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

[This post specifically addresses websites ending “*.org”, not websites ending *.edu or *.gov which are more commonly understood.  That governments hire others to run “*.org” websites [1],[2] may be less obvious without follow-up.]

[1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Our” instead of identifying what entity, by its full legal business name, is basically dishonest.  This type of dishonesty seems to come with two related purposes: stealth & sales.  

AGAIN:

[This post specifically addresses websites ending “*.org”, not websites ending *.edu or *.gov which are more commonly understood.  That governments hire others to run “*.org” websites [1],[2] may be less obvious without follow-up.]

[1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Our” instead of identifying what entity, by its full legal business name, is basically dishonest.  This type of dishonesty seems to come with two related purposes: stealth & sales.  

Each website has its intended audience to capture, even if the sales is of public policy justifying public expenditures which private entities may take advantage of, sometimes continuously.  The intended audience’s ATTENTION is to be captured before that attention may stray to the more relevant data:  what entity/types of entitiy is speaking here? Beyond that, in times where coordination and consolidation of philanthropic AND government resources is now commonplace, the underlying substance (networked interests) of any simple “*.org” website isn’t usually made plain on its surface.

Maybe get out a notepad or notecards or any device which could capture, help you remember, and take down a few names; I already recognize most of them and have blogged several, done drill-downs, talked about the curricula.

From the same basic domain name ending “*.org,” here’s a more coherent summary (<~URL indicates Dec. 2017) which I found through Google. It’s an easy (though a bit odd and incomplete) 14-page pdf I found just swimming through Internet Search Results, and a good starter for whoever may still NOT be familiar with the concept of Welfare Reform by Presidential Administration, amounts of grants, etc. It’d be hard to find even that partial summary starting at the main domain name “healthymarriageinfo.org“). See “[2]” inset just below.

Websites are on-line media platforms that can and often do easily can mask who’s sponsoring them.  If you take the content seriously, take the drill-down seriously too.  

Big-bucks philanthropy (ownership) is adept at concealing or advertising its clout at will and often dangles smaller-sounding (looks like but isn’t “grassroots” or representative) bait in front of viewers.

Who’s sponsoring and how transparent any website is (self-identification, financial disclosure) when while selling or publicizing any cause, especially when soliciting funds for that cause or advertising who else important supports it (i.e., crowd-appeal) is always:

• important to be aware of
• good to find out in those terms if not already known, and
• the finding out always shows key character indicators which NOT looking, generally, won’t.

The same goes for narratives telling a story and quoting experts and sometimes an associated “organization” or “group.” This post features another illustration of what can be found when you DO check.  I was checking anyway, so decided to post as well.

I ran across a simple example, and pretty simple to check up on too, the other day, when it was joyfully announced that the WHO ICD-11 would no longer be classifying “parental alienation” as a social (behavioral) disease. Search string on Twitter “WHO, Parental Alienation, ICD-11” brings up plenty, but Here’s the fowarded link I was referring to:  (a French WordPress blog, signed International Network of Activist Mothers; not all links are translated into English):

World Health Organization Removes Parental Alienation from Its Classification Index

[Para 1]: The Italian members of the Facebook group PAS: informazioni e disinformazione were the first to spread the information. [a quote, images., then Paras. 2 and 3]:

This information is an opportunity to review recent events.

In November 2019, William Bernet, President of the Parental Alienation Study Group, one of the most motivated promoters of parental alienation, reported in a newsletter, translated and distributed in France by ACALPA, on the positioning of the WHO’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC). …  [Para. 4] On October 29, 2019, ….  Indeed, the mere presence of this notion, wherever it is in the Classification, would favour its instrumentalization by its promoters and its use by violent men in family courts, as recalled in the Collective Memo of Concern to: World Health Organization about « Parental Alienation ».

Vocabulary used for story-telling and journalism doesn’t necessarily match up to vocabulary for fact-checking what any referenced group or organization is, where it is, or much else about it. If the use were more consistent, we might overall be better-informed on how to fact-check and be aware which reporters are getting a “scoop” to help the media’s bottom line as opposed to straight public-interest.

REMEMBER (as my post title says): When the website features what looks like an organization name, or abbreviation of it, that may or may not be a business entity.

Without the actual business entity’s name, you don’t know “squat” about the neutrality and can hardly follow the funding behind it.  Start looking and notice how few actually do post, transparently, complete an d current financials with easy range or readers.

Can we agree that, whatever the name, the mere existence of a website and a domain name that may sound like a business name doesn’t tell most of any story about the platform worth hearing. We need to look further, and ought to, regularly.

This is the post I predicted (or threatened?) to write in my next-to-last post Feb. 12, 2020, calling attention to consolidating (buying and selling of, concentrating purposes of for maximum profits) media companies and the importance of paying attention to the context — the window-frames — of whichever one you’re on, and to platform and brand ownership over time.  I’ve been raising this point for years.

On that post (full title & link on next inset), I also raised it after a long “Opening Spiel” summarizing basic family court, welfare reform, domestic violence organization infrastructure issues, with examples and names of key centers, publications, universities and professionals involved.  Generally, fewer (the further one goes back in time) than you might think:

That recent (Feb. 12, 2020) post mentioned but didn’t focus on nonprofits as media platforms. Today’s post, that you’re reading now, focuses more on how to check up whether nonprofits are involved, and if so, on checking them out.

I’ve been showing this throughout the blog and for years, but wish to remind people to self-check their own unproven assumptions about any website marked “*.org” and from that understanding, develop the habit of sizing up such websites wh are outspoken about issues of interest, yours personally, or national/international ones. In other words, be conscious of and incorporate into your reading habits a basic awareness of how the money flows and that ongoing, colorful and often successful attempts to obtain UNinformed social consent for justifying violations of basic government/s (“by consent of the governed”) can be induced through those colorful, complex, but evasively presented websites ending *.org.  Don’t let them induce a semi-conscious, “entranced,” half-blind mental state in yourself, or associates.  Note:  this includes wholesale endorsement of either political party and (of course) religious alliances, whether pro- con- or “agnostic” on the “God issue or a self-described “humanist.”

People of all such persuasions live all over and generally within countries which engage in taxation and requiring both their people and their corporations to register: file business names with the authority in order to pay taxes to fund governments.  In the USA it’s particularly easy to “vet” websites with because of the requirement for (most, not all) tax-exempts to filing IRS tax returns and making them available to the public, and the existence of various places to look them up. This of course covers only the private sector; the public (government entities) file different reports, but all include statements of balances and revenues to expenses, etc.

The state of the databases overall are “questionable” not “reliable” which is itself important to know.  Even moreso now that (mid-COVID19 pandemic pandemonium) the Executive-Order-based shutdown of brick and mortar non-essential infrastructures (i.e., STORES) is shaking up the economy and certainly benefitting those who were already prepared to do business primarily on-line, not to mention the pharmaceutical and pharma tech businesses for delivering what’s needed during any outbreak.  It’s not as though there haven’t been previous, lesser “trial-runs” of the same idea, globally (see “HIV/AIDS” crisis).

While I will of course not remember every single nonprofit I’ve checked out over now nearly eleven years of blogging, the blog is a significant record of many of them, and ones that continue to come up after I’ve previously done some drill-downs, definitely catch my attention.  Where possible, I will also speak up or at times even sound-off about them.

Gradually, a view of a (changing) landscape of operations for the country is coming into focus for me in a way it could not possibly have when I first was hauled into “family courts” having zero awareness of the impact of private-interest nonprofits and attempts to maintain and expand virtual vertical monopolies on not just one or two, but on  overlapping clusters of created fields (such as “fatherhood” or “access” or for that matter, entire alternate justice systems separate from the civil and criminal ones more familiar with most people.  Which, essentially, the family courts seem to be).

I’ve over time been repeatedly shocked at how poor the record-keeping and (often) basic IRS tax filings, even where filed and posted, sometimes are. I’m no longer really surprised, by the scope and frequency of this really is shocking. I can now look most basics up quickly even on a tiny cell phone.  Screen-shots, annotations, captioning and commenting (the technical side of writing) is often much harder, to me at least, than FINDING the information, getting the basic concept of what any entity is doing, and with whom (and since when).  It takes some time — but with practice, not THAT much time.

In the above, Feb. 12, 2020, post (short-link ending “”c9y”) I also shamelessly cited to a current-events report as an (secondary) excuse for posting it. My other purpose was transplanting a large bottom section [on media nonprofits and history of ownership] that’s been featured on the blog sidebar for two years now — and still is — to shorten it. …

EJUSA.org and TheAppeal.org

You see, I already had a bit of “EJUSA.org” and TheAppeal.org” in my mind from having followed my own advice on a recently Tweeted article.  Both organizations are interesting on their own, and one had re-posted the other’s piece.  Remember also, please, that media are no longer just content carriers with filters (certain perspectives), but many are also content creators.

Sometimes they even tell you this on their websites.  Sometimes, they don’t — it’s several other clicks away.  So here we are now, at

Degrees of openness can range wildly from website to website even covering the same topics.

When you have to scroll down (really far!) and drill down, or try several sub-menus before the websites actually spits out the name of its owners or backers — that’s a problem (red flag, signal that something “off” may be up).  There are so many common tactics! to put layer upon layer of text, links, and even domain names and between any website ending “*.org” reporting on some critical issue, and understanding WHO’s framing the issue … and from their, what other issues and possibly why.

At no point should it be assumed that that particular ending represents a single nonprofit entity of similar name (even if it did, legal business names change and trade names exist  (as do fiscal agents, helping a project seem more like [corporate entity or] a “person”) and thus a charitable, philanthropic cause, or even that tax-exempt charities per se always exist for altruistic reasons in the first place.

A common distraction is to label a menu choice “About Us” and where it should actually say WHAT it is, instead say “What We Do” or “Who We Are” with long lists of thumbnail photos and scant information (without more clicks).  When reading a website, the basic FIRST question I ask is for basic ID:  “WHAT are you,” not “WHO are you,” or “What are you doing”?  While I realize that’s most important for solicitations and publicity for any (tax-exempt organization), we (readers) deserve to know whether we are hearing from a registered entity or not, and if so, in what country and (within the USA) state or territory.  We deserve to know legal domicile which is ALWAYS relevant when an issue or cause is improving “government.”

A long page of description on “Our Team” or even “Board of Directors” may tell much less than a single half-page or so on a tax return with check-marks identifying the Officers, and while there, how many are paid, if anything, how much to run the show.  Unless you enjoy looking at faces and speculating about how friendly or (taken as a whole) diverse the skin color, gender, and/or ages are taken as a whole, the most relevant information, generally, to any website which is talking as if it’s an entity is of what kind, since when, and where.

Many directors to a single (well-paid) Executive Director is one organization style.  Either the Executive Director may be the real force behind it (and got a nonprofit around him or her to flesh it out), OR, the Boards of Directors have other things to do with their lives and chose someone to run the cause for them. It may be new “related entity” to some other with a borrowed board; it may be a spin-off of a previous project.

Another style visible from the tax returns (Forms 990 Part VIIA, that is, after 2008) is long lists of both, with many being paid well over $100K/year, and a section total ranging over a million dollars (that year) in compensation (whether from this entity or “related” one) on Form 990 Part VIIA.

And yes, there are some tax-exempt charities whose leadership is paid, as individuals well over $500K salary alone, and some over $1,000,000, of which both the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (in California) and Casey Family Programs (in Washington) come to mind, probably because I posted on them.

Then, while there, a Part VIIB is another wonderful source of information.

If I had to backtrack some of my life (as a blogger), I’d start looking up the nonprofits sooner, starting with the ones whose doors I knocked on and/or websites I responded to seeking help in the family court system, or for domestic violence issues before I filed for protection.

Often tax returns (for nonprofits, US-based. public charities that file “Forms 990”)* will say openly what they’re websites don’t about a specific agenda.  It may be said on Page 1 top (“Mission”) on the heading, or not until Page 2, Part III, Line 3 and Line 4 a,b,c,and d, as Program Service Accomplishments. (*Form 990PFs for private foundations differ).  There are hundreds of thousands of such organizations that must and do file with the IRS as required by law.  Philanthropy is BIG business in policymaking and increasing consolidating its interests nationally, internationally, with the federal government, and I’ve noticed constantly and posted often — by way of backing geographically local “COMMUNITY” organization which go for the metropolitan areas, or (I saw again recently) take a state map, carve it up into regions (metro, suburban, rural) and with similar originating platforms, dedicate planning to regional foundations, all collecting from a central source (for starters), and FEW posting their full financials, let alone the most current ones, on the respective websites.

Even more often, it helps separate the real from the sham, the forthright from the devious.  There are many “tells” but one of the most commonsense ways to tell the difference is to start looking —  right away, if any article, report or cause concerns you.  That habit also gradually builds better awareness of “who’s out there” (coordinating and aligning to support basic causes) and when what may look, at first glance, like a “miniature” is getting strangely far in positioning within its field, given.

I understand there can be a need to write or blog anonymously, but when so many websites and so many campaigns are focused on Policymaking and many of them are paid by public, private, or both major wealth to do this, we must know when to check for size (small, trying to seem  bigger, or huge, trying to either seem grassroots — or, huge trying to create the impression we’re “surrounded” by popular support for something which is, in fact, basically marketing).If the “who we are” is in fact a “what” (a real entity) they should say so up front.  Why it matters:  money moves from entity to entity, not project to project.  Entities are funded to do projects.  “A Project is not a Person” (etc.).

In this post, of course I want to make the above point… Alternate title versions:

• Plenty of web addresses ending “.org,” even this one. But what counts is which ENTITY (if any) is behind ’em. For example, EJUSA.org vs. TheAppeal.org
• ‘In Plain Sight’ vs. Subterranean Entities behind web addresses ending “.org”
• The Web address [*].org” =/= by definition some similarly-named nonprofit entity. You actually have to look closer. (For ‘EJUSA.org’ it does. For ‘TheAppeal.org,’ it doesn’t).
• Websites(!):  EJUSA.org vs. TheAppeal.org…. an “independent project” of a project of, bottom line, the Tides Advocacy Fund, which acts as a Fiscal Agent for the non-entity.

..but I also want to point out these two particular websites and, because each one does (for the latter, “eventually”) tie into a tax-exempt organization (one, legal domicile Maryland, the other, California), that their respective nonprofits, a.k.a., tax-exempt organizations focus on transforming the criminal justice system — nationally, NOT the family court or civil justice systems.  And how they plan to (and have been) doing this.

I will contrast how they describe themselves as compared with what their Forms 990 and/or (if available) independently audited financial statements — current, or not so current — in my opinion, communicate about motives and agenda.

Equal Justice USA Inc. started only in 2007; the Tides Advocacy Fund (not so-called originally; there’ve been a few name-changes since) behind “TheAppeal.org,” about 1992, and, notably, it’s a 501©4.

The former is small, the obvious, is not, but neither is run by a multitude or is truly grassroots:  just a few were behind each one.  Equal Justice USA seems to have been more like a spin-off with a more famous founder, but it’s still organized to effect the changed desired by a few, nationally via 501©s.

Both organizations easily held my interest, although their approaches to telling WHO THEY ARE differ.  One was re-posting the other’s story line, which is where I first became aware of them. Of course, people from SF Bay Area are usually aware of the Tides Networks, Affiliates, and influence, this specific entity, I hadn’t noticed yet. I cannot pay constant attention to ALL the major players and it’d been a few years since I’d done any drill-down on “Tides.”

While it may take a while (depending on how much the backers wish to cloud how truly NOT grassroots they are, when such is the case, as it is with TheAppeal.org), I also want to show these two websites in particular because for people whose primary interest is FAMILY court matters, they make it quite clear — more clear the more you look at the websites — that’s the least of their concerns and in fact, is off-topic for their primary interests.

This also reveals how sneaky it was to have the family court venue set up in the first place, where criminal acts could fly under the radar, and get new names, even when the headlines eventually make it clear, crimes were involved when people are murdered, kidnapped, trafficked, etc.  Most people are not well-informed on the establishment of the family courts as separate divisions (state by state), with any sense of the chronology or the major players in doing so.  Those “players” include both federal government (especially a major parts of the US Department of HHS — the Children’s Bureau), and key nonprofits, as I pointed out in my “Blueprints” post about a year ago.

The Moral: There is always a public-interest purpose in looking at the big money behind political causes showing how condensed the ownership of it is, and how it runs that money.  To do that, when so much is run through and by tax-exempt corporations, you should develop some competency, comfort, and fluency with the basic formats. I’m not “the expert;” I just pay attention and make sure I keep on learning.  The things I do report, I diligently seek to document; they are documentable as either forthcoming or “not-so” about who they are.

“EJUSA.org” points right to a nonprofit entity. RT-ing its post, “TheAppeal.org” certainly does not, but eventually coughs up its being a project of a project using Fiscal Agent ‘Tides Advocacy Fund.‘

Continued from my second-to-last post, saying “….Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands and Platforms…”

In the middle of that 12.8-thousand word post, I said, truthfully, I was paving the way (“tiling the ground”) for this one.  A closer look at two websites (seen via Twitter) reporting on one story reveals much, IF you dig far enough or look close enough with attention to ownership (and, sponsorship).

(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.  

I linked to one version of the story and added several paragraphs of footnotes.  Who Owns Which Brands and Platforms really (still) does matter, isn’t THAT hard to pay attention to while reading (anything) and should become routine to look up when and where it’s personally unknown to you, the reader.  Especially where it ties to some nonprofit based in the USA and required to report to the IRS and make those reports (tax returns) available to the public.

Rather than quote, I took screenshots from that section of my Feb. 12 “Major Transform/Reform Campaigns” post {short-link ending: “-c9y”) under “Opening Spiel.” Those four screenshots as an “image gallery (large, so it’s one above the other, not side-by-side):

I do not expect to walk you through all the drill-downs and post all the images I took, but enough to show you never know until you look, that looking usually leads to more questions and widens perspective, and that over time, it’s  wise to pay periodic attention to some of the most aggressive nonprofit sponsored media organizations.

Whether cause “progressive” or “conservative” — both have operating strategies, vehicles, and agenda, and some points in common, such as not wanting to REALLY show the public how to investigate nonprofits and follow the money.  Rank nonprofits “good/bad” or as to their social impact — yes.  Rank or expose which ones are just thumbing their noses to IRS requirements, or transparency (“audited financial statements?  Come and get them if you can…  meanwhile, we’ll file as late as possible) or connecting the dots between services claimed and costs of those).

I’m curious whether people residing in other countries have the same research capacities on common nonprofit databases (or Secretaries of State corporate filings within the US) to look at Forms 990, Forms 990PF, and develop any understanding of how the system works here.  It’s NOT the same as in other countries.  People running program for a variety of causes (domestic violence prevention being a chief one) FROM the USA, in my observation, will do almost anything but call attention to how the US nonprofit system works and what it — and our welfare system — does NOT have in common with the Commonwealth Countries, especially the UK-Canada-Australia & New Zealand — or Europe, or South America, Africa, etc.

Up to this point, the post is just under 3,000 words (Feb. 2020); make that with updates, about 6,000 words (mid-April, 2020).

If I get around to the Forms 990 pertaining to either or both of these two websites, I expect it to happen on a new post.  Watch out for the multiple namechanges of the twisty/tricky “Tides Advcacy Fund” and because it’s California-based, remember to check databases (1) BusinessSearchSos.Ca.Gov AND (2) the California Registry of Charitable Trusts “Verification Page.”  A link to that page (and to the IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check”) are on my Twitter profile (username has no “apostrophe”:  @LetUsGetHonest) as short-links, currently.  I’ve found errors recently in search results on even the IRS search results, but with click-through, a lot of information is still available and ALWAYS better than just never looking!

I most often use the IRS database to locate an EIN# when it’s harder to find, or look for indications someone has filed just electronic post-cards (Forms 990-N) where no returns are found if I did have that EIN# but Candid.org was not forthcoming.  Or, sometimes it may have a more current tax return than does Candid.org (which has now purchased “Guidestar” but is still formally “Foundation Center” as the footer (white print on black stripe) to its pages shows, with the EIN#).  Of course if you’re looking for something NOT a nonprofit, only the state registries (Secretary of State for California and many states,. may vary for others) apply.  Just basic awareness.

In writing this closing paragraph, the details from research over a month ago (and plenty taking place — but by cell-phone — since) are not fresh in my mind.

Post title again: So Many Web Addresses End “.org,” Even This One. But Notice Which Entity, If Any, Is Behind Each, How Transparent, Who’s Backing It. RE: ‘EJUSA.org’ and ‘TheAppeal.org’: One of Those Makes You Work Much Harder Than The Other to Find Its Owners/Backers. [Draft: Feb. 24, Published April 13, 2020].(short-link ends “-cdj”)

Clicking HERE (or on the post title just above) reloads the post and so gets you back to the top.  

Stay safe (keep your distances) and stay sane (remember to follow the money by finding the entities), where you can, on-line. Don’t panic!//LGH.