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

From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.

Post Title and Shortlink:

Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!

Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.”  Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t.  This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.

Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.

That means, relevance to accountability.  And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.

It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.

The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].

Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?  

Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search.  Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear.  The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country.  A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats).  Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.

On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted.  These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site.  Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access. 

But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.

For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General. 

Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.

To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:

…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.^[h]

Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”

When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year.  This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities.  There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines.  Example:  The Tennessee Valley Authority.

The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website  TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).

It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.

Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.  

And that’s a shell game!

Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction.  The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is.  Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!

Let’s also remember that “governments” both internal and external, is plural; i.e., in the U.S., that’s federal, state, local (school districts and other authorities) and even multi-jurisdictional (Joint Power Authorities, one key example being the Tennessee Valley Authority, or the New York Port Authority).  When it comes to tax-exempt entities, the circulation between and among them, as well as buying, selling, merging in and out of existence, or being revoked for non-filing, is even more spectacular, truly stunning, to behold …. IF you ever get around to looking at it!

The only purpose I can see for this would be to keep the public as UNeducated as possible about the importance of identifying “entities” (public, or private) as part of the process of following where their tax receipts went, and what tax-exempt entities (especially) supported and (allegedly) acting on behalf of governments, are doing with them.

Remember:

To follow money, you need to find entities.  To find entities, it helps to have either their proper legal name (easily concealed), or their numeric, or number/letter identifiers (one example:  The “EIN” or “FEIN”), and then identify or find on which databases to look them up (bookmark the ones that actually work, taking notes where dysfunction shows up).  

Know that there are many ways to legally conceal actual business names on a website, burying the controlling and funded entity (or entities) further away from public consciousness.  Fictitious Business Names (“dbas” — “doing business as”).  Fiscal sponsorship providing an umbrella EIN# for a tax-exempt non-entity (or, some real ones).  Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) within a single tax-exempt.  ** Having one site represent in fact a combination of related entities, and only showing the tax-returns (if any) for one part.  

**The TIDES entities (but not they alone) have specialized in both tactics developed to an art form, years ago, for speed, power, and anonymity (and of course tax-exemption credit for all donors…

The Tides Center as briefly summarized by ‘InfluenceWatch” (InfluenceWatch (and the Tides entities) are is searchable on this blog, I’ve posted how conservatives watch and report on progressive organizations and vice versa.  This description is relatively current and at least summarizes using terms I hope make sense, and illustrate some of the complexity:  similarly-named, related, but NOT identical “entities” in a sort of cluster for expedited and continual financing of social change, as defined by its (owners, users, backers, etc). I see the term “Nexus” has come to characterize the cluster of (entities) run under the brand:

Tides Center

PARENT ORGANIZATION: TIDES NETWORK; TIDES NEXUS

Not to be confused with Tides Network, a related nonprofit in the nexus

The Tides Nexus is a collection of related left-of-center grantmaking, fiscal sponsorship, and advocacy nonprofits headquartered in San Francisco, California. The system originated in 1976 when liberal political activist Drummond Pike joined with Jane Lehman, heiress to the Reynolds family tobacco fortune, to form the Tides Foundation to offer novel services to liberal donors interested in funding political activism and the creation of new activist groups.

The Tides Foundation pioneered “fiscal sponsorship” (or “incubation”), a process in which a sponsor organization is paid to act as an umbrella under which new center-left political groups may fundraise and operate prior to achieving recognition of tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), at which point they’re often spun off into standalone nonprofits. In 1996, Tides passed its fiscal sponsorship services to a separate nonprofit, the Tides Center.

The Tides Foundation has also become a major pass-through funder on the Left thanks in large part to its use of donor-advised funds (DAFs), a kind of charitable “savings account” in which donors make grants to Tides, which invests the money and passes it on to other (typically left-leaning) nonprofits at the original donors’ direction.

(The Tides Center, cont’d quote):

The Tides Nexus has been described as an organization that “washes” away the paper trail between its grants and the original donor.^[1] Tides Founder Drummond Pike stated, “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” ^[2]

The Tides Nexus (a blanket term covering all associated groups) has since grown to incorporate eight nonprofits, including various supporting entities, investment management nonprofits, a 501(c)(4) advocacy group, and a single controlling organization (the Tides Network). This page briefly describes each member and its respective role in the Tides Nexus; more information can be found on each member’s InfluenceWatch profile.

 

Moving on with the shell games available, and what we MIGHT do to slow down a few of them or the practice as “standard practice non-reporting” (and I’m not referring to the Tides Center or Nexus in that sentence)…

AFTER finding proper legal name of an entity, it would help if the databases provided (by either public or private resources) were actually functional, well-organized, maintained current, and communicate to would-be users any quirks or snags in their usage. Generally speaking, they’re complex and often large, but less functional than it seems, which is gradually made clear if one does enough searches.  

It’d also help if both public or private entities flourishing off government grants (or donating directly to governments) might just PERHAPS include links to reliable databases, and their own EIN#s where available.  Do they?  (Not exactly)!

That’s what this post is about!

Continuing to endorse and promote national and international causes without reference to who and what are behind it, AND THE FINANCIALS, is irresponsible.  Who else is going to do that for you — the same entities who stand to profit the most by your NOT noticing details, the fine print, or dubious behavior when it comes to transparency and accountability? ???

Post Title and Shortlink again:

Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft). short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary.

There are also government entities, which you’ll discover quickly on reading most government financial statements, which at least in “CAFR” format have major sections clearly defining both the reporting “entity” (and what type it is). “CAFR” stands for COMPREHENSIVE AUDITED Financial Statements, and they are to be filed annually.  The words “Comprehensive” and “Audited” are important.

One (possibly the best) way to identify any government and its component or related parts is to find its CAFRs. Start at the top known entity level (country, for the USA, Federal Government). Search by entity name and/or look under “Comptroller.”  Start either on the entity website, or just google it. The CAFRs are financial statements, this also shows reveals their financial condition as reported.  I began reporting CAFRs on this blog the moment I discovered the concept: 2012…

References to CAFRs: [2003, CAFRman.com; (CAFRman.com) [1]; Oct. 8, 2008, specific to Arizona, with definitions and quoting the 2003 article: “CAFR: ‘Off-Budget Incomes DWARF Budget Deficits’‘” (Educate-yourself.org) [2].

([1] Link is talking about finances/ funds, not “entities,” but the overall point is that governments (consisting of government entities; their holdings consist of their funds) and Component Units.

[1] “..Introduction (for 2003. 19 years ago)

The State of New York at the State-level has approximately $52.56 billion of the taxpayer’s money it is not using, i. e. surpluses equal to $2,723for every man, woman and child in New York or $10,890 for a family of 4. This does not include all the additional surpluses that exist in the school districts, cities, or counties in New York. …

“What are these surpluses we refer to?”

Theoretically, at the end of every fiscal year, governments should have little or no cash/investments on hand. But what we have found is that most governments have huge amounts of cash and investments on hand at the end of the fiscal year. And somehow these cash and investments are not being recycled back through the budget process the next year, but are being held year-after-year.

Running Surpluses is Stealing

Although taxation is legitimate,running a government surplus isn’t. It represents a taking by the state, because it exceeds the government’s contract with the community. It is no different than if a federal agency were to take a person’s land or possessions without just compensation (an activity barred by the Fifth Amendment).Excess taxation isn’t what the people bargained for.

One quick search found the New York State’s Year-End March 30, 2021 CAFR (and prior years on the same page). The url makes sense:   www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/finance — OSC for “Office of State Comptroller.”

You can see by searching that CAFR (click on it to view as a pdf) for the word “entity” and/or “entities” how it defines itself as a reporting entity, its component units (and careful definitions whether these are “blended” or “discrete” units) and where terms such as “authority” or “agency” or public corporations are called “entities.”  Note 14, page 163ff, has a list and names, labeled “Entities Audited by KPMG” and/or by others. 

It’s not within the scope of this post or my (volunteer) time to produce it, to upload images of examples after example of use of the word “entity” by governments.  If you want to see them, click on some of the links provided, or look up by a basic search. I saw them, I talk about them, if you want to see, you can go look!

---

[2] CAFRS are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports sent each year to Washington, revealing the ACTUAL financial investment earnings, income, etc., and SURPLUSES of money separately possessed by 84,000 (now over 123,000) Government related entities – States, Counties, Cities, School Districts, Pension Funds, etc. …

…”The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars…”

…(quoting Walter Burien, but no date to the quote, except before 2008 obviously. Neither the amounts nor the count of governments is current, BUT the point is, the CAFR form of reporting involves categorizing types of funds (typically four types:  Government, Proprietary (Enterprise), Fiduciary.

But when it comes to the American Bar Association’s usage of the word “entity,” its uniquely different rules seem to apply.

(This is a large and significant section, kept in this post.  Beyond this, I have another post (in the pipeline, for now) which if/when published will be at

There is overlap between this section and the off-ramped material, but not 100%.  Best to read them both (it’ll take a while!) and get all the links and points of reference. A little repetition doesn’t hurt either, as I’m attempting to untangle and translate into terms relevant to the public and tax-payers what it seems the ABA is determined to ENtangle. //LGH, mid-January, 2022.  

ABA Section Navigation, within this post: I’ll mark the END of this extended section with the same link inside a dark-red-bordered box with the exact same title.  Between here and there, some other posts (sections) off-ramped elsewhere show up.  That’s how it happens when I write and explore at the same time, over many weeks… (It’s just a blog, and I am still just one human being….)

I found the American Bar Association referring to its parts as ‘entities’ (legitimately so?) under the ABA Center on Children and Law (click and read on “History”).

I had often wanted to know whether that “Center” was an “entity” in the normal sense — a distinct, government-jurisdiction-identified enterprise, i.e., filed at state or federal levels as a (given that the ABA is itself a private business “entity,” according to the IRS, I’d have to assume, likewise a private business entity).  I still think, not, but was surprised to find the ABA talking as though it was, claiming that the ABA had more entities within Centers within the ABA.  

Look:

History & Governance

The Center is a grant-funded entity within the ABA Center for Public Interest Law ^^ based in Washington DC.  The Center on Children and the Law is governed by the ABA Board of Governors, where the Center is represented by a Board Liaison.

In 2018, the ABA Commission on Youth at Risk became a part of^^^ the Center on Children and the Law. ….

^^ IS the The “Center” a grant-funded entity within another ABA Center or anywhere else?  

The phrase “grant-funded entity” (i.e., “grants” “funding” and “entity”) has specific usages (meanings) and implications at both federal and state levels. Generally, it would mean having an EIN#.  

(F)EIN#s

Employer Identifier Numbers (EINs or FEINs) are a requirement to receiving public funds from and within the USA. Although the phrase “EIN” refers to EMPLOYER not “ENTITY” ID numbers, it’s a given that an “Employer” would be some form of “entity.”  This is for tax (IRS) tracking purposes:

An Employer Identification Number (EIN), also known as a Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN), or Federal Tax Identification Number (FTIN), is like a Social Security number (SSN) for your business. The unique nine-digit EIN number allows the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to identify businesses for tax reporting. (from HowToStartAnLLC.com)

When private entities donate to other charities and wish tax-exempt credit for doing so, those other entities also have to be legitimate.  Therefore, logically, for the ABA’s “Center on Children and the Law” to be a grant-funded entity” in the normal sense, you’d think it’d need its own EIN# number.  But none is showing up.  

In fact, on that website, by clicking on “Donate” and looking for to whom (which entity) one would be donating, I see that the Donations go to an ABA Fund for Justice and Education (a separate 501©3 according to the IRS), not directly to the ABA (which is a 501©6).  To shorten my description of how I (again) established that The Center is NOT a grant-funded entity in the common meaning of the words “grant”  “Grant-funded” or even “entity,” I went to the ABA Fund for Justice and Education’s latest tax return available at the IRS, and on page two, saw that this Center on Children and the Law is listed as one of its major projects:

^^^ “Became a part of” is a vague term.  If it were two businesses, the word would be “merged into” with one disappearing and one survivor “entity,” for which records might/should be found in the places where surch mergers and surviving/disappearing entities have to be recorded, such as (USA) Secretaries of State or Corporate Divisions under the same. This is for consumer protection, so we (who live here) have some idea — or at least a fighting chance at some idea — of knowing who’s doing business in the state (or territory) within the country.

The Center also has liaisons to or from several other ABA entities, including the Young Lawyers Division, the Judicial Division, the Law Student Division, the Health Law Section, and the Family Law Section.

All policies issued by the Center on Children and the Law and the Commission on Youth at Risk must be approved by the ABA House of Delegates.  [Emphases added]

As you can see, the ABA refers to both its “Sections,” including the Family Law Section, and its “Divisions” as “entities” within its “Center on Public Interest Law“ (under which this Center on Children and the Law is “housed.” (Click to notice the top menu bar, from the left, reads “Public Interest Law” then “Entities.”) Some other generic nouns the ABA calls “entities” in its self-description  — here, of its Center on Public Interest Law  — include Commissions, Committees, and one Project. 

However many “entities” the ABA has, it tells us here, the decision-making authority on policy is the ABA House of Delegates.  So any ABA so-called entities are not exactly independent.  

Below, I’ve quoted and linked to an ABA description of what its House of Delegates is, and how large.  

Reading it, I’m noticing how much the ABA (like some major religious conferences or denominations) considers itself, in effect, a government, with terms very much echoing those in the U.S. Government, including the words “constitution,” “delegates” “representatives” and that these delegates in composition seem to (likewise) mimic the U.S. Congress and House of Representatives in type and location:

ABA Leadership (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/leadership/delegates/)

The control and administration of the ABA is vested in the House of Delegates, the policy-making body of the association.

The House of Delegates, established in 1936, meets twice each year, at ABA Annual and Midyear Meetings.

At the Midyear Meeting, the Nominating Committee nominates officers and members of the Board of Governors. During the Annual Meeting, the full house votes on these nominees and on any nominations made by petition.

Action taken by the House of Delegates on specific issues becomes official ABA policy.

As of August 27, 2015, the House of Delegates consisted of 589 members (see §6.2 et seq. of the Constitution):  …

I also see (reading this) that the 2020-2022 Chair of the ABA Board of Delegates (and a member of it since 1986) is a Family Law Specialist from Cincinnati, Ohio, and bachelors degree from Xavier University: Barbara J. Howard. She was elected during a virtual meeting of the House in August 4, 2020 (That announcement). All the hallmarks of being an AFCC member or supporter (see “Collaborative Law” references in the bio). (ABA House of Delegates FAQs (for 2019) as available Jan. 2022 (where’s FAQs 2020? These include statistics on number of resolutions passed, etc. and is in simple style, heavy on the colors and pie-charts, and link-free for any further information on the same).

The State of Ohio is also significant across several issue areas impacting child support and family law values and programming. For that I started another post to review (again, and with updates) exactly which ones.  Its title, so far, in short then more elaborate versions (The post is in draft status until you click on it and see a published post). The question, ‘What’s different and so special about Ohio?’ compared to other states has a number of possible answers, or at least observations.

Xavier University is Jesuit (began admitting women fully in 1969, but the Jesuit Order is still men-only and its primary allegiance is to the Pope; it was a force in the Counter-reformation. “Good luck” finding a neutral presentation on the Counter-Reformation, but History.com at least has a short one.  My point is, the Jesuits came out of this time, and it was indeed in response to the heresy (depending on one’s point of view) of Luther.  We’re talking the 1500s.  This version chosen only because it’s short!

The Catholic Church of the Counter-Reformation era grew more spiritual, more literate and more educated. New religious orders, notably the Jesuits, combined rigorous spirituality with a globally minded intellectualism, while mystics such as Teresa of Avila injected new passion into the older orders. Inquisitions, both in Spain and in Rome, were reorganized to fight the threat of Protestant heresy.

Or an other very short version, if you like section bold titles and something of a timeline, don’t need much supporting documentation:  “Reformation and Counter-Reformation – Human.Libretexts.com”  

Very much an all-encompassing history (i.e., politics, art/music, war, censorship (book-burnings), inquisition, murder, etc.), but that its founder lived in the early 1500s, and the timeframe coincides with a reaction to the (Protestant) reformation and as part of the Counter-Reformation, is historically significant — still.

Follow-up (link is active but becomes accurate only when published, assuming it gets published):

Judging by the url labeling, the “Center on Public Interest Law” is an ABA “Group”:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/

While underneath this “group/center” the Commissions, (Standing) Committees and one Project, per the url, are indeed considered “entities,” at least judging, again, by the choice of url label:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/center-for-public-interest-law-entities/

Taken together under just this one ABA Center on Public Law, purpose described in the next quote as covering many areas of government (although I notice, not civil rights…), it lists: two “Centers,” four “Standing Committees,” one “Project,” and four “Commissions.” That’s eleven “entities” with four different nouns describing each (Center, Committee, Commission, Project).

The Center puts the ABA motto of “Defending Liberty, Pursuing Justice” into action through advocacy, education, and initiatives implemented across the country, at the border, and around the world. With staff and members leading efforts related to children and families, death penalty representation, domestic and gender-based violence, elder law, election law, gun violence, homelessness and poverty, immigration, veterans, and pro bono projects, the Center is your gateway to resources to support and amplify your efforts as well as to connect with other lawyers who share your passion to improve systems and change lives.

Obviously this is directed at members, although we on-lookers (the public) can look on, too, how lawyers are taught to work out their [public-interest passion to “improve systems and change lives.”  Under the “Entities” menu, eleven are named.  

I need to discuss this issue (ABA usage of the word “entities” and that “Center on Children and the Law” elsewhere.  I’ve mentioned it here because its subject matter and agenda intersects with the development of child welfare law as a specialty starting in the 1970s, oddly (?) timed to the onset of no-fault divorce (California, 1970), mandatory mediation (California, 1981) and the founding, at least the legitimately registered founding, of certain nonprofits focused on child welfare, juvenile, and (last but not least) the family court venues.  

Even more material Off-ramped to: 

The ABA’s Very Own Grant-Funded Entity (sic), Center on Children and the Law, since 1979 (cont’d.)(short-link ends “-drA”). Begun in draft Jan. 18, 2022.

The look-ups are repetitive (not that many basic websites to check) but over time also builds awareness of the connections among them, and how private foundations influence public policy intended to influence and manage the public. I take notes, most as screen prints or printouts (‘snapshots in time’ of websites or tax returns which may later become unavailable), and work diligently to label ALL of them as they are made, if possible.*  

[*See my footnote-post…Footnotes to My Post on Business Entities (“Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate…? FIRST find the Entity..”, still in draft Nov. 24,2021]. case-sensitive, short-link ends  “-dbU.”] [Footnote “Mechanics and Issues of Record-keeping, Note-Taking for an Anonymous Investigative Blogger,”]

The next paragraph is one very long sentence and a short parentheses on “non-entity branding. This sentence summarizes what I’ve observed constantly over the years, and began calling attention to quite early in this blog.  [SAMPLE post: ]   

Doing this consistently builds awareness of frightening gaps in accessibility and functionality of data to the public in forms through which we can readily discuss our findings with each other (with supporting visuals and links) in such ways as to participate meaningfully in real self-government, as opposed to self-government only as ‘facilitated’ and characterized by the collectivist-minded combination of philanthropic (i.e., tax-exempt) and government (also tax-exempt) sectors, that is when and where these two sectors may occasionally be inclined (deign, condescend, stoop down to our assumed level of incompetency to understand such things) to provide a seeming, limited-view and temporary window into their shared language — the language of economics, accounting, and skillful manipulation and replication, coordination of entities around themes deemed desirable for the rest of us including the politically and financially advantageous skillful use of the named non-entity branding — whether at a university center, or under a larger foundation or nonprofit, or within government.  (NON-entities occur under all of the above, guaranteeing non-tracking of their financials without special access).

It took me a while to find the chart (showing my “look-up protocol” of the time, especially how to identify, when facing usage of the word “Center,” whether that’s part of an entity- name (and if so, of what kind) or WITHIN some other entity (whether government or private.  That post was dated Sept. 1, 2013 and contains the phrase “Where’s Waldo?” in its title. You can find it through my Archives Function, by date.  I updated blog format in 2018, so the visuals aren’t the best there, but the chart is still good. .

I also found, looking for the above post, this page, easier to read and I believe written well enough to explain WHY we should start by finding that Entity.  June 4, 2017 Page (not “Post”).  One of my sticky posts (under” Current Posts link on this blog) is a table of contents of all pages (so far), I believe that post’s title contains the number “58” in it.  NB:  Archives are of posts — not ‘Pages’ like this one.  You won’t find this by clicking systematically (or for that month) via my “Archives” (Calendar) widget on the sidebar, but I’ve provided the link and full title right here:

Page Title: Belated Lessons from Baltimore’s and San Francisco’s CFCCs: How “Centers” Coordinating Planning and Advance PR with Private Trade Associations can Effectively Monopolize ANY Field of Practice and Stick the Public for both Long-term Debt on Capital Infrastructure, and Ongoing Operational Expenses, for Ongoing Profit to the Providers and Advisors. (Page Added 6/4/2017) (Page title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6XR”, as published and still under 3,000 words).

I have been on this theme, in other words, for many years, and am not about to budge on its importance.  Few people have bothered to challenge me on its importance, but I do notice the people involved on some of the public-funded programs, or running (internationally sometimes) their private businesses which feed off government, that is, public-funded, programs, tend to get upset, indignant, or (feign?) ignorance of the concept, or of public funding feeding the DV and Abuse-prevention fields, and networked organizations in the USA, and/or stoop to name-calling when I bring up the term “entity.”  (Primarily I’m referring to on Twitter, recently..). Privately, I’ll get direct messages saying “thank you” from individuals — but usually not those running programming which conceals its basic entity type, name, and financials while promoting how interested it is in public welfare and social good. 

Curiosity is the major driver of my brand of responsible, volunteer, I guess you could call it “survivor-led” activism. So far, just this survivor.

• ‘Survivor-led activism’ is NOT only telling one’s story with others, although this is encouraged more than survivors with access to internet looking up tax returns and talking about what’s on them, or why wouldn’t a charity or nonprofit voluntarily post them…

My other driver is continued passion to publicize that this type of information is basic to understanding our world and evaluate the deluge of information available from sponsored sources.  For example, how does advocacy and agenda-setting work? Why do the most powerful forces in certain fields focus on some themes and theories (often tacit, not spelled out) while ignoring and diligently trying to silence other possible and often more plausible explanations for the same problems?

Why such a class/caste/hierarchy among the experts, which can and do debate each other, but tend to close ranks when “outsiders” talk differently and don’t join-up? 

Before people join or donate to a campaign, organization, or talk it up, they should LOOK it up.  This can become a community standard, but that’d take independence of mind and some personal diligence.

Meanwhile, those who want to talk about any organization on theme-based networks ought to identify the business entity, what types of networking it’s involved in, and whether primarily public or private-funded over time. Why wouldn’t anyone want to do so?

TO IDENTIFY AN ENTITY IN EXISTENCE = KNOWING ONE, AND ITS TYPE, WHEN YOU SEE ONE HELPS…. 

To find any entity and observe (and report) how forthright are the websites (and people) reporting on itself, whether its financials seem also forthright, consistent or even visible, you need to validate its actual, current name, and status (some are status inactive, suspended, revoked, or voluntarily dissolved; others it turns out can’t be found because they are using fictional business names (a legitimate practice) or functioning with another organization as a ‘fiscal agent’ to provide (for example) nonprofit status.

Others merge out of existence, leaving one “survivor” organization, as in, it survived that merger. Some are deliberately (i.e., voluntarily initiated by the owners) cancelled, but that record also needs to be shown where governments require this to be shown.  In general, the concept of business entity implies that some government regulates it (even international ones).  

However, governments themselves just “doing business with businesses” (and other governments) but also a form of corporations too, as far as how organized, how labeled (i.e., vocabulary), and of course which gets to enforce taxes, being tax-exempt, and which businesses (normally taxable) get to reduce or eliminate their taxation by either how incorporated (again, as a tax-exempt that is, “nonstock,” organization) and/or by how they operate.  

Somewhere in all this are most people, working for — you guessed it — businesses or governments, or running them, and where paying more taxes than other types, hoping that the services provided will match up to the taxes withheld or paid.

You should also identify whether or not campaign material is coming from an entity or non-entity within or sponsored by another one. 

It’s certainly possible to go through campaigning, volunteering, advocating (?) and donating without doing any basic fact-checks on the legitimacy, currency and identity of WHAT (entity, not cause) you are doing this for — but it’s just not wise. It doesn’t make for an informed population able to protect itself, exercise balance of power, and support their opinions on legislation impacting where their taxes are spent. Volunteers and (I bet) college interns do this all the time, undergrad and graduate levels.  They focus on the work at hand, the cause, and being mentored, building a resume — but what about starting with the filing habits of who they’re volunteering for — even if it’s a private or public university (BOTH have to present financials…).

How could such information possibly hurt most of any population,  especially any voting, tax-paying population, to know?

Such as they be (“for better or for worse,” and for free or fee-based), government websites seeking to regulate who does business in their jurisdictions, and how, for tax reasons and (it’s said) consumer protection, recommend people do some research before donating. 

By doing some research, that means looking up and looking at the ENTITY’s filings and (as available and required to be shown the public) financials.  By doing this regularly, changes in accessibility and functionality of information (through those databases), as well as the limits (how far back in time, for example, records are kept on-line) also shows up.  It’s an important learning curve to basic awareness of trends within both government and business, especially as it tends to cluster and collaborate around various causes over time.

So, this post is: Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft). (case-sensitive short-link ends “-d2d”).

It’s my exhortation and my position:

Develop and Maintain Your Entity (or non-entity status = keep looking!) Awareness!  

Then talk about it intelligently (admit the entities exist and have operational profiles and histories) when you talk about the field!  Whether government (public) or business (private) entities, they have purpose and agenda; they have also revenues and expenses, assets and liabilities, and as such, close relationships with those they fund, are funded by, contract with, and are in debt to…  

Pretending that none of the above exists and MIGHT influence neutrality is, well, easier — but stupid. It’s essentially living in fantasy:  good for entertainment; not exactly practical for problem-solving to involve government policy, laws, etc. 

My searches are to answer questions.  They start with curiosity, or a need to locate information I’d like updated before posting or re-posting it, often “again.”  My search typically begins by looking through a website to see whether the it self-identifies and provides a category (i.e., tax-exempt or not) the business entity it represents or is promoting.  One entity can have many websites, but not every website represent an entity.  

I may start with the databases, then go to the websites, but regardless, there are some basic places I will consistently look, giving me a basis of comparison among organizations and their websites, and a basis of change over time for individual organizations, or for the quality of reporting in related or inter-connected (on the fields in question) entities.

Then I go to the databases to look for filings and where possible (especially if not provided on the website, or no current ones on the website), the financials.  When I am conversing on-line, or in private (electronic or in person), my awareness of the business entities in fields of interest, key players, key players’ sources of revenue long-term, and key-players’ deliberately maintained blind spots hoping the public won’t ask too many questions about (their entities, their inter-relationships in financial terms, and where all this fits into government finances), never leaves.  

It’s behind most of what I say and the basis for it.  It’s often the basis for why I may stand against conversations (and causes) which I know to be, in that context, foolish for the public, but clever and controlling for the promoters. My stance is sometimes called “attacking” others (not others’ ideas or practices). Consider being told this in the developed, professionalized and increasingly internationalized “domestic violence / child abuse prevention” fields — where victim status and advocacy status are major social currency (speaking figuratively) which eventually impacts actual currency (i.e., fiscal bottom lines for the advocates), anyone thought to be “attacking” others’ ideas can easily be (mis)characterized as attacking others’ persons.  

Being repeatedly told this as as a domestic violence survivor, a woman and mother — which I am, a formerly-battered wife and mother who was dragged through the family court systems in California until my professional capacity was stomped out; it was gone — by those claiming to be concerned about our kind, is offensive, and not just for myself: I know others it’s happened to.  We who don’t follow the standard protocol** learn over time what the ‘politically correct’ attitude of any survivor without a resume attached to working in and around the courts and (ideally) publishing steadily year after year from a position with:  academia (law school, schools of professional psychology, university centers with themes in this field) OR association with well-known nonprofit in, for example (USA), the DVRN (Domestic Violence Resource Network) or a state-level, statewide CADV (“Coalition Against Domestic Violence”) — the implication, as a survivor or as individuals, why don’t we know and just “assume” the position?

**”Tell and sell your sad story, about your missing or murdered children, or your battered self and the perpetually* ignorant family court judges who didn’t recognize the level of danger — surely they need some more training from better qualified professionals, like us –, then leave it to the professionals (remember to reference us as you tell your story)”

*So it would seem, by looking at the claims.  It’s as though no trainings — or just not the right KIND of trainings, in the most recent flavor, have been taking place all this time. Pardon my sarcasm…

Any look at my follower status on this blog or on Twitter, should show I’m not powerful, connected, or important enough in these professionalized, developed, and internationalized along certain themes, fields, to be worth attacking.  However, the periodic slight, blocking, or sarcastic comments do show who’s protecting which turfs, and doesn’t want uppity, unimportant individuals disrupting “advocacy as normal” now that the financial pipelines have been opened..

In the USA “financials” doesn’t mean just an “annual report” (closer to a sales piece, justifying its continued existence, thanking contributors, advertising its progress) but at least two SPECIFIC types of reporting:  

–>Audited financial reports and (for private tax-exempt entities that must file this), –>the IRS ‘Form 990’ (or, 990-PF) tax returns.  When IRS returns have to be filed, they must be filed annually, so you can look up the most recent and, depending on the organization, previous ones.   This information is as valuable (especially where both are available for the same year and both relatively current) as reading what any organization reports about itself on websites oriented towards sales, promotion, publicity and (of course) solicitation.  MOST but not all advocacy groups running program services nationally and/or internationally, tend to be organized as nonprofits, charities, or direct government services.  Most also tend to contract out consultation and research, and where specialized fields and “turfs” have been developed, professionals tend to be shared among each other.

Therefore to understand the fields and turfs, you MUST understand the organizing and sponsoring business entities, generally and for at least key players, specifically, by name.

So, by continual looking and look-ups, basically curiosity + fact-checking + to encourage the same in others, I’ve become familiar with “business entity search” function in many different states (USA) over the years, as well as lookups not restricted to single states which report on charities, nonprofits, i.e., tax-exempt entities.

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

(Section Removed to Post (in draft til you see this link become active and lead to intended destination):

Note:  over here, we’d capitalize “CAFCASS” as an acronym, but I’ve noticed its own website doesn’t, so… This post contains as well as my exhortation, some details which may not be appreciated by people NOT in the involved field or social/academic circles, without understanding how inappropriate it is for “DV” experts and “Family Court Reform” experts from the USA to be coaching others overseas and vice versa.  Essentially, the same (especially those involved with the AFCC) are attempting to import practices –regarding family courts and turning all legal problems into a social science, behavioral health, or mental health problem — importing practices from Commonwealth countries into the USA, and, to the extent that they’ve proved disastrous, promoting themselves as the “fix,” then running back overseas to guarantee an ‘exit plan” when it’s divulged what’s been going on over here, that is, the ongoing levels of betrayal and censorship.

Most Americans (in this context, U.S. citizens) don’t seem to appreciate that IRS tax returns and audited financial statements are a major source of information about ANY entity, and that when a combination of intentional “gibberish” and jargon is used in both sectors (public and private), the money trail is lost, fraud and embezzlement are facilitated, and money is lost in transit.  

That we (“commoners”) might have some right to timely, accurate, audited financial statements by governments which also reveal which entities are involved (over time, and as they change), and how this connects to what we’re taxed for, seems to be just “not on the radar.”    

Private entities which were caught in fraud in the delivery of social services just get their slaps on the wrist and continue, sometimes under a different name. [Latest example in mind:  SEEDCO.org (which is a dba, although its website doesn’t reveal this. Look it up, and its new parent company (Acacia Network) tax returns) U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara (SDNY) sued the company and seven of its managers for civil fraud [Taking government funds while inflating success (job placement) rates…].  Article in NonProfitQuarterly (NPQ), March, 2012:

Federal Lawsuit Charges NYC Job Placement Outfit SEEDCO with Fraud

Seedco deserves its own post, and place in the sun as an example of how easy it is for social-service-privatization.  In the course of doing government business (especially when government business involves getting into our private marital status, lives and reconstruction of the non-ideal families, that is pushing marriage and (of course) that means male-headed marriage, so one must also push “responsible fatherhood.”  

(Section Removed to Post (in draft til you see this link become active and lead to intended destination):

SEEDCO (that’s a dba) and its new parent since 2017, Acacia Network (and what a network it is!)  [Draft Moved Here Jan. 14, 2022]. (shortlink ending “-dqy”)

Sizewise compared to its annual revenues — just as its own single, non-adopted by “Acacia Network’ — entity, SEEDCO the entity itself got to pay just a small fraction of one year’s (primarily) government revenues in settlement of this lawsuit, although seven other involved managers (defendants) weren’t let off so easy.

Reminds me of MAXIMUS, which I’m not going to write up and off-ramp.  However reading about Maximus, including what lines of work it’s in (from its financial statements and news coverage) also lays out repeatedly the premises behind Clinton-era welfare reform, and shows “infrastructure” issues.   It’s worthwhile…  See next section/box in its separate color scheme:

Meanwhile, if you’re not living and/or doing business in the USA, I haven’t forgotten you when it comes to this topic, on this blog:

Sometimes I may be looking in the context of a director’s background, for more insight on where he or she is coming from, politically or ideologically.

(For the USA): My two favorites (which each have their own down-sides I’ve posted on before) are “apps.IRS.gov/app/eos,” but it doesn’t return results in handy tables, and doesn’t necessarily display legal domiciles.  It sometimes also doesn’t even get the legal business names right but (these days, especially since the COVID-19 conditions) it tends to have basically more current results by about one fiscal year, as compared to the website/search interface run by The Foundation Center (now known as “Candid” since it absorbed “Guidestar.”).  That website is: https://candid.org/research-and-verify-nonprofits/990-finder.  Therefore I may go first to the IRS website for the most current filing, but then back to the Candid one for a displayed table (which shows relative assets (gross) for the past three years) and knowing I can often tweak the url to locate earlier, sometimes even the first (“Initial”) tax return filed.

I use these sites so often my browser pulls them up without having to type in the whole address. I use them because using them, while frustrating in some senses, ALWAYS leads to more information on any business or entity I’m looking for, including some that haven’t even filed tax returns yet, although their web presence has been around for a few years.  

There seems to be a problem translating this information into any common language that others so concerned about the causes I’m also concerned about, with any intent to act on that information. The collective pretense that the concept of “entities” and the ongoing need to identify which ones are promoting which causes (and how) doesn’t matter is a form of insanity, socially-engineered for helplessness within certain economic (that is, class) sectors, in my opinion, approaching that particular version of insanity (lack of even THINKING to apply sound reason) and cognitive dissonance (but compensated for by social glue) of certain Christian religious communities’ obsession with statements of faith as opposed to reading their own sacred texts, and I refer to Protestant Evangelicals and other mainstream protestant denominations which continue to state that the Bible IS that text, no matter how much the evidence points otherwise.  

I feel free to say this as my own background (as an adult, not since a child) has been in that faith, although not mainstream, and my own experience of wife-battering for about a decade, was marked by the juxtaposition of such abuse and church-going, fellowshipping, and talking “God, Jesus, Bible” (and of course gender roles) to justify the same.  I had to go outside this community to seek protection and intervention to, literally, keep our young children and myself (and their father) alive when no one in those communities would confront him or seemed to make any reference to laws existing against that behavior. (Decade:  1990s…).  Then after I got out, in the 2000s, I came belatedly to learn how “faith-based and fatherhood” vocabulary was normalized and, through Executive Order (not by popular vote) institutionalized from the top down, and that this was rationalized for the secular humanists, via Welfare Reform, in terms of sociology, behaviorism, mental health, psychology and even for the public economic benefit.

I suppose if dissociation regarding one’s own sacred texts is replicated and multiplied (and that certainly is the business model for many such denominations and institutions), it could result in a communal cognitive dissonance (between statements of belief versus actions) which might impact the ability to process other areas of understanding which really matter.

Whether or not that’s a major contributing cause, I do notice a prevailing cognitive dissonance that the advocacy groups (and professionals associated with them) CAN be identified and characterized as to their individual and networked behaviors — and validated or invalidated as “honest” in their purposes — by looking at them as entities to get basic business profile.

My example here from California states, in the highlit portion, that “limited liability partnerships (Law firms, architecture firms, engineering firms, public accountancy firms, and land survey firms), general partnerships, associations and other entity types are not contained in the Business Search.”

This tells us that all both limited liability partnerships (with the examples listed all being called “firms”), general partnerships and associations are all indeed “entities” but not of the type contained in this particular database, separate requests for their records are needed.

However types that are contained in the Business Search are specified by type (of entity):

This search provides access to available information for corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships of record with the California Secretary of State, with free PDF copies of imaged business entity documents,

Corporations, LLCs (limited Liability Companies) and “limited partnerships (LPs) of record” (whatever “of record” means) are searchable in that database. But, to search you must first choose, or make a guess at, which type to look under. (Helpful hint for readers: if you’re searching for what you believe or know is a nonprofit, choose “Corporation”). See annotated (i.e., my comments).  Notice that under “Disclaimer” it lists three types of corporations:  domestic stock, domestic nonprofit (which means “non-stock”) and qualified foreign corporations (could be either stock or nonprofit, i.e., non-stock).  Presumably “qualified foreign” means “qualified to do business in California,” i.e., whether now active or not (because the search returns all types), the entity at one time did qualify to do business here.  In the context of the USA, within a state, ‘foreign” means out-of-state:  not “outside of the United States.”

This terminology retains some of the concepts that “states” were to retain some independence of the central government and control over who can and cannot do business there, in  respect of protecting their residents.  However, you can see that to look up a business or company of the types that the state lists, you must not only know its name, but know that TYPE it is.  This also shows that many types of companies or businesses go by different names but are, overall, called “entities.”

[Annotated image filename] (CalEntities | BusinessSearch.SOS.CA.Gov (general conditions) ~~2021.Nov.20 Sat PST @ 1.17.27 PM)

While this database doesn’t seem to say to up front, it is not searchable for “doing business as” (dba’s or ‘fictitious business names.’)  I gather that’s listed at the county level (California has 58; so does New York), below state level.  

So if a BUSINESS or non-entity posing as one on its website while soliciting publicity and/or funds and notoriety, chooses to simply fail to identify that its public personal (website presence, quoted in media presence, logo, etc.) is in a dba, or is something other than what it’s publicizing, that business or non-entity is seeking to control is branding (image) without revealing its true identity which MIGHT in the context of nonprofits especially, lead to solicitation or location of a tax return and from there, finding out how to request an audited financial statement which might reveal even more about the operation(s).

Illinois’s website (Apps.ILSOS.gov/… etc.) by contrast, doesn’t require one to choose whether or not to search by Corporation or LLC (although you can), but likewise doesn’t provide any option to search by status (active or not), or by entity number — guaranteed to produce, generally, more results than one might wish to handle in a single session the less details one has up front. And no “advanced search” capacity.  

I have been working nearly a month getting this post out at under 10,000 words.  It’s something I’ve understood and come to believe is vital, an essential concept, to stemming abuse of privilege within philanthropy and within government itself.  This identifying entities is and has been essential to both private (business) government (business) for generations, and you literally cannot “see” how that business is being handled, as opposed to be described, without this vocabulary.  

Neither business nor government entities are enthusiastic about embedding into their respective (or mutual, i.e., public/private partnerships and collaborations) promotional and initiative languages for the public, differentiating among types of entities, and the non-entities from entities.  They could, but they don’t.  This standard does seem to matter in certain contexts of those with plenty of funds to invest (i.e., read a Securities Exchange Commission offering; you’ll find the filing entity described in detail).

But when it comes to selling programming, programs, causes, or legislation to provide resources for those causes, or even internal operations, who ever emphasizes this?

The more communications and transactions migrate to the internet, or internet-only, virtual, electronic (digital — use the most appropriate adjective to describe NOT IN PERSON) filing, electronic look-ups, electronic transactions, electronic communications, the more important it is to find other ways to validate or invalidate the content. Understanding the conduits — who’s behind the communications network (which changes over time as media companies are bought and sold, spun off) — is one way to categorize types of communicators and their character and position in an economic “biosphere.”

It’s important for navigating the world we are now in, and sensing its dominant changes.

I also find the concept and these principles interesting to master or I wouldn’t have persisted in reporting this for so long.  Understanding can be its own reward, although it comes with a responsibility a duty to report, which is also a burden hard to ditch casually.  But it’s become a way of life for me. I already experienced what ignorance of the family court systems, and the behaviors of local (and national) domestic violence organizations do to stop personal devastation, or protect any single family (or household) from criminal activity by spouses, relatives, or in-laws.  In short, not much, and only briefly!  We end up fighting the same battles over and over, with fewer and fewer resources, and fewer years of life left in which to withstand the abuse.

I still do not believe I can be the only person who finds researching and talking about entities in terms of entities interesting, essential, or relevant. Another post on it (with more recent examples) I hope will connect for some, but I know records that it remains a record of my focus on the topic.

This post begins with exhortation and opinion:  opinion based on my investigative blogging over time including some recent look-ups of long-standing organizations in the domestic violence advocacy field, but still stated as opinion.

For those who won’t take this from a ‘non-expert’ such as myself, I am also quote Investopedia, a brand and media platform featuring condensed and coherent business definitions.

Throughout, I may reference examples, but that seems to require linking and image uploading, which delays publishing. But some powerful examples do exist, and this post started with one I’d featured in 2016, 2017 and 2019 which thereafter made a radical name change (and website information-reduction:

My opening opinion veers towards the negative.  The “hope” part comes because “these things need not be” — we are NOT powerless to change the status quo, but to do so, our mentality and complacence, our personal consumption of information habits, must change.  I don’t believe any substantial and positive change will happen without confronting the truth of what exists, and how it came to exist.  You have to be able to face the pain and work through it.  Avoiding reality (which is painful to acknowledge) is no solution.

I say this not only to people who haven’t been through major, personal abuse in the home, but for those who have — but continue to be manipulated (“coercively” in the extreme) by advocacy groups who don’t want us talking, or telling the background, of their own entities’ developments and collaborations over time, which, examined more closely, show how arrogant, presumptive and obsessed with maintaining privacy and “control of the messaging” they started, and they still are.

“Follow the money?  You’ve GOT to be kidding — rather, GIVE us the money!” (for more trainings and more applications for similar but slightly-rebranded trainings), has been the group mentality.

The fastest “diagram” of any field isn’t following the campaigns (the output) but the entities behind them (those generating the output), every bit as much as one might, in tracing the origins of a major water polluter, look for the producer of that pollutant, and the pipes through which it flows. “Contact tracing” if you will on the entities who run fields they helped develop.  Of course, output is the most obvious symptom and bears measuring, but that’s not basis for grasping at magical assumptions and ideas about the causes which “just so happen” to match solutions wanted.

Remember that a corporation (entity) can easily and generally is designed to outlive its founders. It may change shape and form, merge or spin off, or go out of existence — but SOME do not, and have longer lives than a human being might. 

Also, I’ve written so much of this already, causing me to question why write it again, with updated examples, with so little resonance and feedback that the message is even getting through?  On that front, I think it’s a matter of conscience.  The alternative, it seems, would be to simply turn my back on the truth, speaking it, and find another way to live more selfishly in the present and for the short-term future. 

POST TITLE (versions) :
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft). short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary.

or: Survivors, or Friends of Those Who Didn’t: Which Entities** Sustain Your Favorite: Inititiatives, Causes, Campaigns, or Advocacy Experts? Can’t Identify ’em?  Investopedia, Defining ‘Entity Theory’ and ‘Accounting Entity’ Shows The Risks — to us all — of Forgetting to Find Out. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft).

**I mentioned “entities,” plural, because few are powerful enough to act alone.  They tend to cluster and consolidate upon privately agreed-upon priorities, stage fake battles while collaborating privately at public expense, and in general act like businesses (and governments): seeking to self-promote, self-perpetuate and if possible replicate to run both policy and practice.  

In other words, to coercively control (frame) the public impression of reality for (personal and collective) mutual profit — for better sales and sustainable retirement status (for individuals involved).

You heard me right:  I just said, many advocacy entities are built around basic corporate greed, with benefit to those involved in their enterprises — NOT on altruism, concern, genuine empathy and certainly not upon philanthropy.  We are, throughout society, witnessing staged performances around specific, scripted theater, especially in the fields I’ve been blogging (“to the contrary” approach, because I focus on the financials, which means, upon those entities) for over a decade now.

Start looking consistently to the point of comprehending, and I say it won’t be long before you quit questioning WHY the advocacy groups don’t stop the violence, or fix the family courts.  Why SHOULD they — and drive themselves out of business by exposing their financials to public scrutiny and with that, analysis and after that, understanding?

So yes, there is a word in common use on state corporate or charitable registry user interface websites — where you can and should look up a business to check its legitimacy, or before donating to some nonprofit, but the same word and concept is not in common use and therefore awareness among the public when discussing causes. 

That’s what I hope to change as a standard of discussion:  

That word is “ENTITY.”  

We should (I do, and have for years now) START with the basic facts regarding entities promoting any cause or collection of causes.  

You do not need “expert status” or “survivor status” to do this. That status may not even help:  experts seem most invested in the rest of us NOT talking entities (except positively when soliciting money or social support) and clearly prefer survivors to focus on telling their stories, or the stories (for those who didn’t survive) of their relatives.  

Survivor storytelling Sells, but what does it BUILD?  Who owns the foundation on which it’s built?  Should no one look at these in terms of infrastructure?

The storytelling is more effective and memorable, it carries faster — it’s just not analytical, and teaches little about the structure of government. It’s easier to repeat and requires far less of the listeners to repeat than evaluating or analyzing reliability, filtering for truth (or lack of it, when the rest of the truth is dug up, I mean, on who’s backing that worldview…).   

Storytelling communicates and entertains, more than “educate” in the sense where individuals can, on their own time and at their own effort, empower themselves by investigating, i.e., just “looking it up.”  It appeals to the emotional side and to framing a conversation tailored towards desired outcomes — not to showing people how to resist indoctrination and being “framed” through coordinated collaboration towards a privately chosen and agreed-upon perspectives.

Storytelling has a time and place throughout history and in society — but NOT in revealing how government works with the goal of placing some restraints on it, or restraining the disappearance of government funds down cause-based holes where the service -providing entities just can’t be bothered to, or afford to, tell the truth about themselves, that is, given an account by (voluntarily) showing, taht is, posting, their accounts, while demonstrating how adept they are at colorfully displaying their achievements in “annual reports” or other downloadable publications.

To do this, to start understanding and talking “entity,” and exhibiting an awareness of how this concept relates to where your taxes and with them, public policy is going.  To understand how it’s being directed, changed, and (most important) resourced, you need to understand, if you don’t yet:

• “entity” basics — admit the concept exists and matters; see the where the term is in common use.
• know where (know basic options available to look entities up);
• common parts of cause-based, advocacy-organization’s websites to look for (1) exact entity name and if possible (2) its legal domicile and (3) whether or not it’s likely to be divulging any financials if legally required to do so (typically for government or nonprofit).

Starting and continuing to check these facts on specific organizations, in response to either articles quoting them, websites that come across one’s attention, or friends, others telling you of them, quickly reveals the functional status of organizations’ filing habits, of a variety of tactics in common use for concealing an entity’s existence or non-existence, of name-changes when re-branding, or and (related) how doing this can delay, postpone, or ideally eliminate financial accountability through making audited financial statements AND (USA) IRS tax returns available, as to nonprofits that must file.

It also quickly reveals significant issues with both public and privately run databases (changes over time) and dysfunction of available search fields for any practical use around which a population might communicate and organize.  It is a wealth of relevant information on checks and controls (or lack thereof) to the business of advocacy and the business of government.  This is not a static condition, as database identifiers and user interfaces can change — radically — on short notice.  They can go from semi-functional to impenetrable, or basically free to fee-based for all but the most basic data. 

It also quickly shows that “entity” is a key denominator in transfer of funds, and non-entities acting like, or under cover of entities, is a key way to hide the funds in transit and driving personnel + agenda.

That is why I ask:

Why should this word be in common use among those doing business with each other and (regularly) with governments, but generally not in common use by the public who supports government financially, assents to or dissents from it, wants things from it, and criticizes provision of services by it?  

Why should we not also talk “entity” among each other, correctly identifying key ones in given causes and campaigns over time, and within a field, know among these, which ones are majority government funded from the start, and for how much?

Why would any individual NOT talk (identify) “entity” when promoting causes or evaluating some cause? Wouldn’t talking entity help the individual and on-lookers/listeners screen for “conflict of interest” in the framing of the cause?

Several possible reasons this is SO unpopular:

• Social conditioning: Over-reliance on what public media and non-profit/philanthropic-driven websites and media campaigns (including by our own governments) as the standard of discussion and format for it. These websites of quote entities, but rarely focus on comparing, identifying (with full legal names) or analyzing them.  They tell stories.  
• Because one is just innocently ignorant of the significance of the concept of “entities” as relevant even while still claiming concerned expert and exercising consulting status to service-providers, (i.e. as in, for domestic violence or child abuse prevention or treatment. etcd.
• Because, being NOT ignorant of it, knowing it’s better for sales, (including for promotion of a cause which doesn’t have real, grassroots support), that is:
  • It might expose one to legitimate challenges of logic, facts, and eventually legitimacy.
  • It might expose how inappropriate it is to have so FEW people involved (based on identifying the entity) in setting policy nationally or internationally, my cases-in-point, often  from a basis in the USA.
• Checking entities requires extra effort up-front (although I still say it’s more efficient in long-term).
• What one finds may be disconcerting and trigger a sense of being betrayed, which can be harder to handle than denial, dissociation, or continuing to speak passionately in broader, vaguer terms.
• In the current environment, it can quickly lead to isolation and virtual “ex-communication” from emotionally and psychologically supportive groups.  There is a social cost to having a backbone.

I’ve asked WHY it’s so common (to myself and aloud/on-line) for years, and the above points seem to be potential reasons. From recent experiences (and look-ups) the two ones in red, above, started the list; it comes up often on Twitter.

OPINION:

I do not believe nonprofits (or universities) based in other countries should be setting government policy here without informed consent of this country’s residents and citizens, but collaboratively they are.  

Likewise, I don’t believe that non-representative and essentially dishonest as to their exact identities and practices as organizations (or, as non-entities) in the USA should be running programs overseas intended to meld our practices with other countries, but evidence continues to mount that collaboratively, they are.

This is happening in the domestic violence and family court fields and has been for years.  I’ve been also protesting it for years as violating the integrity of national constitutions, basic sovereignty and as inappropriately trying to bring my country under the umbrella of other country’s treaties, national religion, or leadership practices, including featuring monarchies, nobilities, lifetime membership (after appointed or elected) in governing bodies, etc.  

Most specifically, attempts to do this across Commonwealth countries — across at least two major oceans (The Atlantic and The Pacific) are administered via various associations, societies, and can be seen resonating with and imitating each other.  Some migrate one way, then are characterized as originating in the destination country when they migrate back again.

OVERALL:

Government entities don’t operate in a vacuum, and our discussion of them shouldn’t occur in a vacuum of information about the same.  They also don’t change their functional systems in such a vacuum, but discussing causes without examining those carrying the causes as “entities” facilitates sabotage of the basic process of self-government.  

When talking about specific organizations and their websites, if any, why not mention whether or not the website corresponds to an entity or non-entity, and if “entity,” what type and funded by whom?  

Why not talk accurately, as to entity TYPE, status, age, size, location, filing status and filing habits over time — all important issues and character indicators?

But, somehow, my talking “entity” on-line continues to “draw a blank stare” or attempts to dismiss the comments as “too hard to understand”.. conveniently for the leadership of certain entities who to conduct their own business must know exactly what it means but seem to be intent that their followers — all “thought-leaders” require followers, right? — do not.  

The other day I realized that the TCFV (Texas Council on Family Violence), which doesn’t post its financials  (audited or tax returns) on line, though it has both and whose history implies existence since the late 1970s while the tax return states “Date Formed: 2007,” in its ever bigger font website, proudly lists Thought LEADER Cohorts — groups of individuals trained (so it seems) to think and act alike in the field:

{{IMAGES: Bottom of TCFV (showing not one link to financials), THOUGHT-LEADER COHORTS}}

Meanwhile, a similarly named, also in Texas, “Tarrant County Council on Family Violence” isn’t a separate entity, but involves a variety of civil servants working together.  The names are nearly identical, but the types are not.  

Private entities often do business with government entities and receive grants and contracts from government (entities) and — did you realize this — also donate to government (entities).  

To do so, for tracking purposes, they need entity identification numbers.

For example, in the United States of America (common point of reference for this blog because I live here…) state governments tend to keep and categorize searchable lists (databases) of — guess what — “business entities” so-called, for consumer protection, and usually identified by type. These databases in describing themselves also describe what kinds of entities are NOT tracked and searchable on their sites (it varies by locale), where to perhaps find those types, etc.

States vary in whether charities must also register or not, meaning some states have dual databases:  at the corporate/secretary of state level and, separately, for charities and/or fundraisers.  Two states I can think of offhand which maintain such separate databases are California and New York.

What about GOVERNMENT entities?

Governments also come with departments, branches, agencies, etc.  but for filing purposes, a government ENTITY is also definable.  After all, if funding is going to and from and between government to private entities, for it to be traceable, some way of identifying the same must exist at both distributing and receiving ends.  It’s a matter of keeping accounts.

What I find so odd is how often in exploring websites named after their mission, plans, themes, and causes, what kind of ENTITY it is can get “lost in translation,” not always accidentally.  Others do identify themselves, somewhat (“we are a nonprofit,” “a 501©3 (USA),” contributions are tax-deductible,” or even “our EIN# is”) but don’t exactly invite readers to think too hard about that, except to be reassured their donations (if solicited) are tax-deductible, if in fact they are…

Unique Entity Identifiers in use by the USA to change provider (generator) by next April.

Recently, while trying to locate a certain “entity” whose EIN# I haven’t found yet (located at a private, well-known,  southern USA university), I ran across the news that by April 2022, the USA government (i.e. federal government) will no longer be using D&B (Dun & Bradstreet®) numbers “Unique Entity Identifiers” (UEIs) but instead some generated from with the government’s own “SAM” system.  It defines “unique entity” within this page “Unique Entity Identifier Update | GSA” (General Services Administration, i.e., they purchase goods & presumably services for government use). 

The word “entity” (singular or plural) searched on that page produces 45 results.  [IMAGE]. Clearly it’s an important word to the (federal) government for anyone wishing to do business with it.

As the GSA web page says:

The US Federal government has used services from Dun and Bradstreet to both identify (using the DUNS® number) and validate/verify federal contractors since 1978. In 1998, entities were required to get a DUNS number by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). In 2008, this requirement expanded to federal financial assistance, affecting over 630,000 public and private entities seeking federal contracts and/or grants.

“Somehow, talking “entity” continues to “draw a blank stare” on-line… conveniently for the leaders of certain entities who do know exactly what it means, but who seem to be intent that their followers — all “thought-leaders” require followers, right? — as may be seen by the practice of masking grand-named (i.e., “National” or “International”) non-entities under one or more layers of single, tiny and not in the least “national” or grand (except in agenda) ones.  

For example, one “mask” might be simply a trade name.  Another might be, the term referenced by an acronym, sometimes on its own website, and referred to by others (in on the exaggeration, i.e., pretense) may be using another entity as its ‘fiscal agent.’

Sometimes you get both together and, what’s more, situated or run at a university, or a professor at a university, which is what came up recently when I followed up on a Twitter lead (within the fields I address on the blog and of course, try to follow as they spin off like-minded campaigns or ..’entities.’).  

=====

Among these are plenty of lawyers, and people whose careers have been built working for government entities, then spinning off their own private ones to take advantage of relationships built over time.

Although our “entity” system for doing business does involved consent to believe in a fiction, for convenience, trade, and (basically) tracking profits, or when profits won’t be made, losses, and getting the heck out of that business into another one, for most people whose lives are framed around and live in the shadow of such consent to believe in these fictions — which is convenient for us, too in many ways — when those profiting the most show the least respect for the rules, and then show up to “help” government “help” us via advocacy, social services, transformation of systems and (etc.) — we ought to start to call out the hypocrisy — not just the end results.  

To talk “business” including the business of government, you must talk about, point to, and observe the behaviors of people setting up, running, and describing, basically, themselves as good people based on their entities founded or sponsored.  This talk must be with each other, and where feasible, on-line.  

It’s a different vocabulary attached to different concepts.  Speaking this vocabulary sends a message you will no longer continue to be “groomed” into unconsciousness of the infrastructure and business/profit motives behind others who refuse to (in public) use clear, accurate, current and sensible words to describe WHAT their entity is (or is not) and WHAT they are doing, let alone have done, and intend to do and what a great cause it is.

A translation process can always occur without being value-laden, hostile or fawning, or made to trigger trauma and emotional responses, even if you may have them realizing (which happens quickly) the level of deceit commonplace throughout society.   

Try this:  type in “business entity search” (<–Google) and see what results surface.  I’m in the United States of America, so search results show links to databases labeled by state name — each state has its own list.  When I searched “government entity” an IRS website came up discussing this in terms of who gets taxed, naturally (“Tax Information for Government Entities.”)

Investopedia’s (Entity Theory, by Adam Hayes, August 31, 2021) article explains that while it requires people to basically believe in a fiction for convenience in doing business, it’s not always understood.  

This shorter Investopedia article is not the one that inspired this post or referenced in its title.  That one, called simply “Accounting Entity” (by Will Kenton, Aug. 23, 2021, reviewed by Margaret James) explains the concept quite well as critical basic information to prevent such things as money-laundering, basically, lying, stealing and cheating under the guise of honest business (or, government, or “public-private partnerships.”). 

What is an Accounting Entity? (by Will Kenton)

An accounting entity is a clearly defined economic unit that isolates the accounting of certain transactions from other subdivisions or accounting entities. An accounting entity can be a corporation or sole proprietorship as well as a subsidiary within a corporation. However, the accounting entity must have a separate set of books or records detailing its assets and liabilities from those of the owner.

An accounting entity is part of the business entity concept, which maintains that the financial transactions and accounting records of owners and entities cannot be intermingled. 

…Accountants must maintain separate records for separate accounting entities and determine the specific cash flows from each entity. Cash flow is the cash being transferred in and out of a business as a result of its day-to-day operations.

…[It then goes on to talk about different types of “accounting entities”  Internal, External, and “Special Purpose”]  Regarding the Special Purpose Vehicles:

Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs)

A special purpose vehicles (SPV) is an accounting entity that exists as a subsidiary company with an asset and liability structure as well as a legal status that makes its obligations secure even if the parent company goes bankrupt.

…Sometimes, special purpose vehicles—also called special purpose entities or (SPE)s—can be used nefariously to hide accounting irregularities or excessive risks undertaken by the parent company. Special purpose vehicles may thus mask critical information from investors and analysts, who may not be aware of a company’s complete financial picture.

a few paragraphs further down:

What Are Some Examples of Accounting Entities?

In general, any business or revenue-generating organization is considered to be an accounting entity—filing its own taxes and preparing its own financial statements. These can include corporations, sole proprietorships, partnerships, clubs, and trusts, as well as individual taxpayers.  ….

How Can Accounting Entities Be Used for Unethical Practices?

Certain accounting entities, like SPVs, can be structured in order to hide losses or launder money. These need to be scrutinized in order to be sure there is nothing nefarious going on. One SPV gone wrong is exemplified by Enron, which misused an accounting entity such as this, ultimately leading to one of the largest bankruptcies in history.

 

Understanding Entity Theory (by Adam Hayes)

Under the entity theory, an individual or group of people working together as a business firm is treated as a separate legal and accounting entity, essentially creating a fictional person. Anyone who does business with that individual or group is considered in the legal and accounting senses to be doing business with the firm rather than the people with whom they are actually dealing.

Learn what it means, what it signifies, and why its strange omission from both mainstream and privately funded nonprofit media and basic journalism rarely emphasize this word. Why, when citing business names, are so often the suffixes indicating what kind of entity (and, some suffixes, even what country) it’s in?  Is the digital real estate and storytelling interrupted so badly to include the occasional “Inc.,” “LLC” “plc” or “Ltd.” in first reference in a story? 

If you haven’t yet — just do it, or go back to pre-school, kindergarten, and “don’t talk to me without pictures and nice color schemes” land, keep consuming products you know little about, and don’t expect me to sign up for causes whose leadership and ownership you do not — and it seems, with that attitude — likely will not understand. 

Basically, operating in and around “entity” ways of doing business entails a consent to endorsing imaginary things, for purposes of tracking, and for symbolic convenience in trade.  The article continues:

Criticisms of the Entity Theory

Though the basic concept of the entity theory has been circulating since at least the 19th century and is the prevailing manner in which business is conducted and accounted for all over the world, it is not always intuitively understood by many people. This is mainly due to the somewhat obvious problem that it requires that people believe, or at least pretend to believe, in imaginary entities that exist only on paper in accounting statements and legal documents.

In reality, a company is not itself an independent entity, but a collective pretense of the owners, managers, employees, and other stakeholders involved in business transactions with them. However, entity theory requires that real people, at least in their business and legal dealings, act as if they believe that imaginary people really exist. This legal and accounting pretense is designed to help keep track of and protect profits that the business generates and encourage productive investment, though it may seem almost like magic or perhaps voluntary insanity.

(For years now, and most of those years, daily…), I’ve been looking at and looking up claimed entities (often those soliciting donations, volunteers, or support to get laws favoring their mutual causes passed), with the tools I’m aware of, consistently.

Doing this, you see quickly that the underground/background registries and “realities” (business records and filing habits) rarely match the public organization’s persona or claims of its personnel (its website/s). The websites can often be well-designed, visually appealing, and of easy-on-the-eye color schemes I do appreciate from a design perspective and continue to check.

I rarely lose sight of how deep and how misleading are certain basic things buried:  <>What IS it (what type of entity). If nonprofit, when so claimed, does it show (and if not, what is) its EIN# (USA)?

If it even shows them, <> where are (1) its latest and a few previous tax returns on that website and (2) its audited financials.  Both are needed for better comprehension, but dishonesty within one, or the other, and/or on the website regarding one or the other, can show up quickly.  When (often applies) dishonesty surfaces, the question is then only how dishonest, and how long has it been that dishonest, only shows up with further, somewhat prolonged attention, although basic lookups on individual (entities) rarely take me more than part of a day, and span maybe a day or two of half-hour or two-hour sessions. One reason it doesn’t take too long is practice.  Patterns repeat themselves once you know what to look for, and where it MIGHT be on a website.

When tax filings are not current, the current “board of directors” may not be the one you can read about on a tax return which shows whether they are paid or not, and whether credited with 40 hours a week work or just 1 hour a week!

Therefore, for any cause I’m going to join or collaborate with, people involved will have to accept that a learning curve on this topic can come from within, and the most important learning doesn’t only come through thought-leaders, media moguls, and people that media and those (owned and controlled) media platforms typically pay most attention to. When people just refuse to do basic background checks, I know that collaboration is going to waste my time (be less productive in both short and long run), while it may be emotionally or socially rewarding.

You cannot understand your own government (whether it’s where I live, the USA, or elsewhere) without attention to “entities” as intrinsic to organizing to retain, or regain, some balance of power against basic forms of government (dictatorships, tyranny, despots, fascism, or systems of total control of personal freedom, choice, and existence) as human beings, no one should want.  

Where does your money go, and how does it get there when you, or your offspring, pay taxes and fees-for-services for forced-consumption of court-ordered behavioral modification classes (batterers intervention, parent education, reunification therapy, or domestic violence (and fatherhood) consciousness-raising?  How do you know does it really reach the intended destinations described?

Don’t ever take it for granted, and please think about its significance.

Do not move forward in life ignorant of the concept and therefore also ignorant of the entities impacting your daily life, and how their existence (or implied existence where none exists) is used to befuddle and dazzle the public in the process of making a sale, or inflating (or, deflating) the actual size and reach of various entities in order to appeal for, typically either funds or pressure upon legislatures to pass various legislation which, often, benefits the promoting entities (and supposed entities) far more than the public.

Basically, “that which is” or, a thing.  The Online Etymology Dictionary Etymonline.com: ‘entity‘ explains it came from ‘-ens,’ a present participle of a (Latin) word meaning “to be”  esse.  (Compare the meaning:  “essence”). This makes sense to me (yes, I took Latin long ago) because a present participle implies continuing existence (of what ever state the “-ens” might be attached to).  “…Originally abstract; concrete sense in English is from 1620s…”  Naturally, with “entity” comes also non-entity:

also nonentity, c. 1600, “something which does not exist, a figment,” from non- + entity. Meaning “a person or thing of no consequence or importance” is attested from 1710.

The concept of “corporation” and with it “In-corporation” goes back centuries, possibly also to about the 1600s, relates to colonization.  It provided ways of declaring a unity of purpose — and financial responsibility — existed in order to undertake extraordinary adventures and businesses.

The Online Etymology Dictionary uses the word “entity” in the definition of corporation, and claims it also dates to the 15th century.  Probably a more familiar concept than “entity” to most people through its derivative words:  a [dead] body (corpse), or or group of very much alive people fully united in mission and purpose (i.e., the Marine Corps), corpuscle (very small particle, especially within blood) and of course for the religious among us, the concept of incarnation is of a breathing life to that which before, was mere flesh (see: carnage, carnal, carnivore, incarnate);  for the religious meaning, it may have been alive and breathing, but without spiritual life:  to incorporate something into something else is to bring it into a defined “body.”  The definition touches on that meaning:

corporation;

mid-15c., corporacioun, “persons united in a body for some purpose,” from such use in Anglo-Latin, from Late Latin corporationem (nominative corporatio) “assumption of a body” (used of the incarnation of Christ), noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin corporare “embody, make or fashion into a body,” from corpus (genitive corporis) “body, dead body, animal body,” also “a whole composed of united parts, a structure, system, community, corporation, political body, a guild” (from PIE root *kwrep- “body, form, appearance”).

[The] [m]eaning “legally authorized entity, artificial person created by law from a group or succession of persons” (such as municipal governments and modern business companies) is from 1610s.

In writing this post, knowing in advance I have the excellent summary from a source I respect (“Investopedia”), I still felt I must say my piece about the concept and why it matters.  I also have it on an urgent agenda to discuss certain entities, and a new non-entity posing like one, which have come to my attention recently.  As usual for this blog, the topics relate to domestic violence and child abuse vis-a-vis family court venues, and new developments.

POST TITLE :
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft). short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary.

Entity now can refer to either government or private understood (in the context of government and business) to exist.  Entities do NOT refer to some substance or object (built or natural) or even “commodity” existing physically, literally, occupying physical space as we do, and something you could, if in its presence, see.

Instead, they name a concept agreed to be treated as though it did exist and for ease (greater fluency) in business transactions:  government to government, private to private, or government to private, private to government.  Often the word “public” is used to represent the government sector.

Entities thus also have different categories of existence for permissions or limitations on business that can (or should be) done with them.  I think it’s fair to say it’s basically a legal concept or idea with main impact on the sphere of accounting. But, I’m not a lawyer, so for further clarification, ask one (or look it up).

Understanding which is which, and the concept, is essential to understand and then effectively respond to, help restrain or reform, both our own governments and criminal activity in the private sector via governments.  

It is even more important, I believe, to expose major loopholes in accountability we have come to accept (they are certainly commonplace) when imitations of “entity-hood” are spread on-line to promote acceptance of some program, cause, or to solicit resources, such as donations or getting the public to assent (passively or actively) to pressuring their governments to appropriate money for the same.  When non-entity is combined with or handled by actual entities, it can get messy and definitely IS mis-leading.

When you (!) process words on the page, entrancing, exciting, inspiring, and easy to publicize (i.e., buzz-words, sound-bytes, brand names associated with dramatic events, or causes) through an internal and often simple set of background-checks:

• “IS it an entity?  [If so] What kind?  Where?  Since when?  How big?  
• Spun off from which other, if it was?  Related to or doing business with which others (independent contractors, consultants, for nonprofits/USA, “related organizations” (Schedule R), Interested Persons (Schedule L) and much more information.
• Is it displaying its financials or hiding them?  
• Is it using a “dba” or its own legal business name? With an address revealing legal domicile
• Filing timely or not?  Filing truthfully or not? Staying legally compliant or not?
• Do its (not “their”) website/s tell, truthfully, what it is?
• If financials are displayed on the website, of both kinds (USA: Financial Statements AND Forms 990 or 990PF for nonprofits) and properly or deceptively labeled as to which year is represented?  
• Should you find its, say, tax return (Form 990), where asked to show “website” does it write N/A when in fact it has one and had one for the year represented?

That may seem like a lot of questions, but asking them gives you more data than who approves of them, recommends them, or how nice the color scheme and themes on the websites.  If an article quotes experts who cite (repeatedly across various articles) they’re associated with — how long, how many repetitions does it take you to ask some of those questions about the entity referenced?  Two repetitions — three — a dozen?

On my part, any time I delayed beyond perhaps three times, I have later regretted it personally, when the entities involved were clearly advocating for specific solutions, spokespersons, and “awarenesses” nationally, being in fact a dubious nonprofit reporting, most times, less than $50,000 a year meaning, few details available for public viewing. Why I still do not stand with “mainstream” reform efforts on issues I also care deeply about and have personally suffered loss through over many years often relates to what I began to understand when I did these “drill-downs” or if you prefer the phrase, “look-ups,” and began to see the profit motives behind the (crocodile tears and pathos).  Habit patterns persist across the years in most persistent organizations, the most personally irritating one to me reflected in my username:  Let’s Get Honest.”

When dealing with people one claims to care about and wishes to help, “dishonesty” is dishonorable.   Why is it then so fashionable?

Next quote:  Written Dec. 2018 , updated April, 2020, my only “Page” published in 2020 came from this blog’s Front Page and on it I continued to emphasize understanding “Entities.”  This page also contains some references helping define government entities within the USA, taken from the Census of Governments website:  “Gov’t. 101.”

Here’s that page’s introduction and two screenshots from it. On the second screenshot I ask how sane are movements continuing year after year — for some, decade after decade — to express concern about the conditions of the Family Courts, about Family, Domestic, or Intimate Partner Violence  and Child Abuse with no attention to this basic concept: without looking up the entities promoting the problem policies, practices or theories protested, talking about which entities have been promoting them (funded and/or funding.  Such posture and behaviors by such entities and their key personnel (spokespersons) is questionable, at the best.

Likewise, how sane, really, are individuals who line up to imitate, join in, and talk about their same concerns in similar language, adding none of such basic vocabulary to the discussion, and rarely, if ever, looking up individual and (having begun that) networks of ENTITIES promoting or opposing the causes?

Whether the discussion is self-initiated on social media, or from a journalist (independent or mainstream)…and especially when presenting to some legislature or consultation task force or commission, a rationale why new laws should be passed, or old ones updated, why typically no reference to the nature and type of entities already involved in the field, except to identify those signing a petition or involved on a task force or consultation?

This is a matter in which individuals affected most directly by trauma, drama, and trouble in the above issues, and those constantly proclaiming concern about them have to set some standards among ourselves, and not be so malleable and gullible by those perceived to be currently “on top of it.”

I’ve been witness to how some of this works, and how several involved entities involved act when I even identify them by name, size, and location, let alone when I ask questions hard to answer about why, for example, if the problem is what judges, court-connected professionals and custody evaluators BELIEVE, specifying theories, the public shouldn’t be made aware of which entities are circulating and promoting such “unsound theories” or (in times past), “flawed practices.”

I rarely get a direct answer.  More commonly, the question isn’t acknowledged, whether asked directly/privately by email, in public on a comment in a public place, on this blog, in a Twitter exchange, or so forth.  Sometimes I also get blocked suddenly (so what?….), but overall, mostly just ignored.

My message is to people who may still exist who care about repetition of the same deceptive practices decade after decade (in the fields referenced by this blog, and associated ones, also often covered in this blog), AND about the next generation.  Education is power. Educate yourself about “Entity” for a change, practice finding and understanding them, and inject these concepts into public communications …. and then see what happens!

Please.  For the public good…. and for your children, if you have some, or ours, if you don’t.  For truth.

How Local (Truly Representative) is ANY Government Entity with All These Kinds of Nonprofits? (THE Power & Class Divide: The Taxed vs. Those Living off/Managing The Taxed).(Page started and published Dec. 11, 2018, moved off the Front Page, now its “Parent” page).

About 3,000 words only. Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “PsBXH-9l0” <~~middle character is a small “L” not a number “1.”…last three characters are not the number “nine hundred and ten” (910).  Page slightly updated … April 2020, when being about refer to it in a new post, I re-read the pageSeveral update sentences or paragraphs I marked with light-blue-background. //LGH April 15, 2020.

This is an extemporaneous informal expression diverted from the Front Page of the blog for smoother reading of that page, but is still about a reality that should not be ignored.

This reality is so commonly accepted and taken for granted (by many) — exploited by many also — it’s like “the air we breathe,” and [so] from what I can tell, basically has been ignored.  That mainstream media (which is  part of it) ignores it is functionally understandable.  That most “commoners” do, is contributing to our own dysfunction when dealing with our own government/s or seeking to impact them through elected representatives, also is because who already in power or seeking more of it it via mass public unconsciousness of the power and impact of an entities-based economic system) has the motivation to call attention to it?  

The tax-exempt sector working alongside, with, and ON the government sector, has major clout in large part because that clout was given it by government when the income tax was applied wholesale (but with exceptions) on the population (see bottom of this post)

(The words in red 2021 added to finish an incomplete sentence in original, a copyediting oversight).

Two Screenshots from the same page: (Image quality not the best.  Click to enlarge or go to originating page. Any dotted lines or arrows added to image, not post.  The words are my own.).

LGH|FCM Apr 2020 PAGE from Front Page | ‘PsBXH-9l0’ ‘How Truly Local (Entites Talk, Gov’t Definitns) for new post ~~Annotated 2021.Oct.28 Thu PST @ 1.31.27 PM

LGH|FCM Apr 2020 PAGE from Front Page | ‘PsBXH-9l0’ ‘How Truly Local (Entites Talk, Gov’t Definitns) for new post ~~2021.Oct.28 Thu PST @ 1.54.34 PM

I’ve come to understand it over time as an investigative blogger here, and as a human  being whose life curve has been radically altered by certain private entities operating through a public institutions.   <hr .< The overall impact has been to condone and facilitate known criminal activities when committed by family members (whether relatives or spouses, etc.) and upon minor children — by diverting it into family court, removing protections, and enabling years of repeat visits to court seeking protection, or to regain contact with removed children — while still managing somehow to just live, and as possible, restructure one’s support system away from total financial dependence, which leads inevitably to chronic subjection to exploitation.

As individuals, I have no problem with people maintaining privacy as fair and proper.  It’s also a safety matter.  I don’t post my name address and telephone number openly (or even my name) on this blog.  

But once the filing for entity status begins, any entity’s advertising (especially via an on-line presence) shouldn’t conceal its name, place, age, current (not former) legal status ,and activities. Many private entities are taking public funds AND contributing directly (did you know this or realize how much?) to public institutions in exchange for promoting, testing, evaluating and often running their products, goods and services, upon a public when and where that public is a captive audience and unable to say no. 

If we are to be in any shape to resist and protest, we should be able to access the utilization (receipt and distribution) of our own life efforts and energies expressed in the form of providing tax revenues for the various government entities that see fit to take first, and return the excess later, while claiming to be protecting and serving between receipt and return.  Not that excess is always returned…

Let alone the quality of protecting and serving, typically the cause for campaigns and actions to establish or change legislation or add legislative or other governmental bodies, or add restrictions (like lockdowns, evacuations, curfews and policies), there is the matter of the most basic accounting for stewardship of that which any government has been provided, to date.  

That goes for private businesses as well.  There are still some differences (mostly vocabulary and exercised powers) between governments and corporations, but from everything I can see, those two are far more closely aligned in interests than individuals and governments, except as we individually and collectively, can be managed in such a way to continue providing life energies and resources to the same.  As such, dependency seems to be more desirable overall than independent thinking, working, and providing for ourselves, all declarations to the contrary aside.  

I know how I’ve come to understand this by scrutinizing the entities and their backers over the years, but I think it’s also time to let a known, competent brand and platform I’ve often turned to to learn from and (at times)  quote  (Investopedia) put this in plain language.  First, I trust it’ll make sense.  Beyond that, hearing it from an acknowledged authority (at least more than I am), maybe some more of it will stick to the people I’m trying to reach with the messages (plural) in this blog.

I also took time when gathering quotes and screen-prints from Investopedia for this purpose, to look at their own window frame, fine print, and current ownership, which was another adventure.  I found I’d previously blogged a previous version of their owner which seems to have changed since, but don’t believe that topic is necessary for this post.  it just happens to be what I do.

Entities exist in different types within countries and differ from one country to another in their naming conventions, filing requirements.  The types available may change by law, however individually, they do have formation dates and, because of this, places.  They can be later dissolved intentionally by the owners, or “administratively” (“involuntarily”) by the governing authority — although I say, unless someone died or suffered amnesia or was incapacitated beyond the ability to send in a simple form nowadays electronically, stating it still exists (and, as required/if required, a financial statement), or too broke to pay filing fees  — it’s not really “involuntarily.”  Owners just decided to let the thing lapse.

I have had involuntarily dissolved entities attempt to continue billing me and threaten me if I protest improper (for other reasons) excess billings.  Continuing to operate as a business while unregistered is unethical and a sign of immorality.  Trying to go after individuals while constantly rotating entity names, versions, and statuses (active, inactive, involuntarily dissolved, status-revoked — pop up under a similar name, or the same name but in a different state) is essentially a form of tax evasion.  It’s unethical and it’s commonplace.

For example:

I recently discovered one I’d blogged in depth, realizing it was in effect a forebear of another one this blog began by out-ing. It has recently changed its name, but that’s nearly impossible to figure out as it hasn’t filed much (certainly not a tax return) so far with the new corporate entity name.  I only discovered this having previously known the EIN#, and used it on an IRS website only to discover the name change.  I then went back to my former home state (California) and confirmed this, as well as its charitable registry status (“awaiting reporting.”).  These authorities (and its legal domicile of New York State) knows its new name, and its old website (if you ever knew it) does redirect to a new one, with worse resolution and (at first glance it seems) far less information — and (like the other one?) no financials showing.  

These discoveries have a certain shock effect upon me, especially when the changes (which might have occurred anyway) occur, however, not long after I’ve done the equivalent of an “expose” on their practices as entities.  That shock effect takes some time to process, but in order to also discuss it coherently on-line, I need to again insist on a working definition of the word “entity” and ask others to start taking it seriously.

Those running entities have to.  Just because one may be an employee and not a business owner is no excuse for ignorance on this vocabulary.  It impacts nearly every aspect of daily life and life curves in developed countries (and other countries investors here seek to develop/colonize while dismantling ones they’ve been too long).  New markets, etc. … 

When tax-exempt organizations do this: go status-revoked (IRS) and/or administratively-dissolved at a state level (I’m speaking USA: we do not have “federal” or “national” corporate types.  Government: yes.  Corporations: No.) but continue to solicit (keep old websites active), that behavior is not just wrong; it’s a red flag to possible criminal intent and criminal activity, including money-laundering.  It also enables others who may be (or claim they are) donating to such organizations to also avoid and reduce their taxes.  

Another situation that comes up and may be more a factor of the entities (private nonprofit, or government) providing records and registries of organizations such that the tax-paying public may find them and tell whether legit or not, are a variety of obstacles for which it’s hard to assign responsibility without further research (at almost every step of any look-up).  I’m talking when the databases available for looking these up are neither current (or, it could be the filers are intentionally late), nor properly labeled, or when it’s clear some other data recording entity names (or locations) is full of errors and unreliable — but the user doesn’t recognize just HOW unreliable it is without doing extensive lookups.  

So at all points, knowing the difference between entity and non-entity, legitimate or illegitimate if at one time it was legit, legal domicile, date (at least the year!) of formation, and how to locate any trade names or “doing business as” names it goes by on-line while only those who know the proper legal business name, or how to find the dba should some entity (or, non-entity whose promotional materials indicate it is one) opt to disguise their basic name, place, and legal status.  Legal status can come in a variety of forms:  state business entity registration, state charitable registration (where required) and assigned EIN# used by (at least here) the Internal Revenue Service.

As people get SOMEwhat more sophisticated or interesting in looking such things up and talking about them, when they come to their (or, in my fields of interest, “our”) attention, I’ve noticed that a long-standing tradition of using university-based, or government entity-based “centers” – -interdisciplinary, of course and often with private sponsors (i.e., big-name donors or foundations) seems a go-to option when others may be closing in on the reality.  

In reviewing my (long-winded) blog posts here, I often run across my previous attempts to get to the bottom of specific university’s centers without attached nonprofits.  Sometimes they DO have attached nonprofits, or spin them off:  I’ve noticed this in:  MIT, Harvard, Brown, George Washington University (in D.C., not to be confused with Georgetown, also in D.C., or with Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri), and the University of California-Berkeley.  Oxford University also does this but at one point had to change the entity name when the acronym was I.S.I.S.  The purpose was to incubate and fast-track research to product lines. It’s not an uncommon practice.

But when it comes to accountability to the public for either state or private university systems, such “centers” just don’t have it.  Which seems to be some of the major purpose.

Perhaps after publishing this blog, I’ll add a bulleted list by name and/or to specific posts.

In the meantime, I will admit that some of my urgency to post Investopedia‘s definitions out and insist that in talking about causes OR organizations promoting some cause (or sponsoring a conference around a cause, as it may happen) is for an upcoming sponsored conference in a Southern California university, where the named “co-sponsors” include one nonprofit I’ve known for years now to  be at its essence, disreputable and misleading — but fulfilling specific niche in the “DV/FamilyCourt Reform” ecosphere– which is to recruit traumatized mothers and coach/mentor them, connect them with bigger forces, lest they stray from the allotted path. They have to keep recruiting, as year by year, some women figure it out and either leave in disgust, and/or more actively, start, and do not stop, talking about it.  

Previously the same organization was connecting such Moms (among other places) to a San Diego-based “Alliant University” under the dba “IVAT,” which I’ve posted on, and which is associated with the nonprofit “FVSAI” (Family Violence and Sexual Abuse Institute) basically run by Robert Geller, formerly of Texas. The focus and emphasis throughout is on the aspects of trauma — not, of course, any entity’s financials, or court operations. 

Individually, they come into existence when someone (or another acknowledged entity run by a human being or two) files the proper registration forms and statements/declarations of intent to form entity type A, B, C, D, or other.  Their operations, websites, influence (financial and otherwise) and employees may be seen, felt and heard, but essentially filing for an entity is to file for common acknowledgement of a fictional reality, for more efficiency in doing business. Or governing.  (There are government “entities” too).

[IMAGES.  NY, Calif, Mass, Maryland, Connecticut  IRS.] [Beta.CompaniesHouse.gov.UK]

THE PROBLEM:  EVALUATING without BASIC INFORMATION.

Without knowing an ENTITY’s IDENTITY you can’t really find its funding, or know much at all about it as an investor, patron, potential donor, or simply bystander aware of its name. You don’t, really, know “squat” that really counts about an organization: not enough to evaluate it for sure.  As a consumer of information forming decisions, evaluating, about causes, campaigns, and where to put your personal time and/or money, this leaves you (and your friends, unless they’re involved) ripe for the picking…

While websites talk “sponsorship” “Partners” and more, the websites often don’t define the same.  In naming sponsors, they often are name-dropping (basic to advertising and public relations) but fail to provide important details for each one about how much was granted, when, and where you might find this in an official record.)  Lacking this information the temptation (and apparent idea is), appeal to the crowd — these important people or groups believe in or have given to it (though HOW MUCH you have no idea without looking) — it must be valid.

Why isn’t the word “entity” common use by the public when campaigning or fund-raising for, complaining about, in fact developing an understanding of anything about the cause, its promoters, or how governments (and corporations) work?  

In reporting, citing to certain organizations (if they are, in fact, organizations — entities), major media (itself owned and run by other entities) typically omits any suffix indicating what kind of entity is meant.  The root, basic name is provided, but often absent any suffix.  When the legal domicile is also omitted or mis-reported,[##] then knowing whether the name in common use is a legal business name or a trade name (i.e., some other business is “dba” under the name you’re reading).

[##] so far as I know, while the IRS requires “legal domicile” to be reported on its full-sized Forms 990 (tax returns for nonprofits required to file them), as part of the header info on page 1, its user interface offering a “location” filter isn’t keyed necessarily to that legal domicile — but to where the entity address is.  I see the same applies, as to displayed results, for another website I often use (despite its being unreliable when using the name-search function), owned and operated by “The Foundation Center” (which recently (2017?) absorbed (through merger) the nonprofit GuideStar):  Candid.org 990-finder:  [url extension reads:] “Research-and-Verify-Nonprofits/990-finder.” For example, here, the entity EVIDENT CHANGE (fka — in the earlier tax returns, the latest shown here though — the NCCD (National Council on Crime & Delinquency) clearly says “CA” for what state it’s in.  They have an office in California (and Wisconsin), but their legal domicile (click through to see on the top row: Header info page 1 shows) they report (properly  it seems) legal domicile of New York:

Search results for: Organization Name: , State: , Zip: , EIN: 131624111, Fiscal Year:

Total results: 3. Search Again.  (Click on the column headers to sort. [not on my blog, though..])

In another example: (I searched first by name, getting three different entities & EIN#s, then by the EIN#, again, ℅ Candid.org link shown above):

Search results for: Organization Name: , State: , Zip: , EIN: 952597407 , Fiscal Year:

Total results: 3. Search Again.  (Click on the column headers to sort. [I did, before copying here. First results were not in year order; the table sort-column function doesn’t work on my blog..])

Click through to also see that their fiscal year ends in June.  Thus the “YEAR” represented as most recent on this database (Candid) is actually Tax Return for (Fiscal Year) 2017, not 2018.  

WHY?  Did COVID-19 knock out The Foundation Center’s optical character reading software, or data entry staff (no Paycheck Protection Plan Loan?). I’ve been noticing however, its production of tax returns seems to be flagging. When the IRS consistently has more recent tax returns then The Foundation Center (which runs now both Candid.org and Guidestar.org) doesn’t, it’s not the filing entities’ slowdown… it’s whatever process extracts or uploads or delivers the IRS information to the New York State nonprofit. 

If you click through to FY2018 tax return (notice the two words “Conciliationcourts” are somehow merged for FY2017 and 2018.  How?!, Foundation Center staff if you’re watching…  What’s with the data entry failures? I went to the IRS Exempt Organization Search website (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ currently) searching by EIN# for more recent returns: it’s often more current by about a year, than Candid.

[IMAGE] As you can see, it, too, shows “Wisconsin” meaning “entity address” not legal domicile.  But the IRS’s search site (user interface page) doesn’t mention this helpful piece of information, nor does “Candid’s.”  Here, for FY2018 (year-end June, 2019)(and displayed as “2019 Filing”), click through to see that AFCC shows it’s claimed legal domicile Wisconsin as in prior years (which has been, basically, false for many years) and date of origin 1963.  However FY2019 (year-end June, 2020)(and displayed as “2020 Filing”), click through and see how the same header with the same entity address admits (it’s been true for years) that its legal domicile is in fact Illinois, not Wisconsin — and that THIS entity dates back to 1975, not 1963.

Why the confession that it now does indeed have an Illinois legal domicile, and started 12 years later than it previously claimed?  Who knows:  perhaps public attention on social media (not my campaign, other than ongoing contributions to this blog or Twitter, and I have few followers) to AFCC has made a difference; or perhaps it got tired of me pointing this out (nor was I close to the first who did) for years on the blog, exposing some of its international connections and continuing to say this on-line.  The organization — that entity — does not respect the laws of the various states of the United States of America, or the most basic requirements of tax-exemption before the IRS, meaning in its essence, it just doesn’t respect the people living here either.  It has other priorities, “above the law / establishing the law” which ends, apparently, justify its immoral (and this just scratches the surface) means.

Any apology from the organization?  No.  How can experts apologize? If they’d believed in public accountability beyond the “interdisciplinary experts” its helping train (and in some fields, providing CEUs — Continuing Education Units– for, for its conferences), they’d post some financials and any person with basic intelligence who’d become aware this entity exists and read those tax returns, would figure it out and have a much easier time sharing that information on-line and with others.  The question remains, for me:  what’s the excuse?  IS there one?

If you choose “Illinois” on the IRS Exempt Organization Search website (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) and search for this entity by EIN#, would it come up?  I just tried:  No.

Looking this entity up again by its name (at the same IRS Exempt Organization Search website (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) reveals another data entry error issue at the IRS level:  When I searched by its correct name, that is, “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” I’d not find it — because on the “results” page, IRS wording omits the word “and.”  [IMAGES!]

In prior years, AFCC did go by this name, until some tax authorities (as I recall in California) caught up with it, at which point it hopped over to Illinois.  Meanwhile, on its own history page (one I found in an earlier newsletter), it talks about its various entity (not legal domicile) addresses:  Oregon, Wisconsin, at one point, Florida.  Do all these family court judges or magistrates, often previously lawyers, or this entity’s hired expert (for so many years, Peter Salem), or others with advanced degrees listed as 1.0 hour/week volunteers on the board year after year, just not understand the concept of “legal domicile” or do they just not care that their organization year after year lied about its own– and about its incorporation date?  

One thinks not.

Do these individuals (on AFCC’s board, and benefitting from its conferences) understand certain benefits and political clout may accrue from its USA ‘parent corporation’ NOT posting its financials on the website (I’ve never seen a link to these on AFCCnet.org) and revealing how in fact, it’s a really small entity, fiscally.

One might think so.  That is, assuming the IRS is being at all times told the truth about business-related and any non-business-related income of the reporting entity.  That said, overall, it doesn’t seem to be the most truthful in reporting organization, overall or historically, while intent on telling others (parents, and state legislatures) how to improve their lives by resolving ‘family conflict,’ and essentially, controlling families’ lives for years once they step inside an AFCC-originated or -run ‘problem-solving court” (which AFCC courts essentially are)… 

Where I really started getting into “find the entities” as a blogger (and family court gauntlet-runner, survivor: not intact, but I’m still alive and housed and so far, have enough to eat)… was in looking up the $150 million-a-year healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees, along with AFCC-member run nonprofits in the California area that were impacting the local family courts and trying to build some momentum (typically with a select group, not all local to that state, of nonprofits also very shy about showing their financials, but not about soliciting our — “custodially challenged mothers (and fathers) specific legal case information and directing us which experts to tell or send them to, along with our stories).  

You can see this among my earlier years posts: use Archives or (June 2012 forward) the Tables of Contents among the “Sticky Posts” on the blog “Current Posts” page.).  

These groups actively obstruct transmission of important information to current or recent parents (“protective parents” or those in mourning after a child has been killed, court-facilitated). While this obstruction typically includes naming specific points of reference (dealing with federal to state incentives to transform the family courts, never challenging how they got here to start with, or their legitimacy), the most offensive form of obstruction, I have always felt, is withholding (knowingly) in most communications — whether group emails (I was on) or newsletters (ditto, for some years) and of rocurse from their own websites — basic tools of the trade when it comes to naming, then finding, then finding the financials (i.e., primary backers) of themselves — or of those actors, networked nonprofits, and which parts of their own government, those parents they solicit and allegedly empathize with are indeed up against.

At many levels, this includes the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress (speaking for my own countries) and in California, as I was myself first surviving then attempting to safely (with minor children) exit a violent and battering (as well as what Evan Stark et al. belatedly call “coercively controlling,” relationship), the California courts (ALL of them, not just family courts) and court system — facilities, employees, including who paid the judges (state or counties) were officially centralizing at the topmost level.  In the late 1990s, as I’ve detailed on this blog (look for “AOC” referencing “Administrative Office of the Courts” or the phrase “legal/budgetary basis”), two parts of the administrative office of the courts:  “Family Services” (Statewide) and “Office of Children in the Courts” (or, similar name) combined, and were notably staffed at the high levels by known AFCC members, whose books were also being marketed nation-wide (i.e., in other, far-away states).  All this, by the year about 2000.

Similarly, about this time, major system shifts in the handling of the child support system enforcement was under way as a result of welfare reform (nationwide, not just in California).  

As it happens under “Welfare Reform” of 1996, it was under Title IV-D (which addresses grants and presumably contracts too) of the new, “block-grants / better privatized/ ‘ending welfare as we knew it” (per then-President Wm. J. Clinton) that $10 million a year of “access and visitation grants” to support types of programming to “increase noncustodial parent contact” (in case you wondered, this does indeed translate effectively to mean “father-contact” — paired with (eventually, at least by 2006: I do not have in mind the exact allocations started in 1996) the propaganda (public relations campaigns, media bonanzas for sure) to promote “health marriage and responsible fatherhood” (that’s under ONE CFDA#, 93.086), allocated via Title IV-A that authorizes “TANF” (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grants to the states, fka welfare, cash aid and food stamps (?) to the poor.

No question during these years, the federal and national pot was being stirred in the divorce, child support, domestic violence and “protect children” arenas.  Over time with various acts of Congress being passed, and at the more local (i.e., State) levels, entities have lined up** to feed themselves (serve the public…) under those programs.

Access Visitation grants are unique: by definition they must got to a state agency, not a private nonprofit, and to only one state-level agency per state (or territory) per year. They can then be sub-granted to private nonprofit entities (or used otherwise), meaning that tracking their influence means tracking the grantees.

[**(applied, positioned themselves, sometimes people incorporated nonprofits to match the names of the appropriations)]

This centralization of Access Visitation grant power at the state level also means that interested people or contingents aware of the situation have then a singular target agency in which to position people as paid civil servant administrators of this grants stream, to direct to friends, colleagues and associates.

In California, for many years, a woman in authority over the distribution of these grants was (and possibly still is), Shelly LaBotte, certainly AFCC and also heavily involved in the supervised visitation field, for years.  Supervised visitation is one authorized target activity the access/visitation grants exist to support (along with mediation and counseling).  Overall, it’s stunning how precisely the fields with AFCC as an entity (and its members, founders) sought to establish, expand, standardize, control, set up and regulate (so far, successfully) line up with the types of activity these federal grants exist to support.  Again, they don’t fund directly, so to track them as a whole, people in any ONE state would need to track not only A/V grants THROUGH their own state, but all others (and territories).

The access and visitation grant amounts are also proportionate to (by) population.

They are hardly making headlines in mainstream press, but they’ve existed for years and helped establish lines of income for the same organizations and, often, professionals that DO make headlines when another child or set of children within a family which has already begun protesting abuse, undergoes custody-switch, mandated parenting education and co-parenting coaching, sometimes reunification camps, and forced known compromises in personal safety, court control of individual parents’ income choices (i.e., “move-away” conditions), and in general extracting resources from individual families at will.

I would live to see an official and thorough, within a time span of at a minimum 1994-2014, or 1996-2016) and then another one for the last four or five years (or, one from 2001-2021: spanning different Presidential administrations and both political parties (with Donald Trump so far being the only one this century who didn’t last 8 years in a row) comparing the funding amounts for just three program streams:  #93.086 (Marriage/Fatherhood promotion), #93.597 (Access Visitation) and #93._____ (FVPSA authorized violence prevention funding) along with the VAWA-authorized CFDA#s administered through the US DOJ.  Apologies for not having all of those CFDA numbers memorized (but — I have posted them, and they’re not hard to find).

Even comprehending that when the purpose is system change and sources of funding to alter the priorities of federal welfare, child protection, and abuse (domestic violence) prevention work nationwide, will come from more than just a few funding streams, those are some major ones involved.  See individual departments under the Executive Branch of the USA (Federal government, i.e., ultimately, down to the President’s decision-making..) for more program purposes which might be and have been impacting the family court decision-making as helps or hurts families.

[END of THAT internal summary rant, for now…]

Half or more of my blog is looking up entities (especially where efforts to conceal their identity seems primary), as possible, their financials (especially in the tax-exempt private sector, often called “philanthropic,” and the government entities — which tax us, control us, charge fees for services, and either do or do not effectively provide justice, law enforcement, or for the public welfare — their main reasons for existing, supposedly — which so often interact with them for the ultimate purpose of regulating and serving (sic) the public, preventing rioting and other things which might disrupt the flow of goods and services for business profits and further investments.

Having found entities, noticing when they suddenly change their names not long after being outed as to their sources of funding, networking (including favored subcontractors, fund-raiser friends, related entities etc.)

For a few years now, some have also chosen to talk much more about “AFCC” and build a movement as though it hadn’t been operating without major outside support (in official and unofficial networks) for decades now, and the other entities in the network were “just too complicated” to report on and hold the attention of a movement.

If they are, then that’s on us as individuals, being collectively unable or unwilling to look to our own best interests by processing information individually and coming to some decision about it based on points of reference identifiable outside a group identity we like — or our set DISlikes and wants to publicize.  

Most groups tend to line up with at least a few academics as main spokespeople; criticizing the same becomes heretical, no matter how deserving the criticism.  It threatens group solidarity!  It may even dismantle the false hope (I say) so often being sold.

Like, for example, state or federal government databases, or (such as they are), privately owned and operated databases obtaining tax returns (USA) from the IRS (which runs its own database interface, very basic in its search choices). 

I get frustrated and often question my own motives for even wanting to continue to speak out on the accounting illiteracy evident in the pro/con advocating public (and promoted by many advocacy groups).  It feels to me like protesting abuse TO an abuser in-home, or talking about domestic violence in family court contexts, to perceive the lack of resonance in those venues without seeing the likely incentives to continue NOT responding to domestic violence issues IN the family courts (my country, other countries)…

I think what keeps me going is a deeply felt sense that justice and TRUTH in reporting are essential to our safety.  Over-centralization of control while dispersing accountability (I see this in the networks I blog and write about, and have had to deal with in parts for now over two decades of my life… AFTER I separated from an abuser via civil intervention (long) ago). I also think as a parent that the world, at least the parts I’ve touched and have some access too, should be better — not the same or worse — for my having been here.  That goes not just for my own flesh-and-blood (now long since of legal age as adults), but also next-generations.

I also have an awareness that if SOME (that is, MORE) of the basic truths about who established the Family Court Systems in at least two countries I’m aware of, the apparent influence from an Anglo-Atlantic alliance re: USA UK, Canada & Australia & New Zealand, as it happened in the USA, doesn’t get out soon in more durable and comprehensible form, it may be just lost.

If, or when, it is lost, the fictional historical narrative become the norm, driving (as that fictional, story-telling narrative exists to ensure) “family court reforms” to profit those whose founding mothers (and fathers, in the batterers- or batterING-intervention/supervised visitation fields, i.e., permanent business for those in the social engineering (behavioral modification and associated training/coaching, electronic and (some)print media distribution fields, less self-reliance for those actually producing things more essential to human life than sitting through classes on-line or in-person to be catechized in a belief system.

Key to perceiving any network, whether “safety net” as we’re constantly told, or another kind of net, designed to catch and trap prey to feed others’ lusts for control, easier money than can be found elsewhere, a sense of dominance and importance in society, and what I call “retirement supplementation” (for those who actually have some retirement funds left) — is to understanding what is an ENTITY and then looking for them, as we consume information on-line, or notice the advertising, promotion, media, etc.  Entities are constantly buying and selling each other, or being formed dissolved (sued.. filing for bankruptcy sometimes), in short, often in constant motion.

They are also typically restless for more marketing niches, or if those are established, lower taxes and greater profits = greater social influence to keep it up (for subsequent generations of certain family lines — not all people, but certain family lines…), and sources of personal entertainment, sense of purpose and meaning in life (as opposed to the ones already solved when sufficient wealth exists that food, housing, transportation, and education for offspring is no issue).  The newer the marketing niche and sooner one defines it the longer one (and one’s colleagues) MIGHT be able to maintain control of it and sustainability — of that niche.

Which I’ve discussed before on the (my nickname) “Harvard-Bain-Bridgspan” business model.  When it comes to Domestic Violence Advocacy vs. (so-called, versus) “Fathers’ Rights Groups,” they are in that model also.  Establish a niche, expand and solidify, consult and let others provide the front-line services.  Make sure those coming up through the ranks don’t REALLY rock the boat or business model, except to maintain political acceptability or keep pace with the media campaigns, solicitation and public education technology.  Hence the US government has no problem funding media for DV prevention and Fatherhood Promotion.

Blending into this since, it seems, the early 1980s, is the “Family Court Reform” contingent, which early one welcomed in the DV advocates as equal collaborators and with this, guaranteed non-exposure of the groups I have felt it necessary to name, expose and describe on this blog (and a few others, less developed though), and Twitter (not Facebook, really, or Instagram, or YouTube etc.) — for over a decade now.  

Had they honestly evaluated and confronted the DV/Fathers’ Rights organizations as organizations, and caught onto the establishment of university centers geared to control the nation’s court systems and promote problem-solving courts nationwide (non-representative in the extreme), these professionals and their various nonprofits (often quite small -barely there) could’ve and would’ve saved many lives, I am sure.

However, they chose not to.  Not only did they choose not to, they also (and I refer to specific collections of actually VERY small nonprofits and non-entities posing as nonprofits, referring to each other) chose to systematically silence, sometimes even turn on, smart parents (mothers and fathers both but I write as a mother) who did see and wished to talk about the money trails, the federal grants and specific organizations networking alongside AFCC (myself particularly).  [We] also wanted to talk in such gatherings or on-line groups about how certain so-called “feminist” and concerned men, long hovering around and insinuating themselves into these networks (i.e., they liked to be around traumatized single Moms seeking to protect themselves and their childrens who were already ensnared in the family court systems), while properly describing something we, actually, were experts (having experienced it personally, and knowing others likewise) in — that is, being assaulted, battered, gaslighted, and many other things in the course of being married or in “intimate partner relationships,” especially those with children in common — or as time goes on, step-children, step-fathers, step-mothers, etc. 

Such specific feminist men published books, spoke (at length) at conference, wanted to be and were experts testifying in individual custody cases (about domestic violence or child abuse issues), set up websites, and (the two I have in mind) typically made sure to NOT form their own profits, but encouraged certain mothers to promote their work. Others later did establish (minimal) nonprofits which could be cited during a media quote.

Some of these feminist men** seem to have the time and resources to show up anytime legislation favoring their “continue the ignorances about operational infrastructure” legislation is passed soon after a(nother) child-murder on court-ordered visitation exchanges.  Inbetween conferencing with battered women and collaborating with the Family Court Reform Crowd (USA, but they’re internationally minded too), some of these men also conference with fatherhood-sponsored groups, but neglect to tell the mothers this.  Others are AFCC members, and neglect (naturally) to tell the Moms that they are in such contexts.  

(**and their collegial “let’s not talk bad about AFCC or ever reference the impact of restructuring of welfare (USA, 1996), to, ongoing, re-align ALL social and most criminal justice institutions and services, to better engage fathers and promote “responsible fatherhood.”  (Title IV-A and Title IV-D being only some of the dedicated grants streams involved).  

“Let’s not talk about the financial impact of faith-based organization outreach systematically encouraged in the 21st century by U.S. President George W. Bush (an evangelical zealot), by Executive Order — his first two — almost nine months before September 11, 2001.  Let’s not talk about the 2003 (again, Bush Admin) sponsorship and explicit approval of the Family Justice Center Alliance, starting with (as I recall), San Diego, California and (was it?) Indianapolis.)”

POST TITLE (Draft started Oct. 26, 2021):
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft). short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary.