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.

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »


Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.


About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.

Consider:

(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  

and,

[2]

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
Consider:
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?


I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]


Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?


The domestic violence industry (sic) (USA) also entails networked tax-exempt organizations in different states (jurisdictions), funded by both public and private resources, neither particularly all conservative nor all progressive in nature (BOTH political parties have “thrown mothers under the bus” **[added 2/14/2020]) as directors of government-fronted “violence prevention” nonprofits organized regionally (by subject matter) and statewide (deliberately and by law public-funded less than the regional, subject-matter-focused organizations). (My page shows this by quoting that law).

[**When it comes to 1996ff Welfare Reform’s purposes to promote marriage and fatherhood as a national policy and fund ways to divert legal custody decision-making processes into private hands, i.e., outside the courts but controlled and monitored by those running the courts, among many other things)].

In addition, many powerful women in feminist positions in position of judges, lawyers, social workers (i.e., in the family and dependency/welfare court systems), OR court-appointedf mediators/program administrators continue to throw mothers under the bus in “the family court system.  Domestic violence advocate academics who may or may not be AFCC members (but certainly act as if they might well be– just not openly) such as Professor Joan Meier of DVLEAP  (only formed this century) (George Washington University) may not be in such powerful (or well-financed) positions, but still continue to exercise leverage and undermine mothers by refusing to “out” the role of AFCC or federally-funded fatherhood programming, except as it may fit into feminist rhetoric, which is by nature progressive in character and voice).  DVLEAP is even part of the statewide DV organization coalitions (through the DC nonprofit).

Feminist talk is popular, however much of it turns out to be double-talk.  The violence against women is real — but what they’re doing about it taken at face value does not make sense. Understood as co-dependent enabling of patriarchy in exchange for private, specialized “turf” claimed four decades ago, it does. When you consider the networked nonprofits and their funding, it does.  Their networks are deemed more important than our lives, as generation after generation of mothers with  children seeking protection from abuse, some fleeing for their lives, is off-ramped and railroaded from DV advocacy groups into the family court systems, enabling groups like DVLEAP (and California’s FVAP) to start setting legal precedent for appeals of cases handling DV within the family courts — rather than exposing the foundations of the family courts and the direct connections to the private, multinational membership organization, AFCC (etc.) 

WHY would any bona fide system have this massive design, yet not let the public know about it from the start in their respective publications and media campaigns?  Why should we continue taking their stated mission seriously, given the collective behavior of the leadership?


Nevertheless it’s rare to run across people other than those academics and nonprofit CEO’s and directors already involved, who have their turf and career curves to protect (and are rarely interested in dialoguing with people like me, whether or not they are aware some of us exist), who will talk about this situation.

I understand “protecting one’s turf,” not that I, having had to file for legal protection/intervention in a violent marriage with children,  particularly respect or approve of it when it costs others’ lives (and livelihoods).

I do not understand, am less impressed these days by parents — male or female — who refuse to protect their own interests by understanding whose turf it is, but continue to reject information not framed as either primarily conservative (Republican, USA) or progressive (left-of-center Democrats, USA).**  I don’t respect, generally, rejection of knowledge on important issues, but I still continue to post and publicize those issues, not because I’m responsible for safeguarding anyone else’s minds from brainwashing or propaganda, but because such people do not make for safe or even functional society, communities, counties, states, or countries.

**In other words, parents who’d rather — it is a choice — operate and support in the “divided and conquered” “good guy vs. bad guy” mode in hope of achieving a louder voice somehow, than operate with some freely available intellectual independence, with or without ongoing social support and approval, by learning and using some basic financial vocabulary in use by both the public and the private sectors authorities and policymakers until they can see the hidden agenda of the “dog and pony show” we’ve all been subjected to for so long.

  • [Examples includes some of my blog tags and themes]:  A Budget is not a Balance Sheet.  A Project is not a Person.
  • The Federal Government is not  Broke (judging by controlled assets).

When websites consistently imply the opposite, you’re being misled and misdirected, usually for one reason:  profit, and coverup of covert operations which otherwise would be made plain and some of which would quickly show up as illicit, criminal, immoral and/or unethical.

  • Another key point: the fascination and ongoing (relentless!) promotion of public/private partnerships (and investments) aside, there are major differences between the two sectors (such as what kinds of financial reports they must file and where to find them), as well as similarities (both have revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities, and for the most part, some sort of budget.  Both can and often do hire employees.  Both [sectors] are heavily into population management and eventual control of infrastructure in and around which that population (employees, consumers, students, etc.) live.   

Therefore, to help people better comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA, (and as promised for some time now on this blog’s sidebar) I shortened a Feb. 2018 featured page to make it more accessible by essentially chopping off the bottom third.

The next section identifies that page and its parent page, which are also featured on my right sidebar, as shown in the image.  I’ll post this at the bottom, again:

THAT (Feb. 2018) page’s Title and shortlink. The page is important enough to this blog to have its own place on my top right side-bar widget (see image).

(Image added to this page, Nov. 5, 2019, however it’s been on the sidebar (though without the short-link, which I’m adding now)  for a long time)…//LGH

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area. [a PAGE, Publ. Feb. 2, 2018]: (Case-sensitive shortlink (all parts of it) ends “/PsBXH-8rg”). note:  post protocol is lower-case “p” in “psBXH” but Page is upper-case, “P” in “PsBXH.”  (The characters PsBXH or psBXH probably (both) represent this specific blog).

Its parent page and shortlink** is my blog “Front Page”: LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018). (short-link ends “/PsBXH-8o0″ (Last character is a zero), however, if you simply type in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” it’s pretty hard to miss). …

That bottom third, now here instead, is a drill-down relating to the ownership of specific media platforms I’d quoted in writing that page.  (Specifics, below).

I learned a lot from the original drill-down and continue the practice still.  It doesn’t take that much personal time to start building awareness of the larger context, and it’s basic part of national and international history.  The content and nature — not just size and scope — of multi-media platforms changed, significantly, within about two decades of popularization of the Internet, and about the turn of this century (roughly 1980s to 2000). With the USA’s unique income tax and way of handling nonprofit registration and accountability, and its major investment platforms through the receipts from those taxes (public and institutional investment funds), the nonprofit sector naturally attracts wealth of billionaires with intent to retain their power and influence, but add a good reputation to the mix, and, frequently to continue owning mainstream media, along with real estate, sports teams, mansions, etc. — but talking diversity, justice, equity and fairness for all.


I still want to emphasize how important it is to filter for propaganda (and make more efficient use of one’s on-line time).  In doing so, I wasn’t going to just delete that section, which illustrates several key principles in interpreting on-line information.  So it’s republished (and replenished here).

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who owns which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, FROM my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’  Page]. (shortlink ends “-c9y)

Opening Spiel: Exhortation, Rhetorical and other Basic Questions.  

I’m tilling the ground for (upcoming) post/s, “by the grace of God,” meaning, if and when I can, featuring [a] Equal Justice USA, Inc. [EJUSA.org]   and [b] TheAppeal.org.  One had a sensational headline; the other re-(Tweeted) it.  

After some notes on this (next up) and after my spiel (Look for the post title & link again), I have the original business of this post:  transplanted material from a major page.

On Feb. 7, I’d asked on Twitter:

Apart from this dramatic (and distressing) account, did anyone besides me look into who or what is (a) EJUSa.org or [**] theAppeal.org? Both are interesting, one from Maryland (inc. 2007), the other in California (1992ff 501©4 with some VERY flush backers).

[** should’ve read “(b)”]

Headline from theAppeal.org:  “Family Sues Pittsburgh Public School For Handcuffing 7-Year Old.” subtitle: In a lawsuit, the boy’s family said he was repeatedly suspended, secluded, and violently restrained before he was ever given a special education evaluation. (Feb. 4, 2020 by Roxanna Asgarian) (“[b],” below). (Search title verbatim to see others citing the Appeal article).

EJUSA.org** came to my attention when it re-tweeted the same headline, and (as I scrolled through that account), a 1/21/20 tweet “Oakland is becoming a leading model for community-based violence intervention programs…. providing solutions that rely on resources and support rather than law enforcement and incarceration.”*** which led to a “Youtube” I did not hear.

**(Twitter @EJUSA, with 31K followers, joined Feb. 2010, “works to transform the justice system by promoting responses to violence that break cycles of trauma,” and my “[a]” below)

***I have two-plus decades’ experience of how Oakland’s models based on demographic profiling policies (“…does it help us politically to mitigate valid claims of historic, chronic racism, sexism (the misogyny kind), and classism? What’s in it for us?”) helps “intervene” with violence when the victims have little left to trade their safety for. I’m talking about post-custody-switch, family courts.  As I made the rounds seeking help (and gradually learning how the system worked), the general attitude was (system response, in effect):

Don’t have a criminal record, substance abuse problem, haven’t murdered anyone recently to escape an abusive relationship (or being trafficked), aren’t homeless (yet), ARE educated (not in need of jobs-skills or a GED), are a U.S. citizen (vs. undocumented immigrant), are not a woman of color or low-income noncustodial father, don’t want to uproot all (abandon existing housing) and join our emergency domestic violence shelters (overflowing anyway) for the “holistic program services protocol” — just need some enforced and enforceable boundaries, or given the stalking and job search efforts, a functional cell-phone?

In that case “forget you!”  What you’re reporting isn’t a felony, it was just a parental dispute, no matter what the state penal code classifies as felonies.  Go back to family court for more mediation:  work it out with the ex-batterer, child-stealing Dad who then ABANDONED the children,  and work on your personal communication skills on your own time & dime.

The above list a combination of my own experiences and awareness of some of the specific organizations in the SF Bay Area I interacted with, both before and after custody-switch.  They were particularly unhelpful after I no longer had minor children (i.e., warm bodies for whom billings might be incurred) in my household and uninterested in how this had happened on their watch. Meanwhile, I personally knew women who had been forced homeless, or fled to shelters in the area (or to subsidized housing far out of reach of most food, grocery stores, or work areas, that is on a former military base) far from public schools for their kids, and with infrequent bus service.  There seemed to be no concept of intermediary help that wouldn’t gain for the directors some political traction (boasting rights for rescuing the desperate) in exchange for forfeiture of basic human rights.

I’ll mention in this context that a key loophole, exemption from receiving any help under “Victims of Crime Act” which background marks some of the District-Attorney-connected Family Justice Centers), is simple:  if it  was diverted into family courts, a decision ultimately under the control of the local District Attorney (“to prosecute or not prosecute”) it wasn’t really a crime.

That many times it actually was, we can see when among the consequences of handling such things in the family courts,  is periodic “roadkill” that is, killings by “exes” taking place, plus economic consequences, job attrition and ongoing disruptions from having to deal with things absent enforceable boundaries or protections year after year.

But when the kidnapping,  stalking, child abandonment, refusal to seek work when thousands of dollars in arrears on reasonable  child support orders, in combination with repeated violations of family court orders (and perjury) isn’t “criminal” in the eyes of the family court forum to which it was off-ramped, then the basic effect of family courts is to facilitate and reward criminal behavior.

See Footnote “San Francisco Bay Area (including Oakland) Sound-Off” near the bottom of this post. I had to say this again, but you don’t have to read it all up front… It elaborates on and explains why my sarcasm above. There and in this “Opening Spiel” I’m also intentionally injecting many searchable terms when it comes to public policy-making and the courts; the footnote and this section are not just free-association rants by one “disgruntled” (a frequent label “moms with boundaries” get in the press) parent.

The footnote begins:

The San Francisco Bay Area, organized like many metropolitan regions, into quasi-governmental power bases such as “ABAG” (Association of Bay Area Governments), including Berkeley, Oakland, Silicon Valley (Stanford U, Palo Alto), typifies the Golden State’s progressive arrogance [elitist control of local governments and nepotism at the county, community and state levels]  and sell-out of basic enforcement of existing laws in favor of paradigm-switching to a more global, “behavior-health-based” model — all of which privatized services, as well as the re-training for the process of switching, the public should pay for, more than it already has….

The area’s beautiful geography, climate (not county the regular wildfires and periodic earthquakes), and California’s long coastline with major ports in San Francisco, Oakland and (same state, further south) Los Angeles, and even (San Diego area) a border with Mexico, among other things, make California (and, “NoCal” (Northern California’s)  San Francisco Bay Area)  a hub for billionaires….

…So yes, then I saw new-to-me media platform “TheAppeal.org” was talking “Oakland, California” as a model of criminal justice reform, I knew I was going to look up who or what was, and was behind, “TheAppeal.org,” and did.]  Upcoming post…//LGH Feb. 11, 2020.

(This section: “a, b” notes to the above only; a preview of upcoming (“by the grace of God,” post...in case your interest may wish to fade on the details of this one.  Both deal with the importance of paying attention to the media platforms in play on certain topics; both call attention to nonprofits as a force to be reckoned with (many have substantial financial resources) in what may seem like, but isn’t, a “fair-play, open forum” social media ecosphere. Both show ways to look up who’s involved when the article is of interest, to get some bearings whether you’re dealing with independent individuals, staff, or people involved with multi-million (or -billion-)dollar (sic) outfits.


The Process of actually DOING the Drill-Down (Look-ups) may seem tedious (at first) but I’ve found it, for the most part, a short-cut to comprehension. Regarding the two media platforms I noticed, mentioned above, marked [a], and [b],


[a] (and all that goes with, as a Maryland-based Nonprofit, entity address now at 81 Prospect Street (no Suite# shown), a classy, rapidly growing Brooklyn, New York, Address in “Dumbo Heights” redeveloped — after purchase (in 2013) with four other industrial-purpose buildings and a hotel, purchased for $375M from the Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the Watchtower) — by the Kushner Companies, as in current U.S. President Trump’s son-in law, Jared Kushner, with “RFR Realty and LIVWRK, the real-estate startup of former Two Trees’ executive Asher Abehsera..”) (per TRD – The Real Deal, New York Real Estate News, article date unclear, but details up to 9/2018 show on the post)..WeWork a tenant there, Kushner Companies the landlord. At the very least, it’s interesting.  Equal Justice USA, Inc.’s co-founder (and on the board, except he died last October) was Jonathan Gradess, more famous for the (older) New York Defenders’ Association and a force in making sure criminal defendants actually got access to competent counsel.  Exec. Director of Equal Justice USA, Inc. is (and from the start seems to have been) Shari Silberstein; its primary stated purpose is eradicating capital punishment and organizing nationally to do so.  Still, it’s a small organization.  Again, the relevance to family court issues (although many criminal defendants are parents and may have family court cases) is a side-issue, if even on the radar.  It also shows the (evil) genius of family courts:  minimizing definitions of criminal behavior, case-diversions into family law on basis of overcrowding or false allegations, and once there, either parent (including non-abusive ones) can be accused of psychological as well as physical abuse, but (USA system) NOT have any right to a lawyer — because the venue is not designed as a criminal court.

[b] Which, when you get down to it, is an “editorially independent project” of the Justice Collaborative which is itself a fiscal-sponsored project of the Tides Advocacy Fund, a California 501©4 (1992ff, Drummond Pike, Annie Sproul…) part of the progressive Tides Network of multi-million-dollar backers. See next five-image-gallery and the wording on the “The Appeal IS” paragraph. I showed two versions of that paragraph, highlit (yellow) different sentences in each.  One shows subject matter focus, the other (almost as an afterthought) identifies who/what “The Appeal” is as opposed to, what it does.

Other images show header, footer, and how it’s organized the USA by six regions for the cause.  Too bad, when the USA legally is organized into, instead, 50 states and territories, not “regions.”  Attempts to regionalize are everywhere, coming from the federal agencies also.  However more relevant here is this website as “A Project of Tides Advocacy (VERY fine print at VERY bottom of the page, 2nd image here).

How shy TheAppeal.org was about self-identification, forcing the curious person to go to another websites, that website as it turns out representing a major force in progressive politics (SF Bay Area) which [this single entity one of several Tides Affiliates not technically-speaking all “Related Entities” under the IRS] changed its name several times overr its short shelf-life.

Moreover, the self-descriptive paragraphs on “The Appeal” also make it clear they are not dealing with family law primarily, but criminal.  More, coming soon (I hope…)

My “Opening Spiels” have long sentences, generally a complaining attitude, very few links, truckloads of declarative statements, and, essentially, air dirty laundry list for existing garden-variety “Family Court  Domestic violence / Child Protection” reforms (as seen on-line) or, if you wish, my dream list of what I wish would become common knowledge.

File this “Opening Spiel” under “Opinion,” but below that are the links and the backups not opinion, but fact.  The transplanted material represents a lot of work and time spent on specific drill-downs, I believe still in the public interest. It was done February 2018, about a half-year before I had to flee the state of California (as an elder) dealing with the “family violence” part of the (decade-long) aftermath of family court destruction, the aftermath of a violent marriage in another decade.

If I could figure this out as a basic fugitive (not from the law, but from certain lawless individuals and situations they’d engineered, as these things go, for personal profit and basic ill-will), then why couldn’t/wouldn’t more people PAID to investigate major social problems and able to put their own name as freelance reporters (or staffers)?  Would it sabotage their careers, or cost future freelance gigs  to tell more of the truth about these things?

Perhaps (my more broad-based, diligent) approach and sharing it systematically year after year isn’t flashy or overtly dramatic enough, doesn’t generate notoriety and with it, a reputation. Maybe they just don’t find it interesting or colorful enough. Maybe that type of truth has too little (easily marketable) “hope” attached to it. To be honest, I don’t really know.


To understand how relevant ANY cause-based reporting is to the larger picture, you need to get a grasp of that larger picture, which I’d characterize (generally) as public/private policy making based on the (false) “scarcity theory” of government budgets and deficits. (“A Budget is not a Balance Sheet”)

The main point is getting to the understanding as a basis for reform — not just “I’m pissed off, I was hurt, others were hurt, I hate what exists now: impeach (or recall) Judge A,B,C or D” which are personal, and often valid basis for WANTING reform — but not a foundation for it.

If that  (type of) post, language, tweet, link, cause, petition, or headline worth is propagating, it’s worth knowing who or what sponsored it.  When you don’t know, admit you don’t know and (for a change!), start looking it up and building personal, cumulative knowledge about the media behind the latest causes.

Be patient, keep working at it, and be diligent — or be easily manipulated/socially-engineered (essentially, brainwashed).

How hard, really, in reading on-line an article in a publication, to look closely at the framework of the web-page, to follow through on the “About” page, or fine print at the bottom, and figure out if it’s for-profit or not-for profit, what’s the home country (and if USA, in which state), and especially if it was a nonprofit, when did it start up, and with whose backing?

Beyond that, I continue to sense people in the field of my particular interest (see this blog!), continue to talk as though mainstream media attention to ANY family court fiasco (“if it bleeds — or is a parent or child missing in action — it leads”) — ANY mainstream media attention — is good, when in fact, in the long run, it’s not.

That type of journalism isn’t built around systemic education on what, really, ARE the family courts [as opposed to practices within them or regulations/legislations regarding them] or, for that matter, what, by definition, is government, or what is a nonprofit “organization” [#1: it’s a PRIVATE entity], where do you look up government grants to nonprofits (or other government entities, or private for-profit ones), or access their tax returns and independently financial statements (i.e., their statements to government authorities), and what can you learn from them?

How many nonprofits are there? What are their collective holdings any given year?  Or, take a few ones of interest — what are its collective holdings over time, and its filing habits (compliant or non-compliant; on-time or always late?)

Does mainstream journalism EVER educate or feature that? Of the many websites owned or run by nonprofits, do they?  

Of the huge resources of (again, my example is thinking of the US federal government)  government websites, usually featuring separate executive bran ch departments, EVER educate on or feature that?  Does “Justice.gov” [USDOJ] cough up its grants (let alone contracts) database?  DOES most of HHS.gov [USDHHS] even mention the existence of TAGGS.HHS.gov, for all the publicity, explanations and promotions throughout? Or the

Departments of Education, Labor, and others?

[No.]

But you can self-educate if you have time and access to the internet, which (judging by the activity on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn (etc.) and many privately-run blogs, plenty of people have…)

…Let alone what is a government entity, how many government entities are there any given year [USA:  Well over 100,000. Did you know that School Districts are government entities (special-purpose ones)], how do they relate to each other, where do you look up government entity independently audited comprehensive annual financial statements (sometimes called “CAFRs”),  and what can you learn from them?

It’s built around sound-bites (“bytes”?), the next elections (typically), and sales.

This neglects an area of real power that average people have — if they’d only use it — the power to resist propaganda, brainwashing, and insist on being told ALL the relevant truth by being told where it comes from, and to exercise, after due-diligence drill-downs — the power of choice — including choice to focus on something other than whats being shoved down our throats (figuratively) for daily consumption and “intellectual” nourishment.

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who owns which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, FROM my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’  Page]. (shortlink ends “-c9y)

This post is a quick one setting the stage for one with more current points of reference which I believe helps illustrate what ANYONE can find by doing just a few (or a few hours worth of) background checks when articles of interest to their particular cause (family court reform, domestic violence prevention, child welfare issues, pending legislation to change or improve decisionmaking in the family courts, — you name the cause, media platforms WILL be involved, and often paid consultants and PR professionals.  It’s no longer sensible to play “Deaf, Dumb, AND Blind” to the present reality — billionaires can afford to go out and buy, then later sell, multi-media platforms, and they have been doing this for centuries — and no less so in the last fifty years.

With the ongoing profit motive of media owners (like any business), how would it make any sense to voluntarily build awareness among “the masses” of just who owns which brands, how private is their control, and who is behind major progressive and conservative political movement tax-exempts?

An educated on “how this fits together” (what’s the bottom line?) on how government and private groups interact populace isn’t really good for the corporate bottom lines; it is, however, good for US (those “masses”) forced to both live in  and finance the institutions, public/private housing-schools (preK-12 & public universities)-roads-bridges-prisons-law-enforcement-courts-justice systems-financial institutions (etc.) socioeconomic infrastructures designed by the same.

(USA: federal income-tax-exempt statuses with the IRS include 501©3s (charities, contributions tax-deductible), 501©4 (Political action-permitted, contributions not tax-deductible), how often the same or nearly the same people own both and organizations just move funds from one type to another.  OR, move funds to organizations which never existed [that’s illegal/fraud], or only existed “flash-in-the-pan,” [borderline legal] and in general setting conditions to facilitate this type of illicit activity.

(1) shortens a key page I want to make more accessible by removing the section specific to a footnote drill-down on two major media platforms (Guardian.com, and Thoughtco.com) I quoted for their timelines —  and while at it, another media platform (CMP Media, which sale in the late 1990s led me to UBM Media) I’d previously researched, and blogged herein as part of a drill-down on resulting nonprofits formed by a specific family from that wealth acquired from that sale,

(2) reminds readers and reviews for them [by re-posting some of the content] that within the USA that  the historic context FROM THE START of the (“so-called/allegedly”) feminist-led “domestic violence” field is closely entwined with certain Acts of Congress which, taken together in sequence, set up ongoing conflict with each other.*

*This ongoing conflict has then and (until today) IS being resolved by instead of handling the basic underlying issues, instead just combining operations.

But that the leading professionals in the field (which tends to feature nonprofit organizations) ALL ALONG were aware of the underlying conflict and the ongoing and “separate but UNequal” federal funding of the “gender” debate failed to mention this, consistently, as a potential factor in failures of the “prevention of violence against women” and prevention of child abuse. If the intent of the sponsors and (continued funding for) these Acts of Congress over time was genuine, then one of them  — the 1994 Violence Against Women Act — should not even have been necessary; the former one should’ve handled the issue.

If the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) was indeed to be effective, then why just two years later (with deliberations ongoing in the years leading up to it) did 1996 “Personal RIght to Work and Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA, for short, “Welfare Reform”) incorporate public policy flashbacks perpetuated still, today, through 2020, to 1965 (“The Moynihan Report”) and backlash against women’s rights (when mothers, i.e., women with children) — to actually separate from domestic violence without subsequently forfeiting contact with those children, or being subjected to ongoing extortion and harassment because they understand the life-preserving principle of boundaries, through the family courts to the extent they seek to maintain contact with their own offspring, or continued risk of being murdered, or having children murdered, on court-orderedAccess and Visitation” exchanges, which are central to theFamily (i.e., Fatherhood) Values” themes of 1996 Welfare Reform Act, under Title IV-A (“TANF”) and Title IV-D (Family Support, i.e., Child Support Enforcement) ?


My point in the two basic quotes [shown below: one from Guardian.co.uk, the other from “Thoughtco.com”] was setting a political context, by decade of influence, in DV- and Family-Court related movements unique to the USA with our brand of nonprofit-based “shadow-government” and our government resources funding its own major, ongoing debt through the income tax system.

My point in doing the media platform drill-down is calling-out the “rigged field of competition” on what kinds of reforms do, and do not, catch public attention, as billionaire-owners of major media we may (or may not) have heard of NOT ONLY control various media, BUT ALSO when changing hands, set up foundations (tax-exempt organizations) which can be and are collectively coordinated either within (or across) political lines, to privately steer government in certain directions, NONE of which, generally, will veer far away from intentional control of the masses, social engineering, or funding generation after generation of population research professionals at the university level.

This post in the process of shortening another page also takes occasion to remind and review readers that within the USA that “domestic violence” field is closely entwined with certain acts of Congress (which years and specifically which acts would be good to memorize**) and built into its DNA is denial about the “fatal design flaws” of alternating dissociative practice with consolidating operations (under the “scarcity” and “interdisciplinary, holistic” rationale) of women’s, men’s (typically framed as “fathers'”) rights, the quality and nature of ANYTHING (part of government, nonprofit, campaign etc.) labeled “children and families” rights and safeguards within about the last 40-50 years.***

(“*” Footnotes to the above paragraph only in this section:)
**
I’m starting to recognize parallel developments in similar, though not identical, changes in the UK and associated laws, despite different systems of government and designation of what the ‘family courts’ are in each country.  Examples:  Children’s Act of 1989, another (? look up) transformative act in 1996 (same as our “welfare reform”), formation of CAFCASS in only2001 (now taking regular advice it seems, from the USA’s AFCC), and only in 2014 forming a Single Jurisdiction for Family Courts in  (at least England and Wales, as I recall).[**, cont’d.]
Meanwhile, in 2015, the UK passed a law criminalizing “Coercive Control” which seems to have originated in the US (but with individuals thinking internationally from the start and specific, identifiable connections to the UK academically and otherwise), and now making news (typically, some fatality of child ore parent may provide a recent excuse), a Connecticut Senator (Alexandra Bergstein) has introduced an attempt to incorporate “coercive control” into legislation regulating the US family courts as run in Connecticut. Does this Senator have any interest in exposiing the role of AFCC, historically — or the Connecticut version of “fatherhood initiatives” entrenched (long-term) in the state level of government as having ANYthing to do with why “custody of batterers” is going to children, or children are being pushed into “unsupervised visitation” with abusive parents — or why what I’ll call “domestic violencespeak” falls on deaf years so often when it comest to divorce, custody, visitation, and child support issues within the state?(***FYI: roughly translated, and this IS basically accurate, it’s patriarchal in intent; i.e., preserving the power status quo except in designated sectors, and more for public relations/political correctness than for humanity’s sake).

Because I do these drill-downs so regularly (though not always in the level of detail shown here, from two years ago), I have some posts and much more recent stories in the pipeline and some points I wish to raise, again, about why more of us should regularly take the time to look these up, as a basic “protocol” and valuable source of information.  It helps counteract propaganda and recognize where it’s routinely occurring.

 

. . . returning the focus to DV prevention policies, and laws with corresponding federal appropriations to implement the policies:

Much of the consolidated control topic I documented in 2016 and 2017 for the larger statewide organizations, those taking HHS grants, and the “Special Issue” or chosen “National Resource Centers” as funded 1984ff under the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which was implemented — and this is key to understanding it — through the US Department of Health and Human Services which had just been formed (separated from HEW) only in 1980.  [[See ALLgov.com to check; click “read more” under “History” tab, or check elsewhere for this fact.]]

Size of HHS (from ALLgov.com), also a gentle reminder (for how current, see that link):

One of the largest civilian departments in the federal government, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the implementation of numerous health and welfare-related programs. HHS’ budget accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS’ Medicare program is the nation’s largest health insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare and Medicaid together provide health care insurance for 25% of Americans. Many HHS-funded services are provided at the local level by state or county agencies or through private sector grantees. With its large size also has come a large number of troubles and controversies involving birth control, prescription drugs, food safety and more.

Reminder — and this ALSO is key to understanding — that the Violence Against Women Act, featuring discretionary grants (the majority) from the US DOJ (NOT US HHS) came about 10 years later.  The key DV Organizations work with an awareness of both the 1984 HHS funding AND the 1994 VAWA-authorized funding.  QUESTION: If the 1984 HHS funding was not doing its job properly then why not call attention to this and analyze why not? Or, IF it WAS, then why not instead, work with  or within it?   INSTEAD — one movement (spearheaded by certain nonprofits, including (so its pages said) the Family VIolence Prevention Fund pretended the other didn’t really exist, while pushing for passage of the VAWA, I guess.

Meanwhile, in guess whose Presidential Administration 1992-1998, after a number of years of Republican Presidencies, 1996 being a key election year, the Republican “Contract with America” was pushing for a restructuring of welfare, against which then-President Clinton with his Welfare Reform Task Forces, and other advisers, pushed back. In this context, the  “Welfare Reform” was in effect holding ANY federal Congressional Budget Authorization Act hostage to working out a compromise situation so that a Republican-controlled Congress (both houses) would pass it, and a Democratic President would actually sign it.

Searched for simple lists of Presidents + Their terms, 1970s – about 2000;  I needed Images I could annotate …found two websites, took screenshots, and annotated them with these key events (1980, 1984, 1994, 1996…)

The first image is more heavily annotated, point (by me) is to get and retain a general concept of the timeline corresponding to which party or President was in power, and relating to specific changes in handling the “domestic violence” issues.  Also because at a certain point the second one wouldn’t take any more “Text” inserts, and I’d already made the notes on the first one…

**Fineprint on this website leads me to stick a footnote on this page.   Although I was just looking for a timeline of Presidents, among the top search results was one the “ThoughtCo.com” brand, fine print characterized as:

“ThoughtCo is a Dotdash brand and part of the IAC family of websites.”

DotDash offices in NYC, Chicago, and SF

An image, a few figures, a few characteristics (target audiences)…

 

 

(I see one of six brands.  Notice, no link to “IAC family of Websites is so conveniently provided.  Moral of the story — do you know, any given year, who owns your mass-media platforms? How hard is it, really, to pause a few moments, perhaps just minutes, in passing to observe?….)

Taking (perhaps a half hour) myself, I added a ThoughtCo.com~  DotDash ~ IAC Family of Websites footnote to this post.  It may be off-ramped later, leaving a link to new location here.  A second discussion / Footnote precedes it, which relates to a 1999 purchase by a British company (founded in 1918) of an American one (CMP Media, Inc.) formed in the 1970s, for $920M.  The privately controlled (through owning 68% of stock, after 1996 public offering) profits then were channeled into charity, which (one of those nonprofits, and the interlocking character of them) was where I first found about it.  If you’ve heard of “PRNewswire” “PCWeek” InfoWorld,” etc.  — some of those publications were involved.  Previously blogged herein, probably in late 2016 and relating to “transformative” education nonprofits as aligned with each other.  (Gerard & Lilo Leeds, Michael, later Daniel Leeds are among the family members).

TheGuardianUK’s 2012 US Presidents List (Excerpt, annotated for FCM) 1972-2001 | (cont’d “GWB,Jr.” comment for 2001): By 2003, GWB (thru USDOJ grants) endorses the “family justice center” program model against family violence, with attention to including pastors and the faith leadership in the One-Stop Justice Shops…

“Kelly, Martin. (2018, January 13). Chart of the Presidents and Vice Presidents. Retrieved from ThoughtCo.com…-4051729″ and annotated by me

Take a look, remembering that 1980 = HEW becomes HHHS and US Dept. of Educ (first major such restructuring since 1953 and that HHS has since expanded “exponentially” and is the largest grant-making federal agency, today…); 1984 – FVPSA passes and in 1994 – VAWA passes, creating a new office under the DOJ to implement it. Meanwhile, HOWEVER, and with a view towards targeting the larger HHS as grantmaker, a nonprofit in 1994 “The National Fatherhood Initiative” is also created, which quickly develops (or already had) revolving-door relationships with leadership of HHS itself.

However, the 1980s marked a rise of children’s and fathers’ rights organizations nationally also, paralleling the HHS-funded DV/Family Prevention consolidation through writing into its grantmaking “winners and losers” in the funding, under FVPSA.

To believe, still, that these were not reacting to the 1970s feminist organizations, particularly “NOW,” to no-fault divorce law (Calif. 1970) and such is not reasonable. In addition, by the 1980s, the Internet was becoming more widely available, and with it potential awareness (as groups continued to advertise and run campaigns for their causes) of who else is out there working AGAINST one’s cause.

On the FVPSA I have posted on (2016 or 2017), reading from Cornell.Law.Edu quoting its details, but I saw the major size discrepancies years earlier while looking at the TAGGS.HHS.gov grants database.  The statewide coalitions distribute funding, but the amounts they receive from HHS is far smaller than those designated as “DV National Resource Centers,” even though what some of those resource centers are doing is primarily providing well-developed websites with re-purposed information and publications.  Which a survivor, for example, is free to wade through in hopes of some help to understand the problems she (in the case of such) might be facing in the family court systems — in terms it was less than fond of, and increasingly (since the 1970s — another “professional courtesy secret it seems — ) capable of innocculating the courtrooms against taking it seriously in the new, problem-solving, healthy-relationship-focused language of behavioral modification and treatment programming.

So, while survivors unaware of that system and how it was set in place and in motion, would be speaking in the rhetoric of domestic violence and practical terms against it being counter-intuitive to good parenting, etc.  and, predictably, losing custody of their children to former abusers entirely (if protesting too hard), or watching progressive — or sudden, violent — destruction of their lives and hope for a different future — while being forced to co-parent with them, as managed, and supervised by the family court judges and others working with them, i.e., “community referrals to services.” ….[Incomplete sentence here, noticed Feb. 2020.  Read in the larger context.]

So, Noticing who were those national or special-issue (family-violence-deterrent) resource centers, and what key assumptions and philosophies they espouse/d (NCJFCJ, Duluth, Minnesota’s DAIP, the Family Violence Prevention Fund in SF (Now ‘Futures without Violence’), the Texas National DV Hotline, and some others), is also important to understanding why NONE of them are going to openly bite the hand that feeds them and report on the harmful impact of PRWORA funding on the family law outcomes, by design, and later entrenched in “HMRF” funding, which, as the HHS is far larger than the USDOJ, is also larger than anything designated and distributed through the US DOJ/OVW. 

The impact of PRWORA was reported by feminist groups, at times, but typically in terms of not enough childcare, food stamps/cash aid towards poor women (i.e., in terms of progressive politics), NOT in terms of how grants to single state agencies, for use by the states “at will” to meet PRWORA goals, including design and program support for “Alternate methods” of coming to custody and visitation decisions — which indirectly fed both the judges’ association of NCJFCJ, and the programming pushed SINCE ABOUT 1980, through DAIP (Coordinated Community Response, Supervised Visitation), and the other private, nonprofit, “Trade” association (501©3)  notable for involvement of family court judge membership and very activist membership it has been throughout — the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

…which in its programming and continual emphasis on “international, interdisciplinary” doesn’t even display allegiance to US institutions, priorities, or concepts when it comes to the social service or mental health sector, which I caught them quoting (and in more than a few aspects), found from an earlier post herein.

[READER NOTE: Text in this section is the context for the “Footnote” was “Footnote” to another page //LGH Feb 9, 2020


FOOTNOTE: UBM (British, David Lloyd George) buyout of CMP Media (US, the Leeds Family) for $920M shortly after it went public in 1996 — File Under:


Media Consolidation, Sales ~~>Nonprofit Foundations ~~> Private Philanthropy exercising its clout on Changing Public Institutions ~~>Trends towards B2B focus, on-line advertising + e-commerce (mega-profits through buying and selling brands)…


An ongoing theme of this blog is awareness of WHERE one’s information is coming from.  There have been previous posts on media consolidation — in part when one nonprofit foundation I was looking at (as I recall in education transformation themed-posts, late 2016) turned out to have been funded by a corporate media sell-off.  That type of fortune is going to go, typically at least in part, to a foundation, controlled first by the founder, later by the next generation, as happened there.  (Searchable term on the blog, UBM). Or search for a post with the phrase “Freedom of the Press” in its title. Here are some of those references.

UBM Media bought CMP Media from the Leeds (founders, Gerald & Lilo Leeds, oldest son Michael, another son Daniel had become involved) for $920M in 1998; it had been formed ca. 1971, but just went public in 1996.  With this, they turned to the nonprofit sector. (See Wikipedia and FundingUniverse.com, the latter typically only covers up to 2002). Key point there — UBM has become primarily Business to Business events; in any changeover, actual news is likely to be short-changed some in favor of revenues:   UBM plc, Wiki:

The company was founded in 1918 as United Newspapers[4] by David Lloyd George to acquire the Daily Chronicle and Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper. In 1929, the company merged with Provincial Newspapers, an owner of regional papers in the north; the next year, it sold its national papers.[5]The company continued for decades as a regional newspaper publisher, making acquisitions such as Yorkshire Post Newspapers in 1969.[5]

It acquired PR Newswire in 1982.[4] In 1985, it bought Express Newspapers and continued to publish the Daily Express for some 15 years.[4] It changed its name to United News & Media in 1995,[4] sold its regional papers in 1998, and bought CMP Media in 1999 for $920 million.[4] In 2000, it sold the Daily Express to Richard Desmond and adopted the name of United Business Media. It went on to acquire Commonwealth Business Media for $152 million in 2006.[6]

In 2008, UBM moved its tax headquarters to Ireland, but in 2012, the company announced its intent to move its tax base back to the United Kingdom.[7] In 2012, PA Group, the parent company of the Press Association, sold its 50% stake in Canada Newswire to joint venture partner UBM for £30.1 million.[8]

By 2015, UBM had rebranded itself as primarily focused on B2B events. Reflecting this, 82 percent of its business in 2016 derived from events and only 18 percent from other marketing services.[9]

 

CMP, FundingUniverse.com (See esp. around 1997, Public Offering.  This account doesn’t go up to its acquisition by what later became UBM.  The April 30,1999 NYTimes article under Business Day, by “Dow Jones” does. I also included article from the NYPost and one from CBSNews, which points out the “explosive growth” in advertising and on-line commerce at the time, which the US Company had, and which the British company wanted.  Despite the public offering, and including through various trusts — the Leeds family still controlled 68% of the stock.  They simply agreed to sell for the price offered.

 

…”This acquisition makes sense from both business and cultural perspectives,” said Michael Leeds, chief executive of CMP, based in Manhasset, N.Y. ||  The technology publishing market in the U.S. has seen annual growth of 13 percent over the last 10 years. It was worth $3.5 billion in 1997.

Written By Gareth Vaughan, CBS MarketWatch

NYT Bus Day 4/30/1999 on sale of CMP Media (US company) to British United News & Media for $920M (article link on image & nearby on blog page)

<==The Media Business:  CMP Media to be bought for $920 Million  (NYT)

 

 

 

 

 

 


FOOTNOTE:  THOUGHTCO.com, DotDash Brands (six of them), IAC family of websites.

(There is more of a story than shown here.  This footnote may be moved later to a separate post).

Incidental, but related to where we get our information from.  I noticed immediately that the “our Team” on “ThoughtCo” was three people, 1 women and 2 men, a 1:3 ratio.  However, the 9-person leadership team on “DotDash” brands was 1 woman and 8 other men (including one also on ThoughtCo) a 1:9 ratio.

After looking, generally, at the size, scope and branding (acquisitions, merger, sell-offs) of IAC, some shown below, I went to a favorite source which, remarkably, doesn’t seem to have been bought out, sold off, or shelved (thank goodness) — although it typically only goes up to about the year 2002.  Even so — (and it does go only that for for “IAC”) its format, while going through the events at breakneck speed, because of that speed (and presenting a timeline up front) is I find helpful for getting a historic sense of a company’s events. It’s fairly neutral in tone, not coming from the organizations themselves.

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/usa-interactive-inc-history/ <==recommended!!

Diller Building His Media Empire: 1995-98

Media mogul Barry Diller became the chairman and CEO of the newly formed USA Networks, Inc. in 1998. Prior to that Diller’s distinguished career included serving as chairman of the board of Paramount Pictures Corp. from 1974 to 1984. From October 1984 to April 1992 he was the chairman and CEO of Fox, Inc., where he created the Fox Television Stations group and established Fox Broadcasting as the United States’ fourth broadcast television network. From December 1992 to December 1994 Diller was the chairman and CEO of the cable shopping network QVC Inc. While at QVC Diller attempted to gain control of CBS, but the merger was blocked by Comcast Corp., which subsequently took control of QVC. In 1994 Diller attempted to gain control of Paramount Pictures but lost a $10 billion bidding war to Viacom.

In August 1995 Diller was named the chairman and CEO of Silver King Communications, Inc. Silver King was a subsidiary of the Home Shopping Network, which owned and operated 12 TV stations that carried primarily HSN programming. Eight of Silver King’s stations served the top 12 markets in the United States. Diller gained control of Silver King with the help of investors such as billionaire David Geffen and John Malone, the head of the nation’s then largest cable system, Tele-communications Inc., later known as TCI Inc. 

David Geffen (wiki). Bloomberg Billionaire #209 (2018).  Forbes “10 Billionaires of the Music Business” (#7, in 2012?)

(UPDATE NOTE, Feb., 2020:  I do not recall why I had David Geffen in here, but the link is interesting in its own right. No question he’s been a major media influence in our time//LGH).

Although Diller was interested in Silver King’s television stations and their potential to reach an audience of nearly 30 million viewers, he was perhaps more interested in gaining control of Silver King’s parent company, Home Shopping Network, Inc. (HSN). HSN had been founded in 1982 as the Home Shopping Club in St. Petersburg, Florida, by radio station owner Lowell “Bud” Paxson and attorney and real estate investor Roy Speer. In 1985 the Home Shopping Club went national as the Home Shopping Network, and in 1986 the company went public. Paxson resigned from HSN in 1990 and went on to establish the Pax TV network. From 1991 to 1995 HSN’s annual sales leveled off to about $1 billion per year.

At the end of November 1995 Diller agreed to acquire the 41 percent controlling interest in HSN that was held by Liberty Media, a subsidiary of TCI, for a stock swap valued at nearly $1.3 billion. Liberty’s stake in HSN represented 80 percent of HSN’s voting stock, and Diller became HSN’s chairman. At the same time he also acquired Savoy Pictures Entertainment Inc., a film and television production firm. After these acquisitions passed regulatory approval, Silver King, HSN (including the Internet Shopping Network), and Savoy Pictures merged in December 1996. Silver King Communications, Inc. was renamed HSN, Inc. Following the merger, Liberty Media owned about 20 percent of HSN and about 36 percent of Silver King’s stock.

In mid-1997 HSN, Inc. completed its acquisition of 50 percent of the Ticketmaster Group, Inc. from Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen in a stock-for-stock deal valued around $210 million. The acquisition of the ticket sales and fulfillment company gave HSN additional capabilities in interactive electronic commerce.

Acquisition Resulting in Creation of USA Networks, Inc.: 1998..

[There’s plenty more, followed by a bibliography and this note:  “Source: International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 47. St. James Press, 2002.” found on most pages of FundingUniverse.com I’ve seen.]

Funding universe images (two) from the top of the page, pls. click images to enlarge if needed to read

FundingUniverse.com on “USA Interactive, Inc.” (but only until 2002) re: Barry Diller, Silver Communications, Inc. (orig. a subsidiary of HSN) — did USA Interactive, Inc. become “IAC” sometimes after 2002? DNK yet — either way, it’s a window into how the industry operates, and consolidations, dealmaking, sell-offs for the industry…

Source url (both images) at FundingUniverse.com

 

 

IAC.com, self-description in other words (there’s also an interactive timeline — with just logos and a fact or two each year) from 1995-2017 on the “About” page; check it out).

Started with Barry Diller of Silver Communications, Inc. (see directly above, Funding Universe.com on USA Interactive, Inc.)

IAC.com, beginning of timeline and only item under “1995”

From the IAC.com (see “history” and click on each year) Timeline…

IAC’s unique legacy is driven by its ability to acquire, create and assemble high performing businesses and category leaders, and in the process transform everything from how to buy a concert ticket to how to find a date. It’s this legacy that has spawned 10 public companies, including ANGI Homeservices Inc. Match Group, Expedia, TripAdvisor, HSN, Tree, Interval, and Live Nation (formerly Ticketmaster), creating equity value in excess of $47 billion over the course of more than 20 years

Barry Diller saw in the early days what is commonplace today: that technical leaps in interactivity would revolutionize commerce in record time.

Since IAC’s inception more than 20 years ago, IAC businesses have consistently unleashed the power of digital interactivity to transform daily living. Businesses like Expedia and Ticketmaster proved that entire industries, such as travel and ticketing, could move from offline to online at a previously unthinkable pace. Over time, the company added to those businesses, growing them into massive entities then spinning them off to shareholders, only to start building anew.

IAC is not a believer in simply agglomerating assets in perpetuity: as entities grow into size and maturity, it’s healthy to give them separation and independence. IAC has built its name by not being reliant on amassing great companies, but on creating them, fostering them, and preparing them to stand on their own

Example of a timeline Brand-name with “Read More” link:  In 2013 (says the PRNewswire) ValueClick (also one of the largest around and public-traded) sells off its “O&O” (Owned & Operated) websites segment — to IAC.com (ditto), including Investopedia (which I read often enough). ValueClick,(public-traded), is

ValueClick, Inc. (NASDAQ: VCLK) is one of the world’s largest digital marketing companies.  …

and as described there, IAC is, also public-traded:….

IAC (NASDAQ: IACI) is a leading media and internet company comprised of more than 150 brands and products, including Ask.com, About.com, Match.com, HomeAdvisor and Vimeo. Focused in the areas of search, applications, online dating, local and media, IAC’s family of websites is one of the largest in the world, with more than a billion monthly visits across more than 100 countries.

Wikipedia on IAC, Inc. Such a drive to acquire, dispose of, merge, sell off, etc..!!

Wiki sidebar gives history of company name (and other facts)

In case there’s any question that IAC is the former USA Interactive, Inc. referenced above on FundingUniverse.com, Wikipedia on IAC clears this up.  See nearby two images.  I also note (not shown here, but on the Wiki) that among the directors is one actual Prince (son of Diane von Furstenberg, the famous (and iconic, and it seems fearless) fashion designer, who married a prince, briefly); Barry Diller (married DVF in 2001, per her Wiki) is his stepfather; there is a Diller-von-Furstenberg Family Foundation.

There are two women (only) on the IAC board of directors, one of which is Chelsea Clinton.  I think you get the general idea.  Wikipedia flagged the description of the Prince (who has a degree from Brown University, 1993) on the basis of it being a bio of a living person which needs more documentation.

(etc.)

 

 

~ ~ ~THIS CONCLUDES THE “TRANSPLANTED” MATERIAL FROM MY Feb., 2018 PAGE. ~ ~ ~

 

Footnote “San Francisco Bay Area (including Oakland) Sound-Off” (written Feb. 11, 2020)

[First one-and-a-half paragraphs copied from above:]

***The San Francisco Bay Area, organized like many metropolitan regions, into quasi-governmental power bases such as “ABAG” (Association of Bay Area Governments), including Berkeley, Oakland, Silicon Valley (Stanford U, Palo Alto), typifies the Golden State’s progressive arrogance [elitist control of local governments and nepotism at the county, community and state levels]  and sell-out of basic enforcement of existing laws in favor of paradigm-switching to a more global, “behavior-health-based” model — all of which privatized services, as well as the re-training for the process of switching, the public should pay for, more than it already has….

The area’s beautiful geography, climate (not county the regular wildfires and periodic earthquakes), and California’s long coastline with major ports in San Francisco, Oakland and (same state, further south) Los Angeles, and even (San Diego area) a border with Mexico, make the state a hub for billionaires.

Billionaires like to justify their wealth through so-called ‘philanthropy’ (quid per quo with governments) through “community service” (i.e., accelerated control of communities through =chosen nonprofits + tax-reduction through tax-exemption, at times tax-evasion).

California also, through the state employees’ multi-billion-dollar global investment platform (CalPERS), is a tempting power base.  Another thing — periodically both billionaires and top-level (state) political leadership, like our current President of the United States, have to make use of divorce and family courts and the judges and lawyers that populate them — repeatedly.

As do, obviously, many Hollywood celebrities.

[[Feb. 13, 2020, updates.  {Section update is miscellaneous extra information.  The Wiki and other links were interesting reading on some famous people.  Section marked by different background/font color within this light-blue-background section…//LGH].

I originally (carelessly) had written “Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom.”  In correcting this I decided to add Wiki Links, review (briefly) some of the various marriages (with Bill Lockyer’s the most disturbing given his power and influence, in things impacting domestic violence, welfare reform, etc., and the total soap opera that marriage has been, in public for many years now).  I remembered he’d been married at least twice despite his young age.  His first wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom (link below) then married twice briefly (one child) while in high-powered career and has been very Trump-friendly (Newsom is of course Democrat).  Her second (also brief marriage) was to a man who himself had two brief (about 4 years long) marriages, and so on and so forth.

Were the family courts designed for this class of people?

[See (Jan. 2019ff) Governor Gavin Newsom / career politician Bill Lockyer / ex-governor (2003-2011) Arnold Schwarzenegger (b. 1947), stayed married the longest of all these, to Maria Owings Shriver, b. 1955, niece of JFK, RFK].  ….

(Right column on Wiki’s profile a person’s major positions & spouse, children)

In reverse order, interesting that the California leading family 2003-2011 was Republican Governor, Democrat First Lady.

She is a member of the Kennedy family; her mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, was a sister of John F., Robert and Ted Kennedy. Shriver is currently a “special” anchor and correspondent for NBC News.


Bill Lockyer (b. 1941, Now in private practice at Brown|Rudnick, LLP (?), Calif. Treasurer, 2007-2015,Calif. Attorney General 1999-2007, before that Legislator (incl. during passage of Welfare Reform).  See Wiki and Brown-Rudnick summaries for a sense of the legislative and political (state office) roles he’s played).  Brown Rudnick LLP has a Massachusetts office, but (Terms of Use) seems to also be registered under laws of England and Wales.  Offices are not openly listed; you can supply your zip code and search for one nearby.

SPOUSES:  Wiki only names the most recent one, who (from other sources) I understand is 30 yrs his junior.

Married 2003ff to Nadia Davis Lockyer, with whom he’s had three children. His prior marriage is referenced, but no spouse’s name given, although he has an (unnamed in Wiki) adult daughter also.  The Nadia Lockyer Wiki has been (suspiciously, in my opinion) removed and redirects to “Alameda County Supervisors” page with sketchy information about Nadia.  Looking for more on-line, I found an alarming (Sept. 2019) “East Bay Citizen” post in which she accused him of rape, controlling, previous accusations included supplying her with and feeding a drug addiction.  As she was the first Executive Director of Alameda County Family Justice Center, Inc. (established 2006) at the time, and later went on to become a county supervisor (with $2M of his campaign money), then had to step down, etc., etc., it’s dismaying, to say the least, for more “normal” people to expect help from this source.

Nadia Lockyer, in Disturbing Social Media Post, accuses Bill Lockyer of rape.” (Sept. 12, 2019, Steven Tazares).


Governor Gavin Newsom (b. 1967) : Wife#1 Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom (2001-2006), #2 Jennifer Spiegel (2008ff)

  • Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom:  (b. 1969), Husband #1 (Gavin Newsom, above), #2,Eric Villency (re-married 2006; One son born about 4 months later, separated by 2009).  See Wiki:  Prosecuting Attorney in SF & Los Angeles, Second Lady of SF (While Gavin was Mayor of SF), Fox News (2006-2018), pro-Trump.  (Newsom is Democrat). Some of this “strain of bi-coastal marriage”
    • Eric Villency wiki is flagged (“bio of living person”), but says he re-married 4 yrs later (2013), a marriage which also lasted about 4 years only: (In December 2013, he married Swedish designer Caroline Fare in West Palm Beach. Villency and Fare divorced in 2017.[14])
  • Jennifer Spiegel Newsom:  (b. 1974) First marriage (to Gavin) 2008, they’ve had four children (Boy, boy, girl, boy) since.

etc. [End of Feb. 13, 2020 section updates…]


I believe it may be safer to live in less prosperous, geographically desirable and self-righteously diverse, progressive and “criminal justice-reform” minded states. I like diversity, interesting climates (including being near oceans), and until my personal experience as a woman and mother with the secular response to religious married wife-abuse (spousal battering and economic shut-down) (system response: faith-based outreach by “Family Justice Centers,” 21st Century, a feature of the 2001-2008 George W. Bush administration), I’d thought and often (not always, but generally) voted Democrat.

I proved that without a resident abuser, it was indeed possible to self-support within my profession as a single mother, and be a decent and co-operative parent, but my own family of origin (siblings, not parent) and the family courts in the aftermath of (1996) Welfare Reform and (as to California, 1998-2000) increasing centralized and privatized control of: the courts; the courthouses (real estate/property); the court employees including Superior Court Judges; the top state authority over those courts, i.e., the California Judicial Council’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), subsection “CFCC” (Center for Families and Children in the Courts, a combination of two prior subdivisions providing statewide services — as managed with significant input by (private entity) AFCC member judges and program administrators to run those federal grants to the states for access and visitation (increased noncustodial=Father contact in exchange for compromise of child support arrears) to set up “alternative ways” to decide where children live) — would have none of it.  My children grew up, eventually left the state, and having neither professional, practical, or familial reasons to stay (and familial reasons to leave!) I too finally escaped — literally, “made a run for it” unannounced to almost anyone who knew me, including my own children (young-adults by then) soon after officially becoming a “senior,” and I believe, just in time.

||

To go back to the top of this post, click on its title:

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who owns which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, FROM my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’  Page]. (shortlink ends “-c9y)


THAT (Feb. 2018) page’s Title and shortlink**:

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area. [a PAGE, Publ. Feb. 2, 2018]: (Case-sensitive shortlink (all parts of it) ends “/PsBXH-8rg”). note:  post protocol is lower-case “p” in “psBXH” but Page is upper-case, “P” in “PsBXH.”  (The characters PsBXH or psBXH probably (both) represent this specific blog).

Its parent page and shortlink** is my blog “Front Page”: LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018). (short-link ends “/PsBXH-8o0″ (Last character is a zero), however, if you simply type in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” it’s pretty hard to miss). …

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

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: