Formats follow what’s seen in the first listing below — Dates are in dark red, followed by post titles (with links to them) highlit in bright yellow (Click any title to access it.  Titles are obviously in bold font and highlight bright yellow..), for each post followed by one or more opening or summary texts (copied & pasted, not re-written, these are not formal “abstracts”) in light-pink backgrounds inside bright blue lines.  Some of the opening text sections contain images and subsections to give a flavor of each post.   Surrounding texts aren’t formal abstracts,** but summarize content, and usually from the very top of a post.  **Despite this for lack of a shorter more precise phrase I may call my surrounding-text/post summaries “abstracts” (with or without quotes).  Like this (pro forma (boilerplate) version):

DECEMBER ??, 2017: [[very long and possibly sarcastic post title with Publ. date]]. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-abc,” about —– words long)

[[**and helps me avoid accidental re-writes, when connecting the parts to the whole…I will remember topics but may forget exactly how deep I drilled into them in the past, while focused primarily on the present themes.]]

WITHOUT the abstracts, here’s that list:

DECEMBER 3, 2017: NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control/Gun Violence Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!! .[Short-link ending “-7Um” started Nov. 4, 2017, publ. Dec. 3] about 7,000 words long)

DECEMBER 14, 2017: The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation (Divide and Conquer Tactics, Keeping (most) Women In Their (subdominant) Assigned Places while Placating, if possible, while and continuing to exploit men of color, prisoners, and the public in high-stakes, profitable, and rigged conflicts. (Short-link ends “-8aH”; about 16,700 words long [and worth every bit of it!])

DECEMBER 15, 2017: The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017)). (Short-link ends “-87w”; about 6,800 words long)

DECEMBER 17, 2017: If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages?. (short-link ends “-8a8” written and moved here Dec. 11, 2017) [Published 12/17/2017], about 6,700 words long, or with Footnote on BWJP/Wellstone/ early set-up of supervised visitation programming as intertwined with DV prevention, over 11,000 wds)

DECEMBER 21, 2017: Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-8cC,” about 17,000 words long)

DECEMBER 23, 2017: Incentivizing Reunification Camps While Existing (Family) Policy Already Sets The Stage for FAMILIAL Abductions. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-8fE,” about —– words long)

DECEMBER 24, 2017: Parent Coordination Central (.com) isn’t. Unless Coordinating a Sequence of Adm. Dissolutions was part of the plan? Neither “is” (as a Georgia nonprofit) either The Cooperative Parenting Institute, Inc. or Nat’l Parent Coordination Association, Inc. (Susan Boyan, Anne Marie Termini joint websites and “flash-in-the-pan” Georgia nonprofits, revisited, Dec. 2017). (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-8gr”; only about 6,000 words long!)

“Abstracting.”

About to publish, I added this section to clarify that why what I’ve shown from below aren’t formal abstracts, although the surrounding texts ARE drawn from (basic root meaning of ‘abstracted’) the posts.  And, for general interest.

Abstracting is a profession (qualified people are paid for it; it’s a line of work) with guidelines, and an essential to academic and other publishing.  In general, it exists to help authors advertise their work and publishers’ organize it; abstracting helps indexing and on-line searches within or across publications.  Look for any professional journal published on-line and you will typically see abstracts, viewable for free (and the rest of the article, not!).  Here, however, my “TOC Informal Update” listing of post titles with some of their surrounding texts only intends to provide an overview of a month’s publishing, a recent flavor of my blog, and for me as the author to better quantify and retain more accessible summaries of topics I covered month by month, and, this time, by quarter.

**From UNC (University of North Carolina) The Writing Center on abstracts:

• “An abstract is a self-contained, short, and powerful statement that describes a larger work” (my “larger works” here are blog posts — at most a single post might be a chapter (or some, two) in a book; they’re not that large — and these abstracts aren’t that short!), and
• “…An abstract is not a review, nor does it evaluate the work being abstracted. While it contains key words found in the larger work, the abstract is an original document rather than an excerpted passage.”  (My “abstracts” are not original works; they are mostly excerpts from the introduction of a post which usually summarizes or introduces it).
• (“Why write an abstract“:) “You may write an abstract for various reasons. The two most important are selection and indexing …[it] allow[s] readers … to quickly decide whether it is worth their time to read it. Also, many online databases use abstracts to index larger works. Therefore, abstracts should contain keywords and phrases that allow for easy searching.

In abstracting your own work, this same guide recommends Cut and Paste, but only as a first step, for a rough draft.

To create a first draft of an abstract of your own work, you can read through the entire paper and cut and paste sentences that capture key passages. This technique is useful for social science research with findings that cannot be encapsulated by neat numbers or concrete results. A well-written humanities draft will have a clear and direct thesis statement and informative topic sentences for paragraphs or sections. Isolate these sentences in a separate document and work on revising them into a unified paragraph.

Note, above:  “social science research with findings that cannot be encapsulated by neat numbers of concrete results.”

Exactly.. a major characteristic of social science is that it cannot and does not produce quantifiable proofs connecting effects to cause, i.e., “concrete results” … One of many reasons I don’t think social science should be, as it just about has become, the guiding paradigm for the United States of America’s (or any of the fifty states’ and territories) justification for its use of public funding or setting economic policy, a point I make repeatedly in this blog over the years.  (For example: as in my 3/6/2016 post “Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap of Batterers Intervention Programs…” which identifies, analyzes with detailed quotes, popular BIP programs, and as I recall also connects them to federal funding streams through HHS, i.e., the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

(Full Title: Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues) (Published March 6, 2016 —almost exactly two years ago– about 12,700 words).  Four images from it, including its list of “tags” showing some researcher or institute names involved.  3rd image references another similar post:

In other words, actions can be described, and social circumstances can be described, but claims of proof that actions abc causes concrete, quantifiable results qrs upon demographics (populations) xyz  and THEREFORE, after initial pilot tests, should be mass-produced, replicated, and public-supported indefinitely as “evidence-based” — is stretching reality.  What I call “Social Science R&D” shouldn’t be occurring when part of the ongoing cause (for example, of prevalence of “low-income families” available for study and testing upon) is the already-imbedded infrastructure supporting the research.

For example, below, in my December 14, 2017 post (partial title only here!)”The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ I reported on the Harvard “IQSS” and medical/drug-testing terminologies having officially migrated to (or infected!) social science usage:  Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” Terms such as “randomized controlled trials” (RCTs) and/or “randomized controlled evaluations” which then become selling points of further services. Only it’s in the matter of human behavioral modification tactics!  From that post (and abstracted below in its summary) I wrote then, and still ask:

For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?

Whether or not this process is scientific, the language is in use, is sponsored, and is “state of the art” according to those promoting it.  This is no time to go “dissociative” on organizations, institutions, and public resources within a country (or state which is part of a country such as the USA) which are operating under private control, tax-exempt and controlling (in the case of Harvard) significant institutional assets / endowments — while at least in this country, and other ‘developed’ countries most of the people, workers, employees, etc. are highly taxed as a basic condition of their continued existence, that is, legally.

One of the largest behavioral modifiers around, ongoing since 1913 (current version USA) is the personal income tax.  Ongoing wealth – including wealth to pay certain kinds of professionals to run the various foundations — is drawn TO the tax-exempt sector and naturally avoids (flows away from) places it will be unduly taxed.  I provide MANY examples in this blog of billion-dollar and multi-million-dollar-assets foundations, and how “airtight” or “leaky” are their self-reports assets and activities. I’m no CPA (“certified public accountant”), but it doesn’t require CPA status to notice where accountability gaps to the public exist, and where quantifying nonprofit activity from our perspective (ethical and accurate, not to mention timely filing, of reports on their own activities) is virtually and perhaps humanly impossible.

My blogging therefore is going to have a different focus and at times vocabulary than other “public interest” advocacy which takes for granted the current set-up**, but seeks to modify operations within it gradually over time based on current value assumptions about “philanthropy” and its overall altruistic (generous) character — without reference to the downsides, and where it might in fact better be characterized as maintaining corporate, private control of as many assets as possible, while wielding influence on government practice aligned with maintaining that control — perpetually.  (**”Current setup” I mean here, that taxes on most are required for [government operations and maintenance for] public benefit; tax-exemption for some kinds of corporations or associations = public benefit is present, just needs to be more efficiently focused and organized.

Tax exemption (with all its IRC (internal revenue code)-specified varieties as posted on IRS websites) is so very broadly defined in who  or what can initially qualify for and thereafter maintain qualification for tax-exempt status and from what I can see is virtually unlimited in how many qualifications (basically, incorporations) are permissible collectively, or even individually, that is, per-person or per controlling organization.

For example, next images from a recent overview I took of The Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta, Inc., which by maintaining a controlling relationship to several other tax-exempt entities (and dealings with them) has become involved in the East Lake community transformation projects (from the 1990s), associated with a model intended to be taken nationwide (2008ff, “Purpose Built Communities“) and with some progress in doing so.

The images shows, from a foundation formed in 1951 and currently reporting nearly ¾ billion (i.e., over $700M) in total gross assets, its related tax-exempt corporations, most of them marked “supporting” (5 images in slideshow format).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Guidelines for Writing Abstracts, cont’d.: Another reference  — from Norway:

The third highest Google search result on “abstracts, professional guidelines for” came from this unusual source (GRS icon with caption).  University of Bergen (“UiB”) organization chart of faculty shows clear division between “Math and Natural Sciences” from “Social Science” and “Psychology” (larger image with labeled organizational chart).

Univ. of Bergen, Norway, self-explanatory. NB: Social Sciences and Psychology  are NOT under “Math and Natural Sciences.” So how does the word “science” attach to “social”?  The debate also on whether or not psychology is a “science” continues, although most psychologists in usage and terminology seem to be heavily invested (i.e., “have a vested interest”) in claiming it is through (over) of terms such as “clinical” “forensic,” etc. 

Other images are supplementary, interesting choices on the book recommendations on the GRS Abstract Guidelines page, one from a US public university, the other from Scottish biomedical professor. FYI:  EdvardGrieg museum ; Britannica.com.  Edvard Grieg (family name formerly “Greig” – Scottish) “was to Norway what George Washington was to America or William Shakespeare to England.”… Norway’s most famous composer and pianist; mentioned here because the GRS I’m quoting is named after him. His father was British consul at Bergen, his (well-placed family) Norwegian mother taught him piano from age six to fifteen, after which he got into Leipzig Conservatory; eventually developed nationalist (based on folk songs) style of music, married his cousin, toured, etc.

Representing four universities in Norway(?). See its interesting history:   “…was established in December 2010, and it’s a result of the cooperation between the institutions in the network MusicNet West.”…”The University Colleges of Western Norway and the University of Bergen have formed an institution network called UH Net West. Activities in the field of music are defined as one of four areas of commitment in UH Net West for the period 2009-2012. This has vitalised the cooperation within the network MusicNet West. The network consists of the University of Bergen, Bergen University College, Volda University College, Sogn & Fjordane University College, Norwegian Teacher Academy, Stord/Haugesund University College and the University of Stavanger.

GRS Abstract Guidelines — for grad students wishing to present. “abstract writing varies between academic disciplines, genres, and writing styles.” Also notice the two recommended readings to right (2009, UMichigan; 2011, SA Press/Allan Gaw). 

Abstract Formats #1,2,3 outlined (from GRS Guidelines for Writing Abstracts)

Example of abstract for purpose of selling a 48-page book Born in Scandal, viewable on Kindle, at AllanGaw.com. Does Allan Gaw own “SA Press,” an independent publisher in Scotland with a moderately inactive Twitter Account associated with Gaw?

Professor Gaw’s website and (it’s long!) part of his biography w/ timeline up to 2006. Notice the post-doctorate time sponsored by BHF (British Heart Foundation) with two Nobel laureates in Texas. Interesting book reference choice for “GRS,” a Norwegian interdisciplinary research school in music as part of “UH Net West”.. but he’s also a freelance writer with a concern for professional communications in his field (biochemical/clinical trials, etc.).

DECEMBER ??, 2017: [[very long and possibly sarcastic post title with Publ. date]]. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-abc,” about —– words long)

[[**and helps me avoid accidental re-writes, when connecting the parts to the whole…I will remember topics but may forget exactly how deep I drilled into them in the past, while focused primarily on the present themes.]]

Note: the “surrounding text” sections will have some copyediting and may not be 100% verbatim from the post, though in general they are mostly copied from it. A few times I’ve added more than one section of quotes or images.

Also, if I add a comment or more screenprints (of its text or anything else, such as table of tax returns posted therein) from the post between actual post content (as shown in the pink section with blue borders), I’ll say so each time. I did this in Oct. & Nov. 2017; this time I’m alerting you to the possible practice. For example, I’m adding an image of both tags (post labels) and of some tax returns for the December 3 entry below.

~ ~ | | THIS BEGINS THE SEVEN POSTS & THEIR OPENING TEXTs || ~ ~

DECEMBER 3, 2017: [NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control/Gun Violence Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!! .[Short-link ending “-7Um” started Nov. 4, 2017, publ. Dec. 3] about 7,000 words long)

This post is more about what’s not on the record regarding an organization behind the website “NRA On The Record” and ones with similar backing, networking, and interlocked purposes than about the NRA. It’s an outsider’s look into the network of the gun control lobby — and lobby it is; a recent Super PAC was discovered in the mix…  Labelled “Giffords PAC” (OpenSecrets.org, courtesy Center for Responsive Politics) as of the 2018 cycle but “Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC for 2016 and previous 2014 cycles. Statement of Organization with the FEC was only in 2013.  “NOTE: This committee is a so-called Carey committee, a hybrid PAC/super PAC.”

• Carey Committee: A Carey committee is a hybrid political action committee that is not affiliated with a candidate and has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate’s committee, and as a super PAC, which makes independent expenditures. To do so, Carey committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee can collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions. See also: Super PAC, Independent Expenditures,  Political Action Committee

---

Giffords (or ARS) PAC in FY2016 registrant, Texas lawyer John Steven Mostyn, #16 of top 20 fund-raisers for Hillary Clintons SuperPAC in 2016. Click HERE access website or just the image to enlarge it..

This PAC was registered under John Steven Mostyn, whose name is on many of the tax return images shown below. I see that in 2016 he, with his wife, are listed at #16 of (Forbes’) Top 20 contributors to Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC.  I am shocked to learn that in November, 2017, while this post was still in “pending status,” and before I knew much about Mr. Mostyn, he was reported as having committed suicide, by gunshot wound to the head. ”

Steve Mostyn, Texas Democratic Fund-Raiser, Dies at 46″ 11/18/2017 by David Montgomery in NYT (Obituaries).

---

AUSTIN, Tex. — Steve Mostyn, a Texas trial lawyer and one of the nation’s leading Democratic donors, who spent a fortune in a long effort to turn his reliably red home state blue, died on Wednesday at his home in Houston. He was 46.

The Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences ruled the death a suicide resulting from a gunshot wound to the head. His wife and fellow lawyer, Amber Mostyn, said his death had come after a “sudden onset and battle with a mental health issue.”

The death jolted Texas politicians in both parties and left Democrats grieving the loss of a friend and wealthy patron who had been at the center of the party’s struggle to wrest power from Republicans. Texas Democrats have not won a statewide political office since 1994.

Because gun control is still (March 2018) such a hot topic, and because this one was indeed complex, I’m posting the tags and a few images showing just how many (or at least most — at that time) EIN#s can be squeezed out of a single name, such as “Americans for Responsible Solutions” in another light-pink section here

FCM-NRA Not on the Record (Tags from my Dec 3 2017 post)

FCM-NRA Not on the Record (a Forms 990 Table (ARS) from my Dec 3 2017 post)

~ ~ ~ [quoting a major section direct from the Dec. 3 post here. Click any image to enlarge//LGH March 2018] ~ ~ ~

NRA on the Record website (about) with callouts, and calling attent’n to the footer reference to CSGV. Language references the GOP and Republicans, and the Conservative Movement party as (involved with) this “odious” and “rogues gallery” organization throughout just a few paragraphs, but avoids mentioning the word “Democrat” or “progressive” anywhere. Instead, it’s them Republican Conservatives and haters against… (see last sentence) …

First, I’d noticed the “NRA ON THE RECORD” website when looking up an individual it had commented on, as regards another nonprofit.  This led to my look at “CSGV” (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence — which is a 501©4) which took credit for the website of NRA quotes and public stands of various people on the issues.

The related entity (not acknowledged or even identified on the NRA on the Record website) was started, say its returns, back in 1978) and is a 501©3 EFSGV — Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence.  Both are based in DC. They are backed, it turns out, by the Joyce Foundation among others which doesn’t seem to be acknowledged on either entity’s website but is on the Joyce Foundation’s.

Also originally I had looked mostly at a California-based nonprofit, “LCAV” (Legal Community Against Violence) which acquired a dba later, “Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence” and now self-described (and per what looks like its website) the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.)

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/about/history/

(Footer to Giffords Law Center and Giffords PAC website)

Although information is released, in narrative form from this center and how it connects to the LCAV does show on the website, the description of that connection, in combination with references also to an “Americans for Responsible Solutions” (“ARS” for short, and it is focused on gun control and reducing gun violence) which was backed by Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot and seriously injured while speaking in public (starting back in 2013), …

….and the truth (regarding “ARS”) is more complex if not perplexing, than as narrated, in that there have been, so far, at least FOUR identified “ARS” nonprofits, including the first one which only lasted just over a year before closing down and pouring its assets into another — plus a fourth one identified on some of (their) tax returns only by a name and EIN#, but no return found yet. I go over some of this on the bottom of this post (it takes a while!).  Further complicating this, on the California Charitable Registry website, the California group’s documents haven’t been uploaded before 2008 (leaving at least a decade of “mystery”) and, although I write in December 2017 now, no FY2016 tax returns (by the Calif. group) are showing, nor are its founding documents or any audited financial statements.

BalletoPedia on Americans for Responsible Solutions_PAC explains that the 4th “ARS” group I just referenced is the “Super PAC.” However, the ARS groups are listed in D.C., while when one clicks on a link labeled “ARS” in this (July 2017 version) Balletopedia web page, it clicks through to the “Giffords Images” above, which website shows the Annual reports, not of ANYthing “ARS” but instead of the California “LCAV” and its annual reports (but not one IRS return).

Looking for some website which actually reads “AmericansForResponsibleSolutions” (whether PAC, SuperPAC, or the 501©3 foundation).  I found none.  I did find a 2016 article in an Arizona Newspaper describing how the Giffords organization (sic) with its notoriety would be merging with the LCAV (California group) with its legal expertise.  I get it.  I just think they should (ALL) file tax returns on time so the public can keep up with the pace of reorganization while pushing for particular agenda:

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions merges with California group

Bill Theobald, Republic Washington Bureau Publ. 3:01 a.m. MT March 16, 2016 | Updated 2:26 p.m…  [in “AZCentral.com, part of the USA Today Group]

---

…The merger, announced Wednesday, brings together the notoriety of Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions in Washington with the legal acumen of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

For now, the two groups will retain separate names and separate offices.

“We are thrilled to be joining forces with our longtime partners at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,” Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, said in a statement. “By coming together we can do more to take on the gun lobby, deliver even more victories for common sense, and save lives.”

…The Law Center will now operate as part of the Americans for Responsible Solutions Foundation. No change in leadership or staffing is planned at either group.

(By “longtime,” is before the 2011 shooting and 2013 “ARS” formations meant, or not?)

This is a “BalletoPedia summary of ARS_PAC and what occasioned it.” For active links, click here; to just enlarge and read, click the image. Please also read the description of “Super_PACs” and the different rules (from regular) PACs which govern them. 

[Paragraph written earlier than this intro:] I just found through its negative personification of a man who had served Cincinnati, OH as Mayor, and been an Ohio Treasurer AND Secretary of State, who is now associated with a dramatically known conservative organization — the Family Research Council.

The website was “NRA on the Record” and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence took credit for it, stating, falsely, “we are unaffiliated with the NRA or any other organization” on the footer, and leaving no connection to their own website while “shining the light on the NRA.”

The nonprofit with Ken Blackwell, the man profiled on the “NRA on the Record Website” was related to governance — “Center for State and Local Government Excellence” in D.C., which only formed in 2008, and is closely associated with a related entity of ICMA.org, one of the “Big Seven” associations.  ICMA’s related tax-exempt entity ICMA-RC (for “Retirement Corporation”) (as opposed to its several “disregarded entities”) was formed in the 1970s to manage public sector retirement plans, i.e., pensions,  of — what else? — as the name implies,  city and county managers.  And is said to have around $50 billion assets under management.

I have been blogging this, and it (NRA on the Record and their profile of that individual in the CSLGE context, as I recall), will show up as a major section on my post “Before WHO’s HiAP …Agenda 21…ICLEI – Local governments for Sustainability, USA.” (“Inc.). (publ. Nov. 5).

DECEMBER 14, 2017: The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation (Divide and Conquer Tactics, Keeping (most) Women In Their (subdominant) Assigned Places while Placating, if possible, while and continuing to exploit men of color, prisoners, and the public in high-stakes, profitable, and rigged conflicts. (Short-link ends “-8aH”; about 16,700 words long [and worth every bit of it!])

What would you call this post?  After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me.  Until then, in full, it’s:

The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation (Divide and Conquer Tactics, …high-stakes, profitable, and rigged conflicts[[SEE TITLE JUST ABOVE//LGH 3/12/2018]]. (…shortlink ends “-8aH” …moved here Dec. 13, 2017, but written a day or two earlier).  About 7,000 words as first split from the parent post.

But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, … making for a subtitle:

….”(Divide and Conquer Tactics, Keeping (most) Women In Their (subdominant) Assigned Places while Placating, if possible, while and continuing to exploit men of color, prisoners, and the public in high-stakes, profitable, and rigged conflicts” …

This material was formerly (but before publication there) labeled and in place as the Preface and “Pre-Preface” (I already had a “Foreword” and was starting to run out of meaningful section names) to:

The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”** + preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts. Both … had been weeks “in the pipeline”…  Shortlink to this one ends “-87w”).  [[for what those “** / ***’s” refer to, see “The Money Maze / Giffords PAC” post referenced here.]]

This post as first published (including an extended footnote) is 16,000 words.  Where it started may be seen by what looks approximately like this (next image) and is about halfway down the post. Feedback welcome — use the comments field.  Keep it relevant, please; I won’t publish ads disguised as comments.

(Screenshot from my post of similar name, to be published Dec. 14, 2017. The image to left is from another blog I started in 2013 around the theme of the [poor, unreliable and dysfunctional, though still informative] condition of the TAGSS.HHS.Gov database)

I am attempting to post AS I continue to learn topics, rather than hoarding the information for publication in some professional journal for colleagues only (not that I’d probably qualify for one) on the principle that those of us NOT likely to be subscribing to the same need some way to understand and discuss** what those who DO have been doing, while we were struggling to deal with the impact of social policy over the generations and the existing caste systems based on in what economic sector, over time, we and our parents and grandparents (as it applies) have been functioning. **This entails speaking in language not limited to the prescribed ‘jargon’ in fashion for assigning positive values to sometimes dubious operations and activities.

---

For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?

---

Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”).  See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)

Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming … and that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which nonprofit within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.

---

As you may deduce from that last post title above (“The Money Maze…,” pale-yellow background, blue borders), there’s another post on the Robin Hood Foundation (or “RHF”) in the pipeline which getting out “The Money Maze” I hope will expedite.  That post, “The Money Maze…” refused (so to speak) to be expedited as planned when I became also mentally absorbed with the topics below, in part because of the major media coverage of the national budget, tax reform, etc., with next to no consideration for the state of the tax-exempt sector, or naming major players in it affecting the economy, admitting that they can indeed and do outsource assets also.

Re-patriation of corporations makes the news, but as I discovered by looking, The Ford Foundation (a fraction I’m sure of Ford Motor Company itself) is (@ FY2015) holding $10.6 BILLION of its Total (Gross) Assets of $12.2 BILLION labeled “Investments – Other” and where the tax return (here, a Form 990PF) instructs filers to name those investment funds, giving three examples, Ford decided instead to produce a series of numbers. Were these held inside or outside the USA?

ICIJ regarding street address and PO Box in the Cayman Islands assoc. with a $28M transfer (Capital distribution) from an off-shore partnership by Ford Fndtn (per a recent return). No direct connection has been made from that partnership to the entities in the diagram that I know of, but it does show the potential. See ICIJ disclaimer (on nearby image or its website)

ICIJ disclaimer that merely being offshore doesn’t mean “illegal.”(International Consortium for Investigative Journalists)

We don’t know, however, I did note that $28M was transferred from a Cayman Islands-based partnership (not found by a basic name search), and that the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), (see “U.S. Under Pressure as World Presses for Financial Transparency” (May 2016) and an internal link to a similar discussion in the Guardian) in part through leaks to them, has been publishing about some of the purposes to which off-shore trusts are being put (although simply having them is NOT per se illegal).  Image from the Ford Foundation tax return showing a partnership address matching the PO Box shown in the diagram above, Grand Cayman… is in the body of the post. As tracked to the mailbox address shown, ICIJ has shown connections to that specific address, presumably a registering agent for multiple entities outside the Cayman Islands.

Next section includes some images from the December 14 post, including one of its many labels (tags):

(Tags from my Dec 14 2017 post Racist Sexist Legacy of Moynihan)

Showing Ford Fndtn vs others (size), [from my Dec 14 2017 post, Racist/Sexist Legacy of Moynihan] (#2 of 2, magnification of same w/ less surrounding text)

Showing Ford Fndtn vs others (size), [from my Dec 14 2017 post, Racist/Sexist Legacy of Moynihan] (#1 of 2)

DECEMBER 15, 2017: The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017)). (Short-link ends “-87w”; about 6,800 words long)

Some of this post is explaining its relationship to other nearby ones.  I chose just to quote a few section with new material. It also references again New York City’s (location) Robin Hood Foundation (“RHF”) post in the pipeline.  I still have at least one RHF post in the pipeline; others have been published since.  It’s an influential organization; it’s had leadership involved with the Harlem Children’s Zone (often, along with “Promise Neighborhoods” cited as a good community development/poverty, crime, inequity (etc.) improvement model — i.e., place-based, considering the many government service elements within blighted or segregated and ghettoized urban city neighborhoods).  When RHF leadership began spinoff entities associated with Harvard or “J-PAL” (Poverty Action Labs) or similar projects, yes — it’s one to keep a continuous eye on, in general.

Another set of RHF entities had been caught in a Ponzi scheme involving investments.  I’d been looking at possible connections.  Based on entity names, there were some potential ones, but it’s a name in common use, and this was not established.  I just wanted to point out the trend and potential when organization websites don’t tell all the relevant truth about their own spinoff entities (as RHF didn’t in a certain case) and discourage investigation into where those assets are being held, and what’s being done with them. So, that post, if it’s going to get published, is still on hold currently. When the details aren’t fresh in the front of my “cognitive capacity,” and when especially controversial statements are going to be made, I sometimes just won’t publish until there is the time and space for a better review and to include any missing information which wasn’t found with the first round of look-ups.

December 15, 2017, post excerpts continued. I have four more sections!

[DEC. 15, 2017 Surrounding Text, cont’d.]

“Foreword”

Gun violence is regular news nationally and locally, frequently accompanied by pieces on federal policy relating to it.  After writing this post and publishing the previous one, I found USA Today referencing the “Giffords Law Center” with very little identification of who or what it was. However, the “former ATF official” quoted was (not on page 1, but inside) also described as “senior policy advisor” for the law center.  That information could’ve been added to a call-out caption, but wasn’t:

Click image to enlarge for caption as posted in USA Today on-line (Elaine Thompson/AP photo credit). Print version caption: “Last year, the ATF was asked to retrieve more guns sold to disqualified buyer than in any other year in the past decade. The sale of a rifle to one such buyer preceded its use in the Texas church shootings last month.”.

“4,000-plus guns sold to disqualified buyers: Getting weapons back puts ATF agents’ lives at risk.”  USA Today “Exclusive,” Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2017 (print, Dec. 4 on-line I see)  by Kevin Johnson (displayed in print edition Page A-1 with large photo, top half, and continued on Pg. A-2, also top half).

Inside (Pg. A-2) it occupied three out of four columns, and the entire top half (as a newspaper is folded) under the simple title “Guns.”

Pg. A-2, 3d para.

“These are people who shouldn’t have weapons in the first place, and it just takes one to do something that could have tragic consequences, said David Chipman, a former ATF official who helped oversee the firearm retrieval program.  “You don’t want ATF to stand for “after the fact.”

Up through the word “who” that para. was also the Pg. A-1 call-out (large text, no photo, right side) under David Chipman’s name, again only partially identified as “Former ATF Official.”  Since when, until when, or in what capacity, he “helped oversee the firearm retrieval program” is unclear but after one more paragraph comes the reference to Giffords Law Center, which is my connecting interest to the post:

Chipman, a senior policy adviser for the Giffords Law Center (on paid staff there now? Not all nonprofit advisers are; ‘USA Today’ doesn’t say), which advocates for more gun restrictions, called the retrievals “Uniquely dangerous.”

The only other association (versus federal agencies) referenced in the article, under the final heading, is not the NRA but the “National Shooting Sports Foundation,” (Larry Keane general counsel). In that subsection, Chipman is again quoted….. (re: the 72-hour background-check rule):

“…But Chipman, the former ATF official, called the 72-hour (background check) provision “reckless” and a concession to “the powerful gun industry that nobody wants to irritate.”

Just for the record, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is showing current assets of $52M, and it’s based in Connecticut, and is nowhere near the size of the NRA which, for some reason, wasn’t quoted.
[I posted NSSF, NRA and the omitted connection of Chipman (IACP) on the post//LGH, March 2018]]

---

---

And another segment, #2 of 4 extra ones here:

…Blogging Relevance:  a combination of rapid-fire, name-changing, website-changing “gun control” (targeted at the sales level) organizations on both coasts were getting laws passed FAST at the state level, in part with support from this PAC, in between websites focused on discrediting not just the NRA (National Rifle Association), but also Republicans and Conservatives in general.  I’d just picked up on one or two of them and was following the trail of bread crumbs…. A bit hard when the most recent nonprofit filings weren’t available on-line yet, and the website “our story” pages didn’t match the official record of timelines…  Which raises my concern, if people can’t — or don’t — tell their own history in straightforward and accurate terms, connected to an independently verifiable timeline (as opposed to all the “spin”) then how much similar spin is occurring once they start talking about the cause itself?***RHF post title and link, still in draft as of this writing, Dec. 4, 2017. (and I believe also as of March 12, 2018)

Robin Hood Foundation (“RHF” 1989ff); Its Disregarded Entities incl. Robin Hood Holdings LLC (2001ff) The FBI & FINRA-prosecuted (2015, 2016 news) $1.4M Ponzi Scheme/ Securities Fraud involving a NC Broker Charles Fackrell  — and several “Robin Hood” entities;  RHF’s $11.6M 2008 grant to Single Stop USA (2007ff w/ board members in common)  (which claimed only $8.3M Total for 2008, “do the math”), not to mention ImpactMatters (2015ff in CT, although fka EvidenceAuditLLC).  All this to help the poor, slash poverty and make the world a better place? Shortlink ends: “-7Ym” moved here off-ramped 11/16/2017 after a day or two of incredulous look-ups…

That title bears more explaining.  As I did, and documented some of the underlying details for readers who may have no familiarity with this group which without those details might not “get” the process of incubating and spinning off nonprofits, and the potential for ongoing accounting flaws, fissures, and premeditated “run-off” (missing-money) situations while claiming the moral upper ground.

In looking more closely at the self-descriptions of a named fiscal sponsor of such a spinoff organization, itself taking multi-million-dollar ($35M range) government grants year after year, I looked closer a center at MIT, mis-characterized as an “organization,” (it doesn’t seem to be registered as nonprofit OR corporation) with a long name which (not made clear on either spinoff site or MIT site) is named after a Saudi-Arabian billionaire, whose grandson, also a billionaire, just so happens to be dating (or was reported as dating) Rihanna. Presumably this relates to a sponsor of the center, although it’s not immediately clear on MIT’s website.

---

And guess what the purpose of this MIT center in combination with the spin-off organization taking major public money was?  It was a “Poverty Action Lab.”  And this situation does indeed have a connection (through chief of program staff) running the spinoff organization.

Not to mention (and it wasn’t mentioned in that announcement)..

In addition to leads presented on the website under “chief program staff moving on,” about 2015, there is the puzzling non-mention, at least prominently, of RHF 2007 spinoff organization Single Stop USA, Inc. now chaired by the same person and with other (as I recall) board members in common to both organizations over time.  One visible in the next annotated image, an excerpt from the “not worth an honorable mention this time…” although its purpose is, using proprietary software it helped sponsor streamline benefit applications and sign up as many more people as possible, fast as an anti-poverty tactic and in response to [alleged] unclaimed benefits nationwide totaling $80B. Who sponsors those benefits if not the poor and middle-class in the first place?? (990excerpt image below was taken Nov. 15, 2017, making the organization about ten years old before I even heard about it.  That’s the thing with networks.  You don’t always hear about all of them, including from their sponsoring foundations which are often, though not always, well-known).

The two posts dealing with the Robin Hood Foundation have more detail on this spinoff, poverty-fighting-through-getting-more-people-ON-welfare-of-all-sorts entity, soliciting in more places, such as middle schools and city storefronts.

SingleStop USA program service activities FY2008; RHF tax returns claimed an single-year $11M donation to this entity which donee’ tax returns did not acknowledge. This image is only 2nd year of operation. Notice “Geoffrey Canada” (of Harlem Children’s Zone fame, also commended as a program model for St. Paul (Twin Cities) MN) near image bottom (or on that year’s return).

Some things never change, they just re-arrange.

~ ~ ~ AND more on the Moistyn’s source of primary income, it seems, #3 of 4 more~ ~ ~

And finally, from Dec. 15, 2017 post about the “Money Maze,” added (summary/abstract) section #4 of 4 in reference to gun control lobbying and networked nonprofits: my Footnote of General Complaints (documenting problems) with standard IRS Form 990s, and the entire setup, in general:

This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.

It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)

Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages.  But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.”  All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the bills are higher, more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public) the stakes are higher, and the risks of those personally involved, greater; these concessions are often described as intended to change the outcome.

But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts.  The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.

That’s why I say the game is “rigged.”  It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it.  Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.

Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.

We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a.  Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:

QUESTION:  What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….

LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners

…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.

Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.

…why is the same basic routine labeled  “family-friendly policy.” [Somehow,] when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse  — [why is this] somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?

“The gender wars” do include age-old issues, with or without citing to any religious basis for them, but in 20th century (as in 19th and 18th, and now the 21st century) USA there are still social-services and public policy staged, rigged gender-based battles, and especially with federal government through state governments as participators, since the 1980s and 1990s.

The appearance of genuine concern by funding one side (as expressed in VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act) is effectively countered by an even larger funding (as it’s under TWO titles of the Social Security Act (Both IV-A, TANF and IV-D, OCSE (Child Support Enforcement) largest grant-making agency, and blended into programming under others). I’m referring to “HMRF” and “Access/Visitation” funding only (for pt. of reference only, see next two images).

…..But when it came to guards taking pot shots at prisoners in staged fights over a six-year period (and this is just ONE report from one state; it’s not a stand-alone situation, or just a rogue prison, it would seem), causing seven deaths, although it was allegedly caused by state policy — at least the state policy was then, per a year 2000 LA Times report on the trial — changed, already…But the similar policy has NOT changed when it comes to parenting and families! !!

No wonder such dangerous policies becoming standard practice and reframed as “beneficial” and in all the taxpaying public’s best interest (MUST be when welfare funds are incentivizing the key practices, ongoing, at the ) had to be debated outside the news headlines and public conscience of just how private sector networked tax-exempt organizations backed by BOTH government and major corporate wealth (with revolving doors on the leadership of both) manages to bypass either taking responsibility for violating subject matter jurisdiction at the state level, or ‘fessing up to this intention in an agenda which, technically speaking, can still say, “well, that’s a state-level decision.”

This was the phrase, I think, which got to me, and got me mouthing off again about the federal policy towards handling physically dangerous people who, as things to, often are also parents, and frequently are men, but in this Corcoran Valley case, probably were.  The year is 2000, it’s California (link and citation given in post context, further below):

Defense lawyers argued that guards did not set up the fights, which they said erupted when inmates of different ethnic and geographic backgrounds were forced to exercise together in the prison’s highest-security unit, as part of a state policy that has since been rescinded.

Sure, the prisoners were likely dangerous, but so were the policies, and the guards who exploited it for sport, well, they were acquitted by jurors, it seems, in a town where the prison was a major, if not the major non-farm employer.  And in this situation, the guards were the shooters. Some prisoners died, others were injured.  The practice apparently started at this prison in 1989; the legal case started in 1994, and the acquittal in 2000.

Meanwhile, many divorces and custody battles would be lucky to last “only” six years, and sometimes, not all participants survive the entire process.  There’s known “roadkill,” in some incidents, that’s literal, not just metaphoric.  There has been roadkill (and system-generated economic fallout) in my community since I moved here over a decade ago, in my state, in other states — and yet we still are operating at the federal level, with policies of forced interaction of people (not to mention adult/children (parent-child) combinations who evidently don’t belong together in the first place, and aren’t, as witnessed by having placed many of them under “supervised visitation” even to just exchange children, and other times for the length of the visits.  Such a racket…)**

2018 Interjection/Introduction/Exhortation! Please consider this next section (either in summary here, or more completely there, with more references and exhibits) and remember that now, in “Trump White House” days, the impression is consistently in the mainstream media that progressives and those on the political “Left” are better protecting women. Well, in some aspects maybe — but they certainly don’t acknowledge the major destructive impact of PART of that “PREVENTION PACKAGE,” a compromise, woven into the fabric so early on — and when it comes to Wellstone involvement, it must be acknowledged that Sen. Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila are considered progressives, as are their surviving (the plane crash) sons.Therefore being “progressive” or not right-wing, red-neck, women stay barefoot and in the home and leave the leadership and big decision-making to men (UNLESS you as a woman are married to or represent already major corporate wealth and philanthropic connections which might be used for other causes) — is not enough to prove loyalty to women’s interests in staying alive, safe, and not being second-class citizen status except as their wealth might buy them out of it (or, at times, even then). Again, not having “second-class citizen status” isn’t exactly major progressive cause from my perspective. I consider it just a matter of justice. Women living and working legally and as citizens in the USA still contribute one of THE most important human resources around — future generations. It took until the early 1900s to get the vote, and another FIFTY years to get into most of the top colleges from which government leadership is often drawn and policies made, as undergraduates and in the same classes as men, should women so choose.

This post contains many key links and lays out a chronology not often compared, one part to another, behind the violence prevention rhetoric “in your face and on the news” while, simultaneously and hardly so well reported, deals cut in the background undermine the same cause, in the name of some other one….

Dec. 17, 2017, post summary, Section #2

Footnote BWJP (more images), and speaking of “money maze” in DV Prevention and services area also:
The above image [not shown, in this abstract] pre-dates the spin-off of BWJP (a project of another government-funded nonprofit also designated at the HHS level, apparently, as somehow “special,” that being Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (“DAIP”) in MN, popularly associated with Ellen Pence, and with her (and its other leadership) promoting the “Coordinated Community Response” to stop domestic violence, and built into this model is the presumptiona/assumption that there should be supervised visitation, batterers interventions, trainings of judges (and law enforcement officers, etc.) and so forth, and that the “state” (government entities) should pay for this system which would, however, be run privately.

So we get such things as “Supervised Visitation Network” (a nonprofit), and the intersection of this with membership of the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and with Batterers Intervention groups also (such as “BISC-MI” in Michigan) running conferences year after year.

I’ve point out repeatedly on this blog to notice when a “Project” is personalized in the descriptive narrations as though it was somehow a “Partner.” Description on most organization or project websites tends to be, to say the least, “loose-lipped” and “ballpark” (“close enough for jazz,” although as a musician I’d say “NOT close enough for jazz” which is itself an expression of the human spirit in musical form, and as a genre, neither sloppy, casual, completely unstructured or disorganized). This sloppiness, the evasiveness, and constant re-framing with periodic re-naming avoids accountability to the public, and is disrespectful of it in that regard.

When I’d checked earlier on BWJP, it was either filing a Form 990N or 990EZ (DNR which) but now I see has an honest-to-goodness real Form 990 posted — for YE 2016. (Previously only two “Forms 990-N” electronic postcards, stating revenues under 50K for the year, had been filed)

Their fiscal year starts Oct. 1, making that single Form 990 for FY2015 (I’m writing in Dec. 2017), meaning, nothing up yet for FY2016, which just closed out this past September 30..

Don’t let the moderate-to-low (for such a supposedly influential force in the DV field and occupying privileged status with US DOJ/OVAW) fool you — in its declared first year of operation (starting Oct. 1, 2015) it obtained $2.7M of grants — ALL of it except $912 “government” (per Pt. VIII Line 1 categorization) — and spent most of it, mostly ($2.02M) on salaries. The listing (Part VIIA) of its board members, directors, trustees, officers, and key employees (the list was all women) showed ONLY two being paid, and for a 40 hour week, it seems to me, those would be poverty wages (below $20K, both of them!), while somehow all the other employees were paid, not counting this amount, the rest of that $2.02M.

However the summary for Part VIIA being only about $35K, the corresponding part on Statement of Expenses (which is Line 5), which might be smaller, but should never be larger than the total shown on Part VIIA total is actually about $200K larger… and the form’s description (which I’m familiar with after all these years) reads DIFFERENTLY than usual, and includes the words “key employees” in the description. Normally, “key employees” are not listed on Line 5.
The next (several) images describe what I just saw. This bears a separate post, but I’m appending it onto this one, since I brought up the BWJP situation….It concerns me…)

BWJP Initial return (EIN#46-3584341) FYOct1 2015-Sep30 2016. Image #5 of (several): Pt. VIIB (blank — NO independent contractors here) and VIII (Revenues) showing that most of that $2.7M startup funding was “government grants...” almost nothing grassroots or from the private sector…

BWJP Initial return (EIN#46-3584341) FYOct1 2015-Sep30 2016. Image #6 of (several): Pt. IX Expenses (not all, I believe thru Line 11g, which hovers just UNDER the 10% of Line 25 (not shown) which avoids having to give an account for it separately. A tradition matched by its predecessor DAIP (501©3), I also noticed. What was $213K of “Other professional services” spent on in an entity which hires no independent contractors over $100K but had access to $2.7M of government grants?

BWJP Initial return (EIN#46-3584341) FYOct1 2015-Sep30 2016. Image #7 of (several): Sched O detail; first item acknowledges it had a predecssor organization but manages NOT to give it a name. Maybe most people will NEVER figure it out may be the hope? … “Cute.”..

Notice that the “Sched. O” reference (top item) to the return is “Part III, Line 2.”  Part III Line 2 (which is the top of page 2) has several blank lines and this information could EASILY have fit in there (as well as on page 1).  But evidently the fledgling BWJP on its own didn’t want to ‘fess up or raise curiosity about, or in any way encourage any connections to the actual name of its predecessor organization, which in DV circles, and certainly within Minnesota, is well-known if not famous in the field (Google “Ellen Pence” and see)  Its practices have been cited as an international model. And its tax returns (only available through FY2014, and mislabeled by 990finder for years now).

This predecessor organization’s model has had the support of the well-known (but died with a daughter, other campaign staff and both pilots (8 people in all) in a small plane crash in October, 2002*) progressive Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone and particularly also his wife, Sheila Wellstone. (*NYT Oct 25, 2002, “Minnesota Senator Is Among 8 Dead in Crash By DAVID STOUT gives the context, of a competitive campaign, and en route to debate his opponent.  Wellstone was considered even more “left” than Sen. Edward Kennedy, but respected for his willingness to speak out.  He was also against the Iraq war during, obviously, a Republican (G.W. Bush) Administration. Two pilots and three more staff members, as well as three Wellstones were killed in this horrible crash.)

BWJP Initial return (EIN#46-3584341) FYOct1 2015-Sep30 2016. Image #7 of (several): Sched O Detail, “Financial Statements not made available to the public…” Although this organization, like its predecessor, is primarily government funded?? ???

I continue the BWJP tax return (Forms 990N) and website excerpts after this brief, but with quotes and images,  interlude/reminder on the Wellstone influence and involvement in the direction of the domestic violence field, mid-1990s and thereafter, including thereafter for named institutes and action funds that outlived the Senator, his wife Sheila and his daughter Marcia.

They were definitely “into” supervised visitation. Two quotes from there (one image, and one from a 1995 speech by Sheila Wellstone posted at Wellstone.org.  Image quality not that good, so I’m posting it actually as text:

(from “Sheila’s Speeches 1995.”  This website doesn’t post the entity’s financials).

In Minnesota, we are very much in the front of the country in the work that is being done to stop the violence, but we still, in this state, have a very long way to go. Just coming into your jobs in the morning and reading the papers you know how bad it is. That 4,000 women a year are killed. That every 12 seconds a woman is beaten by her partner or husband. That severe, repeated beatings happen in one out of 14 marriages and that usually there are 35 incidences before it is reported. That up to 40 percent of women who are pregnant are battered during their pregnancies, and that the high percentage of the batterers are also abusing their children. And these statistics are based only on what we know.

---

Domestic violence is a crime. It is the crime that is most often occurring in this country, but it is the crime that is the least reported. Unfortunately there are probably women in this audience who are victims; there are women who you know where you work, where you go to church or synagogue, in your neighborhoods, in classrooms, and women in your family. It knows no boundaries, it matters not the color of your skin, where you live, how educated you are, what your income is, your sexual orientation, where you come from. Domestic violence, violence against women, is happening all over this country.

---

I got involved in this work for a very simple reason. I find it intolerable that a woman’s home can be the most violent or the most anxious place for her, often the most deadly, and that if she is a mother that it means that that’s the same kind of home that her children will be raised in. I’ve traveled all over Minnesota, talking with people from all parts of the community, and I’ve talked about myself and them, saying its time that we break these patterns. It’s time that we tell the secret, it’s time that we all come together to work towards ending the violence. It’s no longer an issue just for women; it’s an issue for women, an issue for men, an issue for children, an entire community’s issue. And we maybe can sit here in this room and say this is not affecting me, that I am one of the lucky ones, but I would like to talk about just a few ways that in fact we all are affected. …

---

We have also passed a law that would say there should be supervised visitation centers throughout this country so that when the court orders supervised visits, there is a safe place to go for the women and children. That all too often the woman risks the most harm after she has left, and this would be a safe place for her to make to make an exchange for the visit, for custody for a weekend or just a day visit for the child. We’ve also passed legislation that would say that anyone was under order of protection could no longer have a firearm of any kind.

So early on, Sheila Wellstone was incorporating the assumption that visitation with the violent parent should continue.

See top of this post commentary on the rigged fights, and how when it came to prisons, state policy was changed after several deaths. Well, there have been ONGOING deaths, in-state and out of state involving court-ordered visitations, and sometimes, at or even during supervised visitations — yet the policy is NOT changed.  Perhaps because it’s mostly women and children dying?? And no legislators are coming out against the continued practice, which would offend the domestic violence industry in their jurisdictions, which has based itself on compliance and perpetuation of that model (and has continued to welcome fatherhood practitioners into their ranks, and/or be taken over by them piecemeal (nonprofit by nonprofit)?

Notably, while Wellstone was not shy about confronting health insurance companies, doctors, or requesting trainings for judges, or getting the VAWA passed, or criticizing welfare reform (for defunding it, apparently — in this posted speech, for which NO context is labeled on the website, however) — somehow there was zero mention of confronting, challenging, or even suggesting that the concept of continued visitation with violent or abusive family members was a bad idea, and shouldn’t be done. …

I also find it odd that this speech makes no mention of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program (DAIP) in Duluth, MN or its famous “DuluthModel” (if active by then, which it probably was) — although the organization had started back in 1980, and with support by another, as I recall, state legislator.  No, family first, safety second, and rights to be safe by AVOIDING CONTACT with dangerous persons — for the kids too… just make sure those visits are “supervised…”

Just this spring, Paul introduced legislation that said that health care and health insurance companies can no longer discriminate against a woman who is a victim because she has battering on her medical records.

I’ve posted this before, but in 2000, both Wellstones were keynote speakers at an AFCC conference focused on Alienation, Access, and Attachment (with special sessions on it), as was a well-known fatherhood researcher (then associated with the Ford Foundation), more speakers representing LGBQT rights, someone from Louisiana who’d authored a Covenant Marriage law (!), and someone involved in Troxel v. Granville, a visitation case that had reached the US Supreme Court.

This time (but not for surrounding images) click image to access underlying website and read the rest of (fairly short) statement on the “SWI”

With only this couple representing anything “feminist” to the point of truly strong stance against the crime of domestic violence, or even questioning the “Duluth model” or questioning the wisdom of accommodating judges who order visitation through setting up another (public-funded) entire field of practice (actually, expanding the use of a pre-existing one: this practice had been used for child abuse cases before with the goal of reuniting the abusive parents with their kids; just re-named and promoted through different organizations for application to “domestic violence” cases…), common sense had no spokesperson at the conference.

And during these years, was anyone outside the involved professionals publicizing to the larger audience — including abused women in shelters or seeking protection, or battered men — that the AFCC existed, was conferencing, had an agenda, and was working with people with connections to private foundation wealth (such as but not limited to Ford Foundation) to influence federal legislation involving subject matter that was really under state jurisdiction? With a goal to influencing custody and divorce outcomes?  And was anyone outside the involved professionals publicizing to the larger audience communicating who was collaborating with whom, and cutting various compromises while still talking about bold steps and stances they were taking?

The FVPSA, again, passed in the 1980s and is still operational, and was in the 1990s too.  Did the Wellstones talk about this and say why a different approach was needed? — and if so, how “different,” really, was continuing to support supervised visitation and related services?

Those are of course rhetorical questions.

 Another article supports my understanding that the Wellstone influence — and this summarizes several of them — continued far past their lifetimes. Minnesota Democrats invoke the Wellstones in debate over domestic violence legislation (May 25, 2012 by Devin Henry in “MinnPost.” (informative on some of the history also):

[[I did look up and look at MinnPost tax returns.  It’s been around only since 2007, produces daily, started with $1.5M contributions, and maintained with combination of very modest (in general) levels + some advertising + (not much else) each year over time; fills in a boilerplate description of activities on Form 990 “program service accomplishments,” gradually condensed, and other sections (such as Part VIIB listing of directors and officers) “See add’tl info.

I could say more (about MinnPost), but not here; but [FYI] it shows a range of foundation sponsors over time which may be taking turns, as the contributions just aren’t that massive. Most money goes to salaries, and they’re only showing 20 employees.  Their first paid publisher was only hired in 2014 (Andy Wallmeyer), who has an MBA and a background with the AP, Dow-Jones, and is “senior associate at McKinsey & Co. (global consulting).  FY2015 showed his MinnPost pay (and the only paid officer) was $109K.  His MBA dates to 2002.

Minnesota Democrats invoke the Wellstones in debate over domestic violence legislation (May 25, 2012 by Devin Henry in “MinnPost)

WASHINGTON — During the debate over extending a federal law protecting women from domestic violence, Minnesota Democrats have worked to remind lawmakers and constituents of a pair of their most famous predecessors: former Sen. Paul Wellstone and, in particular, his wife Sheila.

The Wellstones, even 10 years after their deaths, are liberal icons, still idealized by Minnesota progressives for work cut short when their plane crashed in northern Minnesota on Oct. 25, 2002. That’s been made clear this month: as Congress as worked to extend the federal Violence Against Women Act, Minnesota lawmakers have praise the Wellstones’ work in the legislation’s infancy, especially that of Sheila Wellstone, for whom the issue of domestic violence was a top priority.

But the couple’s legacy extends beyond the Minnesota delegation; they’re remembered so fondly by domestic abuse advocates at large that a photo of Sheila hangs on the office wall of the White House’s lead VAWA adviser, Lynn Rosenthal.

The article goes on to show #1 Sheila was looking for a cause when her husband became senator, and picked this one, and that, clearly, #2 she was looking to frame it as more than just a legal issue — also a healthcare and social one.

[[2018March added rhetorical questions — the answer to most appears to be “No!” Did all abused women interviewed at the time want it framed this way?  Were they asked – and if so, where are the records? If they were, was this an informed opinion with professionals interviewing them, whether advocates, legislators’ wives (or their staff or assistants), or other policymakers, so considerate as to inform said battered women about the growing fathers’ rights movement as it pertained to welfare reform, and getting its cause entrenched within welfare reform of the mid-1990s and within the divorce and custody practices and laws?  Were these women informed that a private conferencing, and journaling association featuring the mental and behavioral health sectors as “partners” and collaborators with lawyers and judges, called AFCC, existed and had particular viewpoints on the nature and reality of domestic violence, and of the truthfulness of women or mothers who were reporting it? i.e., about the “parental alienation promoters”?  It’s obvious the Wellstones were rubbing shoulders with some of the same, and so were the DV advocacy groups within Minnesota.]]

…By the time then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden introduced the original VAWA legislation, a few years into her husband’s term, Sheila Wellstone had begun working with her staff and, at times, her husband’s, to put violence prevention and outreach measures into the bill.

!!!>>>===>>> Early on, she had two main policy focuses, Avner said: framing domestic violence as a health care and social justice issue instead of just a legal one, and working with Minnesota businesses to highlight the impact of domestic abuse on the workforce. <<<===<<<!!!

“She was a fast learner and she had a very deep commitment to ending the violence,” Avner said.

One of her first major goals was to provide more services for children who lived in abusive homes. Paul Wellstone added the provisions to the VAWA bill, creating an educational initiative for children exposed to violence and worked to ease## the exchange of custody for children in abusive homes.

##again, “ease” not “challenge.”  By failing to solve the fundamental problem — expansion of professional, court-connected services was assured.

Later iterations of the bill contained Wellstone-backed provisions to protect immigrant women, and study the effectiveness of college programs to prevent sexual assault. He introduced a bill establishing a full-time Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice…###

---

(read more at): Minnesota Democrats invoke the Wellstones in debate over domestic violence legislation (May 25, 2012 by Devin Henry in “MinnPost.”)

(next three images are re: MinnPost, the last one from the site re: its CEO from the start, Joel F. Kramer), and here’s a Sept. 2007 “preview” of the journal including some initial foundation support mentioned, and the background of some of its journalists (who, incidentally, are on contract and not employees, it says).  His background at the StarTribune also interesting.

New Journalism – MinnPost Editor Previews Brave Venture (from another wordpress blog):Note: Joel Kramer, the founder of MinnPost, the soon-to-be-launched internet-based daily, is trying something new and brave. We asked him to tell us a little about it, and here’s his guest post. Joel was my former boss at the Star Tribune, and a few of us from the blog have given Joel a little advice, worth every penny he paid for it. Tell us what you think about the new enterprise — and Joel invites comments at his site as well.

I started this on and as a post update to one I wanted to cite to (first published June 15, 2011, already with a 2016 update; apparently the topic retains its relevance…), but from slightly different angle of approach, as it explains in the first few paragraphs.

• Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case and “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-JR”.  Publication date added to title later]. Originally about 11,200 words. Some image links have been broken, a few (not all) replaced later.

This post title: Revisiting Reunification Camps: The Nice Clinical Psychologists involved Just Want to Help Traumatized Kids and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), in “protected spaces” (away from naysayers, critics, and potential negative witnesses) … It’s the Good Ole, Time-Tested, Court-Ordered and of course (™)’d Way [Publ. Dec. 21, 2017].. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC,” written Dec. 16-21, 2017.

While I think this should be a fairly straightforward post, once the framework and concept was set, I did let it “go where it flows” which you can see by reading….there are two “read more” links (click them to read more of the post) below.  In all, it’s about 14,000 16,300 words (@12/21 pm), which I believe includes word-count for the captions to its many images.

Some extra length comes from extra findings during the write-up, my discussion (including a footnote) about the “transformative grammar” involved in the phrase “Transitioning Families,” preliminary information discovering that an LLC of that name formed to hold the trademark Nov. 30, 2016 only lasted (was voluntarily cancelled before even one full year) until July 19, 2017. Although there were documented major fires in the area (Northern California, Sonoma County), California Fire report (and news) showed them as occurring after the LLC shut itself down voluntarily the previous summer. (The fire, burned over 56,000 acres, reported in Oct. 2017). The cancellation remains unexplained — I note that the existence of the LLC wasn’t exactly made public on the website anyhow.

USPTO.gov/TESS search results (nearby images = details from this one)

Regarding the “(™)’d” comment in the post title, here’s some proof, for the phrase referenced. I looked it up at USPTO.gov, “TESS” (Trademark Electronic Search System) by individual name (after not finding the longer phrase, “Transitioning Families Therapeutic Reunification Model” (or “TFTRM”)  trademarked) and, it was registered — just recently and just  a month before an article citing to it came out in the April, 2016 Family Court Review (Patience!, I show that below) — and as I suspected, owned by a single individual, giving that individual the appearance of an actual business where none is recorded:

(Click image to enlarge. A partial screenprint (magnified) of this same page is nearby. Full page shows dates, that it’s a single owner (and who) with a PO Box in Glen Ellyn, CA, attorney of record, etc.).

Proof from the US Government what this logo and word mark stands for (see Goods & Services), a rather expansive definition under “Mental health services,” when claimed as first used in commerce (2010) when request for trademark was filed (May 11, 2015) published for opposition (Dec. 29, 2015) and made official (March, 2016 — see nearby image or TESS for the full detail).

---

After that, I get into looking at what isn’t apparently a large operation, or possibly while an “operation” still not even a legitimate (separate) business entity of its own  (website and trademarked logo read “Transitioning Families”), but where at least one of the leaders evidently has connections in more than one state to the family court system. Then again, this type of personnel tend to operate in networks … word travels fast about potential high-profile cases that might help the cause.

I did find a cancelled LLC registration for “Transitioning Families” in Glen Ellen, California (the USPTO trademark registration, was at a PO Box in the same, small town. The website seems to contain no contact mailing address at all).  Its registered agent in 2016 (Charles Holmes), then a 2017 filing added Rebecca Bailey’s name to it and confirmed it was the same (“Type of Business:  “Hold Trademark, Treatment Programs”) and later the same month voluntarily dissolved, or as I guess SOS search results call it, “cancelled.”

Apart from using the name in commerce for five years before seeking to trademark it, then suddenly cancelling a VERY short-lived LLC, while keeping the website up, this would seem odd.  However, I’m glad I looked, because the “Trulia” view of the address: 1. classifies it as farm/ranch; and 2. the (satellite view) showed it looking dark and burnt-out.  Did the fires have anything to do with the cancellation? And if the LLC was cancelled but programs continue, to whom are payments made, whether by a parent or possibly by some insurance provider?

(On looking closer, I see two “fire updates” (October 14, 2017 and November 29, 2017) They did have to evacuate, have temporary place, and are rebuilding.  Nothing on the site references any business status, however, or that an LLC ever existed, or was cancelled because of the fire (presumably to be re-registered later??)

The middle filing of only three (7/7/2017) shows Rebecca Bailey’s name and Type of Business: “Hold Trademark, Treatment Programs.” (USPTO.gov shows Bailey as trademark owner, not this LLC) (@ Dec. 2017 and no previous change shown, which USPTO.gov does include if there’ve been renewals)

7/19/2017 Dissolution (resulting in “Cancelled” status under Sec. of State search results for this LLC, under name Charles Holmes).

11/30/2016, first registration of Transitioning Families, LLC “One manager” and registered agent, Charles Holmes .

11/30/2016 LLC registered with CA Sec. of State (7 months after publication of Family Court Review article featuring the trademarked phrase “Transitioning Families” and Therapeutic Reunification Model (for nonFamilial Abductions), 7/7/2016 (Sec. of State) annual rept (? SI-Complete) adds Rebecca Bailey’s name and references holding the trademark and Treatmt program under business purpose. 7/19/2017 (same month!) it’s suddenly Cancelled” by reg. agent Charles Holmes (Bailey’s name gone from the form). Why?

Street address search brings up a Trulia with satellite photo; it looks burnt-out and is registered as a (two acre) Ranch/Farm (click to enlarge).Viewed Dec. 2017. Calif. has been having a nasty fire season this year, both northern and southern regions, including with forced evacuations.

Oct. 2017 report of fires in Glen Ellen as well as evacuations ordered. Is this why the LLC was cancelled? But if so, then why is the website still in place?

Glen Ellen, CA IS in Sonoma County (“wine country”) in Northern California, and there were major fires in this area this past fall; parts of it were under evacuation orders.  I shudder to think what this might have meant if there were treatment programs involving alienated children or “recalcitrant adults” there at the time (maybe there weren’t) but, til further notice, that would seem to provide a possible explanation of why the LLC “Transitioning Families” might be cancelled — although why Rebecca’s name first appeared, then disappeared, from the registration (at California SOS Business-entity / LLC-search level) is still puzzling, or why if the LLC wasn’t shut down, the website wasn’t also, acknowledging the emergency situation created by California’s fires. Note:  Trademarks as I understand it are for “goods and services” but business names (when it comes to LLCs or corporations) are for the business itself.

---

Anyone involved in this particular operation / outfit / program / so-called treatment model or promoting it should not estimate that my choice to report here indicates my estimate of its importance in the larger field, other than as a symptom.

The family court, and “court-connected-corporations” (and career professionals) field deals with copycats and cult-like groups adopting common jargon and attempting to position themselves as the “go-to” people for family courts, domestic violence, child abuse and when there’s apparently not enough of that type of court-connected, psycho-educational attitude adjustment work to go around, also for post-abduction scenarios.

The ones I feature are often chosen because they are so typical, in a series of similar but slightly differentiated, named (and sometimes trademarked) programs, and because looking at them other than by engaging with the rhetoric involved (although I also do that when it’s so symptomatic of the originating association), but by doing more searches for registrations, and commonalities between the groups and individuals sponsoring them tends to bring up such fascinating information.**

This book comes up again in the post, when it’s cited to on “TransitioningFamilies.com” page. I found it for sale at $46, but I see at a 6X9 paperback (under 400pp), OUP here is charging $59.95 or about 33% more.  Wonder what the royalties are, and if it’s selling.

**Like the ability to make a pun on the word “Stable” (steady, as in  paths out of alienation, and also, here involving real stables, as in housing for horses…) in such a fixed-point-of-view group of professionals with what appears to be, judging by the websites and articles — which I’ve been reading in general for about nine years, a seriously limited vocabulary outside professional names, associations, and jargon of the field, usually liberally sprinkled with what’s not exactly jargon, but seeks to feature expert status (clinical, clinician, forensic, treatment models, etc.) In one of the images below, annotating this, I included a “Jargon-O-Meter” in case my description here isn’t clear enough.

**Or how deft was the switching of a treatment model featured for NONfamily abductions for application to the FAMILY abductions (and high-conflict divorce, alienated children..) field, not to mention an increasing tendency to get published by Oxford University Press. (Notice, its categories include “Social Sciences” after the others — see nearby image, top banner with links).

{{RELEVANCE OF THE SECTION ON GRAMMAR:  See also another post, “Families Change, the Sentence.”  It’s a pattern, and it’s a problem through vagueness and stretching the boundaries of meaning…}}

**While, in the same context just about, repeatedly using a phrase, and choose a “goods & services” name (Transitioning Families), where “transition” is mostly a noun, but if used as a verb, with the root (underlying) meaning “to go across” (Trans + ire <==Latin for “to go”) would normally — except for business usage tending to ignore meaningful language, or its guidelines — be INtransitive, meaning, not taking a direct object.  Quick illustration (Grammar Bytes!) of Transitive versus Intransitive verbs.  Transitive verbs have direct objects.   Better but still straightforward definition at Oxforddictionaries.com

Oxford Dictionaries on Transitive v Intransitive verbs (Or click to enlarge only portion shown. Website has two charts with examples below)

Online Etymology Dictionary doesn’t even have a reference to it as a verb, just as a noun:  mid-15c., from Latin transitionem (nominative transitio) “a going across or over,” noun of action from past participle stem of transire “go or cross over” (see transient).

The verb “go” isn’t used with a direct object is it?  “I was going the boxes from the old house to the new”  No– the word is “moving.”   So why use the word “transitioning” whose root word means “go across” with a direct object?   (Similar situations in common use:  “she graduated high school” for “she graduated FROM high school..” — the high school didn’t move from one state to another by virtue of someone completing it, unless she was a real hell-raiser, and it graduated from one state (condition of being) to another by virtue of her presence as the actor).

The school graduates the person, who moves, who “steps forward or up” FROM the school — and not vice versa!  (Etymology again — the root word is “step”).  A school, for example, could be said to have graduated (using it as a transitive verb) 1,000 (or any other number of) students, because it did.  The students are the direct object in that sensible use of the verb, thus becoming so-called graduates (noun) OF the school or that level of schooling.

link: from Online Etymology Dict. The school graduates the students, and not vice versa!

Here’s even a conjugation (possibly for English-language learners) of the “irregular” verb “transition” in “I, you, he/she, we, and they” forms — not one of which used reasonably in a sentence would take a direct object. (Conjugator.reverso.net for the verb transition)

Reverso Conjugation of the verb “Transition” (Or click to enlarge only portion shown… “I transition ~You transition~ He/She/It transitions…” do any of the above (or “we transition, they transition…plurals) make ANY sense if you added a direct object right afterwards? But  “TRANSITIONING FAMILIES” as a trademark avoids showing this “anomaly” (strangeness) by omitting any subject nouns (for example: “Parents Helping Parents” is a phrase, also network of organizations, which does supply the subject noun, transitive verb, and direct objects, without stretching grammar into the meaningless or so vague as to be open to varied interpretations, sphere…

And yet here’s the two-word, trademarked phrase, “Transitioning Families,” which if you think about it, is unclear whether “transitioning” means “transitioning THE (alienated, disconnected, formerly separated by abduction, etc.) families” and is from a verb usage (making “Families” the direct object), or whether it’s meant to be an adjective, a “descriptor,” taken from the noun to describe such families, indicating a “from the sidelines” stance from those using the phrases  — i.e., we observe that the families are just undergoing a “transition” — and we’re here to help them, and better facilitate it (through family-court-ordered reunification therapy…after which they should have “transitioned” to a more connected state.

In which interpretation, it would seem that the trademark is saying — they’re already “in transition,” but we are just the midwives and facilitators of a natural process (which in the actual context, is a less than honest description).

See more at FOOTNOTE “TRANSITIONING LANGUAGE” on the bottom of this [Dec. 21, 2017] post. I just thought it relevant to mention in light of the people using the phrase getting published by the esoteric and highly-regarded, premiere university-associated, “Oxford University Press.”

…On a Saturday night after working more on this and a related post, including processing new information, and Monday Dec. 25, 2017, being a well-known major holiday (for which I have no particularly different plans — there are no family members, at all, to contact with whom I have any ongoing communications or that I have seen face to face since, oh, about 2011..  Which isn’t to say they aren’t missed!!), I’m going to publish it, although there is obviously more subject matter to cover.  I know it’s interesting and has some good links, and images too, within.  

This post might be a wake-up call, and I hope it will wake some up to what is, literally, being set in streamlined infrastructure, to use the fields of mental health, particularly psychology, to justify taking children by force and separating them from one parent, driving and/or flying them out of state (or country!) to be deprogrammed on the premise that failure to bond with both parents is evidence of having been brainwashed (Regardless of bad behavior including chronic abuse, by the one they don’t want to see, which these courts are pre-set to tune out unless it qualifies under their unique definition of abuse: reporting it)  by one or the other.

In the process, both children AND the caretaking parent (often a mother) can also be threatened with jail OR jailed, be ordered to lie to the children, leaving them subject to additional stress and trauma, not to mention the caretaking parent, and in general raise hell via the family courts in almost any neighborhood.

Now that enough people are being constantly traumatized through these means, and on the advice of the group(s) which repeated, like a mantra, the real intent was to reduce the adversarial nature of divorce and destigmatize it,** then it’s time to hold conferences (one shown below, coming up this next summer) on compassionate and trauma-informed courts. This is fun and obviously profitable for those involved.

**(I expect to move this next spontaneously-added, post-publication section stemming from my intent to explain how “reducing adversarial nature of divorce” translates into practice…//LGH 12/24/2017)

Google search results for “reducing adversarial nature of divorce” (run on “Christmas Eve” 2017)

**Search results (phrase added after publication) will bring up ads for mediators and collaborative divorce organizations or providers.  It will at times also bring up nonprofits whose chairman of the board, president (etc.) or founder has direct connections to court-mandated mediation services.  Without getting into too many details (on this post…), the “Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County (CDSOC, in “SoCal,” Southern California) (see nearby image and caption) mentioned a nonprofit which website (oddly) gave its own EIN#.

I looked it up, and some past returns and see what appears to be ONE professional (and says “1” employee currently), showing only the (also) collaborative coach.

Earlier returns (FY2002) attachments mention taking referrals from: social services, child support services, court facilitators, and training the local DAs.  And that was just for “United Fathers of America”  (“UFA”).

To me, UFA has the appearance of simply facilitating reduction of taxable income through being a nonprofit, and writing off a variety of expenses, while (for someone this long in practice, and this area, the salary is nowhere near typical) showing the sole Board member or officer listed, taking a salary of, then, about $32K, and currently, only $42K. Basically, about the same amount is being taken as “non-government contributions” and (currently) split down the middle, writing half off as “salary” and half as “Expenses.” (IRS forms from 2002 differ from those now), leaving a steady end of year “assets” of next to nothing.

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the premier interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict. AFCC members are the leading practitioners, researchers, teachers and policymakers in the family court arena“…(and, in opening, Para. 2…) “convenes members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. AFCC is unique as a professional association because members do not all share a common profession.  Rather, AFCC members share a strong commitment to education, innovation and collaboration in order to benefit communities, empower families and promote a healthy future for children.

It’s also understandable how such tactics (replicated) might well appeal to anyone potentially under a child support order as minimizing income on the record, which is not to say that the president of UFA is in that situation. But if he were or had been, this type of business entity (501©3) might help.

Once the associations for “collaborative divorce” started, they began multiplying (by region) with, looks like, often shared logos, and common origins in AFCC professionals.

As with any created profession, one can then have academies, training institutes, membership lists (helps with advertising and credibility no doubt) and of course conferences.  (International Academy of Divorce Professionals).  (“CollaborativeDivorce.com” in San Francisco).

NB:  Emphasizing the word “professional” without specifying which one (i.e., you don’t need to do this with lawyers, or accountants, or when licensed, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. — emphasize that they are “professionals” because it’s generally understood) is also typical of the concept behind AFCC’s motto as well (see extended yellow-background caption, taken from top “About” phrase on the website, to nearby logo).

The association is very much into the prestige and uniqueness of its membership, yet speaks truly vaguely of all non-members not even as identifiable individuals (or even individuals) but according to broad-based, generic labels:  “communities, families, children…”  Without actual exposure to reality, one might think there are no other professions in the world (that really count) outside of the ones involved in this association.

Again, last post I showed AFCC’s IRS returns are consistently under $4M a year total assets, and its chapters do not represent all states (or even half the states) in one of the most powerful countries in the world, the USA.  They also noticeably don’t represent, really, all regions or even all continents of the world.  Numerically, the organization (AFCC) is not showing up as (in any way) representative of the people whose lives it wishes to “improve” for the sake of the kids.  (Older newsletter banner read “Kids Count on Us.”)

So, if anything, for the word “collaborate” I would add, “collaborate to dominate…” including dominate the lives of children by re-aligning, re-assigning, having helped create and, as it says, claiming to lead, an entire court system where this actually, literally, can be done.

===>>It seems to be a public/private version of the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan consulting model, a sort of “LBO” (leveraged buyout) but involving the courts, not just corporations and their employees…  Those first in the new field get to define the field and set the rules. And focus on consulting to (subcontracting with, operating from within) the nonprofit sector of business and commerce (Bridgespan in effect copied for the nonprofits what Bain had done so successfully in for-profit with help from Harvard Business School along the way, or professors at it).  <<<===

Beefed-up nonprofits (AFCC isn’t one as far as assets, obviously, but it’s pretty adept at facilitating how assets get moved from family member to family member, or extracted for use in consultations) tend to hold investments — and those investments still help whatever sector they land in.  Or, if sold off cheaply, for next to no profit, or for a loss declared on a Form 990PF or Form 990 (something I’m also noticing in NCMEC, returns below), then they help whoever got them cheap.  (On a Form 990 (not 990PF) tax return, look for any major differential between “Total gross receipts” on the header info. and Line 12? Total “revenues”).  When the difference is large, why may show up on Part VIII, statement of revenues, under “Sale of assets other than inventory / securities” which shows Gross, Cost of Sale, and Net figures).

And then there has been the habit of operating as I understand it illegally, that is without registering openly as an association or corporation, then when being confronted on this, pulling a “chameleon” or skipping the state, or shutting down.  Just look at the track record of various chapters from the IRS and (Secretary of State) annual report filing levels (for example, Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Arizona.  Or, originally, California).  Consistent avoidance of fiscal accountability AND tax on what might otherwise be taxable income (to the members) naturally facilitates an underground economy.

Personnel are attorneys and ‘Divorce Coaches’ (which tend to be psychotherapists). The first one listed running “United Fathers of America” (since 1975), and on that website (not this one) also references under professional associations “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” (and “CRC,” or Children’s Rights Council, another well-known and politically influential (dating to the mid-1980s) fatherhood organization, with founders in common, it’s believed, with AFCC (Jessica Pearson, perhaps others).

Now, we are finding out through “reunification camps” there is also something of an “underground railroad” of “alienated” or “contact-resistant” children — but not to freedom, but to being like caught slaves, or ripped from their families in the middle of the night to go with strangers, being punished for ‘rebellion,’ and in intensive treatment scenarios, observed, supervised, and coached into re-acquainting themselves with who REALLY is in control… and their proper duty as minors, which is to accept both parents, no matter what.. … …unless the court decides that a parent has also been bad, and should be put on a long “time-out.”

I’m NOT done reporting, but this is a start. If you currently think these court-connected “ATM machine” corporations, cloning themselves (so to speak) year after year represent manageable systems, or will somehow self-correct, or that the mutually congregating, (word choice intentional) linguistically-aligned professionals will hold to a high standard of ethics when it comes to things OUTside the jargon… keep reading and think again!  //LGH.

[Dec. 23, 2017 post abstract texts, cont’d.]

I’ve been looking again more closely at certain networks who have been replicating the equine-assisted (or otherwise) reunification therapy “camps” or “outpatient treatments” in California, Massachusetts and Florida (referring to legal domiciles; the activities apparently also happen in other states, such as New Hampshire or Vermont).  If you haven’t read that post yet, start there.

This follow-up post was inspired in part by discovering more details, some filling in missing puzzle pieces from that last time I encountered or heard about the reunification camp in Northern California (Transitioning Families) and its psychologist leadership, Rebecca Bailey, also associated with a high-profile rescue case in the general area.  Earlier I had wondered how the rescued family somehow connected with this particular professional. This time, I found an answer, although only from one source, a news article.

Doing just a few extra, a bit more, name-searches led to discovery of a recent (October, 2017) article in a nearby (to me) Northern-California county showing how the entity and situations I was researching were hooked up with a high-profile, major-media-coverage non-family abduction rescue whose victims (two, born in their mother’s generation-long captivity) that received a multi-million-dollar settlement from the State of California (where they were held captive and where rescued from in 2009).

What this answer looks like, in tax return form:

Total results: 3. Search Again.  NCMEC, $36.1M @ FY2015(=calendar year), EIN# 52-1328557

[Tax Return for FY2002, the earliest I could get to].

I have no problem with the settlement — that abductee and her children deserve it — but unfortunately (from understanding and my perspective on the family courts’ involvement in such camps)* her/their post-captivity connections for family therapy to a psychologist “wheeling-and-dealing with” the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts** which is — and I doubt this abductee or her mother and relatives would at the time have had any way of knowing this — in the business of breaking up intact households and effectively and dramatically (as in, at times overnight or on even less warning) cancelling non-abusive parent-child (often mother-child) relationships while (in part, thereby) intentionally blurring the line between criminal and non-criminal behaviors by individuals who happen to also have children, I felt when I first heard of it was puzzling, and is I still feel regrettable.*** (I feel that the Dugard/Probyn family, so horribly traumatized, have been exploited to further legitimize such services)  …

[Two days later…] Interesting, I really didn’t see this one coming before making that comment on the draft Dec. 21.  Inbetween, I was looking at an AFCC (Mass.) chapter website, which led to an upcoming (June 2018, timed close to Fathers’ Day, and apparently in Washington, D.C.) AFCC’s “55th annual” conference.  Guess who it’s featuring? Take a look: (All images except “#5 of 5” taken from the conference “brochure” available at AFCC website.  Image order may not be brochure order, and probably isn’t).

Img #5 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC [as shown on AFCC website]

Img #4 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC (front matter)

Img #3 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC. Opens DAY 2 of the conference…

Img #2 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC (among the advertisements near the back of conferenced brochure. Donate to JAYC foundation?

Img #1 of 5: AFCC’s 55th Annual Conf featuring Jaycee Dugard [+ Rebecca Bailey, and JayCFndtn (adv)] early June 2018 in DC

[Back to previously written narrative!] And when I heard how the hookup happened (according to this recent article is the only evidence) more lights started turning on such that I want to look closer at the connecting organization, “NCMEC.”

This same psychologist, I heard, may have also provided reunification services with their father for the Grazzini-Rucki two teenaged girls (case based in Minnesota) who ran away from their father (and had no contact with their mother after reaching a safe place at, get this, an equine-involved ranch for abused children run by a man and his wife, Doug and Gina Dahlen.

That the Rucki girls were specifically with the same reunification camp (or “mental health services”) above is I admit hearsay.  These things are often kept private.  I also heard that the father, who was claiming “broke” (moved a major trucking business into someone else’s name…) managed to have the camp paid for by another foundation dealing with missing children.
However, on having heard about the Dugard/Rebecca Bailey (a name otherwise previously  unfamiliar to me over the years)  the first time, I went to take a closer look at the professional Rebecca Bailey, briefly at the JayC Foundation (which names her and one other as advisory committee an advisory committee of just two), and quickly realized that this was an “AFCC-style” operation.

I was looking at Massachusetts AFCC filings and website again recently, in the context of reunification camp “Overcoming Barriers” being advertised on the site; a topic I’m posting on currently, and very concerned about; the practice seems so aggressive towards minor children and can involve and has involved hauling them (transporting, including by airplane) cross-country for group therapy and re-indoctrination, “deprogramming parental alienation” camps.

MA AFCC “Resources for Families” page, featuring, among other offerings, the 501©3 “Overcoming Barriers.” Parental Alienation-antidote,a.k.a. reunification therapy (or camps)….

(Overcoming Barriers website detail: Our Approach) viewed 12/19/2017

MA AFCC web page featuring Parent Coordination (see website for active links)

Anyhow, I noticed that the MAAFCC.org website, which is pretty basic, not overly populated with information, does take time to advertise and talk about Parent Coordination, and its certification (i.e., get trained to be listed as a provider).  It also shows this to have been, it seems, a very recent (2017) administrative ruling to make it, or some new element of it, happen.

Home page of AFCC chapter in MA. Fairly straightforward.

MA AFCC Articles of Incorp (partial, from state business entities search site)

So… on the topic and title of “Parent Coordinator,” like others AFCC members (under its name or under other significant organizations or center they may have been involved with) helped sponsor as professions, such a dispute resolution, or mediator, or the concept of “collaborative divorce,” etc.,  just because this may not be making headlines on “outraged parent news” journalism, including about parents periodically suing over it in protest, doesn’t mean the court-ordered practice or judicial involvement in certifying or training people for it (to get referral business from the courts) has ceased operations.

Click to enlarge. Self-explanatory. Found on MAAFCC.org website on a page dedicated to  “Parenting Coordination” news.

Some apparently have, though, it seems ceased staying legally registered at the state level.  The ones in Georgia here, I DNR whether I ever found related tax returns.  There may have been Forms 990-N filed (or, maybe not), but it’s not on my priority list to check the IRS individually for these.

Post title:

To be honest, I wanted to refer to this, check back because I referred to it, but not clutter up the original post.  Parent post (this will probably be published right after it, and before Christmas Day, 2017) is “Incentivizing Reunification Camps while Family Policy already sets the stage for Familial Abductions.” (short-link ending “-8fE”).  The post you’re reading now IS short; consider it a footnote only (not a major expose!)…

The lead-in text from parent post, I was thinking aloud about the ‘flash-in-the-pan” business formations, or on-line advertising which doesn’t connect (at least not obviously or readily — Overcoming Barriers 501©3 above, excepted) to the corporate filings or how to locate any Form 990, if it’s operating nonprofit.  I was remarking on the astonishing, almost proprietary (“it’s our turf”) level of influence for what, “on the books” at least is a relatively small private association (AFCC “mother ship”) without even chapters in the majority of US States, and most of those chapters not being much to look at, and some of them, not lasting long, either….

Members in some places have helped get administrative judicial rulings establishing even a Family Court Division passed in the first place (speaking of Baltimore, Maryland example; I posted on it with evidence in late 2014). Not to mention an innate tendency to seek even more specialized diversionary courts, i.e., the High-Conflict Court Docket in Connecticut.

In an upcoming AFCC conference, whose agenda and brochure are already posted on the website, I noticed one workshop recommending, to better help “pro se” people (“called “SRLs” – Self-Represented Litigants) and unrepresented people in the family courts, the lawyers and/or mediators should be allowed as “neutrals” to actually draft and file orders, although it seems from the workshop description that outside Wisconsin, (by law,?) they can’t — yet. [sentence update 12/25/2017 to avoid possible mis-statement].

Here’s the workshop, and another (nearby) in how to expand the “IDVD” model, another diversionary court:

Lawyer-mediator can draft AND file “on behalf of both parties..” One of which may, and the other may not, be well-informed of the agenda towards women and mothers, or categorization/labeling of abuse or criminal behavior, held by the very association convening this conference. Maybe neither know. I sure didn’t before entering the family courts, or family court facilitators office, at the time of first “mediation” (compromise and dilution of our existing, just-issued restraining order, reducing its geographic zone and basically facilitating any-day-of-the-week entry to the property he’d just been forcibly vacated from, through proper legal notice and service of the TRO, and with a civil standby which I made sure not to be nearby for).

Another “Integrated” DV court — pilot-tested in a rural area, hey, before meeting at an international conference and suggesting to judicial officers they might want it in THEIR area too. NOT on this agenda, how the same “traditional courts” referred to are in fact, family courts (which that abstract of the workshop fails to mention), and the conferencing association coming up with the bright idea to create family AND conciliation courts as additional diversionary courts (mandating mediation and divorce counseling wherever possible, for its membership to provide, whether court-appointed or privately) themselves (family courts) began as a diversion, and led by the same association (and subsequently over time continued to critique their own creation as if someone else was responsible, so as to introduce a “new” model variation on the original basic principles that retained control over the families and especially the kids…The old “perspective switcheroo” or schizoid characterization of the courts themselves…

What they lack in size, they seem to overcompensate for in: coordinated/synchronized specialty language; the tendency to multiply nonprofits using specialty language names, and once started, diversify applications (i.e., into institutes, academies, trainings, certifications, etc. named after the original idea;  High-Conflict, Parent Coordination, Collaborative Practice, etc.); programming; and last but not least, group loyalty for mutual promotion of, and control over access to and the standards for the specialized fields their members have helped create.

It’s no surprise that the Center for Court Innovation (Fund for the City of New York, Inc. + NYS Unified Court System joint project dating back to the mid-1990s? although the Ford-initiative “Fund” was started in 1968) can be found evaluating the second such court.  Read about it here.

The list of stakeholders for this 2nd IDVD in Vermont (Bennington County was first, This was for Windham County, in Brattleboro) include service providers (BIP for no doubt “Batterers Intervention Program”) and “SA” probably “Sexual Assault.”) (six images, two annotated, you have the pdf link above). This is “gallery style” – click any image to enlarge, and once started can be viewed in sequence  (forward or backward) by clicking on <   > arrows which appear.

[See “What they lack in size, they seem to overcompensate for in: coordinated/synchronized specialty language…group loyalty for control…” paragraph above] … Like any good, international cult. Or “gang.” (Lack or presence of quotations around the last two nouns there is deliberate).

If you think about it, “language and group behavior synchronicity” is efficient, maximizes effect, and creates a sense of authority coming as if from multiple sources, sources typically in our culture associated with power and authority on their own, and that therefore the cause must be just, or if not, that opposition may be futile.  Forming societies historically has been good for meeting privately, in select company, and  apart from the public to obtain agreement.

But societies become associations become corporations (tax-exempt) whose primary purpose is to redirect and re-purpose public institutions, and whose members are targeted to civil servants in positions to move assets and revenues, write rules with a goal of eventually re-writing legislation, and creating more public-funded institutions — now that is a problem.

The history of family court seems to be a history of a number of such societies. In the last half of the 20th century, particularly when combined with the impacts of major restructuring of a large part of the US government (federal) budget, i.e., Social Security Act, to get involved with the same issues driven by also by the various societies (associations) — that’s major impact.  And that’s not the Constitutional form of government, it’s in essence in basic conflict with the concept of “representative” government, and it’s exploitation of tax-exempt status in pursuit of this purpose.

And in the latter half of the 20th century, in part because of its shape-shifting and organization website About/History accounts do NOT match Secretary of State (state-level) or IRS accounts, when it comes to the family courts, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in combination with its journal (Family Court Review) co-published with Hofstra University, where AFCC founder-members were long on the editorial board or running the journal of this created profession, has established major leverage upon major sectors of the US (and international) populations through this venue.  It’s the few ruling the many without direct representation, in private association, and without adequate fiscal or other accountability.  Their membership (as I said, this operates essentially, in my opinion, like a cult) then routinely creating more named networks of nonprofits promoting similar language (semantics), practices ,and policies, and when publishing frequently citing to group members’ work (and less so, non-group-members’ publication).

Now indications continue that Oxford University Press has been picking up (under “social sciences” at least) publication of many of AFCC or collaborationists with the organization as well, giving it an aura of credibility in a whole other level.  Apart from the ongoing “international” aspect having been in place from the start, the ability to cross international borders to hawk ones’ wares AS IF representing to people abroad the situation in America (meaning, the USA) makes it tougher for people affected by this within the country to track, address, and counter the publicity with some hard facts as to the networked entities involved.

This is a major problem.  Footnote “Personal” added below (gray, narrative to underscore the point. [I added post-publication and may delete again later.]  The collective influence is generationally, economically destructive while purporting to be beneficial.  The business appears to be moving children, and through the power to do this, family and business relationships around at will, which is disruptive to local economies also, when a parent is driven homeless (it happens), jailed (it happens) or extorted to pay supervised visitation fees to see a custody-switched child (documented — it happens), or the children are carted cross-country for “reunification therapy.”   If new categories of “relationship” crime can be defined, created, implemented, and punished — then the act of forming relationships at any point could become dangerous. This works and drives the herds overall (the population) towards a disruptive, dissociative society.