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

(Revised/minor updates in early February, tags added Feb. 4).

This post is, literally, the second (bottom) half of the one I published yesterday, which was about 10,600 words, mostly text not images.   Let’s call this half — well, I just did:

“NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half]. case-sensitive short-link ends “-dvu”

The one I published yesterday:
“National Nonprofit:  True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal domiciled Entities? […publ.Jan.30, 2022] case-sensitive short-link ends “-dgS”

PREVIEW (about 3,000 words).  I have some points to make!

Reading CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, compiled by governments) at any level help a person comprehend the concept of what is and is not an “entity” and governments’ usage of the word “entity.”

Many nonprofit entities use the word “national” as part of their business name.  That name doesn’t make it magically “national” in any sense of the word.  So many things called “National” are intended to mislead domestic and foreign (i.e., not USA) populations, when such things are even “entities.”

The label “national” is also applied across a number of websites or campaigns masquerading (by implication if not direct claim) as “entities” but which aren’t.  These will also have the word “national” in their names– that is, there will be initial caps followed by a few more adjectives and, if you’re lucky, a noun of some indefinite sort:  center, initiative, coalition, campaign, or almost anything else.

There’s a difference between categories of existence as some entity (government or non-government, i.e., private) and assigned or registered names of entities.

Unfortunately, many government websites facing the consumers (i.e., us) within the USA don’t mention that our country doesn’t do “national” nonprofits or corporations.  Many government websites also inconsistently “mix-and-match” terminology discouraging public identification of what types of organizations (or non-entities, i.e., projects perhaps of some other organization) are meant.

This post leads you to and guides through** how a recent U.S. Treasury CAFR report defines “entity.” (and, much more…).  That section is in the bottom part of this post (below a clear separator):

**by specifying which parts, linking and quoting or summarizing the U.S. Treasury’s explanation of, at this point, the difference in usage between “entity” and “agency” in context (“entity” is a broader term) and listing so many of them by example as to  get the concept.  There are “entities” within “entities” in this case.

Something similar (but not identical) can happen within the nonprofit sphere; for example one Schedule attached to some IRS Forms 990 (for tax-exempt organizations which must file), is Schedule R — Related Organizations and Unrelated Businesses” and asking for these to be identified by categories:”Disregarded, Tax-exempt, Taxable as a partnership, or Taxable as a corporation or trust (Click and scroll down (or go straight to the bottom and scroll up, probably faster) through after Parts I-XII of any tax return (except abbreviated Forms 990EZ), through its “Schedules” to Schedule R and read the sub-headings given.  This example came up  (BiPartisan Policy Center, Inc, FY2019 Tax Return; it’s mentioned below the section on CAFRs on this post).

(“What’s a CAFR?”  Still unsure what that refers to?) Investopedia summarizes, but I disagree (extremely) based on having read enough CAFRs, with one of its summary statements — governments aren’t into hoarding assets.  Oh, really?  I certainly agree with this (second paragraph) — “shouldn’t we be making sure they’re making good use of our money?” and other parts explaining who files CAFRs, and that their MD&A section (and notes) are “important analysis tools.”

“Navigating Government and Nonprofit Financials,” by Jonas Elmerajji, Updated July 27, 2021, Reviewed by Andy Smith).

Governments and nonprofits take our tax and contribution money to provide valuable services—shouldn’t we be making sure that they’re making good use of our money?

…Governmental Reporting

Each year, every governmental organization in the U.S. and Canada puts out a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). While the formats and contents can vary, these reports present the financial statements of the governmental entity, as well as important analysis tools like the management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) and the notes to the financial statements. CAFRs are done according to GAAP and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regulations. (See also: What You Need To Know About Financial Statements and Footnotes: Start Reading The Fine Print.)

Too bad one sentence refers to governmental “organizations” and the next, “governmental entity.”  I think the phrase should be “government entity.”  It’s either government, or it’s not.  If it’s “government” that’s not “governmental” — “sort of” government.  Investopedia articles are intended for a general understanding..

CAFRs often present financial information for individual funds (or at least significant funds) as well as governmentwide financial statements that show the position of the government as a whole…. The MD&A is a very useful portion of the CAFR that gives quite a bit of insight into the decisions made by your government’s decision makers. Typically, the MD&A has quite a bit more content than the managerial discussions found in the annual reports of business organizations.

Besides entities called “National” , there are also many “Centers, Initiatives, (etc.)” within registered entities (within governments and, often, universities, or at times, within some other non-profit entity) which aren’t “entities” (‘things,” or distinctly separate from where they are “housed”) at all, but those behind them and involved want the rest of us to think they are.  Many times I’ll find out simply looking for the entity and finding there was (or is) none — the name or label refers instead to some project of another organization (or, government unit).

In the United States, such labeling — “National  [ABC] for/on [Cause XYZ]”  isn’t illegal, just mis-leading and deceptive. It ought to be a ‘red flag’ every single time you see it, unless referring to the federal government itself. It’s a ruse… It’s mimicry — it’s evidence of (someone’s) posing like something it is not.  This word “National” serves to help undeserving entities or non-entities (small or large, powerfully connected or not at all powerfully connected) encroach on other turf, like an invasive species, until the original ones are crowded out, or suppressed JUST enough to keep feeding the parasites.  The “turf” it’s encroaching on is representative government as designated by not just local state constitutions (as to the USA), but under the national one also.  It’s an attempt at nationalizing things which belong under state, NOT national, control.

Because it’s so easy and now commonplace to replicate, ‘clone” or just set up nonprofits, it’s become logistically impossible to track all of them without extreme specialization.  However, they do tend to organize around the “host” functions of governments and can be seen mimicking and feeding off such government sources.

This post begins listing some of my prior published posts naming a series of non-profit entities (mostly) which call themselves National and how they collaborate to form the background, kind of “shadow” government while maintaining private tax-exempt status making their (collective) influence/s harder to discern, and the money much harder to follow.

Some of these are so confident about themselves they self-selected into “The Big Seven“: Wikipedia lists them but says little about them.

I blogged them in July, 2017, (a major deep-dive drill-down on several).  That post is a good background for this one;  background information includes display of many images — both the entities’ self-descriptions, and annotated/captioned screenshots of tax returns. That my blog was so close to top of the Google search results on this phrase might tell you it’s not discussed often enough.

I can’t continue producing that level of detailed, annotated, image-uploaded posts.  My blog talks basic principles and illustrates, time and again, what you might find once you start looking for and at any organization’s financials — including how they network together. Really, my posts January 30 and 31, 2022, are reminders of what I’ve been saying for years, on this blog and anywhere else I may have a voice.

For certain fields, it’s close to “insane” in my opinion, to neglect obtaining and maintaining awareness of who have been the key organizations, how they’re funded (how many are dependent on government grants, how much private money in other, very vocal, influential nonprofits with similar agenda, is circulating in and around government policies.

The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic. [Publ. July 6, 2017] (post short-link ends “-79i”)

…published July 6, 2017 evening, about 8,000 words …comes in two basic sections — ICMA-related, and The Four Organizations-related (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA).

Another entity, which has the word “International” in its name (the rest are merely “National”) is also private, and targets specific civil servants in more than one country (hence “international”) who just so happen to be in charge of more local jurisdictions within (for here) any single state in the USA — as the name implies, City/County Managers. It is covered (discussed) in my July, 2017, post above.

Here’s that list:  It’s from a prior three-part series I did a while back, and I quoted it yesterday (now moved here) because it’s a key concept and I’m not seeing acknowledgement of this concept, at least not in my circles, such as they be — certainly not on Twitter:

Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, [and] NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?” that is, do you know? about the network of private nonprofit associations named after public offices or officials who are networking together to function as government without being government entities? I

Obviously, quite a few entities believe that the practice of naming themselves nationally, while registering locally to nationalize (spread across the country) their ideas — often operating tax-exempt, of course, because such ideas are — “obviously” — a public benefit somehow … is just fine.

There are more acronyms I could list within the domestic violence field (or, “responsible fatherhood” field) when it comes to “resource centers.”  I’ve blogged both separately, and may review again soon,  but my focus generally (for these posts) is more on actual entities using those words in their name, or promotions referring to themselves as a “national nonprofit” which literally, does happen, than the non-entities also sporting labels that include the word.

I believe anyone concerned with reforming the family courts, child abuse practices in America, or with maintaining proper separation between the public and private spheres (good luck with that!) still at this late date, should memorize those acronyms, at a minimum know what they stand for, and be able to differentiate their respective functional focus.  I can, easily.  These are also just a sample of such associations.  (I didn’t list the NDAA).  Others may use the word “American” instead of National but still refer to and may limit membership to civil servants in the fields referred to. These will build cohesion around practices, protecting their niches, and in general train each other, with or without the population being aware of how or what types of trainings.

Qualifying this position: I’m not saying membership associations, or trainings, shouldn’t take place.  But I know experientially and through investigative blogging, over the past one dozen years, in just a few months here, in 2022, their influence is felt but not comprehended, sowing confusion and weakening our focus on other more productive and self-supporting energies. For example, the NGA privately worked with private interests (some university-based, or non-profits run out of universities, i.e., “Family Impact Seminars”) to spread the “responsible fatherhood” theme among the nation’s governors as far back as 1994 (precisely when the Violence Against Women Act was authorized the first time)l and doing this through communications facilitated by it — the “National Governors’ Association.”

Regarding Family Courts: SOME of these societies/associations are prejudicial to law-abiding, working and generally honest, productive people of the “female” persuasion within the family courts — much as equal complaints by men seems to criticize the same.

Regarding Child Protective Services: We are also hearing major outcries year after year about children being taken from parents and trafficked into foster care (and possibly further trafficked into the street sex-workers trade from there), while social policy USA has built up a substantial bulwark (within welfare reform, which is a HUGE funding block nationally, and impacting nationwide) to basically attack single parenthood, single mothers, fatherlessness and so forth; we (and I was one, so I say “we”) have been scapegoated as a demographic based on our absence of a “Y” chromosome, and for failing, too often, to stay married to or continue to co-habit or peaceably ‘co-parent’ with violent men after giving birth to children.

Why you should do this now, not next week, month, or year:  these names are likely to be changing as we catch up to and continue talking about the networks openly, addressing all people, not just the colleagues and professional circles involved.  One already has.. NACC

At least one just changed (after I started blogging how it was taking international government grants as a New York entity with a California (alleged) Headquarters, and a subdivision in Madison, Wisconsin within a five-minute walk to where the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc. (“AFCC” for short) falsely (until about 2019 tax return) reports its legal domicile as Wisconsin (it’s Illinois and been so for decades) and still reports (for CEO Peter Salem) its entity address.  Yet even AFCC features how it’s international and multidisciplinary as a membership association (although its 501©3 filing isn’t a “membership” tax-exempt status, but a supposedly public charity status.  Membership filings would be (as the ABA is), 501©6.  I’m not a tax expert, so there may be some reason why, but it seems odd.  Perhaps because membership in AFCC (unlike, say, membership in the ABA in most places across the USA) isn’t required to practice in the professions it deals with.

A few other comments on that list, meaning, “Do You Know Your NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, [and] NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?””

• The “NGA” is an instrumentality of government (a bit of a different creature) — BUT it has its attendant nonprofit, so wealthier players (both corporate and tax-exempt-foundation corporate) can pay-to-play and have a seat closer to the policy table than the average citizen — without being elected to this place.
• I don’t remember exactly which ones on the list (possibly NASMHPD) but as I recall, the NGA also controlled one of these.
• As it turns out, many of them are focused on similar (behavioral health/mental health/promotion of psychological studies, and psychologists professional career curves, etc. (for the over-arching (American) membership association, a kind of “umbrella” — of course, look at the American Psychological Association.  I’ve covered this ground before on the blog…
• In this post series I also looked at NAMI, and we have to also take into account just how much pharmaceuticals (can you spell “anti-psychotics” “Risperdal” etc.?) are pushed or proscribed through sponsorship or private interests working through certain associations. So, there’s the “forced medication” factor –and I wrote this years before COVID-19 vaccine issues (!)
• ICMA originated as I recall in Canada. It has a related corporation and this type of association is going after management of major pensions/retirement funds, of civil servant employees, as I recall. I did blog and have no claim to perfect recall — that’s why I also keep some records in blog format. I think it should be kept on the overall radar.

This idea of running government — universally and internationally — like corporations without the real protection of government itself, or our rights under them, while using our revenues generated by these governments to manage accumulated assets and investments held by the same, is, I believe, has gotten out of control.  It’s TOO MUCH!  I realize it originated and was popular decades ago (perhaps closer to the turn of the 1900s, i.e., last century, even more between World Wars I and II), but still — too much!

It’s segregating society into “operators” and “those operated upon” which is contrary to the founding principles. It’s pretty tough to negotiate with people in positions where their livelihood is “operating upon” and their job descriptions to keep doing that, when one is simply standing upright and protesting that process.  

Economically, continuing to take from the population while stockpiling so much in so many ways and places — then** doing social engineering, that is testing, reporting, and evaluating “what works” to fix low-income people, neighborhoods, etc. — if it doesn’t work, “no matter, another round of RCT (randomized controlled trials upon the population for behavioral modification) is in order,” — something’s radically wrong and inhumane with that picture. It sounds and feel too “Nazi” and parts of this probably came from that source, post World War II (which was when, eventually, the mental hygiene/mental health fields seemed to really prosper.  Not for this post, however. 

(**For certain professional sectors which — we know, it’s obvious, and anyone could check by reading enough resumes (c.v.’s) detailing the federal grants in a career curve — tend to flourish and expand under government grants)

About the post split, again:

So for the post I’m just splitting in half. Neither part is more important than the other and that second half, now this post, contains many links and points of references to communicate the same concept…

(1) If it’s USA-domiciled (and an actual entity) it may be called “National” — but that’s just a name.  it’s not descriptive, and not to be taken literally.  “Buyers beware” ALWAYS applies, and

(2) Far too many non-entities called “National” by custom, by dba (registered fictional names or trademarks), are housed elsewhere — and the variety of “elsewhere” entities span both public and private spheres: (In governments, in universities (whether public, meaning, literally, part of state governments, or private, — typically nonprofit, sometimes also non-profit within a specific religion:  i.e., Georgetown, Loyola (Chicago), Marquette, Creighton, Fordham, Emory (Jesuit in various states), Pepperdine (Malibu, California, evangelistic Christian), Baylor, Biola, or even literal seminaries (Fuller, in So Cal/Pasadena is an influential one in the “family justice center” and “family values” themed programming).

Entity or Not, let ’em go ahead and keep calling themselves whatever they want:  I don’t really expect to be able to change that myself.  I’m just saying, as individuals and as tax-payers treated as separate from all these categories of “entity” (especially tax-exempt ones, or ones that get to deduct expenses in ways that individuals who must contribute, rather, to their own retirement funds and social security future, cannot), we don’t have to give them any extra-special respect or credibility.

Each and every one is only as credible as it actually can show — from its financials or lack there-of.

And if it’s not an “entity”** it’s not an “it” and we should stop talking (echoing its owners or sponsors, no matter how big and powerful the same may be — and I mention the American Bar Association in this post in that context!) as though it were, doing some of the heavy public relations lifting for such deceptive individuals, and entities…

This theme is more important now than ever as so-called “national” nonprofits and non-entity university-based centers accompanied by advanced-degree academics, are going (fleeing? at least, conferencing and it seems, publishing) internationally as IF somehow representing our country while, back home, we are having major difficulties with said practices, based on circumstances somewhat unique to the U.S.A. and which can only be seen with the proper “backlighting” for the staged theatrics they are.

Yes, I have one in particular in mind, but not only one, and this one happens to be a non-entity, so far as I can tell, using the word “National” as a flourish and, in effect, a pretense. Its university is going along with it, too..Meanwhile, back here, I’m one person seeking to promote the concept of identifying ENTITIES before arguing cause (let alone practices) and what an education it’s been, too, over the years — how some of the loudest propaganda comes without concrete, identifiable, entities showing (by virtue of being actually identified) the cash flow, public funding, or any basic financial statements a tax-paying public ought to be able to see for public-financed operations..

This type of behavior and naming conventions rarely shows up alone.  It likes company, and (again, the one I have in mind) particularly others of the same mind-set. This mindset is what I’m protesting, as it makes it harder to fight locally for basic civil and legal rights under our own jurisdictions without awareness of who’s pushing what in further-and-further away “domiciles.”

January 31, 2022, post transplant begins below this next line.^^

It is a straightforward block copy & past, except any corrections of formatting or copyediting errors. Transplant (post split) section has blue borders. Anything above here is my extended “preview” to emphasize its content.

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP)^[1] is a decision-tree medical algorithm, the design of which was based on the expert opinions of mental health specialists. It has provided and rolled out a set of psychiatric management guidelines for doctors treating certain mental disorders within Texas’publicly funded mental health care system, along with manuals relating to each of them. The algorithms commence after diagnosis and cover pharmacological treatment (hence “Medication Algorithm”).

HISTORY: TMAP was initiated in the fall of 1997 and the initial research covered around 500 patients.

TMAP arose from a collaboration that began in 1995 between the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR), pharmaceuticalcompanies, and the University of Texas Southwestern. The research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Meadows Foundation, the Lightner-Sams Foundation, the Nanny Hogan Boyd Charitable Trust, TDMHMR, the Center for Mental Health Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Health Services Research and Development Research Career Scientist Award,** the United States Pharmacopoeia Convention Inc. and Mental Health Connections.***

**Who sponsors that award? It doesn’t say here..  ***”Mental Health Connections” may be a program, a network. or anything.  Wiki doesn’t say; nor does it identify who or what is “TDMHMR.”  Then again, that’s Wikipedia for you….

Numerous companies that invent and develop antipsychotic medications provided use of their medications and furnished funding for the project. Companies did not participate in the production of the guidelines.^[2]

In 2004 TMAP was mentioned as an example of a successful project in a paper regarding implementing mental health screening programs throughout the United States, by the President George W. Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which looks to expand the program federally. The President had previously been Governor of Texas, in the period when TMAP was implemented. Similar programs have been implemented in about a dozen States, according to a 2004 report in the British Medical Journal.

Similar algorithms with similar prescribing advice have been produced elsewhere, for instance at the Maudsley Hospital, London.^[3]

Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health is a topic of its own, and connects to a certain Judge in Florida (Ginger Lerner-Wren) who I belatedly learned is (or was) married to an econometrist or economist (mathematician type guy) in the UK, whose name eludes me.  But she was famous for instituting problem-solving courts within, as I recall, the criminal section.  Interesting study… Not for this post…//LGH, Jan. 31, 2022.

The phrase “Do you Know Your” is searchable on this blog; I did several posts and possibly one page including that phrase is on the title.One of them was on the ABA and APA.  My theme remains, as the opening of this post says (and I’ve quoted about three paragraphs and the lead-in to the next section, because it mentions Texas TMAP algorithm which might be again timely during these times (i.e., COVID-19 times):

To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (The Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order). [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update @07/18/2017]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”)

…The ongoing theme has been …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?” that is, do you know? about the network of private nonprofit associations named after public offices or officials who are networking together to function as government without being government entities? In this theme, drafted October, 2014 under basically that title, I split it into three basic parts, with the last (“Part 3”) about the ABA (Bar) and APA (Psychological).  I also wrote at length and an extra post about the pushing of the mental health/illness theme when it came to the NASMHPD (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors) which is operating under a cooperative agreement with the “NGA.” (National Governors’ Association).{{emphases changed for this paragraph}}

The NASMHPD is problematic through: {{I split the (a,b,c) into paragraphs for this quote//LGH Dec. 2021}}

(a) involvement with the objectionable TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project), a way of getting around failed clinical trials to promote excess and more expensive types of (unsafe, injurious it turns out) medication for use statewide, an area over which, obviously, groups like the NASMHPD would have some influence as its members are state-level heads of “Mental Health Programming.”

(b) in general, taking funding from some of the same “Big Pharma” (Rx) companies developing and pushing some of the drugs, including several who are now being sued by state attorney generals and others for their responsibility in current very unhealthy (except for business profits) opioid abuse epidemics and

===>>>(c ) patterns of networking AS nonprofits with a specific theme intended to go national, which brings it into an area I have now researched as to several different fields (including marriage/fatherhood, domestic violence prevention, child abuse prevention, supervised visitation and related, and more recently, school reform initiatives (public/private liaisons with big foundation money behind them).  I believe that the extent of such networking when it comes to mental health (and related Rx possibilities = major financial incentives to at times inappropriately control population, and bill the public for it) is pervasive and should not be ignored.  However, it’s the organizational tactics in the nonprofit sector (regardless of “theme”) to also be aware of, and how organizations copy other organizations’ successful models.

Another factoid is that many of these same pharmaceutical companies can ALSO sponsor or get to government officials more easily ( for membership or Corporate Donor/Partner fees  — which they can certainly afford to pay) — which brings us back to the NGA, NCSC, NCSL, etc. list above.  The fact that the organization (as to that list) is in the private sector makes it legal, and because these organizations themselves are not usually in the headlines AND {{because}} on Forms 990, donations are aggregated, at least as far as public gets to see (i.e., contributions are lumped together into a single number on the return), so are harder to follow. The collective influence is also harder to see simply when it is dispersed among many entities. This influence is not less for being less seen — it still is there, but when results are showing up inappropriate, specifically WHERE to resist or protest should be known.  My point is, the nonprofit sector PER SE sets the stage for this.   The nonprofit sector understood as a factor of everyone else (incl. corporations) getting taxed, brings it back to the point of taxation, specifically the income tax.   

That’s also WHY the “CAFR” material is so important to grasp!

re: (a) TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) (just a reminder):

Why? Knowing that most of us are not professionals or cited/published, peer-reviewed “experts” in the fields involved — the majority of people in this country are not lawyers and accountants, or even (though this percentage seems to be increasing, as supported by government institutions) mental health specialists, licensed psychologists, psychiatrists, etc., we deserve to and must know with whom we are dealing, especially in an increasingly ‘virtual’ on-line and interconnected, policy-making world.

Most of us do other types of work, and I’m guessing more as employees than as business owners.[^]  Much employment in the nonprofit (philanthropic) sector exists — some paid very well, judging by the tax returns, or as consultants to it, but I’m still guessing that most of us work in the for-profit sector and in other professions.

[^] That’s a guess, but I recall reading a USA financial report showing sources of revenues (available at Treasury.gov, probably) where a main source was income taxes. Certainly not the only one, but a major one –providing far more revenues than do corporate taxes. That means, from employees… May have also posted it (use the “Search” function at top right of this blog).

OK, here’s the most recent one United States CAFR posted.

(https://fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/)  Cover page, then click on links until you find the information needed.

FYI, a chart within the MD&A (Management’s Discussion & Analysis) section shows what I said above:  main source of revenue, by a large percentage, is individual income taxes.  Charts have surrounding text which should be read, and so much valuable peripheral information can be picked up just by reading, or I’d upload and explain it better here.  Remember the acronym “MD&A” please.  Good to know in general when reading CAFRs.

(The Financial Report of the United States Government (Financial Report) provides the President, Congress, and the American people with a comprehensive view of the federal government’s finances, i.e., its financial position and condition, revenues and costs, assets and liabilities, and other obligations and commitments. The Financial Report also discusses important financial issues and significant conditions that may affect future operations, including the need to achieve fiscal sustainability over the medium and long term.

The Department of the Treasury, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), prepares the Financial Report, which includes the financial statements for the U.S. Government. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is required to audit these statements. The Financial Report is compiled primarily from individual federal agencies’ audited financial statements and related information included in the agencies’ financial reports. Inspectors General are generally responsible for annually auditing the financial statements for their respective agencies. The agency and governmentwide financial statements are generally required to be prepared in conformity with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as promulgated by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB).

This just told you that individual agencies also produce audited financial statements “and related information”.  Why not obtain and read a few? It also reminded us that “inspectors general” exist and audit their agencies financial information, usually. Also that there is an “FASAB” and GAAP principles, all things I’ve blogged before on this blog (I seem to remember the acronym as FASB, not FASAB).

Tables in the MD&A aren’t Charts.  Anyhow, “Chart 5” on Page 23 references Table 4 on Page 21. (Surrounding text to Chart 5 and of course references increases or decreases):

Earned revenues from Table 4 are not considered “taxes and other revenue” and, thus, are not shown in Chart 5. Individual income tax and tax withholdings and corporate income taxes accounted for about 79.9 percent and 8.9 percent of total revenue, respectively in FY 2020; other revenues from Chart 5 include Federal Reserve earnings, excise taxes, unemployment taxes, and customs duties.

The above text doesn’t mention (but the graphic certainly shows) that the category “individual income tax and tax with-holdings” (bar color white) for FYE (Fiscal Year Ending) 2020 were  $2,854.6 Billion but “corporate income taxes” (bar color gray) only $317.6 Billion, i.e., two vastly-unequal categories listed together (both being “income taxes”). The largest category by far (in absolute numbers) was employees and via tax-withholdings for employees.  They could easily have expressed it separately by percentages, but didn’t. In fact the corporate taxes numbers were closer to the reported “earned revenues” numbers than the individual income tax and withholdings.

Of course the Annual Financial Report including US Financial Statements, Notes to the Statements, MD&A, other schedules and explanations is long!  But at least look at (read) the MD&A, Table of Contents, and especially Note 1 to the statements (not to mention, the statements themselves, even if you’re not a “numbers” person, the categories (row and column headings) have a story to tell).

(Note 1) Appendix A is fairly short and explains (and lists) terms referenced near the top of (much longer) “Note 1,” including “Consolidated Entities, Disclosure Entities, Related Entities.”  (This is also displayed as a chart in the MD&A, nearer the front, but the Appendix A presentation includes (active links) websites of each consolidated entity (24 of them correspond to an Executive Branch Department).

The “Consolidated Entities” are grouped into three parts:

“24 Chief Financial Officer Act Consolidation Entities” (you’ll see a listing of commonly known federal departments, including USDA (Dept of Agriculture), DOD, DOE Depts of Education and of Energy), DOI (Dept of the Interior), DOJ, the EPA, the GSA (General Services) HHS, HUD, NASA, NSF, … let’s not forget the SSA and USAID, etc. with their individual websites (Four names on the second page),

“Sixteen additional Significant Consolidation Entities” (including the FCC, the FDIC, the General Fund (Treasure) of the US Gov’t, the Import-Export Bank, the TVA (! Tennessee Valley Authority), the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission), the USPS, etc.

then “One Hundred Twenty Five Additional Consolidated Entities,”

and “Related Entities,” (such as Amtrak, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and finally,

“Disclosure Entities” which include some set up for the purpose of COVID-19.  All these terms are well-defined within the notes. Some acronyms I didn’t know yet but if I hung in there (reading) I’m sure they’d be explained.

Because it’s the US Gov’t, numbers are listed in billions of dollars.

In wishing to understand what’s being done to and about “us” (most of us), that is the social-engineering and population management sectors (operators, agencies, entities, etc.) claiming public interest motives, the more efficient our learning can become, the better.

I am a bit “p1ssed” at organizations attempting from the private sector to nationalize our form of government, function by function, including the justice system and the courts.  This then makes it easier to inter-nationalize the same. and we can say goodbye in a hurry to (what’s left of) the concept of representative government.  Meanwhile, some of the largest players in that game like to use the word “community” and “local” to keep up our faith in that it’s not REALLY being centralized and nationalized, we are being heard and our interests, needs, and especially legal rights, are being handled — and violations of them, too.

Some of these organizations are large and powerful, others are small and plaintiff (but with incessant, squeaky voices pleading for “federal intervention” or at times international, to fix what’s ailing with the US family courts.  Good grief!  BOTH kinds and their entity friends and collaborators mis-use the word “national” in their names or descriptions.

This post won’t stop the organizations from continuing to use the terminology, but it will help some people with common sense see through that cr@p.

Not diligent or efficient: Over-simplifying and taking things at face value is inefficient because basic judgment is laid aside in favor of gut instinct, impressions, first reactions, personal experiences (i.e., if you know or have interacted with employees, volunteers or directors of an entity), word of mouth (your friends, colleagues or associates also may have), and without something much more substantial than hearsay and anecdotal evidence, and how often it shows up on-line (in the press, on social media) how many followers on (platform a, b, or c), you’ve basically got the standard of “current popularity” — usually with where it sits on some political, racial/ethnic, religious, class, or gender divide familiar to you, for which  your tendency is towards one or the other, or proudly non-committal to either (but without other form of sound judgment).  Organizations exist to appeal to this mentality also (i.e., labeled “bipartisan”).

(such as https://bipartisanpolicy.org)

The Bipartisan Policy Center has been in the arena for more than a decade, fighting for progress on issues that matter to American families.

---

The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship. The organization aims to combine ideas from both the …

---

…The Bipartisan Policy Center combines the best ideas from both parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans.

---

Bipartisan Policy Center … BPC is a non-profit organization that combines the best ideas from both parties.

---

(??) https://app.joinhandshake.com › employers › bipartisan…

---

We are currently focused on health, energy, national and homeland security, the economy, housing, immigration, and governance. BPC is committed to seeing our …

---

Bipartisan Policy Center – MacArthur Foundation https://www.macfound.org › grantee › bipartisan-policy… // BIPARTISAN POLICY CENTER INC – GuideStar Profile

The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a nonprofit organization that identifies policy solutions through analysis, reasoned negotiation and dialogue, …

(I just copied ONE link and had to spend several minutes deleting and condensing paragraphs of headings, sub-headings, re-directs, manually replacing lines for paragraph breaks, and it seems like dozens of references to the entity name.  I’d looked this one up before, but good grief!

It also cluttered my post with dozens (?) of html (formatting) codes, different fonts and classes (“divs”).  I call that pretty aggressive!  For an idea of how many different “divs” were just inserted onto my blog here to promote the BPC, here are how many “</div>” (end-div) codes: (I copied, and removed the line-breaks: these came out vertical, one per line): More than sixty!

In the several points above, it takes a while to get down to just a few specific points:  It’s a nonprofit organization, in Washington, D.C. (i.e., near THE decision-makers; that doesn’t mean it’s D.C. legal domicile) and a MacArthur Foundation grantee with a GuideStar profile (nonprofit organizations in the US that must file Forms 990 and with revenues over $50,000 should be on GuideStar…  it gets them from the IRS).

Do you get a sense that its revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities, and whether or not it’s primarily government-financed or private, whether its main income is contributions or fees for services rendered (on which income it won’t be taxed, being tax-exempt), or anything remotely close to that, is featured?

Do you get, by contrast, a sense that being so “BiPartisan,” it’s in the best position to advocate for all kinds of areas of government policy and for all “Americans” (U.S. citizens no doubt is meant).

(Jeezus!!) I have a phrase that may help counteract some of this propaganda:  “Just because it’s “bipartisan” doesn’t mean it’s not also racist, sexist, bigoted, or unethical. It may not be any of the above, but the term bipartisan doesn’t protect against any of the above, either.

Quick IRS search shows (unsurprisingly) there’s a 501©4 (Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Inc.) <~~its latest IRS return as of Feb. 2, 2022 (this post update), is only for 2018 (Year-End Dec).

EIN# 261299114, Legal Domicile (a header shows) Delaware, Incorporated 2007, and it has about $2.0M of (private only) contributions, few (only 7) employees, and four independent contracting (Part VIIB) “consultants,” mostly labeled LLCs for doing, obviously “Consulting.”  Somehow, it has $500K “overhead” expense (Line 24, Pt. IX) and of course the related tax-exempt entity (Schedule R identifies) is the Bipartisan Policy Center, Inc. (501©3), EIN# 731628382 (and that’s its IRS Form990, but for 2019 (as that was available).  The header info on the 501©4 leaves “website” blank. IS there no website for it? But for the 501©3 is reported.  The latter is much larger (but still 100% privately funded) and has not four, but fourteen Part VIIB Independent Contractors (take a look: you have the link!), and $31.0M “Gross Receipts” but only $21.0M “Revenues” meaning, usually, some investments were sold at a cost approaching $10M (i.e., Gross v. Net). (It was about $8M).  The top official for the 501©3 was paid (WELL) over $500K (plus benefits).  Glad to know we have such well-to-do national advisors operating tax-exempt and channeling (acting as conduits for) their own subcontracting advisors, for which the IRS Form 990, having only space to list five, leaves (for the BPC, nine NOT listed.

As to audited financial statements — both organizations say “available on request.”

Admission: I ran across this in the light of Ron Haskins (“Mr. Welfare Reform” and avid fatherhood promoter) with the BPC talking about “Evidence-Based Policy Making” and having managed to help get legislation passed (in 2018) around this theme, from the platform of a U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking (etc.).  Search “Bipartisan Policy Center, Ron Haskins” — you’ll find no lack of data, and (if it’s a testimony) probably a brief biographical sketch showing his public/private rotating door career curve.

Avoid approaches which tend towards (your) being conditioned (a.k.a., indoctrinated, brainwashed to varying degrees) towards favoring or disapproving, piecemeal or by some of the social partitions I just mentioned above: political, racial/ethnic, religious, class, or gender divide (I’m not claiming to have named them all….), or “if it’s bipartisan, it must be OK…”

When it comes to the “what,” first look for “entity or non-entity?”  and then, of what type. Know the types.  Organizations (and their websites) are always describing themselves, or more often their employees and boards of directors (“About Us“) which has more appeal; it features the human  factors.  The websites exist to promote or sell something…. not for self-revelation about their inner workings, infrastructure, and sources of revenue.  So, when it comes to understanding the “what,” legal definitions matter, and they are not always transferable across country lines.

When  it comes to adjectives describing any entity (which “nonprofit” implies), understand basic requirements of meeting that definition within the realm of truth.

If you need more supporting documentation of my statements here, either browse my blog Tables [plural] of Contents for posts addressing this subject, or look it up elsewhere!

Anything I have, I got through basic research:  a LOT of reading and a LOT of on-line searching, having developed and consistently used and thought in terms of certain, often-ignored vocabulary (for over a decade now) that sheds an entirely new light on common public interest causes.  Which the post this supplements also addresses (two types of vocabulary).

Put another way my on-line reading is rarely random internet or blog-surfing.  It’s targeted loook-ups, on hearing of specific websites, organizations, or programs, developments in coverage (of the family courts, domestic violence, child abuse prevention, fairly court reform, etc.), with the goal of finding or validating business (or government) entity names, identifying their financials (if available to the public), reading the same, and paying attention to detail.

Besides responding to new coverage or organizations that may come to my attention, I also as I can re-visit known networks (not just single organizations), seeking always to report on — publicize, draw attention to and explain in basic terms anyone could doublecheck — their continued existence and behaviors.  The subjective, anecdotal, and persuasive (sales agenda) terms, I notice, but are less functional for comprehension until those basic terms are known.

In addition, it’s a few generations beyond “too late” for common discussion of existing influencer organizations in specific fields, by their basic profiles:  Location, size, age, revenue sources, related organizations, collaborations (public, private, and public/private), and if one of many giant (multi-million-dollar and billion-dollar assets) tax-exempt foundations, their agenda.

There are different ways to get an overview, but in the “Domestic Violence” field, as well as the “Family Values” field one  basic way is to start with the Department of Health and Human Services (it’s the largest domestic grant-making, Executive-Branch, department) and track how these are organized, by what was formerly labeled “CFDA” (Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance”) but now — very recent change — goes instead by “assistance listings.” In other words, the former term “programs’ now is “listings” but it seems the same CFDA numbering system is applied.  I’m still navigating that…  However, starting THERE quickly reveals that more and lesser-valued entities are set up and centralization (within states) + regionalization (of the country) is the game plan.

The same goes for the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” field.  It’s organized around HHS regions, but with specific states having (you should find out when, too!) (clue: about a generation ago, AFTER Welfare Reform 1996) set up “Fatherhood Commissions” or “Initiatives” (or, similar but not identical), Offices of Faith-based Initiatives (within the governor’s office usually), and mirroring the federal ones featured in the President George W. Bush, Jr. administration, 2001-2008.

That these were set up and (so it seems) continue to this day, without ENOUGH sunlight on the significance, may relate in part to entities I’m addressing in this post:  Ones that feature the word “National” in their legal business names and certainly are working to (coordinated with state governments (especially in the Executive Branches, i.e., under direct Governor’s control), especially the National Governors Association (a gov’t “instrumentality”) and its very own nonprofit (enabling direct contributions and “pay-to-play” input by major corporate and foundation wealth) the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.

Incidentally, even billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations are unlikely to come “solo.”  There are usually related ones around run by the same family members.  HOWEVER, even taken together, I believe (so it seems) none of their collected wealth equals, taken in terms of assets controlled and invested, of the U.S. government, let alone (separately) certain states investment funds, i.e., such as CalPERS (California’s major investment platform).  I keep also (not USA, but) running across investments also of Canada’s Pension Fund.  In other words, Institutional investment fund platforms based on governments — with us all knowing that governments have the ability to tax, and a tendency to highlight their current years’ budgets, their skyrocketing deficits, and “let’s not talk about it” total assets controlled (as reflected in such financial statements.”

I work from the parts to the whole, but being aware, generally, of the whole and not just changeS but also changeRs, and tactics for changING the balance of power within the United States and individual states.

If I can do it, so can you…with access to the Internet, ideally your own laptop or viewing device larger than a cellphone (although, to a degree, those do work: just not as well.  Peripheral vision on a page matters… larger viewing screen matters too…) and carving out the time somewhere from your browsing or other social media activity, if such exists.

My message:

Become a competent consumer.  Understand simple, basic fact-checks to know whether or not you’re being lied to:  Start with basic definitions, not within the fields of psychology and social science, but within business and government entities, and their basic report formats.  Understand how fuzzy usage isn’t always accidental or simply careless.  Understand how common “fuzzy usage” benefits those who know better while using it, particularly with the word this post deals with: “National.”

Anyone can put the word “national” in a business name of some organization legally domiciled (based) somewhere in the United States of America.  

“Anyone” of course means anyone founding or in control of choosing a name for such organization or business; outsiders can’t do this.  Rules exist on how this can be done and on name usage. The only restriction on calling something “National [_____] ” in a certain (legal) domicile is whether or not the name is already in use (by some entity still active) in that legal domicile.  The key concept here is which “legal domicile” in question.

Likewise, anyone can put the phrase “national nonprofit” (or for that matter, “international nonprofit”) in a description of some organization legally domiciled (based) somewhere in the United States of America….

But to form any business (or organization) the founders must pick within the available domiciles within the United States of America: pick just one from the list.  There is no legal domicile labeled “national.”

Some domiciles (New Jersey, Delaware and it seems now the District of Columbia) are favored by entities who wish to keep more of their details PRIVATE from prying eyes.  Accordingly some of the biggest ones tend to be in those states.  Search “James Brooks Dill” for some history on how this came to pass (NJ seems to have been the original:  funny how many major pharmaceutical companies have headquarters there; Delaware (smaller yet) then perhaps even more favored.).  For people like myself, where researching filing history and exact names of (entities), some states are better than others at “coughing up the details” without charging extra for it.

The word “national” in either context above (the business’s name, or a description on the website of the business), is meaningless except as to intent.  

Pretty much, that intent — without exception — is to mis-lead viewers. Misleading viewers (readers, consumers of messaging) isn’t too hard within the USA due to our basic ignorance and lack of concern for talking in concrete, functional ENTITY and ECONOMIC terms and apathy about getting around to reading government CAFRs or AFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) which essentially lay out who is filing, organization charts, starting with the Managemen t Discussion and Analysis (up front summary) and especially in Note 1 to any financial statements (with the note “The accompanying notes are an essential part of these financial statements.”  

In other words, they give meaning and sense to the numbers presented.  

We are also often apathetic (overall) about paying attention to learning from their usage how to interpret over-used words (besides “national”) like “community” and mis-application of labels to the private sector in common use for public sector:  for example when nonprofits (which are private sector, no matter who funds them or controls them) call themselves or are called “agencies” when the word “agency” which has a general usage and a more specific one, associated with agency of a government.

(After looking up the roots, below, I was browsing the US Federal Government’s latest (FYE Sept. 2020) financial statements, its “MD&A” Section, which summarizes and defines things (and provides a wonderful organization chart of the government itself.  Most government financial reports (State, County, sometimes City) also do this.  Another reason to look at them!

This financial report is so huge, its parts can be read in separate pdfs.  So, this is from Page 36, Footnote 27 of the MDA (Management’s Discussion & Analysis).  Footnote 27 explains why the word “agency” is used in a financial reporting context, when in fact those federal “consolidated” departments ((HHS, HUD, etc.) are in fact entities.  I decided to quote it here, because the term “agency” implies acting on behalf of someone or something else, whereas “entity” implies being a “something” in specific terms.

My complaint above was about casual use of private nonprofits with some public benefit purpose (but not necessarily controlled, set up or run by any government) calling themselves “agencies,” in this context, “government” agencies — when they aren’t.

So this technical description from Fiscal.Treasury.gov (the above link) itself might help explain the differences, and how context matters:

[footnote 27] The term “agency” is used in the Financial Management section of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis rather than the term “entity,” which is used throughout the rest of the Financial Report. SFFAS No. 47, Reporting Entity, defines the term “entity” for federal financial reporting purposes and addresses both component and government-wide financial reporting. The term entity is generally broader than “agency” because it refers to agencies, components of agencies, and the federal government as a whole. The term “agency” is used in this section because the laws, policies, and plans discussed in this section apply to “agencies” as defined in particular laws or policy guidance documents and because the laws, policies, and plans discussed in this section do not generally define the term “entity.”

I don’t yet know what the “SFFAS” refers to but could and will find out soon from this source (so could you…) Probably refers to a reporting standard, according to (to be seen).

What is an “AGENCY”?  What does the word signify?

ETYMOLOGY (root word, word origins) HELPS UNDERSTAND:

The root word is a basic word meaning to “go, do, drive” etc.  Etymonline:  agenda, agent,(1), agency (2), or (not present tense, but past) act (3)

(1) late 15c., “one who acts,” from Latin agentem (nominative agens) “effective, powerful,” present participle of agere “to set in motion, drive forward; to do, perform; keep in movement” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”). Meaning “any natural force or substance which produces a phenomenon” is from 1550s. Meaning “deputy, representative” is from 1590s. Sense of “spy, secret agent” is attested by 1916.

(2) 1650s, “active operation;” 1670s, “a mode of exerting power or producing effect,” from Medieval Latin agentia, abstract noun from Latin agentem (nominative agens) “effective, powerful,” present participle of agere “to set in motion, drive forward; to do, perform,” figuratively “incite to action; keep in movement” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move”). Meaning “establishment where business is done for another” first recorded 1861.

Past participles would might have the form “act” (as in, something done, or as a verb, to do something (once done, it’s past tense) — but still, for another.  True also of actors, right?

(3) mid-15c., “to act upon or adjudicate” a legal case, from Latin actus, past participle of agere “to set in motion, drive, drive forward,” hence “to do, perform,” also “act on stage, play the part of; plead a cause at law” (from PIE root *ag- “to drive, draw out or forth, move“).

Most of the modern senses in English probably are from the noun. General sense of “to do, perform, transact” is from c. 1600. Of things, “do something, exert energy or force,” by 1751. In the theater from 1590s as “perform as an actor” (intransitive), 1610s as “represent by performance on the stage” (transitive). Meaning “perform specific duties or functions,” often on a temporary basis, is by 1804.

To act on “exert influence on” is from 1810. To act up “be unruly” is by 1900 (in reference to a horse). …To act out “behave anti-socially” (1974) is from psychiatric sense of “expressing one’s unconscious impulses or desires” (acting out is from 1945).

So, to be an AGENCY implies one has delegated authority, was driven to perform — in the sense of effecting national policies, etc. — as if from on high.  That’s why it’s important to distinguish between private nonprofits CALLING themselves “agencies” (if they happen to be contracting with some level of government entity, or part of it) but are in fact, vendors.  They may be performing specific services, but letting private interests/corporations/vendors characterize themselves “agencies” of governments which already have their own designated “Agencies” internally, is going (fast) down a slippery slope of meaninglessness.

I’m also just remembering the concept of “agent” (or, “secret agent”).  Obviously, this is one sent.

Back to my quote on the origins of the word “act” (from similar root as “agency”…)

Notice how recent are the phrases “act out” and that this comes from the “psychiatric sense,” with reference to acting (on behalf of) one’s unconscious from only 1945.  We are in the realms of Freud, psychoanalysis,** psychiatry, and (still clamoring for equal recognition and more professional “respect”), psychology. Independent professional schools of psychology (USA) date only to about the mid-20th century (late 1960s in California), as opposed to those part of some other college, like Harvard, or Yale.

(**literally, the breaking down (ana-lysis) of the soul (Greek: “psykhe”).  Here’s Etymonline Dictionary’s brief definition with timeframes (one of the reasons I like that site is inclusion of when usages became common):

(psychology, n.) 1650s, “the study of the soul,” from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhē “breath, spirit,^^ soul” (see psyche) + logia “study of” (see -logy). The meaning “science or study of the phenomena of the mind” is attested by 1748, in reference to Christian Wolff’s “Psychologia empirica” (1732). The modern behavioral sciences sense is from the early 1890s.

^^(My very basic understanding of Greek comes from years studying the Bible, including interlinears, concordances, lexicons, etc.  I like understanding root words.  Before that I had some background in Latin (high school, and as an avid chorister/musician, impossible not to run across (and sing) a lot of it).  Therefore I realize that while “Psyche” does mean “soul,” the more common (Greek) word for “breath” or “spirit” from which we get words like pneumatic, pneumonia, etc., is “pneuma” (see bottom of this page; I looked it up).  “The Greek words for soul (cf. psychology, and religion) + spirit (cf. religion) are not really interchangeable”

(ANYHOW: REGARDING THINGS “NATIONAL” WHICH AREN’T, REALLY:)

We don’t demand definitions or organization entity ID when arguing policy about a nonprofit’s legal domicile, but it seems to be even easier to add a sense of gravity, importance and  — the main idea here, it seems — a sense of legitimacy, when such organizations conference and promote their policies in other countries who MIGHT (unlike us) have the designation “National” as a filing option.

Within the USA, they have to pick within the available domiciles within the United States of America: for a list, look up any basic definition (ideally with a map) of the U.S.A.  We are not only states, but the geographic and population majority of the USA is spread out among those 50 states — not equally of course, or equally within the states.

Other countries may, and some do, have “national” (I believe Canada and Australia might) registrations.  The UK has “England and Wales” registrations, and others.  But the USA does not have legal domicile “USA.”

Because we are rather large geographically, calling some nonprofit “national” when it is, legally, and in fact, statistically as even an IOTA representative (statistically) of our country, not — is both wishful thinking (hoping, apparently, that few people will notice and take it more seriously than it deserves to be taken — and as more public-interest than it likely ever was) and false.  Being false, I’d also have to call it dishonest, deceptive and I would immediately red-flag it.

Then again, some of the organizations I’ve already red-flagged for other reasons, happen to have the word “national” in their name and seem to have major disagreements with our basic form of government (i.e., a federal government and individual states and territories, with D.C. not even being a state) and through calling themselves national and collaborating coordinating with other (typically) nonprofits to re-engineer government itself (piece by piece, whether the courts, the justice system, the executive branch  (regionalized policymaking in function, etc.)… One of them I’d featured (negatively, based on its behavior) recently took the word “national” out of its legal name (“National Council on Crime and Delinquency”) and became instead “Evident Change.”  Others retain the word.  I’ve dedicated various posts (and parts of posts) to this over the years.

Casual ignorance of this basic fact:  To form a legal entity in this country, you have to CHOOSE a geographic and political jurisdiction — JUST ONE at a time.  Incidentally, if the same personnel uproot, close up shop in one domicile and re-locate into another (it happens) and then claims existence as itself from the origins of the first one, guess what that is?

A damn lie.  Watch out for more where that basic one came from.

Hold such groups accountable in public — on social-media, and wherever else they show up — for their lies: not just for programming you might object to (although that’s also fair to protest).  This type of routine and casual, sometimes chronic, flat-out lying, is likely to be associated also with financial fraud, and it’s never in the public interest.  In fact, it’s an attempt (and being such common practice, no longer even hard) to continue brainwashing the masses (the public) about how their own governments work, about “things economic” and “public/private” as only meant for the experts to understand (sound like some religions yet?).

It’s objectionable.

Another reason the same might have had to uproot and skip town (actually, to another state):  Being caught out operating illegally, failing to file or stay active like they must (to be operating legally) and still selling goods & services (and running conferences, of course) allegedly in the public interest, i.e., still tax-exempt.

Two (neither not that large, but both vocal over the decades) that come to mind:  AFCC and CFFPP (easily searchable on this blog or google).  AFCC chapters have done this also (see, for example, in Connecticut).

Concept of Legal Entities (in the USA) that MUST have legal “domiciles.”

This is also good to know when databases (like the IRS.gov tax-exempt ENTITY search, or privately controlled ones like Candid.org, don’t bother to label their results columns with the word “LEGAL” when the results may display entity address -= not entity legal domicile.  Just as neither do they (candid, or IRS) label their “year” columns “Fiscal Year Ending” although that’s what the results do report. At least on the IRS you can see it just two levels down in a search:  Click on “Year” after clicking for “Details” on any search, and it’ll show EIN# and (in the format YYYYMM) whether or not the fiscal year matches the calendar year.  IF that year isn’t “20##12” (IRS results don’t show more than the last few years, so it’s going to be “20__,”) you know that the FISCAL Year (which the IRS Form 990 Displays in a big black square with white letters at the top right of Page 1 (for Form 990s at least, check Form 990PFs which may differ) is the year before.

This goes for audited financial statements as displayed on entity (including government entity) websites.

Unlike Forms 990 and 990PF which are labeled in terms of Fiscal Year STARTING (though when they end must also be reported), Audited Financial Statements (whether, again, for private entities or government entities, i.e., “CAFRs” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports; I started featuring that theme around 2012 and continued for several years) — as shown on their title pages, and face pages, and Transmittal Letter from any independent auditor (often dated at the bottom, below auditor’s signature) and on all their actual financial statements (those spreadsheet-style charts with the actual data on them) are labeled “Fiscal Year ENDING.”

How far must one click through, on a website that even posts these (i.e. under ‘Financials” or “Financial Reports”) to recognize whether you are reading that year’s or the prior year’s reports… i.e., that the reporting entity (whose website you’re viewing) is in fact more than a year behind in posting its own financials?

Something to make a note of.  I have seen too many varieties to take time to post samples (a lot of file handling goes into getting any image onto my media library and uploaded onto a post here).  Just start paying attention — I’m assuming SOME people reading my posts MIGHT actually (if they haven’t yet) start looking for and looking at — just clicking on and reading, whether on-line or printed out hard copy (I rarely print hard-copy; I read mostly on-line…, though I may save pdfs of the same to my desktop/computer that is).– some audited financial statements and tax returns of organizations they’re talking about, quoting, referencing, or whose policies they’re arguing against or for (knowingly or unknowingly).

Pay some attention to details and start talking “entity” and truth-in-reporting of financials!  While you still can.  Some databases seem to be getting worse, not better, and even the US government (in the last few years) has pulled off another labeling switch in its CFDA Programs (now “assistance listings” per SAM.gov) and no more (at least no more free) hard-copy (that is, paper; mailed or picked up at the office) printouts of its massive listing of the CFDA Program numbers.

Websites of nonprofit organizations may freely provide a street address without specifying legal domicile, when they are often not the same, then further mislead the public (especially non-US citizen public, not that most of us seem to notice either…) by describing themselves as a ‘national nonprofit” (or putting the word “national” in their legal business (entity) name…) when they are nothing of the sort because US doesn’t have “National” entities, even ones whose legal domicile may be Washington, D.C.   Each one has to declare a legal domicile within D.C., the territories or possessions of the USA, or in which SINGLE state (only one at a time is allowed) it lives.  By definition, if it’s a “California entity” (see businesssearch.sos.ca.gov for that phrase, and California’s numbering system at the Secretary of State levels) or not.  If it’s a state-entity, regardless of its scope (or longed-for scope) of activities, it is NOT a “national” nonprofit. It may have overseas employees, investments, and offices in other states, but it is not “national.”

FOOTNOTE: (For what it’s worth…)

“The Greek words for soul (cf. psychology, and religion) + spirit (cf. religion) are not really interchangeable”

I remember, writing this, “running out of steam” (energy), or time (before my writing place closed up).  This footnote is incomplete, and is diving down a little deeper than necessary.  I remember the point I was making — double check even your footnote’s footnotes (I had been, and it was misrepresented how often “soul” and “spirit” were interchangeable translations (legitimately so) of a single Greek word.  I do start with the significance in this context, however, that first paragraph or so.//LGH Jan. 31, 2022 (in process of the post split/transplant here).