Abbreviated Title:  Moms New To … #FamilyCourtReformists Rhetoric 2002-2022, [You] Have Other Options.. [March 20, 2022]. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-dVE.”

The previous post ends abruptly because I just moved about a third of it here.  Points of reference from the previous post saying “below” may now be here instead.  Please treat the overlap of subject matter as review or repetition — no harm in saying it again…

Posted ASAP because of its strong tone, especially towards the end.  I start with a verbally colorful rant about who I mean by “Moms” and some “TABLE TALK” about why this blog may be a difficult read and why it is a difficult write. The determination to speak, or what to speak is the easy part; so is finding what to report by now also, but turning this into comprehensible essays while writing straight onto the blog is tough and often tedious.

The subject matter is personal to me because I also lived through the systems I report on, but I chose to investigate from a different perspective. When I didn’t follow the assigned script or continually cheer on those who did (and the thought-leaders involved), I quickly found my writing sidelined, ignored, rarely linked to, and NEVER acknowledged by the FamilyCourtReformists as even existing, let alone as legitimate.  (Years of “statcounter” showed who in government and at universities was nevertheless watching this blog, including District Attorney’s Offices, universities (yes, those East Coast Ivies and more).

This shunning cost me social bonding and social-media referrals, but compared to what I lost (and it was a loss) in social/emotional bonding with others who also lived through this I have gained more in clearer insight to the system in motion and the system’s fiscal structure. That understanding was and still is worth much more than any cost in less social support and bonding. Taking a stand also helped me retain my conscience and self-respect and usefulness to others who can see through fake advocacy.

Full Post Title: Moms New To and Seeing Through #FamilyCourtReformists Rhetoric 2002-2022 Have Other Options.. [March 20, 2022].   (“-dVE”)

Women in my situation shouldn’t be bonding indiscriminately long-term: there’s a duty of basic survival: to keep people in frequent contact with us, our support systems we engage in (on-line, phone) honest and maintain “iron-sharpens-iron.” Conflict pe se isn’t bad.  Constant compromise is: there IS a war on, always, to gain or retain basic freedom, liberty and individual freedom of choice in life.  There’s a duty to resist propaganda and make sure consent is really informed consent.

You will not find me presenting my findings as I see (most) journalists doing: dropping names, citing experts, and expansive reporting on individual cases in the middle of that hoping (and even saying) this is and should pass for “investigation” and research.  It’s not: it’s journalism.

More journalism — especially of this type — is not what’s needed here.  In its place, we need more average, regular individuals to understand that boilerplate articles (quoting experts, or copying existing campaigns, add in a custody case or two to personalize it) don’t qualify as investigation or research so they can discover what it does mean and engage in that.  Investigation and research means LOOKING into the supporting schemes which must include the money and obtaining a basic understanding of the infrastructure — the flow of resources and finances.

Flow of information follows the resources. Pick some nonprofits or non-profit sponsored websites (I do — often) or consortia and see which major corporations are sponsoring them… 

You can’t look into finances without exploring entities and the public/private sector and sooner or later arrive at an understanding of what taxation accomplishes — and what the largest (billion-dollar, hundred-million-dollar assets) — tax-exempt foundations corporations exist to do.**

**Not exactly what’s on the labels.

Name me any journalist currently reporting on the family courts, custody disasters, reform movements, domestic violence, or even AFCC.  For any one doing that (I don’t see ONE), I can name probably five who are putting out, regularly, strung-together articles establishing themselves (and the names dropped in every article, often from the #FamilyCourtReformists lobby), not bedrock truths. They are publishing and being published regularly.  I cannot do a review or critique for every single one.  I talk about type so it can be recognized.  Over time, I’ve done several (most recently, illuminating how a Forbes Woman had affiliations with an AFCC_drenched nonprofit registered (entity address at least) in New York State, called “Family Kind, Ltd.”  Look it up!

Again, this post is:

Moms New To and Seeing Through #FamilyCourtReformists Rhetoric 2002-2022 Have Other Options.. [March 20, 2022].

(Case-sensitive short-link ends “-dVE.”
The two previous posts were published earlier in March:

I’m not redefining which “Moms” I mean. Many know already because they’re in the middle of court cases or reeling  and dealing from the consequences of the same.  This message would go for anyone else (Dads, decent people, others reading that rhetoric over concern about the levels of criminality and violence being diverted into the family court systems, while others seek to radically alter the “punitive” parts of the criminal justice system — and those others entail major tax-exempt foundations willing to, and boasting about how they have already — run “systems change” pilots on entire states).

I do have some words to say about that Lobby and its tactics, which speak to its purposes.  After that sound-off (which it is), several paragraphs long, look for some “Table Talk” (several paragraphs) which looks and starts like this:

Table talk is essentially empathizing and acknowledging some challenges my readers may have comprehending this information…  then again, start doing what I recommend doing, and lights should start turning on without all my explanations… Learning how to learn by doing… it’s work; it’s not a downhill slide without effort.

Below that is the transported exhortations from my March 19 (also brought in from the March 7) posts. Currently in all about 5,500 words.  Not a tough read…

I’m still saying “Moms” because I know how common it is for a certain lobby (registered or not, that’s the function) for establishing and making continued rationalization for the existence of family courts by (for example, and quite recently) add-on tweaks referencing “custody” to #VAWA reauthorization legislation to make the family courts (or private” or “custody” courts) somehow what at least in the United States they:

(A) were never meant to be, and

(B) unless the original builders, designers, and developers (who are identifiable both by others and by their constant talking about how they did this, and THAT they did it) are exposed for their true nature (ongoing) and intents (ongoing) never will be.

Exposure of (B) is a sacred tabu, not to be violated among the crusaders, and questions about it NOT to be raised in-house or answered, if challenged on-line or in public.

Preserving and enshrining the family courts as “safe places” for (anyone…), is literally, a crusade.

Accomplishing such a cause would be miraculous in light of their original blueprint, design and the ongoing published intentions of designer-entities (membership organizations) I continue reporting on year after year.  For a partial list, see my Twitter Profile or almost any year’s table of contents in this blog.  I will be talking about tax-exempt private associations and societies with civil servant members, and all the courtiers, priests, heralds, messengers, jesters, and kings’ counselors, etc. that go with it.

To exploit — target — hunt down, recruit, proselytize, indoctrinate, and send forth recruits, mostly female, unarmed with the truth on a Messianic (losing) crusade, and fueled by the blood of infants, children, and men and women, parents, bystanders, sometimes law enforcement intervening in a “domestic disturbance” — more murders = more headlines = attracts more to the cause…

In other words, in that culture all level of lying is the norm — the bigger the lie the better, and the more glassy-eyed followers (including Angela Jolie) repeat it with conviction, and the more hand-picked (really cherry-picked) audio or text testimonials are recorded — and blasted out on Twitter, with name-dropping “Thank You’s,” to Senators and others — anyone in power — couched in terms of “We, Us, Our,” — the more true (no matter inane when examined closely) a message or reauthorization of the famous VAWA must be.

That this argument has so many loopholes (it’s weak; it has chinks, and it’s not even solid info:  for example, WHO, if anyone, can show a US DOJ database — not just a list — documenting how the grants are spent, as opposed to discrete lists of them? I asked that too: don’t see an answer yet.  “Inappropriate for the unity of the cause?” — yet leaves ALL women seeking protection from violence open to accusations that the VAWA discretionary grant-making isn’t properly overseen and can include false allegations of domestic violence.  Yet, without raising a parallel and “to the contrary” act called WELFARE REFORM passing millions of dollars of grants over time to promote marriage and fatherhood — and how false allegations course through that system, as well as fraud (built-in facilitation of the same) — how can even honest women and mothers, defend against such accusation.

That’s called a Set-Up.  The Set Up is for the Take-Down.  It’s evident in the game plan… the targets include:  The U.S. Constitution, individual rights under the law in ANY country, and in ANY jurisdiction in favor of collectivism and in general, peace, privacy and overall population sanity. It makes a mockery of the process of justice.

#FamilyCourtReformists Rhetoric 2002-2022 Targets Specifically feature “Moms”:

Certain kinds of Moms have a higher market value than others — including corrupt or corruptible ones, and the innocents. Without leading-edge stories involving MOMs, what meaning would VAWA have? (Yet VAWA is already not just about Women but now “Gender-based.” Expand-and-dilute protections.

Ideal followers (having been recruited, baptized into this religion and given new names — like “Protective Parents” or (if that gets exposed, reBrandX, “Safe Parents”) have often been traumatized already, injured and may have been dealing with murders, kidnappings, or disappearance of immediate relatives, such as their own children, and in reaching out (on-line or to — typically — some domestic violence organization a help line will refer them too — that field is centrally coordinated and controlled by the United States Government via funding (only nice obedient children get the pass-through grants) also.  These parents have often been attacked personally (physically, economically and certainly psychologically) and in the process ALSO taught new names (again, rebranding is necessary as time goes by):  For example “Legal Abuse Syndrome” becomes basically “post-separation abuse” and constant reference to “coercive control” is mandatory.  Casual and chronic use of the term “high-conflict” also — and don’t forget to argue, loud, often and in as public a platform as possible — about how “parental alienation” is unscientific… (Built-in assumption:  psychology somehow IS…)

Unqualified followers, like myself, are nosy, ask too many questions, not submissive or collaborative enough (collaboration and solidarity are BIG themes), and what’s worse — we won’t and don’t shut up — one way or another, we will talk about the levels of betrayal, and we just happen to hate lying, and liars, understanding how damaging it is.

Essentially I’m moving the top part of prior post.  Some transitions may not read smoothly where I drew from more than one section.

That’s all the time I can (pour) into this post before publishing.  Comments remain open; I am alerted via email, usually publish unless they are just advertising for product or (which is rare) some very angry person trying to discredit another in some custody case.  Just because I talk so much doesn’t mean readers can’t talk back via comments and link to (preferably written up decently) some opposing arguments or overview..

What you see inside the orange borders below is block-copied material from the March 7 post, moved here Saturday Sunday, March 19, 20, 2022.  

MANAGE OUR OWN TIME BETTER BY GOING FOR the FINANCIALS FIRST TO GET BEARINGS ON THE FIELD.

How is advocacy groups and individual professionals wasting our time by withholding information and substituting information of far less relevance any different than an individual, abusive partner who knows how to control his (or her) “significant other”?  That alone should, in a world where common sense had a place, tell almost anyone that many of the “helpers” aren’t helping, and that “not-helping” isn’t either coincidence, or being sincerely misguided.

It’s time to follow these basic, fact-checking principles (for a start) and from there, deciding what to keep and what to toss.

I believe these FamilyCourtReformist advocates [some having been (USA) “SCADV” (state coalition against domestic violence)-entity certified/trained), others going by some version of the name “protective” (parents, mothers, etc.)] ALL know well that getting their version of truth out through the mouths of mothers who’ve used such messaging to help overcome their own trauma, loss, and sense of lack of purpose (among other things), or to channel their anger, doesn’t only impact those mothers — impacts the rest of us too, to share the social space with enthusiastic zealots who’ve ALSO been taught (whether consciously nor not) to not question authority, not criticize their chosen experts and — it seems above all — that women are SO oppressed (IN the family courts) we must all “stick together” and collaborate and just not exercise informed judgment, get angry at each other, or offer constructive criticism.

Also, letting yourselves be made a fool by experts who by withholding understand what you DON’T know you CAN’T reveal to others, and probably will reject or just not comprehend, if others come to you (on the “mission field”) with information which doesn’t sound like or flow parallel to, that which you are promoting, it lessens the reputation of ALL women in this condition, status, or basic class.  I’m talking about, who’ve had their lives or their children’s lives wrecked by the family courts’ playing “violence?  WHAT violence?  Abuse? WHAT abuse?).  There are certain things, not quite what would be required to pass a state bar, but still basic information in plain language, that we should know about how things work in our own country — not just globally according to CEDAW or other movements.

It’s called sending forth others to “run interference” on that information which is being withheld.  IF these same forfeit their own reason for being (that is, expert status, consultation, advocacy, recruiting more mothers to get legislation changed, or VAWA re-authorized), that is, if they lose LEADERSHIP status — they’re finished.  It’s “Game over!” Too many will recover personal integrity and — I hate to put it this way, but it’s true — boundaries, and start to THINK about what messages are being promoted — do those message make sense in the real context (not the “storytelling” context only).

So I read my tax returns and if a website or twitter use is new to me, and has a website or is recommending one, I’ll usually scan for certain items, and then scour it (if sensible) for details where they aren’t so transparent. Again, doing that most of the time is a discipline. It isn’t developed overnight. It shouldn’t have to be, but can be (almost) developed in isolation, where so many women are, especially those who became fugitives (i’m one, but at a different stage in life and the proceedings).

Our FamilyCourtReformist (and domestic violence prevention) overseers/advocates want us bunched together in physical and group-email, newsletter, on-line-forum (facebook, etc.) clusters for an audience — a captive audience — with some on the podium for the tearful or determined testimonies, and then after enough gentle nudges and nearly intravenously-fed catch phrases to be absorbed in the absence of anything which makes any more sense, and exhaled from (our) mouths without thinking about what we are saying, and who we have been promoting. I’m just describing what I’ve seen year after year.

This can and must stop.

We women and mothers exiting abuse, or who tried to or are trying to still CAN stop it — but the overseers, advocates, experts and those who’ve made a profession out of monitoring and collecting our stories, herding us into places where we can be unified around a cause NOT stated in our own words (except as to those stories and case histories, those are OK), but in those directly pointing to a pre-planned solution which benefits the overseers, advocates, experts and (authors, speakers, consultants, etc. — NOT us, unless we become one too), these people by class will not stop voluntarily.

They won’t stop posting, contacting mothers mentioned in the headlines, or taking referrals from colleagues who may be testifying in a case. ..  The mothers and certain nonprofit leaders who’ve been recruiting fresh Moms and (I have to say gullible) journalists from within and without the USA (Mr. Grant Wyeth (Australia), 2020, 2021…) Trey Bundy, Vicky Ngyuen (USA), Keith Harmon Snow (USA but reporting international; I haven’t checked recently), even as far back as Peter Jamison in 2011, I can’t remember them all) aren’t going to stop looking for more fresh victims, or famous ones with some long-term carry, to haul around to the conference circuit or to hitchhike journalism on the tragedies and trials of such mothers and publish articles quoting others’ work.

Besides these, some university law school’s centers now also specialize in addressing family courts’ failure to protect children (and, to a lesser degree, their mothers, i.e., the theme of battered women is now giving place to “save the children IN the Family Courts” mentality).

These law school centers are no more about to stop holding conferences and increasing their output and (if possible) on-line presence than are the protective mothers’ groups.

Taken together (and protective mothers groups do echo and feed off (policy, language, and themes) of  the domestic violence state coalitions and national or special-issue resource centers and clearing houses.**  Understanding one part, and that the parts are linked, explains how an entire network could choose to, operationally or deliberately in policies the public doesn’t hear about, decide that major funding streams or alternate explanations for the problems they (combined) feature exist, and have existed for (I’ll do the short estimate here and start in 1996 only) over a quarter century.  (2021-1996).

(I.e., the Domestic Violence Resource Network members including NCJFCJ, BWJP, Futures Without Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and its spinoff centers, Texas Family Council (National Domestic Violence Hotline) federally-funded policies — which excludes reporting fatherhood funding, period, or if reporting it, as a good thing, not a problem.

(This list at NRCDV.org (which is one of them) lists collaborations under five categories:  National, Special Issue, Culturally-Specific, Current/Emerging Issues, and Hotlines.  NRCDV.org itself has its own menu (Who We Are, What We Do, How We Do It, Connect, and Shop).  Under “How We Do It” are, not too surprisingly:  Training Institute, Resource, Technical Assistance, Collaboration).  Under Collaboration, it reads (first para only):

The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) informs and strengthens domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community, and societal levels. DVRN member organizations are funded by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) Program, located in the Family & Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They work collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice for all families a priority. Contact each center directly for technical assistance and training opportunities.

The centers at law schools will not be challenging DVRN or FVSPA-funded State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence policies, including policies to integrate responsible fatherhood leadership and trainings (and to collaborate with the same) in the name of preventing violence

The Centers at Law Schools and State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (or the ones against Sexual Assault, or both), mostly fed information from the DVRN (distributed regionally and by subject matter to cover all of United States) will never encourage tax-payers and individuals seeking help from these service providers to “out” AFCC’s connections with that DVRN Network (which it has).

The one’s I’m about to list (new or old) certainly haven’t, and when asked why not, aren’t particularly responsive.  I deduce it’s not on their agenda…

Acronyms only on a few (I don’t know how many others, if any) for those centers at law schools…

DVLEAP (Washington, D.C., George Washington University) and now “NFVLCgwu” so-called; FVAP (out of Berkeley, California),** and (how recently?) UC-Irvine School of Law/”Initiative to End Family Violence Initiative (it’s a “Center”). The ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence is behind some of this leadership (read a few c.v.s).  (** FVAP began at UCBerkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall?) but may not be still housed there.  I just gave you two California and one Washington, D.C., law schools involved.

ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence (url implies that the “& Sexual was an afterthought) disclaimer lists individuals needing help (not T&TA) might call. These look like links but don’t seem to be interactive, @ 8March2022

“ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence” reminds visitors that it doesn’t provide direct help:  go contact your local providers or some of these coalitions — and lists them.  (See nearby image, added to post March 8, 2022).

Unbelievable: I triple-checked:  that rectangle labeled “Victim/Survivor Help” listing resources — doesn’t even have the decency to provide active links.  I guess Victims/Survivors should just Google those phrases and hope something comes up.  The ABA must be short on cash…

However, it does show the categories the ABA Commission on this very topic categorizes the more direct service providers.  The only active link there is “Click this to escape this site” and NEXT if you actually DO want technical assistance and training (i.e., if you’re not a battered man or woman needing or seeking real help).

The “Commission” states its purpose – -how it’s going to help people suffering or having suffered from this — to increase access to justice by mobilizing the legal profession:

That’s the ABA, but also see LAW SCHOOLS and creation of Centers or Initiatives at them…

The law schools and centers at them LOVE having nice, juicy, subject matter to exhibit, maybe let some of ’em even speak, surrounded by, again the well-wishers and helpers — who will turn around and cite this in their resumes.

Here’s the conference “Forward Together: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Protecting Children From Abuse”

I posted this already (March 1, 2022, “High-Conflict on Steroids” Post):

‘High-Conflict’ Court-Ordered Parenting Classes and Certified High-Conflict Divorce Coaching USA is Now on Steroids. Yet USA FamilyCourtReform* Collaborators Using This Jargon still expect to be taken seriously (and are, for example, by at least one UK/Europe-focused journal). [Begun Feb. 16, 2022, , Published March 1.]” (short-link ends “-dEA”

Look at the list of speakers:  Actual survivors are considerably outnumbered.  Besides Tina Swithin, who’s making a career out of this now, I see only one:  Ana Estevez (Piqui’s Justice (not listed there, but also Board Member of California Protective Parents Association — here’s that list (which does include other survivors, how recently isn’t clear; and Connie Valentine herself also is)…

The messaging systematically excuses:  AFCC and the US Congress for it’s “fatherhood.gov” and its “access visitation” grants and for attempting to saturate this country, since welfare reform, with pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-father-serving professionals, and pro-father engagement throughout federal agencies and with trainings throughout programs run by those agencies — it will NOT talk about this in public forums featuring survivors (for the most part) or expose it voluntarily.  It should but it won’t.

Meanwhile, other “centers at law schools” are run by active and loyal AFCC members.  I have blogged these (one especially in Baltimore, Maryland), others tend to frequent Jesuit Universities and emphasize diversion, ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution), mediation and keeping families OUT of the courts.

So think about it, please!

How would this look if the ones in the “make the family courts safe for children” contingent started exposing the “We need Unified Family Courts, One-Family/One-Judge, Differentiation of Domestic Violence from just “High-Conflict” (or disputes)” crowd?

Both (and they overlap) profess and say — constantly, in effect: “We need more professions and practices to force teach those resistant parents a lesson in getting along” — after some have filed for “irreconcilable differences” divorces (or because of domestic violence or child abuse issues) what those parents really need, and our nation(s) is “conciliation therapy..”  ??  One contingent is ALREADY training the judges and others and has been for decades, especially in its “wheelhouse” is training how to differentiate domestic violence from NOT domestic violence.

But the Family Court Reformists profess:  “there’s a lack of training of judges to recognize domestic violence and child abuse (and coercive control) — THAT’s your main problem.  Adding more trainings will make Kayden’s family-court-facilitated murder “not in vain.”  Write it into #VAWA too!

Into the “family court gap” which has existed for so many years, the “protective parents” and their coaches sought to bridge that gap. This is done by now effectively protecting the existing interests which helped create family courts in the first place.

Do you really believe that the experts corralling and featuring such mothers have no game plan?  That all is above board, and no ulterior motives?

Do you really believe that for decades, national policy ran increasingly centralized and coordinated activities (I just showed some, in quoting the DVRN above) around protecting women and children, but just “forgot” that a whole arena called the family courts existed?

Do you really believe that while we were being sent through the family or “custody” courts, year after year, the United States (that means, the federal government) (whose courts (i.e., U.S. District Courts) were also getting appeals — not always heard, but many were tried — specific to divorce and custody issues just wasn’t aware that family courts existed and that these courts weren’t ever constructed or designed to protect the vulnerable?  READ THE HISTORY OF “AFCC” IF THIS STILL ISN’T CLEAR!

In this mix Moms COULD make a difference, I believe, by just not handing over their stories to what may seem like friends but, on closer look, aren’t —  they are great actors in a large drama; there IS a script and these individuals are playing their part.

Do you not, MOMS, know what your role is in that drama, and that you have a choice besides playing that role for the actors — and for that screenplay?

We need to go off-script.  At least off that script, and show it for what it is.

IF you are a battered mother or seeking to protect your children in these courts (or formerly did), please avoid words and phrases that are already well-circulated, well-worn and examined, inane.

Do you want a list?  Contact me by comment here (or on Twitter, I’m @LetUsGetHonest with the same BlueJay about to take off gravatar) if you haven’t picked up on it yet.

That quality — “inane” tends to rub off on others in the same class by association.

The overseers/advocates/practitioners etc. won’t tell you it’s inane if it’s going with the script’s purposes:  Your lives are their exhibits, remember your place and don’t challenge authority of “the movement…” (Or select men invited in to lead it; they don’t like being challenged either).

If you don’t like my line of reasoning (rebuttals), find and write one equally unassailable and well-built.*

(*I added blue color only because on mobiles, the headlines don’t stand out)

I’m offering one way to do that, and to figure out how others might without losing self-respect.  But you do have to be willing to lose a false sense of security and hope when it is, in fact, something different seen from the economic perspective and the scope of what has been ruled “illegal to mention in certain circles” but we ALL know (those who care to look) is taking place.

Manipulating those already in trouble or distress and then making it a public platform which doesn’t stand even minor close scrutiny, is wrong. It LOOKS right on the surface, but both results and the processes used to reach those results say, clearly, it’s wrong!  

It’s not illegal to propagate BS, per se.  However, propagating BS is not the moral high ground, and that’s the line I’ve been hearing from the same sources for over a dozen years now (and previously, before I’d identified the speakers according to their respective tax-exempt entities, if any, I also heard it).  Selling false hope and trying to silence dissidents pointing out leaks in the logic, and a stench of deceit in the packaging is effective — but it’s no moral high ground.

MAKE ’em face the facts… and just say “NO!  You cannot have, sell, or exploit my stories.  

I will NOT show up as “Exhibit A, B, C or even D”

for the next law named after my murdered child, or anyone else’s.”

Also, please look up the corporate history of Center for Judicial Excellence, Inc. which (VERY belatedly) started tracking murdered kids for publicity and (belatedly) posted a California NOW Family Court Report dated 2002 — which content they’d been ignoring, suppressing and avoiding most of the time between — and I’m talking, for the existence of that nonprofit from its early days in Marin County, California (around 2004, 2005) with a starting budget of (as I recall) $90,000 from another private foundation, which I have also blogged.

And ask those running the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference why, for so many years, neither Mo Hannah nor Lilliane Miller, nor BMCC enthusiast and regular presenter, disbarred-attorney Barry Goldstein didn’t register (and show that it did) as a business entity — whether 501©3 or LLC or even someone else’s fictitious business name (not recorded at state level in New York State)..

You-all want the public recognition but not the fiscal responsibility?

Unanswered question (I do not have the answer: help me please, you lawyers!) “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” has appeared with others (such as DV LEAP or other DV organizations) on Amici Curiae filings.  Is it legal for a non-entity (CAN a non-entity?) have Amici Curiae status without being either a person or a business?  If so, how does BMCC do it, and why don’t its “colleagues” filing on those briefs, hold it (sic) accountable?

The last few I saw were missing the opening sections (on the available pdfs) where Amici are listed and described — what they are and where (in which jurisdiction) and why they qualify as “Friends of the Court.”  How can you be ANYone’s friend if you simply do not exist except in some people’s collective imagination?

I’d really like to know.  Until I do, I will keep mentioning this — because it seems dishonest.

Thanks….  Expect more where this came from, so long as I am still alive and kicking….