major corporate (and, intermarried, inherited or otherwise somewhat inbred control of wealth for a few generations by this time) know quite well — the term “foundation” represents a private — not public — legal entity.  The use of this term is so mis-leading that until I looked, for as long as I’ve been hearing (in the background or circumference of other things I was looking into) of the National Science Foundation, I’d assumed it was in the private category — which it’s not.

 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, FORMS 990 (JUST A TASTE!)

(This section has several parts, but the overall background color is “ivory” and the ones below it, medium- and light purple, also set apart through titles like the one you see above.)

However, the National Academy of Sciences (“NAS”) which predates it back to about 1863 and as chartered by then-President Lincoln, who was later as we know assassinated…) is private.

The NAS comes up in this discussion as I quoted its President expressing gratefulness for the opportunity to adde (yet another) named memorial after Fred Kavli in the form of accepting $10.5 million dollars for an endowment fund to this (see below) already billion-dollar (total gross assets) outfit.

So to get that “NAS” part out of the way, I”m posting its last three available (as shown on “FOUNDATION.Center.org which has been re-branded as “Candid.org” and is a PRIVATE entity whose (free) services I’ve used for years now on this blog, as unreliable as their “name search” function remains, inexplicably, to this day…

$10.5 Million Fred Kavli Endowment Fund in 2017

…“Fred Kavli was a champion of basic research and the scientific process, and his legacy is felt widely throughout society,” said National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt.  “Through this generous gift, the NAS will build on that legacy by providing leadership on emerging issues for which science can inform effective policy and promote understanding of science.”

The Fred Kavli Endowment Fund will provide unrestricted funding to the NAS….

[Quote is repeated below in the NSF/Kavli Foundation section]

My initial name search “National Academy of Sciences” (<~saved specs to repeat the search; data may change with time, though) showed at once three different EIN#s, two of which seemed to relate to health or benefits plans.  One of those health or benefit plans entities those seemed short-lived and was shut down by FY2005.

Going back in time (tweaking URLs for date it can still be done) I already found what seems to be an odd “side-show” run by just two salaried NAS employees (Archie L. Turner, and Nancy Goodman), and from 2002-2004 was marked “application pending” on the header info, then in 2005 “termination.” Activities consisted mostly of holding and selling (at a loss) certain kinds of investments, small amounts considering the size and age of the larger NAS.  If I worked there, I’d look into it.  But, I obviously don’t….NB it happened just a few years before the 2008 global recession, too.

So sorting by EIN# this time… we can see in fact FOUR numbers — one differs by only a digit (final digit) yet the return underlying it seems to be the same (final-digit “2”).  This appears to be a Foundation Center (not entity-filing) problem, but it does raise questions about the quality of their data entry and databases.  As the NSF (not the NAS) is my main focus for this post, I’m going to just leave the  (three) annotated images and perhaps a link to the largest NAS tax return of assets, as you can see over one billion dollars, and then perhaps take a quick look at the contents of most recent year’s Form 990.

Candid.org 990-finder database when I searched “National Academy of Sciences” comes up with the main one (wrongly named 2 out of 3 times) one wrong EIN# (attached to a tax return which doesn’t match) and exposes a strangely short-lived (I looked) tax-exempt, only about 2002-2005, main purpose apparently selling certain holdings at a loss, and that the DC-based organizations Retiree plan has a NH address for some reason…//LGH Oct 16, 2019


From past experience, I”m speculating that the increasing page count comes from failing to use the proper Schedule I of grants and actually post them about 8 -12 per page (on the IRS-provided form) and instead posting them just 2 or 3 to a page, increasing the page-count.  I haven’t looked yet, so only looking will tell for sure.  Before that link, here are the other two search results I did after this first one, from the same database on the same day (as an “image gallery” swipe or click if you don’t see both of them at first):

Now a closer look at the billion-dollar one:  I noticed I had to search by EIN# twice.  The first time (copying number from the first results above) got a “no record” result.  I then typed in the exact same EIN# (no extra ending or internal spaces either time) and got the results, Year Order 2015, 2016, 2017.  I sorted by year (to put most recent on top) and here’s that table.

Note:  these links are good only so long as The Foundation Center (dba “Candid”) maintains its basic domain names and html formats for their links, something I don’t control.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES The National Academies Development Office DC 2017 990 172 $1,378,179,858.00 53-0196932
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Office of Development DC 2016 990 164 $1,313,513,812.00 53-0196932
National Academy of Sciences DC 2015 990 112 $1,291,793,976.00 53-0196932

. . . . .

Why Color Scheme isn’t orange on white w/ gray stripes:  To make the table below with active links, from the Candid.org website (search results), I  block-copied the text — header row and three table rows — then add boilerplate html (saved elsewhere) for font specs to keep it neat and clean within post margins, and which also holds background tints (colors)).  These don’t match the latest re-branding of the website because my saved colors match the second-to-last re-branding of the same provider’s user interfaces.  Maybe I should update, but I like the color consistency for featuring Forms 990 (when with live links) throughout the blog.  Their prior version was with cooler colors. Both prior versions reduced number of returns shown for each search to about three only, and both (in user interface) submerged “EIN#” search under a sub-menu for not particular lack of space, that I can see, so presumably to discourage its use. (“Lord knows!” the name-search function is unreliable!)

Now, because I did look and wanted to see Pt. I (Summary), Pt. VIII (Details of revenues — how much direct government grants), Pt. X (Balance Statement showing where assets are being held and what liabilities if any substantial ones)  and how Supporting Schedule I of any Grants to (Domestic — USA — governments or private organizations) is shown.  Supporting “Schedule I” (as in “Idaho”) provides details reflected in Pt. IX (Statement of Expenses), top.  Schedule F would reflect any grants to foreign entities or governments.  (On Forms 990PF these can be combined and no EIN#s are requested by the IRS.  On that difference alone, cross-sector comparison is complicated when both types of non-profits contribute, coordinated-style, to similar program initiatives.  But, I still tend to look anyway).

Mission (Tax-exempt purpose) from Pt. I, Page 2, top, is brief:

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) IS DEDICATED TO THE FURTHERANCE OF SCIENCE AND ITS USE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE

Tax-exempt Purpose (Pt. III, Page 2, top:) reminds us this is a PRIVATE, MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION:

THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) WAS FORMED UNDER A CHARTER PASSED AS AN ACT OF INCORPORATION BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW ON MARCH 3, 1863 THE NAS OPERATES AS A PRIVATE MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATION OF DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS ENGAGED IN SCIENTIFIC, ENGINEERING, OR MEDICAL RESEARCH** NAS IS DEDICATED TO THE FURTHERANCE OF SCIENCE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE NAS PROVIDES ADVICE AND OTHER SERVICES TO THE U S GOVERNMENT AND OTHER PRIVATE SPONSORS

THE NAS IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXES UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, EXCEPT FOR UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME

**Interesting it doesn’t mention “social sciences” in this list…. Also that it serves both government AND private sponsors; i.e., it’s “for hire.”  (What kind of private sponsors can afford NAS scientists and distinguished scholars? I’m sure this must include several of the more famous non-profit research institutions, i.e., MIT, Harvard, etc.)

I just scrolled through the entire return, “See Additional Information” re-directions throughout and decided:  We need to talk about this (i.e., I need another post on it).  Not begrudging the funding for worthwhile activities — but this ought to come with a half-ounce (or a nano-scale dosage) of some respect for the public when filling out their tax returns.  Which it doesn’t.  Cut out the “see additional data”, use the IRS pre-printed forms to reduce the page count of grantees, etc. Also, where’s the return for FY2018, FoundationCenter?  Does the IRS have it yet, and if so, why don’t you?

Mary McNutt, President of NAS, Geologist/ Geophysicist (from NAS website)

Middle image (Part VIIB Independent Subcontractors) see above where I mentioned ICF International?  As you can see, ICF International, LLC, is  one of their top 5 Out of 155 total) this year (it’s earnings: $1.7M) three of them for “Transportation” projects, and the top five totalling (just “eyeballing it”) over $13M — and there are 150 more, it says, paid over $100K each.  President (and Geologist/Geophysicist) Mary McNutt was paid over $900K (+ $80K benefits) for a 37 hour week… ).  It’s renting to someone for nothing, yet paying major occupancy expenses.  Avoidance of putting details where they belong on the form.

Expenses Pt. IX Line 11g, if more than 10% of the page total (on Line 25) must be explained.  Line 11g (Line 11: non-employee Professional Fees, Line 11g= category “Other”) expenses were over $12M — but because the Line 25 total was so astronomical, no explanation of that amount was required, at least by the IRS form.

(Examples:  A $1.5M loan for residence to C. Daniel Mote, Jr. (on NAS-related organization, NAE I see, <~WikiVisually shows long string of accomplishments in mechanical engineering and contributions; not debating that, BUT) the information about his $1.5 Million Dollar loan (despite no doubt plenty of UCBerkeley pension and award money over the years: he’s 82 it says…) still belongs on Sched L, not under “See Additional Data” redirect from where it belongs on Schedule L

(Transactions with interested persons on the Form 990 is “Related-Party Transactions” in the audited financial statement, which this year turned out to be Note 14):

I found a reference to this $1.5M loan to an (unnamed) employee in the organization’s on-line financial statements, under “Note 14” — here’s how they described it.  It sounds like the loan is good so long as he lives in the home, or until he ceases being an employee (and, he’s 82…). The image referencing this loan grabs the heading for Note 15 to give some bearings on the quote but the first image does show Note 14 heading and lets us know about a California-domiciled, related entity formed for conferences in 1986, the “TNAC” or they call it ‘Beckman Center” (Or, it runs the Beckman Center in Irvine, California)This is an image gallery — but each image is “large” so swipe, click or navigate to see the next one if only one diplays).).

(COLOR SCHEME HERE: ARBITRARY): (I found “TNAC” in California, its Secretary of State Registrations, from there is Entity# and from the Entity# (C1294891), ℅ California Charitable Registry of Trusts, its EIN# (942994279).  William R. Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard was one of the early incorporators, which shouldn’t be too surprising… and it is at 100 Academy Drive, Irvine, CA. “TNAC” stands for “The National Academies’ Corporation”) and the conference center was described as exclusively for their owners (NAS, NAEF, etc.) use and with specific instructions on dissolution anything left over should to go them, providing they are still tax-exempt.  I see from their uploaded financial statements (though nothing past FY2016– and no record the state is asking them for their delinquent information either) about how this was set up (Irvine Company donated 7 acres in 1986; Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation donated $20M for an Arnold and Mabel Beckman Endowment with earnings to be used to maintain the facilities, this is, at least by now, pooled with an NAS investment pool etc.) but don’t think this is the place to lay it out.  In other words, their main assets are not the land and buildings (although those are included and obviously depreciated) but the solid amount of the investments held in the endowment, which can be looked up at least for their classification by type: US, Non-US, hedge fund or not, etc. .

Except, because I did not know who Beckman (1900-2004) was, nor had I heard of Beckman Instruments (and measuring the Ph of oranges), I know see his role in helping establish Silicon Valley by recruiting (?) or inviting William Shockley to come out.  Shockley Semiconductor  Laboratories started as a subsidiary to Beckman Instruments.  And (Wired says it well, but briefly in 2017) “Silicon Valley’s First Founder was its Worst:William Shockley brought the silicon to Silicon Valley—and laid the groundwork for tech’s problematic work culture.”(Pls. read if the topic’s new to you! Shades of eugenics, media savvy, taking credit for others’ works, trying to set up a PhD factory and in short, alienating his workers enough that they split off and actually got product to market, while he kept his Nobel prize and racist beliefs…Short read with one photo…).

What a full life (Science History on Arnold O. Beckman).  (<~ active link) What’s surprising — the Beckman Center website isn’t that well developed.  They’re right next to University of California Irvine and it seems also rent conference rooms. (Three nearby images; one is from ScienceHistory.org, the other two from the Beckman Center).

Dr. Arnold O. Beckman and his wife Mabel from “The Beckman Center” in Irvine, CA (website).

 

(Back to comments on the NAS Form 990, not the financial statements found later on-line) 

They have significant hedge fund investments (most in the Central America/Caribbean Islands area, of course)….

The Form 990 vs. Audited Financial Statements has a $73M discrepancy (“Unrealized Gains (Losses)…”), this is Part XI of the Return itself.


The NAS website DOES provide its (FYE2018) independently audited financial statements readable on-line — after attempts first to sell them to readers as an E-book ($14.99), or get our email and contact info should we decide we want a pdf (it’s free, but also invasive) and finally, you can “read on-line” with the minor drawback — being financial statements, NONE of the tables are decimal aligned!  They are all left-justified, which is insane when the main content is comparative numbers (!).  Nevertheless, it’s still readable with some visual translation…. and for free without giving up an email address.  Then again, hardly in a format to be shared or easily discussed with one’s neighbors who, like you, are probably supporting it in the “government grants” policy.

So, it should be a separate post.

~ ~ ~ | | |  ~ ~ ~

NSF, BRAIN INITIATIVE, Fred Kavli, Kavli Foundation & Kavlico 

INTRO to “Second Section” (now removed from Front Page of blog)

A bonus (well, new) mini-section on the US-based National Science Foundation (“NSF”) (1950ff) & the BRAIN Initiative & sponsor Kavli Foundation (source of wealth “Kavlico” 1962ff and, of course, real estate investments) which I added Oct. 14 is going away to its own post soon… Fred Kavli was a Norwegian-born physicist/inventor (?) who emigrated to Canada, then in the 1950s, the USA, obviously enterprising and able to connect with people as his company quickly got major contracts with (?) two major US auto manufacturers not long after.

There were TWO (Calif) now just ONE nonprofit ‘Kavli’ entities (the search filter was “Kavli”)

I discovered there even was a US-based (and an International) BRAIN initiative through reading the NSF AFR, although indicators coordinated language between university centers and nonprofits have shown up, and I have blogged them, in recent years. The financial input of a well-loved (because of the philanthropic support to neuro- and nano-scientists in different countries, including the US) Fred Kavli and the “Kavli Foundation” (California-based, meaning I can track its financials better), it turns out filed two, almost simultaneous California nonprofits: of these one NEVER registered with the State of California as a charitable trust (while handling millions of dollars of real estate assets, I’m talking over $20M, and paying a director, David H. Auston, at one point over $200K salary) before merging out of existence into the other one in 2006.

Obituary from the foundation (d. 2013) after listing a lifetime of accomplishments and philanthropy mentions he died of a rare form of cancer and is survived by two children (who have no names, nor does their mother, alive or dead) and “nine nephews and nieces” and, notably, little is said about his brother either.  This sometimes happens in families centered around one aggressive and successful member:

Immediately upon completing his studies in 1955 and receiving an engineering degree, he left for Canada and one year later came to the United States. After two years in California, he built upon his entrepreneurial spirit and experience and founded the Kavlico Corporation in Los Angeles in 1958** – later relocated to Moorpark, California. Under his leadership, the company would become one of the world’s largest suppliers of sensors for aeronautical, automotive and industrial applications with its products found in such landmark projects as the SR-71 Blackbird and the Space Shuttle.

**(The California Secretary of State says the year was 1962….)

Fred Kavli contracted cholangiocarcinoma, a rare form of cancer, about a year ago and succumbed to complications due to surgeries. He is survived by two children, and nine nephews and nieces.

What university or Kavli Institute at any university is going to say anything amiss about their benefactor, or, unlike the foundation, name the mother of his two children (ex-wife), his two children, or his brother as brother, mother, or sons/daughters?  Judging by this announcement at  KICNano.cornelll.edu, not one, and it’s been six years now, almost..

Here’s the National Academy of Sciences (established 1863 by Charter, of Abraham Lincoln!) in appreciation of $10.5 Million Fred Kavli Endowment Fund in 2017, and quoting two Kavli and one NAS board member said:

Fred Kavli had an insatiable curiosity about the world around him that underscored his appreciation and support of science and basic research,”*** said Rockell Hankin, Chairman of The Kavli Foundation and Kavli’s friend and associate for 40 years.  “This gift aligns strongly with our Foundation’s mission because it will give the National Academy of Sciences broad discretion in recognizing and promoting outstanding science for the betterment of the nation and the world.”

“The National Academy of Sciences is the symbolic home for science in the United States,” said Robert W. Conn, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Kavli Foundation.  “It’s entirely fitting that Fred Kavli’s lasting contributions to the advancement of science are honored in a way that will have meaningful impact for the Academy and the entire scientific enterprise.”

…“Fred Kavli was a champion of basic research and the scientific process, and his legacy is felt widely throughout society,” said National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt.  “Through this generous gift, the NAS will build on that legacy by providing leadership on emerging issues for which science can inform effective policy and promote understanding of science.”

The Fred Kavli Endowment Fund will provide unrestricted funding to the NAS….

** I understand that basic science research is expensive and that money for it must come from somewhere, and typically has come from both government (especially as spearheaded for the need to wage wars, plural and ALL that goes with it, including communications and transportation system fuels, explosives, health-related (medical efforts to stitch together broken or dying soldiers, to stop outbreaks of plagues which can come at times from such situations), and an army of mental health/psychological/psychiatric specialists to deal with such things created by wars and mass-genocides, such as: orphans and shell-shocked veterans with at times addictions.

And single mothers.

I just want to comment that many children trafficked through the family court system AFTER one parent reports domestic violence or abuse, whether into foster care or elsewhere (“reunification camps” for re-indoctrination in which parent to love equally with the other one — or instead of the other one) and/or worse (runaways, homeless who then are picked up by human traffickers), and some which do not survive the ordeal, or even a few years of “estranged spouse / bitter custody battles” when some parent “espouses” the “final solution” to getting even with (that bitch, or that bastard “ex” — more often the former when it comes to “roadkill”) — ALSO often had an insatiable curiosity about “the world around them” and while these are searching for (and it’s been called that) the “Holy Grail of Neuroscience” and mapping the human brain “neuron by neuron” with a view to genetic modifications for the benefit of humanity, I wonder why so little curiosity about the financial relationships is encouraged among the same university institutes, or private ones — by making their financials available to the public.  

I have some insatiable curiosity left still, and spent last few evenings looking up some of the other foundation activity of Rockell N. Hanken and the other Kavlico corporations and other Kavli Foundations (so far, that I’m aware of).  I appreciate the input of the NSF financial statements which are a good example of presenting such information for those who bother to look.  The stories are rarely so simple as presented for public relations purposes…  I also know that Fred Kavli can NOT have been the only talented entrepreneur with curiosity about astroscience, neuroscience, and nanoscience, and would like to know more about how those original contracts with the clients (automotive, aerospace, etc.) that made the Kavlico millions he so closely controlled (sounds like it wasn’t public-traded, ever?) for forty years.

And I question any hero, however philanthropic, that cannot even name the other members of his own immediate family, or his offspring, or say anything remotely positive about them…and whose colleagues follow suit, thankful for the millions…. Much as I appreciate and am also interested in (though having no expertise whatsoever in) these new fields made possible with new technology in just the last few decades.

NYTimes Nov. 24, 2013 Obituary by Wm. Yardley, “Fred Kavli, Benefactor of Science Pries, Dies at 86

NYTimes 2013 Obituary by Wm. Yardley, “Fred Kavli, Benefactor of Science Pries, Dies at 86” gives his brother a first name (“Aslak”) but somehow the “marriage” had no woman’s name in it, and it’s unclear whether the two children were biologically his or not.

How long was he married; in what country; how old were the children when they separated (and WHY?)?  See nearby image (photo dn show caption; see link for the full statement). As the other statement (KavliFoundation) references “nine nephews and nieces” either Aslak had a very productive family life — or they were by marriage somehow — or there was perhaps a sister not even named, either helping perpetuate the family line…. I realize it being Nazi-occupied Norway at the time, this may be a sensitive issue — but it IS missing information, still.


NSF and HHS (US Independent Agency (NSF, establ. 1950, reports directly to the US Gov’t?) vs. US Department), in its present name, established 1980, previously (1953-1980) it was US Dept. of “HEW”).

NSF purposes overlap in part with HHS purposes, and HHS itself should be understood in part as how the former HEW (Health Education and Welfare, before that Federal Security Administration (?)) had already regionalized the country and was, significantly, turning population persuasion techniques helpful in turning a country towards war (i.e., World Wars I and II) were “secularized” for peacetime uses, but the same industry conglomerates  (military + scientists) turned their attention towards domestic population management and controls, etc.  ANYHOW, I’ll be moving that section soon; it’s just now here as a reminder to pay attention to what our own federal government is doing, and how it’s doing it, with public resources.

SOS Kavlico Corps (only 1 still active, top row) (Search filter: “Kavlico” only)

The history of the debates (one big one, I’m reading) on whether or not to include “social sciences” under that umbrella, as well as to whom should the basic research in sciences be subject, is not just fascinating but also still relevant today as “social sciences” seem to be running the show within governments (internationally), obscuring the financials behind them.

As this blog shows, we can already see what they think of diverting major program funding towards promoting “family values” (male-dominant or else) simultaneously with “prevent violence against women”) and turning both into public-supported research fields, on-going.  Which I’ve been pointing out since January 2011, picking up just a few blog techniques (not enough!) since then, while running the Family Court Gauntlet in the years just preceding and overlapping with the start of this blog in 2009.  At any rate, the section won’t be there for long, so “while you can” because once removed, it may be a while before I judge it worthy of its own post (i.e., more documentation needed and getting that documentation into presentable formats).

 

 

//LGH Oct. 15, 2019.

~ ~ ~ ~ Below here is the section that “Above Here” was introducing. Looking into how to leave a footprint on the Front Page but take out most content because “too damn long” is still “too damn long”…. ~ ~ ~

NSF, BRAIN INITIATIVE, Fred Kavli, Kavli Foundation & Kavlico 

SECOND SECTION, written first, removed (mostly) from Front Page of blog:

New Front-Page Subsection: The NSF and an International “BRAIN” initiative and a key Foundation which claims partial credit for having sponsored it.

My very recent (Oct. 2019) curiosity about this is on the front burner for a while now.  This overall theme also has a close overlap with my family history (and next generation abilities) as well, so it’s a personal overall interest.  In another world, I might be working around such things, not fighting for survival for DECADES in the US-based family courts so adept at destroying careers of law-abiding women who are also mothers, as well as of non-abusive fathers, while in effect, inspiring and rewarding abusive, controlling, and criminal behavior under the label of promoting healthy family behaviors and values.  etc.   But my original interest came from just wanting to answer one question:  How could something called a “Foundation” as the NSF is, be a government agency.  To answer that question, I had to find out whether it’s filing CAFRs or Forms 990.  As you can see, I got my basic answer, and some bonus material about the international brain initiative.

I’ve deliberately included the top of my (computer) window frames in many images because they show the URL (the same for all in this image gallery).  Being an AFR, it’s a long document. This one is interesting reading and put together, I think, elegantly. However the top “CAFR” it would belong to is, in fact the CAFR of the United States Government; I have posted at least one year’s report on this blog, as well as links on where to find it (which do change periodically; starting at Treasury.gov usually a good place to look).

**  This Seven-Image gallery added draws only from the (linked below also) NSF Foundation.

Part from the “MD&A” section which tends to be more descriptive, but the midddle (3rd & 4th) images I believe are from Note 1 to the Financial Statements, which are always great to read at in the official “CAFR” format, “Note 1” always defines the reporting entity and tells things about it the average person might not know.  Here, it’s talking about where it’s money comes from and a specific fund (“NSF Donations Fund” which can take private (and other government, including foreign governments) donations, unrestricted, for its general mission.  The last three images show one picture of some of the (impressive) work by NSF (improving long-term storage batteries for energy produced by alternate forms, i.e., wind, turbine, etc.), and reference the BRAIN initiative I just found out about the other day — but which makes me wonder why I hadn’t explored the NSF more earlier on this blog as its “social science” and attempts at mapping the human brain (“neuroscience”as applied to Early Childhood Development, a field already heavily promoted and of course impacts family court proceedings because they involve young children…).

Now I’m adding two very annotated images from a single page of The Kavli Foundation’s latest (they’re filing really late, so that’s only for FY2017) California “RRF” (Registration Renewal Fee report) which starts with a one-page questionnaire and is important in any drill-down of any California-based nonprofit BECAUSE it shows filing patterns (on-time, late, or only under duress) level of completeness (did the OAG have to beg for full information, or correctly filled out forms, or even to get the entity to register with it (as required by law) in the first place, and what is its EIN#.  The OAG website also has Forms 990 (or here, 990PF) uploaded for each entity, but not consistently.

Having the EIN# (or “FEIN#”) enables more searches on other databases, such as “Apps.IRS.gov/app/eos” which shows filing patterns towards the IRS (federal).  The third image (which I also Tweeted Oct. 13) shows where on its website it takes credit for having spearheaded/incentivized or otherwise encouraged the “BRAIN Initiative/Map, etc.”  It raises many questions when considered alongside the origins of the National Science Foundation, and just one of two brothers’ history developing a business (wood chips for modified cars due to gasoline shortages) during the Nazi-era and occupation in Norway.  There are missing parts to any account I’ve seen so far.  ALSO NOTABLE:  the complex and interesting “Kavli Foundation” website doesn’t post its own financial statements or even EIN#.  It ought to. Naturalized or not, it’s an important part of the US economic landscape that the public should have access to this information, that tax-exemption is a PRIVILEGE with the price born by people who don’t form nonprofits (OUR wages aren’t tax-exempt; we don’t get to write off most of our personal “operating expenses” from life itself as do nonprofits), and we should not have to hunt, beg for, or individually solicit it (thus alerting any organization to who might be curious or possibly getting ready to investigate) those financials.

So a certain arrogance (to say the least) is involved here… and I really don’t appreciate it on the receiving end of institutions obsessed with social science R&D (especially on young children and marital matters) and “brain mapping” at our expense.

The Kavli Foundation’s background in just ONE Norwegian-American man’s major work and a company, Kavilico it says that he alone controlled for 40 years (CEO and single shareholder) until he sold it, facilitating the Kavli Foundation and Operating Institute (which later merged into the former) in California.  Further digging (corporate filings) shows others involved who helped him recruit participating institutions, internationally, around the time Kavlico was (according to this version of events) sold.  (That’s another story not for my blog front page!)

Even one quick trip to the California Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search website, ‘BusinessSearch.SOS.CA.gov’ (and some common sense) shows that this would be an over-simplified version. Most companies that successful have various subsidiaries or versions of themselves over time; this one shows (in Calif. only) 5 “Kavlico” corporations, one of which was a Delaware-based one merging into Kavlico Corporation which (having been founded in 1962) is still active; the only one still active. There were two nonprofit Kavli (vs. “Kavlico”) corporations (the search site doesn’t permit sorting or filtering for, or out, “nonprofits” which itself seems a bit ineffective; but does require knowing whether you’re looking for a Corp or an LLC, or searching them both if you don’t know which. The back-story on this one won’t fit on my home page, but would make a good post-series, and relevant to current events, 21st-century style impacting major research institutes and universities internationally intent on “Brain-Mapping.”

He was trained as an engineer in Norway and only came to the USA in mid-1950s; biographies I’ve read (so far) are vague on his father (said to have spent 13 years in the USA before the son got here), and Fred Kavli’s wiki notes he had “a divorce and two sons” but doesn’t name them, or who he married and divorced, or when.


I wonder if he was asked to pay child support and whether he did, or whether that divorce, child-siring (presumably, but maybe they were stepchildren; it just doesn’t say) occurred in Norway, Canada, or the USA. Kavilico’s contracting was with both General Motors and Ford (<~double-check); the era was post-World War II (America) as military infrastructure, while maintained, was being also increasingly turned towards consumer electronics and peacetime operations (one place to read about this is in the history of the NSF).

Also from 2000 and up through 2003 (Amended, restated) the (eventually merged into Kavli Foundation) NON-surviving Kavli Operating Institute foundation’s documents, from the start (2000) referenced “population control” — twice — before helping underprivileged communities in America and other nations… which wording would sound good on any 501©3…  Meanwhile the founding language of the (surviving) Kavli Foundation initially said only “any lawful business….”  With the California SOS link provided in above image anyone can easily key in search, see results, click on organization name, click on associated pdfs (after reading the cover page address, entity type (which will indicate if a non-profit), and just read them… here’s a start, but I haven’t prepared a whole other set of images underlining the “population control” within (usually) Article II statement of organization’s purpose.

(URL visible in top of windowframe: ethwiki.org for this individual)

I noticed in 2000, however, only Fred Kavli’s name was shown. By 2003 Amendment, two other names were David H. Auston David H. Auston – Engineering and Technology History Wiki (cf Kavli Fndtn BUT this man had Bell Labs connex (1966 sabbatical from UCB, hired on getting his PhD 1969 +Related fields (2019Oct14) (See also his work infl incl EBoyden, AlistairM Glass)(<~~my pdf printout from the website named; may need to click a second time on blank page icon) to upload (open) as mentioned near top of this page/Blog Front Page) well-known(?) Canadian-American scientist, now at UC Santa Barbara, was at Case Western, Bell Labs (while it existed) and Columbia University; the link says Fred Kavli recruited him not long after 2001 for the foundation..[Nearby image with yellow highlighting] .. and . (tax attorney, still on the board).  So at least these two individuals would’ve known about the “population control” part which typically also goes with environmental science purposes as well as the overall scientific basic research purposes..


Actually here below are three quick images from ‘The Kavli Operating Institute” renamed “The Kavli Institute” before it merged out of existence into the Kavli Foundation.  Image 1 is in 2000 (signed only by Fred Kavli); Image 2 shows updated articles (both with the phrase “population control” among its purpose” and Image 3 (from same document as Image 2)is just who signed the 2003 Restated articles.  Pls.re-check my summary on the databases provided; it’s my first time through this information, and I cannot promise to keep it all straight by recall at all times.  That’s why I provide links and take images in the first place!

(Checking my facts, I see the word “Operating” was added to the merged-out entity (Cal Entity #2203753 after 2003, not before. Both org.’s entity numbers are seen handwritten near top of the page; the surviving one’s is C2203935. Which brings up another question: where are the merged-out, population-control-oriented entity’s tax returns?).

I just learned about this recently,  It sheds some more light on where the financially coordinated, focused, and enthusiastic energies behind Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child” came from. I just happened to be browsing (yes, I do things like this at times) a National Science Foundation Annual Financial Statement FYE December, 2018 which dropped a few clues to the existence of such an international initiative to map the human brain “neuron by neuron” and from there, a Norwegian-American physicist (came to the USA in the 1950s just in time for set up of the National Science Foundation##)

(##see Vannevar Bush, whose name came up when I was — get this — looking into yet another company paid to analyze social science research and demonstration, including on a particular focus of this blog, HHS-sponsored “family values” promotion including “responsible fatherhood” grants and encouragements to “noncustodial parents” (now increasingly including women as the programs have been VERY effective at increasing “noncustodial parents” (male) parenting time by punishing “custodial parents” who resist contact for, say reasons of violence and abuse, by switching minor children to the exclusive control of the “alienated” parent, thus gradually switching the application of negative labels AWAY from actual criminal behavior, and creating new types of crimes which family courts are well set up to punish (while rewarding participation in the “old words of criminal law” types of crime…)

ABOVE, I annotated (heavily) a single page (split into two images to you can actually read it) Kavli Foundation California Office of Attorney General’s “RRF” report which shows its size.  Another oddity:  despite saying these returns were all received, the California OAG RCT’s database hasn’t uploaded ANYthing (IRS returns or Form 990s) before FY 2008..  For such a large organization so closely connected to neuro- and nano-science research in a state known for its Silicon Valley and CalTech (and — in 2018, which I checked) receiving TWICE the amount of NSF contracts of any other states (the closest others seem to be Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas, but only California broke $100M — for that year). (Link shows in the NSF images above and is accessible through the NSF AFR (pdf link) I provided above on this Front Page, added section).

I do this in part to feature the reality/possibility of such heavy private influence on public universities and partly to introduce a basic simple form important for any (California-based, even if legal domicile is another state) tax-exempt organization required to register as a charity (i.e., certain types of churches, religious, or educational, business-trade, etc. organizations may not be required to, but I think most are).  This foundation also does take personal credit for having pushed the Obama Administration, essentially, to launch the B.R.A.I.N. initiative under the claim of improving the lives of billions of people around the world. I just happen to have had so many years of experience of certain individuals, and interests claiming they just want to “improve the lives” of children and/or my family, yet wouldn’t stop the destructive patterns even after they’re brought to light, that I question the motives and incentives.  Right now, I’d like governments which can be held accountable to their own people.  Complicating all financial trails from taxpayer through government and presumably back towards services for the public welfare doesn’t seem to be in our best interests, no matter how spectacular some of the scientific results are, and how necessary most of them were).

For what it’s worth, I read that among the major arguments around the origins of the NSF were the role of including social sciences in the mix along with the more obvious “hard sciences.”  This can still be seen in the organizational flowchart of the NSF (I tweeted it yesterday, Oct. 13, 2019) and in fact can also be seen in most universities if you look at under which colleges or schools the “Schools of Social Work” operate — the word “social” appended to the word “science” alone tells us that the field isn’t without significant qualifications and borrowing of terms, in fact its own “science” in the sense of the scientific method, as could also be safely said (though it’s apparently “sacreligious” to say so) of psychology, resulting in constant borrowing of terms from established fields of science, such as “forensic,” “clinical” etc.

Put this ‘Social Science’ — Science or not?’ debate which doesn’t seem to still be taking place together, within the domestic (or “family”) violence prevention field, as chief leadership of both the family court field (key organization AFCC has known connections — early 1990s and before) to the University of California-Berkeley  School of Social Work through both Meyer Elkin and the University of California-San Francisco (the psychoanalytic parts) through  an “AFCC” favorite: Judith Wallerstein (who also had some UCB School of Social Welfare connections, but was married to Robert Wallerstein at UCSF; they’d also both met at the Menninger Clinics (see bios for exact labeling) in Topeka, Kansas in the 1950s-60s key place for practice of psychoanalysis (including on traumatized war veterans) at the time.

Meanwhile on the “family violence prevention through ongoing behavioral modification interventions,” i.e., framing it as a health and social problem” to be solved by treating whole families, and communities (“coordinated community response” means trainings for EVERYONE in a community — all communities, in fact —  field, Jeffrey L. Edleson, originally a UCBerkeley grad, after spending a few (nearly three) decades at the University of Minnesota (School of Social Work) then returned as Dean of School of Social Work to UC Berkeley not long (i.e., just a few years) ago, and, with his head (along with colleagues, historically) increasingly directed Eastward across the USA and the Atlantic Ocean, to UK Connections (and publishers) I believed recently retired.  However, projects involving international kidnappings (and the Hague) from ℅ the UCB Goldman School of Public Policy continue.  These are searchable on-line (some, on this blog), I’m not detailing out the links now.

For those who DON’T systematically follow court-connected nonprofits, like they should have been doing by now (except for others intent most of the population, especially the battered women and mothers, NOT do so) know, the NCJFCJ-published 1999 “Greenbook” co-authored by Edleson and Susan Schechter (of University of Iowa again, School of Social Work) has been used a long-term program model for addressing the “co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence” as sponsored by both private foundations and federal government (US DHHS, US DOJ) etc.

For as long as I, personally, have been dealing with this issue (if starting at the initial serious domestic violence assault), Edleson et al. have been successfully — #1 long-term employed at public universities in high position with, presumably decent salaries (and pensions to come) AND making a career out of what happens to women like myself and our children, and how our ex-partners, whether or not spouses, interact and prosper — or fail to thrive — or, some, get killed.  It’s all a major intellectual exercise in analyzing batterers’ behavior and better (better than 100% separation and safety for those battered) interventions.  A field which wouldn’t exist had there been a corresponding interest in the finances behind perpetuating the dynamics of such problems by way of family courts, USA — which also came into being not that long ago, as it turns out.

FYI, tags: a few of these tags I added to pull up related posts, not because any drill-down on them existed in this one (example: Whitehead Institute at MIT; although I did quote “Research! America” of Lasker backing, I did not talk much about it on this post, etc.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: