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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019).

leave a comment »

This post was assembled and written and published (about 5,000 words only) within one day, then tweaked the day after.

POST TITLE: Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019).  (Short-link ends “-bvP,” with last update to add headings and reformat some images, Nov. 7, now  about 6,500 words)

The top part (Pt. I, My FNAQs) is freshly written; the bottom two-thirds (now, Pt. II, Oct. 3 [2019] Clarifications and Pt. III, Extra Content) were moved/reallocated from another post, to air the content again, as explained below.  Pt. III has the most images and may be the longest.  I have a brief footnote, commentary on a previous “find” on the blog which only asking the FNAQs would’ve unearthed.  And an important one, too…

Pt. II, “Clarifications” summarizes my approach to this blog and links to footnoted content on  “Acknowledgements, Executive Summary” (Sticky Post #3 now).  I think those footnotes will be my next post.

Comments fields are open; let me know if this post raises questions you had, but hadn’t found answers to yet or questions you do not routinely ask when evaluating, assessing, or simply deciding whether to follow (read, support, engage with) a cause featured on a website or referenced in the media, but might consider asking from now on.  Or any other relevant question.

Going after the answers to certain basic types of questions for even ONE organization* immediately starts building [your] transferable skills in reading and assessing basic life situations and government, philanthropy, causes.  It’s a good habit!  I believe identifying certain basic facts (and using the vocabulary to express them: entity/non-entity; public/private; registered for-profit/not-for profit; home legal domicile (country, province, state or territory (if USA)…) should also be basic citizenship skills, necessary in keeping government honest. **when you hadn’t asked or even wondered about these things/asked yourself such questions before.

If you still think that’s someone else’s job, so long as you vote and read/listen to the news, please reconsider!

I haven’t been back to high school recently (or teaching in them), but I don’t see that asking these questions or providing the skills to answer them (or even the websites where they might be) is taught as basic part of “critical thinking” skills in at least (USA) public schools who are often the testing grounds for privatization of behavioral transformation efforts (etc.).

How could they be?  Public schools (categorically) are projects of the government specialized school districts which are government entities; finding their financial statements (CAFRs) would shed light on the entire assets to liabilities, revenues to expenses status of government itself, and how a Budget =/= a Balance Sheet, and how convoluted, in fact, are the programs contracting with and run in the entire operational infrastructure, often targeted by private collaborating foundations (tax-exempt, nonprofit, etc.) testing new technological, psychology, behavioral modification tactics, how to turn schools into social service centers, and at times, sad to say, also drugs.  (Texas TMAP, replicated, later whistleblower, in Pennsylvania, etc.).Many people may think public school financials come under county governments but typically they do not, and are reporting separately.

This also relates to the major asset investment platforms, i.e., institutional funds.

Meanwhile, locally, people are often encouraged to fund-raised for (separate) foundations (tax-exempt 501©3s named after the school districts without having ever looked to see what resources are actually available, and how they are being handled. I’ve seen this in both urban (inner-city) and wealthy (SF Bay Area suburban) areas.  Real estate values tied to quality of schools conceal how much extra money poured into them from outside supplements education quality, or how much extra effort parents (who can, often, afford this) put in to bring their own children’s performance levels competitive (for college…) with those in private schools in the same communities.  I’ve seen this as both a parent and a service provider to for what a public school budget, typically, eliminates, even in “good” school districts.

A few years ago I  wrote a series of posts (out of my own curiosity and where it overlapped with Family Court matters) on organizations focused on running programs for and through public schools, USA to close income and wealth gaps.  The same collaborations also pushing, heavily, for starting schooling at age ZERO; this will continually blend public and private revenues to places untrackable…

All this has to do with attention:  what you pay attention to, and notice when that information is absent in a presentation.   Much of this can be looked up on a cellphone.

Pt. I., My FNAQs

I decided to start with my persistent “FNAQs,” which Pts. II and III reminded me about).

FAQs are Frequently Asked Questions, according to whoever designed a particular website.  They are commonplace.

Here are many FNAQs (Frequently NOT Asked Questions) which I asked and sought answers to time and again over the years during my blogging, to the point most of them became a basic checklist and (when answers were not found) a mental note about the missing information to that entity (or, non-entity) as well as (verall) an ongoing irritant and motivator to keep looking.

I think they are good questions but sad to say, not routinely asked by the public regarding organizations they deal with, seek help from, donate to, or become aware their (respective) government entities fund.  In fact the first question is about identifying “Entity or Not?” when faced with these circumstances.

When I say “by the public,” I obviously cannot speak for all people (and am sure accountants, financial and investment advisors, and I sure HOPE grant reviewers and administrator civil servants, auditors, etc. certainly do know), but am talking about on social media where organizations and campaigns are being featured, promoted, are soliciting, get quoted, RT’d etc.

I’m almost at the point that, when some “mainstream media” journalist’s article I may not know (or may know by name, but not much about it) is quoted or “RT’d,” I will go right to looking for that information, and, if it’s public (and based in the USA) also its tax returns.

On my computer I have thousands of individual files (images, snapshots or pdfs) saved in (estimate) a few hundred individual folders named after their respective “entities” (or collaborating ones) where known (and as many, probably, on “the cloud” taken from cell-phone when I’m not on the laptop…).  For me this is part track record, but the process of finding out and making a note of it means it also gives me a scope, puts a dent in any of my ignorance of it up to that point. Overtime and overall, it builds depth of awareness beyond just individual finger-pointing or single-organization-blaming on major, attention-grabbing issues.

This post may help explain why I continue to believe and assert they are important to ask, individually up front when surfing the web and taking hints and referrals from any cause or campaign, and why I wish I saw more people, with enough common sense to ask them and, collectively, talk about the answers they come up with.  Have you ever wondered about these FNAQs? (Have you ever browsed tax returns of your favored organizations?)…

(I didn’t bring up “CAFRs below.”  Related, but separate topic featured often on this and another blog.  “CAFRs” relate to government entities.  But first, “Find the Entity, if one exists…”

Why should the social scientists and grant-supported investigators have all the fun? It can be fun to look up and develop an instinct and capacity (‘nose’) for when it’s a major find.  [[See “Footnote Comments Nov. 5: “Major Find” / NCJFCJ’s “NCJJ” / Diversionary Services & RICO at the bottom of this post]]

(SOME of) My FNAQs


~>How do you tell an “entity” from a “non-entity” in any country and what does that mean?

~>Who decides which is which?

~>When some website talks about financial support (or solicits it) without showing which entity that support goes to, should you donate?  Money or goods & services (i.e., “noncash contributions”) when it “changes hands,” in effect, changes owners, goes FROM one TO another.

ONCE an ENTITY has been identified, How does it (or does it?) show its “FINANCIALS” 

~>Why is the term “Financials” as part of a website (if even present) only a partial definition  — almost meaningless in fact — when exploring any potential (real) entity soliciting support, or describing who already supports it and why it’s activities (programs) are so important?

~>Why are “financials” as important as the famous or not-so-famous boards of directors sometimes referenced as “Our Team” (or Board of Directors, or “Staff” which are more specific).

~>What are some of the common “tricks” for any entity seeming more transparent and responsible than it is, on “Financials” pages?

~~>(USA-specific) When both 990-filers and 990PF filers get involved in the same projects, what barriers must be overcome (: to identifying grantees (for the latter) or specific investments (under “balance sheet | assets”) (for the former).

~~>Why is failure to post audited financial reports (even when made available upon request) a major drawback for the public in understanding organizations who may be funded primarily by government contracts, or grants? (HINT: See any post-2008 Form 990, Part XI which requires organization to report differences between the Forms 990 and audited financial statements).

~~>Other than being, basically, broke, and a small fish, why might any entity still existing legally for years (five, ten, even twenty years) be filing mostly only electronic notecards, i.e., Forms 990?

~~>Why is the use of “fiscal agents” commonplace in some circles, and why might it also be objectionable from the public’s point of view?

When it comes to NON-ENTITIES so many BIG ENTITIES are excited to fund:

~~>Why are so many wealthy foundations so prone to funding university-based “centers” (named after them specifically as major donor or not) in both public and private universities, and  enjoying mutual referrals and citations to that support?

~~>Why in the heck won’t most websites naming organizations specify WHAT TYPE  and WHERE (legal domicile) by including, regularly, a suffix specifying how it’s registered (Inc., Corp., LLC, Ltd., plc, etc.)?

Besides IRS.gov, why are Form 990/990PF databases (for all public filers) left in private hands only and subject to “discretionary” decision-making on what to display or what fields can or cannot be searched?

~~>More recent questions:  why is it left up to private organizations to provide databases of IRS returns the public can search when tax-exemption is itself a government-endorsed privilege?  These organizations sometimes change hands, can use arbitrary filters and field options, and are less than transparent on quality control which (in my experience) despite the high volume, is sadly lacking.  As it is also (from what I can see) in the federal grants data for the US Government (meaning, federal government).

Offhand, those are some key FNAQs I have at all times. I believe getting some of then answered may (individually, and as networked with other organizations) may tell more about any entity, or its campaign or cause, global, national, or local?

I think these are at least as important as questions like, how do we (“we” who?) handle high-conflict parents / divorces / custody cases; how to “differentiate” batterer (or, domestic abuse) types, what is “DV by Proxy” and in just how many ways can criminal behavior be de-criminalized in favor of diversionary (treatment) services the public will end up paying for anyhow, sometimes with their lives when “diversion” may have been more equitable — but didn’t work?

Again, This Posts’ Title is Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019). (short-link ends “-bvP”). Material below was taken Nov. 4, 2019, mostly from the bottom of my TOC 2019 (top sticky post), link provided below also, under the heading

EXTRA CONTENT (excerpts) for SOME POSTS (by date):

(The occasional screenprint I felt inspired to include, by post Title/Date):


Why moved:  I doubt many people were looking at it that far down on the page anyway, with as many posts, pages, and occasionally long lists of “tags” incorporated into the table anyhow.  Incidentally, the October TOC 2019 posts alone look like this (in two images):

Pale-green striping: In the above versions, only one set of “tags” has been added to the table.

The same tags viewed on individual blog at the bottom (for the Oct. 27 post) look like this.  Well, when heavily annotated to label parts of the post displaying the tags, they look like this:

For an example of post “tags” as they display at the bottom of any published post with some tags… || LGH|FCM Post 2019Oct27 Tags + some (annotated) (I also tweeted) ~~ SShot 2019-11-03…[Annotated, obviously]

I also removed major content from below the 2019 Table of Contents because got tired of looking at it there each time I hit “save,” to add another entry to the already long table of contents.

This “Extra Content” represents and draws from certain drill-downs already done.  They are interesting; I remember doing them and with this off-ramp will adjust the image sizes for easier viewing. Maybe not before publication, but soon after.

This post also draws several paragraphs and an embedded link from (at the top of that same post) “Oct. 3, “Clarifications” section, already marked “may be moved later.”

That section summarizes approach to this blog AND features/links to content referenced in “Acknowledgements, Executive Summary” (Sticky Post #3 now) which reflects  current research interests and content I’m still reporting, specifically pulling together more international connections (with specific drill-downs and references to related Twitter threads).

I’m also getting ready to re-post the same (“Acknowledgements”) July 31, 2019, write-up, as it’s definitely a full plate of information and points of reference.I wanted it off there, but not out of sight or even a peripheral vision for current posts. So this post seemed a stepping-stone to that goal.

Sometimes the points of reference include journals based in one country with professionals of influence in another.  A “Footnote” section to “Acknowledgements July 31, 2019 post I’d also said I’d separate handles follow-up on an international journal with just a few US representatives, one of who was in Arizona and published alongside Sanford Braver.

“Ah, yes: Arizona…”

Generally, Arizona as a state is more than interesting when it comes to child trafficking, family court fiascoes, fatherhood initiatives closely tied to federal grants, right-wing religiosity bordering on the Unification Church type (as has also been connected to the USA’s East Coast, and cross-affiliated with “AFCC” “Children’s Rights Council” (David L. Levy, Esq. (now deceased) among its founders in the mid-1980s).  There was an Arizona legislator also a member of the Unification Church with close ties to the Bush family line, and so forth.

Arizona State University also has a Family Violence Institute (I DNR exact name) and was the site (as I recall) of a 2012 “Our Broken Family Courts Conference” sponsored by Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation (see post for more exact phrasing) on which I found — shortly after, and blogged this April 2012 — a number of professionals who also presented (regularly) at the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference (“BMCC”). Overall, despite the geography spanned, some of these overlapping circles of influence seem to be relatively small.  People know each other through conference presentations, journal editorial boards, and commenting on each others’ publications in some of those journals, over many years.

So I feel it’s also appropriate to re-post that Acknowledgments page, and potentially separate its footnotes.  Right now it’s the third from the top sticky post on the blog, so easy to find.


My life continues moving on (sort of…); years go by… as I have voiced a number of times, I do not know how much more I can continue blogging (this format may be reaching its functional limits; good as a record of previous work done, but not for building a movement around, in this format alone)… which is one reason I worked hard in mid- to late-2019 on getting it into better, more accessible shape. No amount of my interior redecorating efforts will turn the information I have to convey into a form which doesn’t require — of readers — a lot of reading.

There has to be an appetite to read (a lot!) somewhere within, and to discern, first, the ridiculous from the rational, and eventually get it down to the true. I came with this appetite and whetted it through ongoing lookups, write-ups and research.  I’d love to have some “peer-reviewed” feedback; the only problem being, getting others to read enough and educate themselves enough (over time, consistently) to see the forest for the trees — and several of the trees — and a basic vocabulary labeling some of the flora and fauna around the family court jurisdictions, and some of their wider context.  There are such labels; most people just won’t use them or talk in terms of them.

I guess it has less curbside appeal than name-calling of the social science or psychological sort. And less socio-media impact too. You have to come to the topic with some existing “gas in the tank” other than anger or political persuasion.  This system defies single category political or even demographic labels. I’ve had to come up with some to supplement the existing ones.

The “October 3 Clarifications” section comes first.  I’d made a claim abut this blog, “All my indicators are there’s still nothing [else] like it out there…”  Unfortunately.  I wish there was…

If you prefer more pictures (although some of these are pictures of boring (?) things like more text — from some entity’s (or in some cases around NJIT, perhaps a non-entity’s) website, or mine, or both — and making a point about it interspersed with logos, links, and maybe some headshot of some important (to the organization) person, then scroll beyond the “Clarifications” inset (in this background color), which explains (clarifies) where I’m coming from as a blogger, why I haven’t quit yet, and why it’s (unfortunately) still unique …

I might have quit earlier if was less unique, or there was something similar (sustained effort following key entities and naming their basic strategies) out there.  There isn’t, so I persisted, so far. I also see from a basic “statcounter” html (reflects main page only) indicator from what countries and (at times) government, university or, to a lesser degree, private businesses (based on browsers displayed) who’s watching it, and how long certain ones stay on, or how often revisit.  There are also what I’ll call “mystery” followers from France, Germany, and (more variety of locations) the UK; persistent over several years.  Anyone can see (sidebar) there aren’t that many signed-up followers (the same goes for my Twitter account) for how long I’ve been operational.

Pt. II., “Oct. 3 [2019] Clarifications”

Most of these aren’t talking much, but they sure seem to be reading…or falling asleep for hours with their browsers open to this blog if not….

** Clarifications added Oct. 3 .  Clarifies a statement I made in :

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Oct. 31 (so far).(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 9,800 words (w/ three months’ updates extending the table, incl. with some post tags).

That statement:

I’m not sure how much longer I can keep blogging and wanted this blog more accessible.

All my indicators are there’s still nothing [else] like it out there, written by someone with experience of both the domestic violence protection and the family court system but despite that personal experience still focused on obtaining and featuring basic data (i.e., much from databases) available to common people (i.e., people without access to academic journals, insider information on the courts, or individual court cases) to show system organization, and that built-in conflicts of interest within that organization as a rationale and solid — as opposed to “assumptions unspoken/unchallenged, and when challenged, found lacking proof — base for (family court) system reform.** (see “Clarifications added Oct. 3,” next inset)

So this is that inset.  Only now on a different post….

In other words, unlike

  • most family court reform organizations’ leaders** leadership, I am actually a member of the class allegedly being protected or which these leaders seek to protect  [** detailed at bottom of “Clarifications” section]


  • most protective parents (typically characterized — and likely most typical — as mothers)  or domestic survivors with the family court devastation or “my children were murdered (or kidnapped) on court-ordered visitation (or even supervised visitation)” nightmare experiences, being a member of the class allegedly being protected/which these leaders seek to protect,

I didn’t sell (give away, essentially) my story in exchange for hope (or, to make a living at it after other lines of work were cut off through the process) as coached and facilitated by the family court reform (mutually) self-anointed ‘thought leaders’.  

Mothers who have already lost in court, and/or lost children, are sought out (“trawling for trauma”) and encouraged to focus on telling one’s tragic story, stirring major “pathos” credibility, which can then be linked (in the press, already “if it bleeds it leads” mentality to attract readers) to “fixing family court practice” rather than investigating the operations & finances, thereby strategically delaying the inevitable “outing” of key nonprofits who organized to set up the same courts, such as AFCC, NCJFCJ, NCSC, NCCD, NACC and others — and distracting from the blueprints: how these organizations do this knowing about and intent to be sustained by existing (with efforts to add more) federal funding streams, while working to internationally standardize practices.

What such mothers don’t seem to realize, while failing to investigate (a) the court-connected nonprofits and (b) the U.S. (especially post-PRWORA) federal grants that feed them and thus notice how BOTH the domestic violence advocacy and fatherhood fields were developed separately but have in fact always collaborated privately, even about policy [EXAMPLE:  Batterers Intervention as Standard Practice is built into the widely distributed “Duluth Model,” as is “Coordinated Community Response” which obfuscates the funding track] is that sooner or later their stories will fade from public attention, and the cycle of ignorance repeats itself in the press.

The worst ones can be exploited for years (I’ve seen it!), but there’s always a need for “fresh blood,” while aged-out children, now adults, are brought into the “family court reform” fold to testify at conferences, STILL knowing little about operations.

While all these I listed above are well-known key organizations, (outside apparently the traumatized Moms and domestic violence organization/court clientele) that exhibit the overall public/private business model, that model I believe is best seen looking at them in collaborative operations, the closest leverage to the family court systems seems to be AFCC, and that’s the organization which seems to have been the most hushed up by the (self-anointed thought leadership), EVEN THOUGH many individual researchers, investigative bloggers (I’m not the first!) continued to bring it up, and most of us know that they know.

It seems that what you do (or fail to do) after you know matters the most.

**(Nonprofits who manage to get cited, and eager to file amicus briefs, testify before task forces, and to the extent their leadership has academic connections, publish in a law or other journal), some getting minor USDOJ/NIJ grants to start finally backing up the [ridiculous and barely supported] numeric claims about the family courts, others working more getting their names alongside the former in media articles about the problems in family courts).  See my June 29, 2014 post for a list as of about that time, but I’ve known before then.  Collectively, they make this blog necessary, and its basic work, harder.

In my “58 Essays” and “Acknowledgements” (now second and third sticky posts on this blog) —  Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (<~~Click to Access; shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky). I gave these groups a backhanded credit for the existence (as a necessity) of this blog.

Women, mothers with custody challenges who have already been betrayed by this crowd (discovered usually in hindsight) then don’t and sometimes properly can’t trust each other, either —  certainly not when it appears some personal knowledge of our “stories” (cases) is then used to direct the desperate to certain professionals working with/for the opposing side, or who can potentially (once the story is blurted out) sabotage a case in process; the mother gets a blog/social media gag order, etc.  I call this but am not the only person who called this “throwing mothers under the bus.”  It’s a known tactic.

Meanwhile, using terms “domestic violence” (typically) or protesting “parental alienation” parents (litigants, or former litigants) make the rounds of help-seeking and invest personal time in social media (for free…) repeating the same story-telling, as coached/prompted/induced to by the professionals, possibly hoping that maybe some journalist will come rescue them — or the whole system.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it’s possible to be aware that telling your story mid-litigation in exchange for “help” or hope that “someone”  — perhaps a female (or male) “Prince Charming”? calling out the right battle cry (“Arguing PAS”) —  really may ride to the rescue and champion the cause, and FIX the broken courts, so the suffering may not have been in vain may just not be so wise.  At some levels, it may even be stupid. Why not instead, look more closely at how government works — by at least STARTING to follow the money and (thereby) see just how little accountability, and how many built-in conflicts of interest exist, not just with individuals but with the networked nonprofits through which business is run — and get a better view of operations?

Most of which the current FamilyCourtReform (self-declared) thought-leaders, a.k.a., champions (heroes, etc.) aren’t interested in discussing, probably because they’re already, and I keep finding evidence they’re hoping to be even more in on it, too, soon.  (This has also been clear for many years:  see “Family Court Enhancement Projects” (2008ff) for just one indicator).

“If a few more kids get killed on the way towards THAT noble, if not downright holy, crusade, so much the better for publicity.” seems to be a shared mentality.  Seeing this, I chose not to join up mentally or socially, not that this caused me to shut up….. //LGH Oct. 3, 2019, minor tweaking Nov. 4.

Pt. III., “Extra Content”

EXTRA CONTENT (excerpts) for SOME POSTS (by date):

(The occasional screenprint I felt inspired to include, by post Title/Date.  Look for the sub-headings marking the post it came from and date published (all, 2019)):

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Oct. 31 (so far).(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 9,800 words (w/ three months’ updates extending the table, incl. with some post tags).

Posted August 5,* Updated Oct. 2 (* So this post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th).  Also a link to it was added to my top right sidebar, within the “GO TO: Current Posts…” widget) which also has  Table of Contents 2018.  With the Oct. 2 update, I also marked this post Sticky, making it generally hard to miss.  If you want an idea what I’ve been blogging recently, TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading (browse titles) as well as anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget.

No single essay (post or page, even with the exhibits) can expose an entire network developed over the decades, expanding and evolving in its many roots, branches, tendrils above and below ground (direct public awareness ℅ storefront websites and periodic MSM feature stories). Understanding comes with exposure over time and seeing some of the basic operating principles in action, which I blog in a show and tell manner.  I’m just not focused on anecdotal narrative based on individual cases, not even my own. (See blog motto: “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment”).

Some screen shots and at least one embedded tweet **from key posts are here below the table, labeled by post. **(I tend to attach media to my Tweets.  That media isn’t necessarily on the blog library.  Linking to the Tweet makes them easily available to click on — within Twitter).

Why:  TO FURTHER PUBLICIZE BOTH THE CONTENT and the PRINCIPLES THAT LED ME TO IT, BASIC PRINCIPLES IT ILLUSTRATES (“how things work”): The more time progresses, the more “finds” on connectivity between situations and the larger drivers of the economy (affecting family courts, of course) show up.  I worked hard on the drill-downs and summarizing them; which both the tags and the occasional screenprints added here, demonstrate.

Willingness to read tax returns I find is often a short-cut to comprehension — if you comprehend what’s on and what’s missing from, the average tax return.  Read enough of them and understand what’s also missing from most journalism (storytelling) and often even testimony before a state (or federal or other) legislature or task force, too.

Definitely a good point of reference, overall. I still hope people will read and understand — but that still comes with effort.   I am not paid for this effort.  Anyone who consistently puts this much effort in would naturally hope it benefits more than just him/herself, which is, after all, the purpose.

For March 4, 2019 post:

How 501©3 “The Next American City,” with help from at least Five BIG Foundations, lost its “American,” while Devastated Detroit’s DESIGN is Anointed by UNESCO (Written Sept. 2016, but Published Mar. 2019). (short-link ends “-4iT”)

The organization in 2005 had a $50K grant from Rockefeller Foundation, three on the board of directors, and was looking pretty broke.  Then some of the bigger-guys kicked in (I posted all their tax returns, as of that date (Post was written in 2016, see table of contents) and noticed that one condition, possibly, of receiving the extra support was dropping the name “American.”  It also moved to Philadelphia, where organizations …  [Three images follow]:

…(Businesses) don’t have to file annual reports, or in fact, very often at all. As of date of that post (and tax return cited) it didn’t qualify under the 33% rule of being a charity; it had to use the 10% “Fact and Circumstances” text that it was, generally, a charitable purpose org. (See Image3)

For March 20 post

Interlocking, Dysfunctional Definitions, Cont’d: “NJII, a NJIT Company,” and (how, exactly, NJ became) “the State of Innovation.” (short-link ends “-9wS”)

(from the post, I see I also had a Bit.ly link and tweeted it at the time):

Too many red flags there also, but I start below with the recent Bloomberg article. I have already Tweeted some of this () (@LetUsGetHonest, Twitter thread, March19, 2019, three tweets and one reply with attached “media” (images), and some links to more information) , but do not expect a discussion to make this post. It should be a separate post.  Feel free...to pay attention and cut through the PR to concrete, declarative statements about what is taking place among how many individuals with what collective vested interests.

Most relevant seemed to me how such a seemingly and (self-described as “SME”) small entity, only recently registered with the State of New Jersey  DOR (2012, 2016) and in two different name formats, with the latter one NEVER being referenced in print, that I could see, in association with the brand, while the NJII itself only incorporated in 2014, could suddenly have major mentors (see “name-dropping” link above), connections to Dun & Bradstreet to the point of obtaining access to a giant data platform as is described, so quickly.

Who, really, owns whom (or owes whom) in THAT situation also speaks loudly.

I’m embedding the Tweet here, too.  This also helps if some of the background or corporate law in NJ is reviewed, which the post also does, some… (Click on “Show Media” if needed to view).


FIVE ScreenPrints from the same post, March 20, 2019 (#1 from the top, #5 asks a basic question again:  Why that structure?).

Image #1…

From LGH|FCM 2019March20 Post (see also bitly ending ‘2ugpzSZ) re: NJIT, NJII, HealRWorld (dataplatform), Dr Tarabishy (GWU) etc ~~Viewed 2019Aug5 Mon # 1 of 5 Screenshots

Image #2…

From LGH|FCM 2019March20 Post (see also bitly ending ‘2ugpzSZ) re: NJIT, NJII, HealRWorld (dataplatform), Dr Tarabishy (GWU) etc ~~Viewed 2019Aug5 Mon # 2 of 5

Image #3…

From LGH|FCM 2019March20 Post (see also bitly ending ‘2ugpzSZ) re: NJIT, NJII, HealRWorld (dataplatform), Dr Tarabishy (GWU) etc ~~Viewed 2019Aug5 Mon # 3 of 5

Image #4…

From LGH|FCM 2019March20 Post (see also bitly ending ‘2ugpzSZ) re: NJIT, NJII, HealRWorld (dataplatform), Dr Tarabishy (GWU) etc ~~Viewed 2019Aug5 Mon # 4 of 5

Image #5…

From LGH|FCM 2019March20 Post (see also bitly ending ‘2ugpzSZ) re: NJIT, NJII, HealRWorld (dataplatform), Dr Tarabishy (GWU) etc ~~Viewed 2019Aug5 Mon # 5 of 5




May 6, 2019, post:

More about those perspectives and key concepts (and actors). (See Also upcoming “A Closer Look At — and Alternate Interpretation of — Who’s Funding Poverty Research..)” (short-link ends “-9MU” 17,335 words.)  The next screenprint shows (WordPress-generated) three related posts; their titles reflect subject matter).  The tops look identical only because I’d posted the similar content near the top of each one…

June 16, 2019, “Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms” post

Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (“-9ZS” a  very long post…)

The following screenprints show what was on my mind at this time as I did drill-down after drill-down on just one, tangled situation crossing several different states (and USA’s northern border), ℅ in part some new-age spirituality behind at least one of the off-shored entities fascinated with VERY early childhood education (public-supported of course) for absolutely everyone (at least in certain social classes…).  It tied into Harvard…and parts of it into early domestic violence organizations (etc.).

Not shown — another “Clearinghouse” from Wisconsin, ‘NCALL’ and its relationship (backing by) the Greater Milwaukee Area Community Foundation (or similar name; see bottom of that post).

Image #2 has an inset from my sidebar (10 most recent posts) which in this context should be ignored.  It’s the surrounding text I wanted to capture for these screenprints.

Image #1 of 3, June 16, 2019 post “Mix ‘n Match, Misunderstood Terms”…

June 16, 2019, “Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms” (ends -9wS), (Image 1 of 3, “Bonus Content” Nov. 4, 2019 post, ends ‘-bvP’)

Image #2 of 3, June 16, 2019 post “Mix ‘n Match, Misunderstood Terms”…

June 16, 2019, “Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms” (ends ‘-9wS’), (Image 2 of 3, “Bonus Content” Nov. 4, 2019 post, ends ‘-bvP’)

Image #3 of 3, June 16, 2019 post “Mix ‘n Match, Misunderstood Terms”…

June 16, 2019, “Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms” (ends ‘-9wS’), (Image 3 of 3, “Bonus Content” Nov. 4, 2019 post, ends ‘-bvP’)



Lead-in sentence:  Why should the social scientists and grant-supported investigators have all the fun? It can be fun to look up and develop an instinct and capacity (‘nose’) for when it’s a major find.”  

Footnote Comments Nov. 5: “Major Find” / NCJFCJ’s “NCJJ” / Diversionary Services & RICO

As in, the side-line of business by a subdivision of Reno, Nevada-based “NCJFCJ” showed up (years ago) relating to the employee [E. Hunter Hurst III?) also running Pittsburgh-based “NCJJ.”  Later (recent “Blueprints” post, I believe) NCJJ was repeatedly quoted in a (1997) Ohio “Feasibility Study” (found at the Supreme Court of Ohio website) studying how feasible to set up (statewide) family courts, citing organizations particularly interested in this:  NCJFCJ, NCCD, and (“surprise”) the AFCC.  Translation:  The private nonprofit(s) whose membership targets family and juvenile judges and emphasis throughout on “diversionary services” from the criminal prosecution system (esp. for juveniles — but when it comes to family courts, also for adult male (and female) batterers) had an employee with a MAJOR sideline running for-profit, eventually NASDAQ-traded businesses which involved running the same types of institutions children (juveniles) diverted from criminal prosecution “just so happened” to be diverted into.

Although this situation came up and was a key feature of (Luzerne County), Pennsylvania, ‘Kids for Cash”Scandal many years ago — that is, youth were being pipelined from school for minor infractions to institutions in which (directly or indirectly) the pipelining judges had a financial interest . . . a.k.a. “RICO” … somehow we don’t think about the parallels when it’s more than just a single county jurisdiction but instead targeted NATIONALLY through such nonprofits?  And, (for the NCJJ) in Pennsylvania, too??  Hmm…



To go back to originating post (=Table of Contents 2019 except for the ‘FNAQs part), Click on:

To review (about 3rd sticky post from top of the blog) “Acknowledgements, Executive Summary” post published July 31, 2019 which I’m about to re-post or feature a section of soon) (Deals with international issues and specific in part to the state of Arizona), Click on:

  • Acknowledgements, Executive Summary … (Publ. July 31, 2019) (short-link ends “-auh”) (Title abbreviated here).  That page is information- and points-of-reference-rich (keywords, names of organizations, journals, legislative actions in process, and some key professionals associated with them) with links to find more.

To go back to top of this (short) post (title revised Nov. 5 to reflect its three basic sections, in reverse order), Click on:

FYI, as always, to reply by comments, see just below.  I’ll be notified by email; I do moderate.  Usernames will show, your emails won’t be, however, as moderator I’ll see them.  I have spam detector and do not tolerate hate talk.  Constructive criticism, be specific to which post you’re talking to (hopefully this one) and private links or identifying details (like basic geographic location/jurisdictions) for claims, if possible safely, within a comment.  I’m not a lawyer and nothing in this blog is legal (or financial) advice.  Thanks for understanding.//LGH

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: