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

FOREWORD (How I ran Across and BRIEF (not thorough) summary of why it matters.):

How I ran across it:

A Sept. 2, 2022 long (at least 25-post) Twitter thread by Aaron Carr (@AaronACarr) talked about Venice, California, with a reply Sept. 2 by David Graham-Caso (@dgrahamcaso) referencing the Los Angeles Times and Villanueva and another reply Sept. 3 by Jason Haas (@hazah) referred to Milwaukee.

Venice (Beach), California has some connections with my family history (and re: making lots of people suddenly homeless in the process of redevelopment). I didn’t hang out in Venice, but that’s why the thread caught my attention at first.

Regarding other geographies (cities across the country) and some years ago on this blog, I have looked at the housing and redevelopment models targeting specific cities, and how models in one place can migrate cross-country to another.  In some of these, I also did “drill-downs” just in the process of satisfying my own questions on what I was looking at.  One case originated out of Atlanta, but made it to Oakland, California (that’s in Northern California), and a civil grand jury had sued those running it.  Youth Outreach (of course) was also involved.  I’m not looking the posts up now, but estimate (my write-ups) were 2018 or earlier.

(Back to the Sept. 2-3, 2022 Twitter thread):

There were several replies but at the time I was just browsing and chose Milwaukee’s example.  Carr’s 25th post (re: Venice, not Milwaukee) read:

While this thread mostly deals with chronic homelessness, the majority of homeless people in America don’t have mental health or drug issues (and keep in mind there’s some overlap between the two) – they just need housing: 25/

Another individual located the entity “HousingFirstInitiativeNY.org” where Carr was (still is presumably) an Executive Director. Revisiting this now (I always revisit my posts right after publishing them), I remember looking into that nonprofit also under “CharitiesNYS” (it’s undergone some name and website changes since, i.e., now HousingFirstUS.org, but it’s legal-domiciled on the East Coast (NY), not in California. I am not writing it up (or the Milwaukee one, which isn’t its own entity) for this post, but I did notice and wonder, how such a small (financially) organization formed only in 2016 expected to take something national.

Haas (for Milwaukee’s version) replied:

Housing First has made a tremendous positive impact here in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It really works! https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/DHHS/Housing/Housing-First

As you can see, that link leads straight to a county website, Dept. of Health and Human Services, but a quote says it was soliciting to donate to the Housing First Endowment ℅ “Keys to Change.”

DONATE NOW

Your contribution to the Housing First Endowment through the Key to Change program helps house the chronically homeless. It also ensures that the people we help won’t suddenly find themselves back outside due to political decisions made hundreds of miles away.

I looked for “Key to Change” and noticed that donations were ℅ Milwaukee Downtown, Inc., which I then looked for.  Solicitation is definitely creative (retracing some of the steps — looks different on different devices) I see that repurposed parking meters in certain areas (where’s a map) can take donations, which may be tried in other cities also. Hence the name “Key to Change” (double-meaning).

(Next images are from bottom of the same page as the map image, but expanded to show detail). For post spacing reasons, I’m showing them above, not below, the map:

2. Same page, bottom, notice it’s © 2022 Key To Change (which doesn’t show entity name)

3. Detail of bottom page shows the parking meter has been transformed into a giant Key, with solicitations (from the public) stating what purpose donations are for, but not (on its front at least) to whom they go. It also mentions “Flux Design” as the designer.

1. Meter Locations on a map of (downtown) Milwaukee; see fine print description to the right.

On the website KeytoChangeMKE.com the fine print doesn’t reveal this; only the Pledge Form does, and even that form, only at the bottom is Payee named.  I notice the pledge form url contains domain name “Shopify.” I’ll post two imore mages for the single page (top and bottom) to magnify the words.

KeyToChange. Pledge Form (TOP) Accessed Sept. 10, 2022 (for post I published today) from Milwaukee County DHHS website on Housing First)

KeyToChange. Pledge Form (BOTTOM, see “Make Check Payable To”; notice “I (we) would like our donation to go toward: with option to check “Housing First Endowment Fund,” i.e., within Milwaukee Downtown, Inc.) Accessed Sept. 10, 2022 (for post I published today) from Milwaukee County DHHS website on Housing First)

[END OF “FOREWORD” section.]

**Yes, some — probably most — governments have components, i.e., run businesses, that charge fees for services; “enterprise” or “proprietary.”  Parts of government comprehensive annual financial reports (or, I learned recently, “general-purpose-fund”) which contain financial statements — and define reporting entities, usually in both the front  matter and in “Note 1” accompanying those financial statements. I used to type up these statements for a living:  basic spreadsheet format made readable; each page had a different type of statement named. There aren’t that many types, and the types should be familiar, not “foreign territory” mentally — even if the numbers are large. But in those situations, the report identifies the relationship of any such business to the “reporting entity” (i.e., that government).

My point here is, know what is, and is not government, and understand what types of revenues + expenses, assets + liabilities exist, in both sectors (gov’t and private). I was Tweeting about this the other day (incidentally, my comments here are Sept. 2022, not Jan. 2020):

Different rules and exemptions apply to each sector, and the sectors constantly interact with each other, and have similarities also.

Crooks and honest people exist and operate, obviously, within both sectors, and can operate within and across national boundaries.  The crooks, generally, are going to prefer the company of crooks for closest confidents, but need honest people for cover / appearance of legitimacy; OR they can also deal with compromised people where enough honest ones can’t be either fooled or compromised. Or, the basic pattern of extortion (fear and intimidation) in direct dealings combined with keeping potential sources of support either dissociative, uncommitted, or unaware of the level of outrageous behaviors involved.

What continues to distress me is the level of willing volunteers for being mass socially engineered about some of the most basic elements of our economy, and our forms of government: the nature and character of the interactions between the public and private sectors.

Is it really just too burdensome or troublesome to apply even the most basic “truth filters” to leading organizations and people:  Do they give account of their own operations?  Do their quoted/favorite, BFF colleagues?  When they have the public platform, do they even tell the truth? When caught withholding important information in their “tell-all” “Shine-the-light:” proclamations (either as quoted by others on news media, or as on their own (as it applies) websites, was this withholding done in innocent ignorance, or with intent to deceive (typically for reasons involving profit)?

IF we are all on the same page when the words “we, us, our” are constantly put forward, then why are some on a more equal page than others as to deserving to know what private entities  (and associated interests) seek and collaborate to drive public institutions (like the family courts, child support systems, welfare systems child protective systems, jails and prisons, tax systems, educational systems, housing development, healthcare, daycare and “early childhood education” systems?

WHEN filtering for truth, commonsense or validity from the news / social media as you run across, or are sent, information and press releases, typically there’s a story hook (compelling story line: problem, tragedy, outrage, fear, protest, starting at the individual level: a person, a family, a child facing daunting odds and challenging circumstances).

Then it’ll flip to summary information and soon enough, someone is quoted as an expert or concerned (grassroots, typically implied or said) organization addressing the problem.

There will be a person’s name (possibly with associated profession or academic/government etc. position of influence), and, almost as an afterthought in that exhale, some name of an important- or legitimate-sounding organization. That’s one place to start in checking the story line and source, although tracking them across time and space can develop whiplash.

When the same (organization or seeming entity) names continue coming up across a country as wide geographically as the USA (and with its 50 states, territories and possessions), know that any such name whether a government entity OR a business entity has a single legal domicile — JUST ONE.  As such, it doesn’t represent all jurisdictions. Anywhere else that particular organization is qualified to do business, when registered, it’s considered a “foreign ______” (<~~fill in the type of business: stock, nonprofit, etc. While this can and sometimes is changed, it has to register as either nonprofit or for-profit when it must register.  It must choose a TYPE of business).

Blogger note:  I started this post (and it’s remained in draft until any “published” date you see on its title) January, 2020.  By January-February, 2022, I had cause to again publicize that in the USA, there is no legal filing (for a private entity) called “national” and as such, almost ALL the entities (or non-entity centers within universities) are basically lying.  They are indicating intent and purpose, but not reflecting reality — and it seems the one’s I keep running across — continue to hope no one INside or OUTside the USA notices, or gives a damn how dishonest the practice is.

Here are two posts I wrote (and did publish) to address this.  I’m sure one or both contains references to prior times I also addressed the issue:

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

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

Before “what type of entity” one is dealing with comes the question of IS it an entity or not?

ALSO, IF an entity:

Public vs. Private | Tax vs. Tax-exempt |

NB:  government entities are by definition tax-exempt, that is, on the filing entity’s profits, though not often called that.  As employers they can of course contribute other forms of taxation or withholding for their employees, but that’s not the same as corporate taxes or business taxes on the overall income.  This is a big deal not often considered.  But, for now, among the PRIVATE entities, some are nonprofit, some are not.

Of websites or quoted expert affiliations that tend to show up in news media on a current social problem getting more press, often along with proposed legislative changes:  Is it an Entity or Non-Entity?

Legitimate vs. illegitimate ways of operating as a “non-entity” — with a fiscal agent, having (somewhere:  “Happy Hunting” if the individual doesn’t feel like disclosing!) a legitimate (and unexpired) “dba” (Doing Business As) filing.

Of tax-exempt entities (once identified): Filing as public charity (USA Forms 990), or private foundation (Form 990PF)?  Different information provided (or not) by each, while often both kinds collaborate on similar or identical projects.

Of tax-exempt entities (once identified), some don’t have to file.  Are you considering churches and religious entities yet?  You should be! (Go visit the IRS for more information). Not all tax-exempts have to even produce public tax returns, which is an advantage to the entity and to those contributing to them, at least as to privacy issues.

Profits on both sides of the argument seem to devolve to:  advertising, consulting, and media companies; interconnected networks of tax-exempt organizations across the US named after each separate cause — then gradually blended together to “conserve resources” and “collaborate” across the previously set, so-called “silos” in favor of a more “holistic” approach to social problems.   It takes a special mindset to continue ignoring that.

And motivation, i.e., rewards, incentives, salaries, to continue speaking to the public as though understanding “entities” was irrelevant to social causes or social justice.

Pivotal events and legislation in the 1970s (no-fault divorce), 1980s USA public/private-funded media campaigns against wife abuse and domestic violence and simultaneous, and similarly organized — that is, through politically aggressive/active nonprofits, some of whose members are or revolve in and out of public office to promote the campaigns — USA public /private funded media campaigns promoting and pushing for more “family values while stigmatizing single motherhood (while grudgingly admitting some of that situation stems from unwillingness of some women to remain in abusive  and potentially lethal co-habiting / ongoing relationships [or even marriages] with the fathers of their mutual children) and follow-up events in the 1990s as the programs gradually became embedded under specialty commissions or agencies/entities within federal, then (echoing this) state governments, as well as certain local county courts in various states.

You can find lists of these at times within a federal agency website, not always on the same web page, but under program descriptions, which clouds the realization that they are indeed organized as named after the social problem cause, whether “fatherlessness” “lack of marriage or unhealthy marriages” “child abuse” (or “child welfare, the counter-action to child abuse”) “domestic violence” or “family violence prevention,” “poverty” “inequity,” etc.

[Over the years, on many posts…] I’ve listed ones that deal with marriage, reproductive [“breeding”] habits, then a whole other demographically-defined set of issues comes with ethnic/racial categories of so-called problem-solving: income disparities, disproportionate incarceration, unequal health outcomes, disparities in educational achievements and access to housing and healthcare… If I were to condense the two most entrenched and typically addressed the handiest words would be racism and sexism.  Add immigration/citizenship status and religious prejudices, how much public/private activity might this address?

Meanwhile, generations of the public (consumers, most people) are socially engineered to acknowledge the problem by TYPE (cause).  The systems are engineered to address each cause, or combined causes, by throwing more money and sponsored professionals’ time at the problem.

All of this fails to encourage and support mass public comprehension of basic operating systems as ebb and flow, transfer and control of finances, and resources within the tax and tax-exempt systems…  and I haven’t even mentioned “currency” and the Federal Reserve supply and demand factor yet, at least on this  post.

In addition to the networks of tax-exempts organized by cause (with shared rhetoric and downloadable resources, and some, with oft-changing entity names and formats), there are — separately — OTHER networks of tax-exempt entities less visible to the average person except as occasionally quoted in some news article.

Those networks seem systematically organized  and named around government entity function:  whether governors, lieutenant governors [2nd in command, state-level], district attorneys [typically refers to the county level of government in the US system, as acknowledged in the person’s title:  such and such county district attorney. ] , FAMILY and JUVENILE COURT JUDGES, City Attorneys, City Managers, State Directors of Mental Health Programs, etc. I’ve been posting about it for years now.

Across this blog I have often named and explored them, on social media (only Twitter for me) I often refer to them, and for a long time had several acronyms pinned to my profile.  Periodically in re-posting, I’ll cite the former posts (with drill-downs at least as of the date published, which — where EIN#s are provided — could then be updated by new searches on the same databases — but these databases over time change in quality ,currency, and in how much information is provided relative to how much digging (how many different searches, how many layers down on those websites are the basic facts buried; are they provided in any format that could be quickly communicated to other people — generally, my exposure says, less and less so.

If you want a clue to “shadow government” (so to speak) this type of tax-exempt organization, often with the word “National” “International ” (as in “ICMA”, searchable on this blog) or sometimes “American” would seem to be one good example of it — the private associations “shadow” (in the background) existing governments and are named after them, it would seem with an intent that most people won’t notice the difference, although one is public and the other private, and although both are interacting financially, year after year, with varying degrees of accountability as to filing their financial and corporate (as required in varying frequency depending on the state of legal domicile) — some are annually, but not all are.

Conclusion  To Post Added Two-And-Three Quarter Years Later.

SUMMARY, I guess:

Gradually, over time, this increasingly nationalizes (federalizes and privatizes) the country, making LOCAL representative government less relevant to most people living in those locales.

I understand that people have mobility — they travel, they can have job transfers, they move from one state (or within a state) to another, or one country to another — but not all do.  Some own homes, live moderately (can’t afford the travel, whether it’s because of time off work, or just because of the expense, while bills at home don’t stop).

Others, single parents, or at least separated from the other biological parent of their children if re-married or rep-partnered, are prevented from traveling and moving far away IF they expect to see retain custody of (continue raising) their children again, by family court orders.

Do we NOT deserve to have at least our elected representatives maintain transparency about how many national PRIVATE organizations drive their polices locally? Shouldn’t our elected representatives point people to the financial pages of their state (and county, etc.) governments and promote distribution of and direct viewers towards those audited financial statements (“CAFRs” or “CFRs”)?  Shouldn’t WE be talking about these — and, where applicable, tax returns (present, absent, current or not, filled out properly or not, and corresponding to the public claims about any organization’s scope and influence?  Those two forms of accountability are only SOME of the basic forms (but two major ones, and with specific parts to refer to each other:

An IRS Form 990 Part XI (currently) refers to differences with the (same year’s) audited financial statements; An IRS Form 990 Part VI-C is about “Disclosure (Yes/No questions to be answered on “Schedule O”). Private Foundations  that file Form 990PF (because they’re private) are supposed to display in what specific securities they are invested; public ones (Forms 990) have to show amounts, but not exact investments — only types of investments.

I have been mentioning this recently ( a bit more) on Twitter (@LetUsGetHonest), there are some long threads.  Twitter flags most of my content (anything retweeting another’s work, or with images), especially but not only if sent from my phone, with a “Warning: May contain Sensitive Content.”

Recently I simply tweeted a New York Times article announcing the death of Queen Elizabeth. It was flagged by Twitter; the one right below me, by another (I believe but am not 100% sure) mother who’d gone through the family courts (earlier than me) and says she has a book coming, also tweeted an article from another source — same topic, a major world event, right? — and it was not flagged.

So my motivation to connect WordPress to Twitter threads may not be what it used to be, or could be.  One is much easier to compose, but probably less effective (Twitter) and in my case — who knows how many others — probably being artificially or “algorithmically” suppressed.  (I’m not buying sponsorship).  The other, this blog, I am having a hard time putting out posts fast enough.  It’s not only the content, it’s that the media has to also be incorporated (uploaded, captioned, captions formatted, sometimes an image annotated, and all that), and it’s hard to get a sense of the whole effectively while composing direct onto the blog, so publishing is delayed, sometimes for months, other times, if it falls below priority-level, years.

Meanwhile, I continue to research and tune into developments in these fields, which also takes time.

“P.S.” A note on the tags here:  I chose from among existing tags which contained these words:  “RICO,” “CAFR” “entity” and “non-entity.”  This post doesn’t handle all the topics tagged, but in clicking on them, you can click through to others which do.  Some posts so tagged may be longer or more complicated than this one, or I wouldn’t have tagged them with such detailed names. Other tag names, as you can see, just state principles.  Tags are by definition, gateways to more, related information on the same publication or platform. You can see by the level of specifics, they won’t all be addressed in this (or even one) post.