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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Search Results

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Drafted Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022].

leave a comment »

Before you read this post perhaps read the lead-in, at The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022] (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here). …. if I’ve published it by then.  If not, read it soon after: these are a pair and (I hope) go public within one day of each other.

Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft].. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”).

Preview, “Where I Stand” and Disclaimer (not too long).

Don’t get too excited on “Disclaimer” — it only applies to inter-post copyediting to check points of reference — not fact-checking on the content itself.

On reviewing this post right before finally publishing it mid-May, 2022, I diverted its section on the coordinated use of mantras, but my related Widening Credibility Gap post may still refer to it.  My staff of (so far) no one doesn’t edit for cross-coordination of internal references among related posts. The purpose is to publish enough information on every post to provoke some deeper thinking and to exhort (urge, beg, warn, plead with) people to be wary of passive consumption/absorption of the theories, presumptions, and pre-fabricated Family Court, Domestic Abuse/Violence/”Coercive Control” and Child Abuse “fixes” coordinated internationally and, as to state-jurisdiction matters within the USA, nationwide.

This “preview” section addresses that practice — the coordinated use of shared mantras to conform governments more and more with each other, despite different constitutions and the different values expressed in those constitutions over the decades or centuries. Below this preview, my post content (marked by another headline) documents what its title describes:  some of how this is done, naming specific entities. So the preview does summarize the more detailed content below. That’s where more colorful images, links, uploaded media and quotes begin.  Right here:  this is my thinking and opinion.

Coordination of those mantras among at a minimum the organizations mentioned here is international, as citations among academics and advocates within governments, within university centers, and people running advocacy charities and/or the curricula and trainings those charities promote  repeatedly show.

My next sentence has a long subject labeling the single word “preference.”  It is still one subject with one verb “reveals” and just one direct object “agenda” which is also described as “much larger” than an alternate agenda obviously NOT preferred by certain people and their organizations speaking in internationally-coordinated mantras.

The preference of selling “mantras” delivered by experts over encouraging ALL of the public to acquire the needed skills and with those skills consistently exercise independent analysis based on independent observation reveals an agenda much larger than solving the named problems: including some of the original problem-solving courts.  The more I read and learn, the more I must acknowledge that choices were made long ago to limit access to independent analysis to only certain classes, ALL of which relates to the nature of government and social control tactics employed by it. I have however been basically saying (and blogging) this now for over a decade.  

Above, I mentioned the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.”  Look through its website — or Cafcass — or similar ones –and notice how graphic, visually engaging and how full of blank white (or other background color) primary colors or very bright colors, their home pages and most of their content is, even the “annual reports” or strategy statements.  Are we all now to be watching cartoons and thinking in such images? Are we to be treated like infants with short attention spans and who need pretty colors to stay on topics pre-chosen for us by overseers?

The question “internationally coordinated mantras” raises is: how much globalization is acceptable?

How much of the world should be setting national (or NGO member states’) government policy to match (for just one example) UN Sustainable Development Goals?  

Why is “global” now glorified among advocates (including “#familyCourtReformists”) and a constant gesture, while the specific “domestic” (internal to this country) or “local” (meaning, in the USA, sometimes an entire very large state such as California, Texas, or (geographically) Alaska basic information never makes it significantly to the top publicity level, media messaging, or advocacy rhetoric?

I’m well aware of the United States’ shortcomings (it’s where I’ve lived), but I debate and reject the practice of integrating the values systems sold under specific symbolic and innately self-contradictory branding (mantras) of former empires and colonizers with monarchs, official, designated caste systems, and national religions — or the opposite, official state opposition to religion/atheism/socialism. Here’s how I feel about all of it:

I’m sick of what I call “FamilyCourtReformists” including but not limited to  the United States Federal government-controlled (through strategic centralized public funds) but privately exercised within the states and regionally “DV Industry here:

I’m sick of their rhetoric, policies, self-descriptions, their withholding on almost EVERY website their own financials and typically even EIN#s, knowing well taxpayers fund them; their withholding on almost EVERY website, their documented collaboration (as if a GOOD thing) with known fathers-rights (more technically, when it’s phrased according to their funding sources, “fatherhood-promoting”) organizations and entities.

I’m sick of such people, talking of their various entities and too many non-entities, such as the National Family Violence Law Center (at George Washington University) or the “National Safe Parents Coalition” at (God knows where — “it” doesn’t specify: there’s a website, but no legal domicile mentioned) and others, such as and/or even at University of California, Irvine, an “EndFamilyViolence.UCI.edu” center:  exploiting their residence or connections here at top U.S. universities) claiming concern for us (who have been battered and abused and somehow are still “alive and kicking” and to our children — especially any little (still minor) children, especially any — and mothers, I do apologize for using this term, but it applies — “dead kids” (murdered children) — to audiences elsewhere in the world, while we who have been sidelined, betrayed, and “thrown under the bus” (Family Law Courts and elsewhere) know quite well what they cover up and [probably for this reason: it interrupts the controlled scripts] have systematically excluded from the international dialogue.

Note: my calling out the above types does not in any way endorse or approve the substantial, similarly* organized but differently labeled, and also Welfare-Reform advantaged “marriage/fatherhood-promotion” crowd USA, and, likewise, with ONGOING centers at various universities (sometimes a program will migrate to another university with its founder), i.e., the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and (it accompanies and needs for full effectiveness in the family court systems) “access and visitation” grants stream from federal government targeting state operations to influence custody outcomes in favor of fathers and to discourage (sideline the cause of) full separation from abuse by mothers trying to do exactly that.

The first many years of my blog exposed this and talked about it (the “fathers’ rights” contingent, federally funded) “all the time.” I just feel that now it’s time to show how the “DV / Family Court Reform” groups have all along failed to acknowledge this even exists — that is, habitually lied to the public and to clients (women) who come to them for help — Nor, on public or the private tax-exempt advocacy corporations websites, has anyone, really, been taught to explore audited financial statements of governments (for better understanding) or of private entities required to produce them, or for that matter, generally, even IRS tax returns where such are required.

I know — I don’t even speculate, it’s not speculation any more — that, taken as a whole, this represents something far larger and more significant than either of the causes (fathers’ rights promotion, protection of women and children) spoken of.

I may not be significantly heard but out of conscience, concern, and (I say), love for the truth, and uprightness, justice — and hatred of the opposite so built into policymaking — I have spoken. As long as this blog is active (and, with whatever I can preserve of it should it become inactive) my words are witness to what I said when.  Look back in a few years and see whether I was right or wrong… but I still say, better to think about these issues now and IF I’m right (as I said in blog posts ca. March 2014, “WHAT IF I’M RIGHT HERE?”), a different response is in order to what we are being coached and encouraged to agree to by chief advocates pro/con any cause — and especially on ones involving life and death matters and (for the extremely high marketing value on claiming this concern) the safety and welfare of children.

I say this for next generations of women and mothers and their children, and fathers — the decent ones, not the over-entitled ones:  “QUIT being played one against another!!” Where apparent conflicts of fact and basic truth lie, there is a why.  Dig deep enough to see the lowest common denominator.  If you haven’t even dug for a few financials to rule out greed (i.e. accounting anomalies or dark areas facilitating or criminal-levels of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.) as  a possible cause (since when was “the love of money” NOT the root  of all evil —  or even a primary cause among many…)  you haven’t scratched the surface.

At what point…after how many years, or indicators they matter… does “I haven’t dug for a few financials” become “I won’t…don’t care to…don’t think it’s relevant… if it’s so important, why aren’t the experts aren’t doing this, or or more of my friends?” For some, this is a matter of using the mirror into one’s own reasoning and life choices.//LGH (Let’s Get Honest) May 12, 2022.


The Post’s Title Content Begins Here:

“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS)

Read the rest of this entry »

Fathers’ Rights & Domestic Violence, Aussie Mantalk @2006

with one comment

This page presents an Australian (Man's) report, via  XYonline.org  by way of "StopFamilyViolence.org" XY LogoSfvo-logo  As for commentary, inserted links & paragraphs, and (color, font, style) changes, well,those would be mine...  If unsure whose is whose, visit the original site.   Prefatory blurb: XYonline.org (that's a chromosomal, and not a mathematical, reference) is significant. This blog hopes to avoid the rabid He Said/She Said talk and is not aimed at either camp (or any other "rabid" camp). As such, I try to find sensible and non-rabid MALE input into the discussion, which this organization represents. I am also very THANKFUL for such input, because violence IS a gendered issue  (although poorly domesticated). We are in some difficult times, and yes, there IS male backlash against feminism, and there IS a middle ground, I hope, for people, such as myself, that do not believe the words "God,"  "Justice," and "freedom of religion" are incompatible.  It is simply necessary for all of us to adhere to the laws of the country, and participate actively in making them, monitoring our judiciary and executive branches, when they, too, assume a godlike rule over us.   The rewards for following any "idols," including superstars or golden calves, are immediate, and sometimes temporary.  I still believe -- sort of in the manner some of us United-States-ians still believe "O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave" when we sing it, even acknowledging that this occurs in the BATTLE Hymn of the Republic.  Like the wide-ranging melody that few people these days can sing (I speak as a singer), and so hire people at ballparks to render, it is a wide-ranging concept, too. Thank you, Dr. Flood, whoever you are, for permission to publish, and StopFamilyViolence.org for posting it.   Dr Michael Flood Postdoctoral Fellow Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) La Trobe University E-mail: michael.flood[at]anu.edu.au PO Box 4026, Ainslie ACT, 2602 Permission is given for this document to be circulated or posted online.
Published on October 4, 2006 by Xy: Men, Masculinity and Gender Politics

Father’s Rights and Violence Against Women

by Michael Flood

Presentation in Panel, “Myths, Misconceptions, and the Men’s Movement”, at Conference, Refocusing Women’s Experiences of Violence, Sydney, 14-16 September.


In this talk, I’m going to focus on the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement, and their impact on violence against women.

Introduction: The fathers’ rights movement

The fathers’ rights movement  is defined by the claim that fathers are deprived of their ‘rights’ and subjected to systematic discrimination as men and fathers, in a system biased towards women and dominated by feminists. Fathers’ rights groups overlap with men’s rights groups and both represent an organised backlash to feminism. Fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups can be seen as the anti-feminist wing of the men’s movement, the network of men’s groups and organisations mobilised on gender issues (Flood, 1998).

Two experiences bring most men (and women) to the fathers’ rights movement. The first is deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles. Fathers’ rights groups are characterised by anger and blame directed at ex-partners and the ‘system’ that has deprived men or fathers of their ‘rights’, and such themes are relatively common among men who have undergone separation and divorce. The second experience is non-resident fathers’ dissatisfaction with loss of contact with their children or with regimes of child support.

The fathers’ rights movement focuses on trying to re-establish fathers’ authority and control over their children’s and ex-partners’ lives, on gaining an equality concerned with fathers’ ‘rights’ and status rather than the actual care of children, and on winding back legal and cultural changes which have lessened gender inequalities.

Fathers’ rights groups are well-organised advocates for changes in family law, and vocal opponents of feminist perspectives and achievements on interpersonal violence.

Impact of the fathers’ rights movement on violence against women

The fathers’ rights movement has had four forms of impact on violence against women.

1.  Priviledging contact over safety

Most importantly, the fathers’ rights movement has influenced family law, with damaging consequences for women, children, and indeed men. Above all, fathers’ contact with children has been privileged, over children’s safety from violence.

An uncritical assumption that children’s contact with both parents is necessary now pervades the courts and the media. The Family Court’s new principle of the ‘right to contact’ is overriding its principle of the right to ‘safety from violence’. The Court now is more likely to make interim orders for children’s unsupervised contact in cases involving domestic violence or child abuse, to use hand-over arrangements rather than suspend contact until trial, and to make orders for joint residence where there is a high level of conflict between the separated parents and one parent strongly objects to shared residence.

The fathers’ rights movement has been unsuccessful in achieving its key goal of a rebuttable presumption of children’s joint residence after separation. {{NOT QUITE, at this point….}} However, other changes in family law and government policy over the last two years have reflected its influence. Recent reforms mean that greater numbers of parents who are the victims of violence will be subject to further violence and harassment by abusive ex-partners, while children will face a greater requirement to have contact with abusive or violent parents.

Current government policy echoes many of the key themes of the fathers’ rights movement. Both government policy and many fathers’ rights groups are guided by two central, and mistaken, assumptions: that all children see contact with both parents as in their best interests in every case, and that a violent father is better than no father at all (DVIRC, 2005, pp. 5-6). Both bodies talk of ‘conflict’ rather than violence, neglect violence as a legitimate issue for the courts and family services to address, emphasise mediation and counseling as solutions, and focus on punishing women for making false allegations or breaching contact orders.

2.  Discrediting victims

The second impact the fathers’ rights movement has had on violence against women is in discrediting victims. Fathers’ rights groups tell two key lies.

First, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make false accusations of child abuse to gain advantage in family law proceedings and to arbitrarily deny their ex-partners’ access to the children.

Second, fathers’ rights groups tell the lie that women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence [in order] to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders [in order] to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence.

{{Blog author notes:  the habit of crediting motive to a litigant is common in Family Court.  

Presumption of motive is a mindset.  It is a mindset and attitude that presumes court personnel are competent to “mind-reading.” As such, it is indicative of a “god-like” perspective, rather than the “let’s check the facts” perspective which in court, one deserves and should be able to expect.  

COURTS are to review facts (evidence), law, and case law, etc.  They are not there to project motives upon the guilty til presumed fit.  As other places on this blog show, and unfortunately, there is also an  unspoken “NONrebuttable presumption of being in need of therapy (as referred by judges to court-appointed personnel, or even cronies…”  Well, back to Dr. Flood..}}

I [Dr. Flood speaking again] have written detailed critiques of these first two lies, and they are available both online and in the latest issue of the Australian journal Women Against Violence. I can send copies to anyone who wishes.


3.  Men’s versus women’s violence

(Impact on perceptions of intimate violence)

Related to this, the fathers’ rights movement also has had some impact on public perceptions of intimate violence. In particular, it tells the lie that domestic violence is gender-equal or gender-neutral – that men and women assault each other at equal rates and with equal effects.

While I’ve called this a lie, this is one claim for which there is some academic support.

To support the claim that domestic violence is gender-symmetrical, advocates draw almost exclusively on studies using a measurement tool called the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS situates domestic violence within the context of “family conflict”. It asks one partner in a relationship whether, in the last year, they or their spouse have ever committed any of a range of violent acts. CTS studies generally find gender symmetries in the use of violence in relationships. There are three problems with the use made of such studies by fathers’ rights activists.

First, men’s rights and fathers’ rights groups make only selective use of this data, as CTS authors themselves reject efforts to argue that women’s violence against men is as common or as harmful as men’s violence against women (Kimmel 2001, p. 22).

Second, there are methodological problems with the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS is widely criticized for not gathering information about the intensity, context, consequences or meaning of the action. The CTS ignores who initiates the violence (when women are more likely to use violence in self-defense), assumes that violence is used expressively (e.g. in anger) and not instrumentally (to ‘do’ power or control), omits violent acts such as sexual abuse, stalking and intimate homicide, ignores the history of violence in the relationship, neglects the question of who is injured, relies on only one partner’s reports despite poor interspousal reliability, and omits incidents after separation and divorce, which is a time of increased danger for women.

Third, a wide range of other data find marked gender asymmetries in domestic violence. For example, crime victimization studies based on large-scale aggregate data, household and crime surveys, police statistics, and hospital data all show that men assault their partners and ex-partners at rates several times the rate at which women assault theirs and that female victims greatly outnumber male victims (Tjaden & Thoennes 2000, pp. 25-26).

{{BlogAuthor comments:  Thoennes is one of the originators of the Center for Policy Research — see blogroll/organizations.  This conclusion seems a little odd, in that this institute appears (to me) to be one of the prime movers in setting up other fathers’ rights-organizations with extensive, almost unrivaled? influence over the family courts AND child support, etc. agencies  So to acknowledge that women get hit more seems odd.}}

Feminist and other scholars have worked to reconcile the conflicting findings of these bodies of data. One important insight is the recognition of different patterns of violent behaviour in couples and relationships. Some heterosexual relationships suffer from occasional outbursts of violence by either husbands or wives during conflicts, what some (Johnson 1995, 284-285) call “common couple violence”. Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. In situations of “patriarchal terrorism” on the other hand, one partner (usually the man) uses violence and other controlling tactics to assert or restore power and authority. The violence is more severe, it is asymmetrical, it is instrumental in meaning, it tends to escalate, and injuries are more likely.

CTS studies are only a weak measure of levels of minor ‘expressive’ violence in conflicts among heterosexual couples. They are poorer again as a measure of ‘instrumental’ violence, in which one partner uses violence and other tactics to assert power and authority (Johnson 1995, 284–285).

There is no doubt that men are the victims of domestic violence. Men experience domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members.

A growing body of research tells us that there are important contrasts in women’s and men’s experiences of domestic violence. Women are far more likely than men to be subjected to frequent, prolonged, and extreme violence, to sustain injuries, to fear for their lives, and to be sexually assaulted (Kimmel 2001, 19; Bagshaw et al. 2000). Men subjected to domestic violence by women rarely experience post-separation violence and have more financial and social independence. Female perpetrators of domestic violence are less likely and less able than male perpetrators to use nonphysical tactics to maintain control over their partners (Swan & Snow 2002, 291-292).

Women’s physical violence towards intimate male partners is often in self-defense (DeKeseredy et al. 1997; Hamberger et al. 1994; Swan & Snow 2002, 301; Muelleman & Burgess 1998, 866). On the other hand, women’s intimate violence can also be motivated by efforts to show anger, a desire for attention, retaliation for emotional hurt, and so on (Hamberger et al. 1994). It is inadequate to explain women’s violence simply in terms of their own oppression and powerlessness, and naïve to assume that women are immune from using violence to gain or maintain power in relationships (Russo 2001, 16-19).

Men are likely to under-estimate and under-report their subjection to domestic violence by women (George 1994, 149; Stockdale 1998, 63). There is no evidence however that male victims are more likely to under-report than female victims. In fact, men tend to over-estimate their partner’s violence and under-estimate their own, while women do the reverse (Kimmel 2001, 10-11).

The fathers’ rights movement’s attention to domestic violence against men is not motivated by a genuine concern for male victimisation, but by political agendas concerning family law, child custody and divorce (Kaye & Tolmie 1998, pp. 53-57). This is evident in two ways.

{{NOTE:  This is why it is important to KNOW some of the characteristics & behaviors of the individuals (as in, founders of organizations) and organizations (as in, funding, purpose, etc.) of people talking.  I personally have found that the system I was dragged through, and daughters — very often mirrored the abuse / DV I’d just had a decade too much of.  It took less than one year to figure this out, by personally witnessing reactions and responses to straightforward facts….}}

First, the fathers’ rights movement focuses on this violence when the great majority of the violence inflicted on men is not by female partners or ex-partners but by other men. Australian crime victimisation surveys find that less than one percent of violent incidents among men is by partners or ex-partners, compared to one-third of incidents among women (Ferrante et al. 1996, 104). Boys and men are most at risk of physical harm from other boys and men.

Second, the fathers rights’ movement seeks to erode the protections available to victims of domestic violence and to bolster the rights and freedoms of alleged perpetrators, and this harms female and male victims of domestic violence alike. I turn to this now.  

{{. . . . . . .AND CHILDREN, SIR!!!}}


4. Protecting perpetrators and undermining supports for victims

The fourth way in which the fathers’ rights movement has had an impact on violence against women is in its efforts to modify responses to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

The fathers’ rights movement has sought to wind back the protections afforded to the fictitious ‘victims’ of violence and to introduce legal penalties for their dishonest and malicious behavior. The Lone Fathers’ Association and other groups argue that claims of violence or abuse should be made on oath, they should require police or hospital records, and people making allegations which are not then substantiated, and those who’ve helped them, should be subject to criminal prosecution. They call for similar limitations to do with protection orders.

Fathers’ rights groups also attempt to undermine the ways in which domestic violence is treated as criminal behavior. They emphasise the need to keep the family together, call for the greater use of mediation and counseling, and reject pro-arrest policies.

{{Pause to reflect.  Why would they wish to do this?  WHY drown out the  very real issue of domestic violence, which is simply violence, at home, and protest treating criminal behavior as criminal?  The only reason (this chickie) can deduce is that somehow, married / partnered women are not truly seen as civil-rights-worthy.  I have studied, experienced, and verified this. The family law venue is lighter, slighter, and prone to psychologizing, not fact-finding.  I think the answer for WHy lies in the origins of these family law institutions, which is why I chose to study them.  AFTER my family had been dis-assembled therein.}}

Such changes would represent a profound erosion of the protections and legal redress available to the victims of violence and the ease with which they and their advocates can seek justice. This agenda betrays the fact that the concern for male victims of domestic violence often professed by fathers’ rights groups is rhetorical rather than real. While such groups purport to advocate on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, they seek to undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.  {{bullets inserted…}}

  • Fathers’ rights groups often respond to issues of domestic and sexual violence from the point of view of the perpetrator.
  • And they respond in the same way as actual male perpetrators: they minimise and deny the extent of this violence, blame the victim, and explain the violence as a mutual or reciprocal process (Hearn, 1996, p. 105).
  • This sympathy for perpetrators is evident in other ways too. Fathers’ rights advocates have expressed sympathy or justification for men who use violence against women and children in the context of family law proceedings. And, ironically, they use men’s violence to demonstrate how victimised men are by the family law system (Kaye & Tolmie, 1998a, pp. 57-58).

{{Pause — please, and consider this anomaly.   Then, I have a link or two…..}}

LINK#1 (and see Blogroll to right):

Per:  “NAFCJ.net”

One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC, was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations – AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts — established in Los Angeles in 1982 by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist

(NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders).

But Meyer Elkin is not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official of the leading fathers rights group – CRC. Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals, is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups.  {{THey love to quote each other….}}}

This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states. These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support. In addition they influence (U.S.) HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.  {{Blog author has fact-checked, and agrees.  More on the HHS connections, soon, I hope.  It is an unpleasant shock to discover where the sources of our distresses appear to lie — taxpayer funded, closed-door arranged, decades-earlier-initiated.  I can think of no better reason to immediately go green, simplify, reduce, and carve out huge blocks of time to find out WHAT my government is doing, on an ONgoing basis!   One way to carve out such time is creative homeschooling, another way is for parents to somehow become financially independent of their jobs.  lest I do a mid-comment-interrupting full-sized post, I’ll leave it at that.  For now.}}


This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states.

{{“AW,… that couldn’t possibly be true,” you say. WHY?  Because the thought is uncomfortable.  The same reasoning says that a nice smiling gjy couldn’t possibly both attend a church (synagogue, mosque, charity function) and then go home and beat wife & kids.  WELL, those guys on the news could, but am I saying that our justice system has major widespread difficulties originating in high places??   Well, take the time, and poke around. I have. The AFCC logo is everywhere… as is presumptive custody, thanks to CRC (CRCkids.org) and others.  See LINK#2, for just ONE sample…}}}


LINK#2 Case in point: AFCC on Hofstra Law, “FLER”

Family Law Education Reform. . . with help from the AFCC ~ a.k.a. a fathers’ rights group.

The FLER Project

The FLER Project was co-sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the Hofstra School of Law Center for Children, Families and the Law. ((Watch the “Centers” for this and that spring up throughout university campuses….}}} Over a two-year period, the Project systematically involved hundreds of law school faculty, law students and interdisciplinary family court professionals in developing a series of recommendations for educating the next generation of family lawyers. The Report of the Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) documents a gap between the content of family law courses and the way that family law is practiced. 

Translation:  This means possibly that some judges were still following the law when it came to a rebuttable presumption against sole, or even joint, legal custody going to a batterer or child molester?  Or that a complaint of child abuse didn’t produce more parenting classes for BOTH parents, after separation?  

More in this in a different post.  Back to Dr. Flood’s article. . . . 

Members of fathers’ rights groups also act as direct advocates for alleged perpetrators of violence against women. For example, one group distributes pamphlets for ‘victims of a false AVO’, giving no attention to how to respond to ‘true’ perpetrators of violence nor to the safety of family members.

{{For a good expose of this, see Liz Richards’ “NAFCJ.net” — and contact her, too.  THis has been documented, and is illegal when federally funded}}

Fathers’ rights groups also attack media and community campaigns focused on men’s violence against women, call for the de-funding and abolition of what they call the “domestic violence industry”, and engage in the harassment of community sector and women’s organisations which respond to the victims of violence.

Other, positive responses by men: The White Ribbon Campaign

This is all pretty depressing news. In this context, I’ve been especially heartened to see a growing positive response by men, in alliance with women, to help stop violence against women. I will focus on one such response.

White Ribbon Day is the largest effort by men across the world, working in partnership with women, to end men’s violence against women. White ribbons are worn on the day by men to show their concern about violence against women, and by women who are supporting men. It takes place on November 25th, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In Australia, White Ribbon Day is organised in part by UNIFEM, a women’s organisation, but it is conducted in partnership with men and men’s organisations. The White Ribbon Campaign focuses on the positive roles that men can play in helping to stop violence against women.

To find out more, visit the website: http://www.whiteribbonday.org.au/


To continue our efforts to prevent violence, several strategies are necessary.

We must continue to respond effectively to those who’ve experienced this violence, the coalface work that some of you already do.

We must continue to keep the issue of violence against women on the public agenda.

We must step up efforts to engage men in positive ways, building partnerships with supportive men and men’s groups. We must confront, or sidestep, the dangerous ambitions and dishonest claims of the men’s and fathers’ rights backlash.

The achievements of the fathers’ rights movement are already putting women, children and indeed men at greater risk of violence and abuse. {{BLOGauthor adds:  And they are still being killed…, not just:  “at risk” at all in those cases…}}  The fathers’ rights movement has exacerbated our culture’s systematic silencing and blaming of victims of violence and hampered efforts to respond effectively to the victims and perpetrators of violence.

However, the new politics of fatherhood has not been entirely captured by the fathers’ rights movement. There is potential to foster men’s positive and non-violent involvement in parenting and families. Key resources for realising the progressive potential of contemporary fatherhood politics include the widespread imagery of the nurturing father, community intolerance for violence against women, growing policy interest in addressing divisions of labour in child care and domestic work, and men’s own investments in positive parenting.

However, thwarting the fathers’ rights movement’s backlash requires that we directly confront the movement’s agenda, disseminate critiques of its false accusations, and respond in constructive and accountable ways to the fathers (and mothers) undergoing separation and divorce (Flood, 2004, pp 274-278).

Beating the backlash

The following are some of the political strategies we can use to help beat the fathers’ rights backlash.

Discredit fathers’ rights groups. Emphasise that they;

  1. Are interested only in reducing their financial obligations to their children;
  2. Are interested only in extending or regaining power and authority over ex-partners and children.
  3. Do nothing to increase men’s actual share of childcare / parenting or men’s positive involvement in parenting both before and after separation.
  4. Collude with perpetrators of violence against women and children, protect and advocate for perpetrators, or are perpetrators.
  5. Produce critiques of their lies and their strategies which are credible and accessible.
  6. Co-opt the new politics of fatherhood;

Support positive efforts to respond to separated fathers. (And emphasise that FR groups fix men in anger and blame, rather than helping them to heal.)

Build on men’s desires to be involved (and nonviolent) parents.

Find alternative male voices: supportive men and men’s / fathers’ networks and groups.

‘Speaking as a father…’

Tell women’s stories

Atrocity tales: Stories of abuse and inequality.

In letters, submissions, on talkback, etc.

(But beware of the ways in which these can (a) portray women only as victims, (b) homogenise and essentialise women’s (diverse) experiences of violence, and (c) undermine credibility and support. )

Find and nurture male allies: in government, the community sector, academic, etc.

More widely, we must continue do the work of violence prevention: to undermine the beliefs and values which support violence, challenge the power relations which sustain and are sustained by violence, and promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Certain brands of this group are not going to endorse homosexuality or trans-gendered situations (let alone ordaining a woman) any time soon, and will continue to view those who do as “the enemy” and remove their children, if possible, from such exposures.  Between the Koran (with which I am not familiar), and the Bible (with which I am), friends, it just ain’t going to happen.

I myself present as heterosexual and appreciating gender differences.

What I resent, and perhaps this can be addressed, is where these differences have become an overstylized CARICATURE of male and female.  The fact is, even in the Bible, “God” has male and female attributes at times.  He AM what he AM.  And any honest reading of Genesis records that the domination thing came up AFTER the “fall,” in which both Adam & Eve participated.  The first thing Adam said, when confronted, was an excuse.  Woman-blaming.  The habit has not gone anywhere recently.


A BOOK (nonreligious) that addresses this has a misleading title.

It is called “The End of Manhood.”  (I’ll try & post).

Before you shudder, it talks honestly about how when it comes to a choice between JUSTICE and being “one of the boys” (“manhood”), it’s an either/or.  He is not talking about the end of masculinity, but of the mythic concept of some hero at the top of the heap (heirarchy).  In a foreward or post-script (forget which) this gentleman acknowledges that he was pretty cruel to his sister growing up, as she reminded him on reading the book.  

“The End of Manhood.”



Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 9, 2009 at 3:27 pm

Posted in

CBMA and CFUF in #BlackLivesMatter: What’s Up Now, 2020, with (Famous-Foundations-sponsored-) Campaigns for Black MALE Achievement and (Still U.S. Gov’t-Sponsored-) Centers for Urban Families (fka “Fathers”)? [Started June 20, 2020, Publ. July 8].

leave a comment »

Today’s post:

CBMA and CFUF in #BlackLivesMatter: What’s Up Now, 2020, with (Famous-Foundations-sponsored-) Campaigns for Black MALE Achievement and (Still U.S. Gov’t-Sponsored-) Centers for Urban Families (fka “Fathers”)? [Started June 20, 2020, Publ. July_8]. short-link ends “-cVS”

CBMA — Campaign for Black Male Achievement.

CFUF – Centers for Urban Families (fka ‘Fathers’)

In case the acronyms CBMA and CFUF, are unfamiliar, I’ve started with two images of search results for these nonprofits’ tax returns showing the full names for each, and that the latter has a second related entity (CFUF Fund) and (when live links to tax returns are provided separately) the former did not incorporate (in New York) until late 2014, first gaining speed under a major (California) community foundation which itself was created through merger, only 2006, and which I’ve blogged (red-flagged, as also has the media) several times before.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 8, 2020 at 10:31 am

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?  [Published Dec. 17, 2017]

leave a comment »

The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:

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). (Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-87w”)  (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)

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.

[Post-publication: An extended footnote adds about 4,000 words referencing BWJP, the Wellstone promotion of supervised visitation (both quotes and news articles, as is well-known this progressive Senator, his wife, his daughter, three staff and two pilots were killed suddenly — about 15 years ago — during a small plane crash.  He’d been on the way to debate his opponent for an anticipated competitive fight for his third term.  However, an identifiable incorporation of acceptance for continued, but modified (i.e. “supervised”) exchanges in passive acceptance (and silent assent to AFCC policies while presenting at their 2000 conference on alienation, access and attachment with special emphasis on the first issues) effectively “headed off at the pass: any open, informed discussion on another possibility which better preserved safety — NO forced contact where abuse has been identified. By separating dangerous from not-dangerous parenting situations, this also would clear the path for fairer handling of non-abusive fathers’ issues.]

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 higher the bills,  the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies 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 under  “family-friendly policy,” and 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 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?)?
Read the rest of this entry »

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). [Publ. June 24, 2017]

with one comment

The “All-Gender World” reference is at the bottom; “All-Gender” bathrooms are showing up in California, which is by grammar declaration there are more than two genders.  Oregon went one step further and became the first state to allow this option on drivers’ licenses.  It does make one wonder about the logic of continuing the gender wars and their funding, if the USA is about to go “All-Gender.”  Just a little humor and call to reason there. The rest of my two-part title reflects the main post content.

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive shortlink ending “-73P”) <==Title.

Fathers’ Day (now, last Sunday).  Bit of a tough time to write a post without going sarcastic about fathers’ rights organizations, possibly offending those who had positive relationships with their own fathers.

I did, basically, other than he didn’t live long enough which I must admit was possibly a factor in why the man I married felt it was OK to slap and throw around, in other words threaten, injure his own pregnant wife, and his own wife raising their two small children, for years until I stopped at least THAT behavior by having him physically separated from where we lived (legal intervention). it did not stop the stalking, and as it turned out, a similar battle had to be fought again, over wider territory, with the same man and his now widened sphere of support, and dramatically lessened financial obligations i.e., demands upon his personal time, and backed by initially two, later FOUR (if you include in-laws) of my own relatives who’d picked a battle to distract from the one I’d just won some ground in — stopping the domestic violence.  

So, during those married (in-home abuse) and post-separation times (family court litigation which continued long after the protective order was removed, reproducing many — not all — of the problem / work interference situations of the marriage, and adding legal costs, ongoing intimidation, and parenting drain on time and resources),  I got a first-hand lesson of how married men (both relatives and some friends), religious men including pastors who knew about the battering at the time it was occurring and others or people who attended gatherings led by pastors, with rare exception/s most single men in my acquaintance through work, and in general MEN often just do not intervene with one of their “kind,” (gender) known to be assaulting his own wife in front of the kids and apart from them, and/or while maintaining economic control making it nearly impossible to flee.  And/or causing major life and work difficulties for single mothers afterwards. I can see why they might not (having their own work and personal/social lives to lead), or why they might, being aware that domestic violence or family violence prevention organizations exist (if they are aware), wrongfully assume some of these are effective once the divorce process begins.

The other factor is, stepping in between a person targeting a woman for abuse and the abuser, puts himself repeatedly at risk for collateral damages, as do some officers stepping in between incidents in process.  This condition, facilitated in large part through the family court process itself and its tendency to strip off restraining orders and focus on “co-parenting” once the process begins, starts to isolate the single mothers from other sources of support they may have already established — including (I found) through their work lives.

Many of the above men might support battered women or such women post-separation, morally, or in some ways during those times socially (or more accurately, permit their wives to where there were wives), but there is a problem with the situation.  It becomes a personal war! Men willing to assault and batter their wives then confronted in this legally don’t automatically change their heads, hearts, or intents, and (I’m speaking from experience here, 21st century), the act of supporting a woman who the other is intent on “getting even with” or destroying, is met with boundary violations of supporters, or enough increased pressure on the woman that more support is required, tending to isolate and drive would-be helpers away. Just as acts of independence, initiative, or self-improvement are met with escalations to counter this.

I’m indebted to one unnamed (and not otherwise described in this post) individual who helped for years post-separation, and took some personal heat from my family for doing so, not to mention significant inconvenience, with nothing to show for it than, I gather, a sense of having adhered to his own moral, social, and charitable values.

I later got a hard lesson in how my own country, at least those in power, still primarily men (see Congress, for example) still seem to view women, in general, as well as how women in power — including in feminist or DV circles as lawyers, professors at major universities (incl. at some of their law schools) — or those running major violence “prevention” organizations — may preach and establish network after network “until the day goes down,” and run public media campaigns against domestic violence, and, case in point locally, “Coaching Boys into Men,” but
at the end of the day” make sure to let the family law situation run its course, not outing HHS fatherhood, access visitation grants, or nonprofits like themselves, very profitably as 501©3s, fill a niche in the fathers’ rights armor — the need to be seen as respecting domestic violence issues and having some women “on board,”  (a niche in the conflict zone), while not actually revealing the “supply lines” of the continuing conflicts (<==This sentence revised post-publication to clarify meaning).

The more nonprofit websites and Forms 990 (or audited financial statements, where available) I looked at, the clearer the situation becomes. I doubt one post could explain it, but this one has some of the evidence.

ALSO, in this post, the excerpts and quotes I show regarding welfare reform and pushing marriage/fatherhood programming prove that it was not, as we’ve been led to believe or as some imply, really a political issue. Marriage/fatherhood and promoting it through social services seems to be the one area both progressive and conservative foundations could and did agree on, and did not radically protest at the time.  Major foundations from sides are also engaged in it, as we speak.  Nothing like a politically incorrect, but instinctively and historically gut-level felt common enemy [independent women with equal access to power, nationwide, single mothers not made financially dependent on either men, or the state [controlled by men], bottom-line, women] that while you can’t get away with it by direct name-calling, but can by indirect name-calling ([female-headed households, “fatherlessness,” out-of-wedlock childbearing].

This gut-level fear/hate to the point of being willing to wage a war over it sentiment is unacceptable (at least to mainstream liberals) on “in-your-face” on mainstream media, but in private conferences, and networks until the funding is in place, and letting the public think it’s a political (Left/Right, Democrat/Republican) issue to keep the public debates off-track, constantly — no problem!  (<==Another post-publication rewrite to clarify some double-negatives and conditional sentences.  If that didn’t clarify, just move on to the exhibits!]

Wait til you see the exhibits, and my annotations before you mentally dismiss the above statement.  I was surprised, too, and have been (for years), but I believe when I see the evidence, time and again….

Instead of calling WOMEN and MOTHERS [not under control of or in relationships with “their” men] bad, although it basically communicates this anyhow, it coined a term, “fatherlessness” (a sort of paper tiger) and threw programming and millions of dollars against it, and, unilaterally, just about, marriage good; having children outside marriage, bad.  Then went after “fatherlessness” in both married, and unmarried households where the children lived with their mothers.     I have many exhibits today, so let’s get right down to it.

The attempt to distinguish itself from right-wing extremists was under way.  Let the public fight them, and not notice the other networks being set in place…..

Tough not to be mis-taken as going after the entire male gender as a whole, or all fathers.

1. The War Against Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive, shortlink ending “-73P”) <==Title.

This confusion of usage discourages anyone taking the appropriately tough stand against the legitimacy and honesty of the premises allegedly underlying the practice, research, and profession of “fatherhood” created post- and pre-welfare reform of 1996, and spread rapidly (helped in part by certain groups NOT reporting on it consistently) through the modern electronic marvel called the Internet and with it, websites providing downloadable (fatherhood) curricula, resource centers (sometimes called “Clearinghouses”) and holding webinars for certification, etc., etc.

Another source muddying understanding of government vs. “not-government” (and so, private business or enterprise) arises when not just one, but whole series of private organizations with public officials’ names in their legal business names is said, and portrays itself as actually representing U.S. citizens’ best interests while networking, as they do, together in conferences to determine policy which are then fed (having avoided the normal means for citizen input to legislators, or such public officials) in the policy formation process.   (See recent post.  Link repeated below): Why Bother To Unravel the Proliferation of Private Associations Representing Public Offices? …. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6ZS”) (published June 16, 2017 and lists several of them, details a few of them…, like these two, in fact a “two-for-one” combo):

Notice top concept on banner is organization by REGION. Below that are ten topic areas. Mimics, in some ways, HHS Regional Centers, and OpDivs (only HHS is restricted to “Health and Human Services” whereas CSG as you can see, isn’t.)

At the same street address as CSG, but a legally separate entity whose tax returns you basically can’t (unlike CSG’s) read — because it’s been filing Form 990-N postcards instead, is a still influential “CSG Justice Center, Inc.” with a different logo:Click images for one of the two

Our Supporters

The work of the CSG Justice Center is made possible through the generous support of a diverse collection of sources. Over the past three decades, we have received significant federal funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That support has spanned four administrations and reflects deep bipartisan support in Congress for the issue areas on which we focus. Dozens of private foundations—local, regional, and national in focus—have also awarded grants to the CSG Justice Center. In addition, the private sector, such as companies working in health, telecommunications, and banking, have contributed financial support to our organization. A growing number of state governments (such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia) and local governments (such as Seattle, Harris County, TX, and Baltimore County, MD) contract with the CSG Justice Center for an array of services. Click here to see a full list of our past and present funders.Follow the CSG Justice Center on Twitter at @CSGJC or on Facebook at @CSGJusticeCenter.

(Where I found CSG Justice Center, Inc’s EIN# off-site)

Providing a list of funding agencies, foundations, and private companies is nice, but that’s not what readers, and citizens who fund those AGENCIES through tax receipts deserve — which is accounting statements for money received, with (a) EIN# (b) Donor dates © donor amounts, (d) grant OR contract purposes, (e) audited financial statements FOR the CSG Justice Center, Inc., if appropriate — and judging by what its telling IRS (which minimizes its revenues received) ALL of that above must be giving it just tiny bits at a time over four decades — or it’s hiding how much it actually is receiving. The failure to offer up financial information (even an EIN#!) by a nonprofit entity, especially one like this associated with CSG (above), is a red flag.

The CSG Justice Center has a well-developed website reporting yet more collaborative and interagency councils at the federal level, like this one. https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/firc/snapshots/

Federal Interagency Reentry Council

The Reentry Council, established in January 2011, represents a significant executive branch commitment to coordinating reentry efforts and advancing effective reentry policies. It is premised on the recognition that many federal agencies have a major stake in prisoner reentry. The reentry population is one we are already working with — not only in our prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities, but in our emergency rooms, homeless shelters, unemployment lines, child support offices, veterans’ hospitals, and elsewhere. When we extend out to the children and families of returning prisoners, the intersection is even greater.

A chief focus of the Reentry Council is to remove federal barriers to successful reentry, so that motivated individuals – who have served their time and paid their debts – are able to compete for a job, attain stable housing, support their children and their families, and contribute to their communities. Reentry Council agencies are taking concrete steps towards these ends, to not only reduce recidivism and high correctional costs but also to improve public health, child welfare, employment, education, housing and other key reintegration outcomes.

The federal agency (not private nonprofit named after “state governments”) HHS, under HMRF.ACF.HHS.Gov also had a natural focus on Prisoner Re-entry underneath its marriage/fatherhood programming (next few images. Notice that the top of the page says HMRF, but the links and content includes Re-Entry programming.  Some pages I’ve excerpted read “last reviewed June 16, 2017.”  Notice the funding is $150M/Year for 5-year period, and it at least lists how many organizations got the grants.  It doesn’t, however (also notice) suggest to the reader where they might go look up some more — like at TAGGS.hhs.gov!

1 of 4 (see also pdf listing that year’s grantees by type and state). Note left sidebar and reference to ReFORM (re-entry programming)

2 of 4 from HMRF.ACF.HHS.gov

3 of 4 from HMRF.ACF.HHS.GOV (and “see more” links at bottom of each successive page)

Click to read the whole list (about 2pp) from in pdf formta. Shown is just the Re-entry portion.


[And more like them where these entities showed up…]


That 6/16/17 post tells why it is important to unravel by doing so for two or three big (widely networked, and long-standing) ones, such as the “Council of State Governments” and American Public Human Services Association” and its “affiliate” entities, one focused on TANF, and the at-large member of that particular network (from Oklahoma DHS) was also found Sept. 2015 (therefore I found… again…) participating in a PEERTA network where well-known fathers’ rights group (reframed now as “families” not just fathers, while still pushing the same basic idea and initiative, and boasting about its networking with others who also do), CFUF.org.  See that post for details; several images involved.

I first started noticing these (as I recall) promoting fatherhood initiatives directly to the governors in conference (National Governors’ Association), but this wasn’t put on-line and once on-line, pointed out, that I’m aware of,  by ANY protective parents, family violence prevention, domestic violence prevention, feminist anti-domestic violence lawyer famous in the field or, from what I can tell, any of the nonprofit entities formed by the same….

…(for example, DVLEAP, or National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, or at the time, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, or even (Florida) family lawyer Elizabeth Kates (advertising with Lisa Marie Macci, family law appeals statewide), whose “LizLibrary” arguing against parental alienation and many interesting, and still relevant issues, is or at least I know was when I was more involved on-line networking, before focusing primarily on this blog, well-known in “protective mothers'” circles (those who were blogging the issues) ranks.

Before I show, the NGA’s work promoting fatherhood and fathers’ rights nationwide via the state’s governors (which I doubt shows up on lizlibrary), I went back to look at LizLibrary.org.

I should probably address the situation in a new post, one of these days.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 24, 2017 at 8:45 pm

If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?

leave a comment »

Another Sequence of Three (or Four) Posts on Similar Topics

For now, I’m publishing this without the tags, 8/9/2016.

This post (<=that’s a shortlink) comes from “CVE | BAMF | GIRDS | Hayak and reading Form 990s too?  C’mon, Let’s Get Honest, Whaddaya Want?

From the bowels of this one, the Show and Tell on how yes, I do expect a certain public learning curve among us commoners, even if it means some CHANGE and a short vocabulary list with even some drills on usage, I felt it helpful to better explore the UN-related word “NGO,” how we’re supposed to classify such organizations, and how (to the contrary, and why) I look at them.  Called: “What’s an NGO?  What’s a UNESCO-affiliate NGO at Rutgers?  In fact, What’s Rutgers (A look at the State of NJ CAFR)”  The NGO topic is introduced, briefly, here but a closer look at the CAFR really does communicate the range, power and types of holdings any State might hold.  I look at component units, assets, investments and parts of that financial statement which simply tells about the operating structures (Authorities, Public Universities, etc.) any state might be operating.  NJ’s position makes it real interesting — consider “the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey” (Address:  4 World Trade Center, NYC)

Why: The example of NGO came up with the recently posted “Institute for International Peace at Rutgers” which simultaneously (and right after formation somewhere in 2011) became a “UNESCO-affiliated” Institute, with partners, even.  I am still curious how a state-supported university in the US allows an international organization to simply set up shop and label it part of “UNESCO” with its clear UN affiliation.  I went looking for traces of the IIP as a fiscal event — or fund — or ANYthing referenced in the very large entity that comprises Rutgers.



If  or when most people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the financial dots between federal/state relationships well enough to make sound judgments about the same (about key organizations being funded, and from there, about key social policies being enacted), what about when the NGOs:  <> span different continents; <> are not even run from the USA;  and (but still) <> involve the US Department of Justice – – –  THEN what?

Post Title:

If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?

Below this next section: Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”…. look for two sections labeled:

Databases referenced in this this post.  Call these “The Tools.”    


WEBSITES referenced on this post (the main ones).  Call these “The Topics.”

That was how I first organized this post.  As about to be published today, 8/9/2016, I could drill-down deeper on the data (as put into this Show and Tell).  I already have, personally, but at this point, am leaving it up as the tools and the databases.  An intelligent persistent person could discover the same material, with time.  Some of the deeper level I noticed this time was on the “Participation with BWJP” page of NCDBW (National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women) and the history page of the same, which (at date about 2006) relates how they were asked to participate in the HHS grants series (Family Violence Prevention and Service Act) around 1993, which by association connects this NCDBW to the Pennsylvania “PCADV” (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence) with which Barbara Hart has been associated or was, for years.  PCADV is also a “Special Issue Resource Center” grantee.

So when the Minnesota-based DAIP calls grants to NCBDW (and a few others) its “Battered Women’s Justice Project” and its tax returns show this to be, up to a certain point, THE main focus of Minnesota-based DAIP, at which point (including after founder Ellen Pence died, true, in 2012), the BWJP with similar personnel in charge (Denise Gamache, whose name was on those million-dollar DAIP grants from HHS over the years) suddenly shows up — or rather, a normal IRS Form 990 does NOT show up, but in three years since its formation, a single Form 990EZ (has less information) and two postcards (Form 990-Ns saying, we didn’t receive any funds over $50,000), I have to ask whether the federal bucket ran dry, or whether BWJP (new spin-off organization, new street address, similar personnel) doesn’t want to openly show its operations.  FYI, the BWJP is also involved in “FCEP” (Family Court Enhancement Project”) One pilot site chosen, “coincidentally” was Hennepin County, MN, as Technical Consultant or Trainer.  The term “BWJP” has been used for eyars in AFCC presentations, when in fact that was not the name of the organization.  Hmm…

If you refuse, however, to “drill down, and note the details” at ALL on these topics, and only listen to the rhetoric, you could be properly classified as “clueless” though since this has been up and continued being posted on-line at LEAST since I started doing it, that doesn’t mean with a solid alibi for the cluelessness, unless conditioning or being brainwashed counts.

And that’s a LOT of the population right now, from what I can see on the blogging protesting treatment of DV victims in the family courts.  Many of them simply do not want, I guess, to grow up and look it up.   Oh well…..

This next section is for clarification of why my focus on NGOs differs from the standard focus.  Again, it’s called;

Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”

[This topic introduced here, but discussed more in a subsequent post which references the Institute for International Peace at Rutgers, and “CANVAS” (an “international non-government, nonprofit network”) claimed as that IIP’s partner, and then takes us looking for ANY fiscal or accounting mention of this institute, first through a State of New Jersey CAFR, and briefly also through Rutgers’ own CAFR (which as a public university, one of 11 in the state, and a Land Grant College dating back to Colonial times, is a “Component Unit” of “The State of New Jersey”)

Regarding the term “NGO” — I don’t normally use it, preferring to say “nonprofit” or (if it applies, and of course this is a reference to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and so applies exclusively (??) to the United States of America, the term “501©3 (or “4” or “6” etc.) referring to parts of that code defining who does NOT pay “income tax.”  Or, I’ll refer to tax-exempt entity // foundation etc.  My focus, while looking at categories of causes certain tax-exempt entities are taking up, or how they operate collectively on certain favored causes across-state (or country) jurisdictions, is typically on the Revenues to Expenses (and public vs. private sources of the revenues), Assets to Liabilities (and where assets are being invested or held), related organizations (and what type of entity).

That focus requires me to be more specific on individual groups or organizations than the label “NGO.” My overall concern is for balance of power between individual citizens — of the USA — and governments — of the USA or the states and territories which comprise this country.

At the bottom of the last post which itself came as a show-and-tell example on looking up domestic nonprofits, the post “CVE | BAMF | “Whaddaya Want, Let’s Get Honest?” {{just published 8/9/2016 evening}}

This concern comes from both person experience as a battered wife and mother and in the family court system, wrongly assuming I would be allowed to leave the violent relationship without having to pay all but the ultimate sacrifices upon the altar of “this is America, I thought we had due process; this is the 21st century:  women can both vote, and work, and raise children and are there are criminal laws against domestic violence causing serious injury, stalking, child-stealing, child-abandonment, and other protections in place actually available to women, EVEN IF they are also mothers….”

Eventually I found out there were federal incentives grants, and professional nonprofit trade associations driving this court system, profiting the professionals and harming half or more of the people.  So on hearing of this money, following its course from federal to state, through subgrantees, of course was a major concern, and taking all the talk at face value any longer, not so much….

Read the rest of this entry »

Myths, Monuments, Monarchies — and Corporations (In Anticipation of Fathers’ Day)

leave a comment »

The myth of “Healthy Marriage //Responsible Fatherhood” turns to be out a turnkey system for administrative expansion of an imperialist (increasingly fascist) federal control of all aspects of life in the “States.” It is a theology of domination on the basis of assumed superiority, which means, in violation of basic human rights. Humans are divided into two genders, and one is judged to be superior or more valuable than the others.

Like most theologies it’s also hypocritical — and justifies turning the pendulum towards “fatherhood” because the SAME ENTITIES (i.e., the welfare system, centralized wealth redistribution through income taxes, etc.) were allegedly unfair to men as a whole by virtue of feminism, which is a threat to the state, etc.

In that, they are probably right.

To appeal to the basest instincts of all humans — fear, and paranoia about change, and whipping up some hate. This is overt, but when tied perhaps to the emotional topic of “children’s best interests” and the noble concept of “work” (which turns out to mean, translated, “produce more income taxes and consumer purchases” for the bureaucracy), with most likely a Puritan/Calvinist spin in there somewhere — distracts most of us from paying attention to the central HQ operations because we are frantically planning for the future and trying to stay ahead of the crowd, and within our local social circles, IF they existed — or exit them, if they were dangerous or substandard.

Recently, I spent some time on a site called “Crying out for Justice” and “Not Under Bondage” (the name of a book by a survivor of abuse, and apparently aware of Christian marital abuse also); a related (though I believe this one is intercontinental) pastor had a sudden awakening ca. 2009 and is talking about domestic violence IN THE CHURCH, often citing and promoting Lundy Bancroft, whose field is therapy and mental health, not religion, and who has his data, originally (it seems) from batterers intervention programs many years ago. There are accounts nearby of a church, suddenly exercising its corporate rights, suing a former? member, which brings up two topics — Corporations, and Church MEMBERSHIP.

The publications and blogs are then reviewed and circulated, apparently by third parties, under blog titles such as A Cry for Justice: How the Evil of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church, teaching that the real key is to recognize an abuse (assuming that the problem is,not recognizing it, and that, if recoqnized, surely someone will clean house somehow and take appropriate action…. and if they don’t, it’s because they don’t understand (which of course the publications and trainings can help with).

I find that a little disturbing coming from a former police officer, who, one would think, would already know the relevant laws regarding abuse (domestic violence), and something of the arrest, prosecution, and release factors — which knowledge, in addition to all the spiritual knowledge imparted,  I believe would be more useful.  In addition, someone oughter edumacate the flocks, as I’m at least TRYING to, and others (see links!) HAVE been reporting, after any separation.  Especially after any child support or custody/visitation order — they are going to have to deal with the family court system in whichever jurisdiction it lands.  Basically, if one steps in a courtroom (or near it) and files, you’re in that ballpark, possibly as the ball…

As it turns out, the family courts are also inhabited by all kinds of corporations with specialized memberships and world views as well.  So we should get this “What’s a Corporation?” thing on the table anytime a myth (or even relevant and reasonable) world view is being propagated, and that propagation and dissemination involves the exchange of goods and services for a fee, i.e., it’s commerce.

Acknowledging that many (if not most) churches in THIS century in the US exist as corporations, and often engage in commerce as landlords or owners of real estate, would bring up the topic of incorporating — and of taxes — and of the law.  From there, having a better-informed congregation (or parishioners), perhaps that might be ONE way pastors could address the matter of “abuse. ” Simply, as the authoritative and trusted spiritual guides they can be, and often wish to be, they can gently remind people that along with the laws of heaven as citizens of the coming kingdom, citizens of THIS world are to comply with the the laws of their country of jurisdiction. Should I put up a sample page to remind us that they exist?

Perhaps this should also be posted in public places with a link to a website, and NOT just a link to a local domestic violence agency, either.

Particularly if they wish to convert or win (as opposed to give birth to or just internationally adopt orphans) more to the cause, it would be helpful to admit that there are earthly authorities around, and earthly laws against beating up on women, or having sex with (or otherwise molesting — or stealing) minors.

And in this (earthly) kingdom/world (choose a noun), at least on the books — at least in the penal code and part of the family code — you don’t go around breaking the law against your “beloved,” even IF you are both “one flesh” and have vowed before God and witnesses to love one another faithfully til death do you part (or whatever vows were uttered).

For one, it’d be a standard of comparison for the flock.  For another, time is of the essence once the abuse has begun, often with kids in attendance.  I sure could’ve used such information countless assaults (and years) before it was finally brought in front of my face, at which time I acted on it; information of what lay ahead in the family court venue was on a “Need To Know” basis, which apparently women didn’t need to know. Finally, I got tired of “not knowing” and set about “finding out.”

Other Subtitles which come up in a search result include Crying Out for Justice: Awakening the Evangelical Church …. or I found one from a “Complementarian” site (specialized religious term, interesting…) Why Abusive Men Repudiate True Manhood: Letter to an Abusive Husband attempting to appeal to his better nature, and not abuse the manly headship God has given him as a husband (Ephesians 5)…. it is a stench in God’s nostrils, etc. A sample:

Ephesians 5 teaches that a man is head of his wife.  There is no textually faithful way to take this verse other than to conclude that it teaches manly leadership in the home.  But this does not mean that a man can lord his God-given strength over his wife and family

Hmm. Using the word “textually faithful” doesn’t mean that the verse fragment is in context, which it isn’t. Here’s the link to the entire chapter, which is Chapter 5 out of 6. There is a verse I’ll bet almost every battered Christian woman knows by heart, as it contains the word “wives” and the word “submit,” and may be indeed one of the few verses that her batterer a.k.a. spouse, actually understands and that the local congregration is going to back him up on, as they also demand submission to themselves, sometimes abusing it also.

This is about linguistic honesty, and about institutions. Bear with me, please…it is political, and it’s relevant to you atheists, nonProtestants, and even nonparents…for one, we have to function in a common commercial world, and might as well understand how some spiritual enclaevs find their places in it.

The link I provided is to a hyperactive (“KJS”) version in which you can click on any single word and see the related Greek. I did this because, the context of this book is about (see Chapter 1 — good place to start!), the “Hope of the calling” and spiritual matters regarding the body of Christ, and for that matter (after three chapters of the unity in the spirit) and another, chapter 4, on “one Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,” and how through the resureection and God’s wisdom, the “wall of separation” was broken down (etc.) — the “Church” is to walk worthy of this calling. However, the average “church” is not on that model anyhow, and the word in our culture has become a muddied theological confusion over who’s in, who’s out, who’s off, who’s on, and how to (yes, Protestants in particular) excommunicate dissidents and turn a cold shoulder to them, particularly if they actually bring problems (like spousal abuse, incest, molestation — lying stealing, cheating, adultery, etc. — the usual….) into the place which the “church” doesn’t feel like facing yet, as they may cut too close to home for comfort.

I’m bolding the word “church’ which pops up in this so often, because a lot of this post, and for that matter, a WHOLE lot of American culture, is being framed by the varying concepts of “church,” which is also a corporate status under the tax code, and is moreover a form of nonprofit organization. It’s a BUSINESS in our time. However, in that time, the word meant something different.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.

The Greek word for “church” is simply “ekklesia” which relates to “calling” which is in many ways the theme of the book. It’s HARDLY about who’s on top among the church, and the word “manly” doesn’t occur in there, which shows our “letter to an abusive husband” man, above, may not have seen fit to quote the section, or be in the habit of quoting scripture, let alone doing so in context.

For the record (as I do consider scripture, including the epistles of Paul, among the most elegant, beautiful and inspiring texts around. Apparently others do (visit the Hallmark religious section of any drug store around mothers’ day, fathers’ day, graduation, times of sympathy (death in the family), illness, graduation, marriage, anniversary, or almost ANY other time — and you will see religious cards, among them sometimes one on “LOVE” (taken from I Corinthians 13). Apparently this small dosage of verse, people can handle, if it’s not too confrontational…

IN CONTEXT is easily found just by READING MORE:

Prior to this oh-so-favorite reference for many conservative churches (plus the Catholic church of course), in context, that book (epistle to the Ephesians), in its natural flow, talks about walking (i.e., manner of life, behavior) in light of this wonderful calling and future purpose of God. It talks about walking WORTHY, walking NOT AS OTHER GENTILES (i.e., lyng stealing, etc.),walking in LOVE, walking in LIGHT, walking CIRCUMSPECTLY, and so forth.

Further down on this post, I have another table, same background-color, which a little better defines “church” in action, in our day and time, according to practice.

End of Chapter One — although it begins with the word “chosen” the book is definitely more about “called,” and what this signifies. The practical matters (family relationships while waiting for the return of Christ) are not the focus of the book; they are neither first, nor last, but near the end. This, however, is near the beginning (i.e., Chapter 1, not that it originally had chapters, OR verses….). Please notice, apparently the writer was aware of the groups FAITH and LOVE, was thankful for it, prayed that they might be spiritually enlightened also as to the HOPE of their calling. (See end of this chapter, that’s the famous trio of end of I Corinthians 13: “Now abide these three Faith, Hope, Charity (love/agape), but the greatest of these is charity.” Apparently male dominance and female submission, even “family,” let alone building buildings and incorporating associations in the name of Christ, didn’t make the list of the most important qualities for “the church”

[Ephesians 1, end, with clickable-for-Greek]15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; 17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give {5630} unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling [Klesis], and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19And what [is] the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places], 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church [ekKLESia/click to see], 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Where’s the “manly leadership of wives” in this opening chapter? Where’s the word “fatherhood”? And what’s the word “church” mean there, anyhow? What it means now?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 14, 2013 at 10:05 am

Understand “Children’s Law Centers” (NCLN – Eight nonprofits Get Organized) and “Children’s Rights,” in general

with 3 comments

On March 27, 2013, I started this page to make the point: “Local Government” isn’t local. Public Money isn’t necessarily public either.

This page sprang from an impromptu virtual “essay” on the National Children’s Law Network while writing a post on Minnesota Fatherhood grants. Parents are having problems in the courts — obviously. Often these problems center around some kind of court personnel (or, government agency) with the word “Children” in it.

The Problem

Major harm has been done in the name of protecting children, children’s rights, and even “defending children.” It is tempting to report only on that harm, year after year.

I encourage us to focus instead on the systems set up, and how they were set up, by people using the word “Child” or “Children’s” for specific, collaborative, and in general a privately determined agenda.

Ironically, the solutions used to reduce poverty and protect children often end up putting more money in private hands, and — as this is SOMEtimes who’s promoting the various programs — making sure there’s more work for more attorneys at public cost, after the attorneys have collectively decided that more of them means more justice for children.

DOES IT? As someone who has personal experience with a GAL in the courtroom (namely, a court-appointed and presumably public-funded attorney) AFTER my kids were stolen — I’m going to say, NOT necessarily — and in too many cases, No.

But First — Let’s talk about the use of the word “Children” to promote System Change of almost any sort!

While a specific network -“National Children’s Law Network” — was the prompt for a separate page, I have to discuss the (mis)use of the word “Child” “Children” (let alone “Family”) in organizations with an agenda — and this agenda is forced onto the public, often at its expense, in a top-down, lobbyist manner. Using the theme “child” as a buzzword to imply safety, protection, justice, or impartiality — when it results in the opposite to the point that agencies and individual GALs (Guardians ad Litem), social worker, etc. — are being sued by parents almost as fast as they can come up with new themes or programs – should tell us something is “up” with all these groups’ obsession with protecting children.

And it should be resisted when and where the systems, and how they were set up, was done without public approval. I do not want, and we should not want, socialism, or the equivalent of a return to a feudal society. I also personally am NOT in favor of a one-world government under elitist central control; after having already seen where that is heading — i.e., to eugenics, slavery, and genocide. Wars enable takeover of others’ assets and further restructuring of those supporting it and those sent to die in them. ALL of this relates to the economy, and until (again, or anew) more people can think in terms of how to counteract the centralization of government and balance that power — it is not going to slow down, or cease, until dissidence is, basically exterminated (or medicated) into silence.

UNDERSTANDING that inherent dishonesty in privatizing government “for the sake of children” when in fact, this is simply multiplying the ability of those so ethically “low” as to do this, or so arrogant as to believe that what society needs is more of them, and (correspondingly) LESS involved and less representative government (just shut up, pay your taxes, and be acted upon: we will keep the streets safe, the children educated, and the bad guys away….) — JUST MAYBE this will counteract some of the gullible passivity that’s normal for us. Because we can’t figure out an alternative to funding it through our jobs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 27, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Posted in

The Children’s Rights Movement as a Social Change Agent — Children’s Defense Fund, Stand for Children, and Capoeira (??!)

leave a comment »




(SIGH).  Notice, no posts for June 2012?

I’ve been blogging more over at Scranton Political Times — frankly, because I feel like it.  It’s a little more interactive and have been learning a few HTML tricks also.  I continue to research and develop my understanding of this situation overall, and am wearing thin on reporting about “fathers’ rights” movement vs. “domestic violence / VAWA” vs. “AFCC and friends.  I still do, but I am learning more — which will be reflected on several topics (and long comments) by username “outlaw” and for a while, username “ReadMyLips_ReadTheir990s.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~

I am very (VERY) tired and just as stressed these days, as my children have aged out of the system, and certain fights are still on-going long after the point about their upbringing has become moot.  I see these as financial and issues of greed primarily, and have become if anything less impressed with the country I was born in, schooled in, had a family in, and directly as a consequence of who I married (and into which family was born) — almost died in.  There are also certain things about the human spirit which are — in my opinion — NONnegotiable.  Nevertheless, we all need food, housing, transportation, and to have some sort of meaning going on in our life beyond, I withstood the last family onslaught.

Some people have a strong sense of calling in their lives (I had the fortune/misfortune to be one) and it seems that these individuals with a strong INTERNAL motivation one way or another in life (or occasionally changing direction) seriously irritate others.  I’m not sure why, but this is so.  Moreover, there are some people whose INTERNAL motivation requires and endless supply of victims to (???) drive away (my speculation) as sense of emptiness or lack of personal purpose in their own.  Or to wreak vengeance on people long since dead and unavailable except through their offspring.

Then again, there’s the very base emotion and incentive of plain old greed (which is again I say, NOT a natural human condition, except for infants who would naturally be greedy for life-giving breast milk, if they can get it, or formula, etc. — if not.


~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is from yesterday, Kids4Cash Thread and at the top I put out some (basic talk) about where this stuff started — about currency.

Calling so and so a whore (as a politician, judge, etc) or pimp may raise some flak, or may be a good analogy (or it may not) — what does it lead to, to change the system dynamics?  It releases tensions, or attacks someone in public, or raises a crowd, but the “opposition” (to some privacy, independence, and MORE (not less) freedom) — has a pretty solid system designed — making money out of nothing and letting the public play among each other with the play money, until the board game’s over.  This is played at the national level . . . . That’s pretty cold & calcuating. . . .

Something important to understand.

Commentary & exposing isn’t enough — there has to be MORE financial literacy and LESS name-calling in order to do something in association with more than one person on the sidelines.   Because there’s slavery now, and there’s more slavery up ahead.

  • I know I write too long — but some of the ideas are right on time.

Yesterday — last few days — I put stuff up on the Children’s Defense Fund(Marian Wright Edelman, Peter Edelman (husband) and there’s a groupStand for Children, conceived and run by Jonah Edelman, their son and in the same tradition..  I’ve been talking about the Children’s Rights movement — and (correctly) naming it as a TOOL / MEANS to change society, and reminded us of the 1960s history, back to going off the gold standard, etc.

Stand Leadership Center

SO — THIS MORNING on PBS // Bill Moyers — he interviewed Peter Edelman, and his new book “So Rich, So Poor.”  (all over the net, do a search)

Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in America



Peter Edelman is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. A top adviser to Senator Robert F. Kennedy from 1964 to 1968, he went on to fill various roles in President Bill Clintons administration, from whichhe famously resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislation.

ANYONE would be right to protest welfare reform and block grants to the states which they can misappropriate — but this is for the wrong reasons —  — — – and even on the TV this morning, the man was gently asked, how that’s not “redistribution”? ?? (i.e. socialism).

While admitting there’s this huge and widening gap, there’s not a talk about changing the basis of the economy — or of what produced the gap (i.e., how people get their income to start with) — but wanting more federalism, universal wage supplementation, etc.  And this book is going to help (in its sales) make sure that whatever agenda the most organized and connected (incl. to (a) $$ and (b) $$ media) want — they are going to get.




Edelman also served as Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services [HHS] in the Clinton administration, until he famously resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill into law. Edelman was a passionate critic of the law, which he characterized as a war on the poor of the United States and the worst thing Bill Clinton had done during his presidency. His article about the issue in the Atlantic Monthly entitled The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done received the Harry Chapin Media Award.

Some of my blogs (see signature line) at “Family Court Franchise System” are called things like “From Tavistock to TANF” and talk about the corner Clinton was backed in (from 2000 perspective).   Edelman didn’t protest use of block grants to push marriage & fatherhood & religion, on the poor.

LIKE SON . . .

Peter & Marian Wright Edelman’s son (one of them) JONAH has continued in the footsteps –in “STAND FOR CHILDREN”  -forcing change, calling it for kids:



[spoiler]Jonah Edelman wants to make our public schools better. An advocate for public education in America, Jonah is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stand for Children, a growing and influential political voice for students. He is committed to mobilizing Americans around a common goal of changing the odds for our children.

As a second generation civil rights leader his mother, Marian Wright Edelman, was the first African American woman admitted to the Mississippi bar and his father, Peter Edelman, was a close aide to Robert F. Kennedy Jonah helped organize Stand for Children’s historic founding rally in Washington, D.C.. The Stand for Children Day rally was attended by more than 300,000 people, and was the largest rally for children in American history. Jonah was recognized on Time.com as one of the nations top education activists for 2011.

I looked at some tax returns for this group — it was clearly set up with a national goal in mind, and there are definitely strong-arm tactics in place, some of which has hit the press, despite how “great” it looks on PR:


Why did this video cause such a stir from a variety of people across the educational spectrum? On the jump…

[/spoiler]Stand entered Illinois late last year, established a PAC, and quickly raised over $3 million from wealthy donors. Along with another advocacy organization, Advance Illinois, Stand proposed an aggressive piece of legislation called “Performance Counts.” The bill would have stripped away tenure (which is the right to due process, not a job for life); outlawed the use of seniority in layoff decisions; and effectively eliminated the unions’ right to strike. The bill had a few highly publicized hearings, but ultimately did not pass during the 2010 lame duck session. (para. order reversed from this link)

 The three unions involved in the negotiation of the bills issued a terse response.Illinois Senator Kimberly Lightford, who led the negotiations around the bill, slammed Edelman in a the Sun-Times.

Edelman eventually offered an extended apology for what he said.

Here is a link to the full video.

Other commentary:

Jonah Edelman: I came. I saw. I spent three million bucks.


Here’s a 2010 tax return, see pp. 1&2 what it’s doing with $$

(mobilizing to push legislation for a certain agenda).  Some are getting annoyed!

“Following his success in doing a bamboozle on the IEA and the Illinois General Assembly in getting Senate Bill 7 passed, Jonah Edelmans Oregon-based Stand for Children is using its deep $3 million pockets to back Rahm Emanuels plan for turnaround . . .”


(STAND FOR CHILDREN, ILLINOIS) collected more than $3 million from local deep pockets including Sam Zell, formerly of the Tribune Co., and the Pritzker and Crown families.http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/2011/04/12/stand-children-illinois-raises-3-million (Penny Pritzker was appointed to the Chicago Board of Education by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.) . . . Stand for Children, in his view, is trying to push a top-down, corporate agenda that ultimately harms neighborhood schools and teachers. . . .Stand for Children comes into states with a pre-determined agenda and centrally-written legislative proposals,


These are tactics he evidently learned from his parents, and it’s not his food, housing, education (a done deal) or kids’ futures at stake. . . . At what point is something still WRONG even if the desired (allegedly desired) GOALS sound so good on paper, no one could fail to bite the bait unless they had zero acquaintance with the group(s) doing the talking? . .. How can one oppose something that’s taking a “STAND for CHILDREN” and wants better “EDUCATION” ???

_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __  _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _

More federalization — but simply better run — is hardly an answer.   But how can groups do this?  come and buy their way from the top DOWN into state after state, and screw the poor, while making deals (or breaking deals) with corporate vendors and governmental service providers?

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

One reason is 1996 Welfare Reform (which set up a system impossible to completely monitored, making it profitable for crooks).  Another reason is CURRENCY (1913, 1933, 1971, and more).  

Another is tying WORK/EDUCATION/HOUSING into one big net so most people don’t get to break that connection — they can’t afford private schools (like politicians (Romney, much?) can.)  If there’s no way out of the work/education/housing neighborhood (out of that board game, see top) — AND given that wages are not gender-equal, then — in that scene — it takes two parents (no matter the quality) to make ends meet, and a (global) Village to raise a child.

But — there IS a way out (if the door isn’t slammed shut by family courts) and there has to be more than one way allowed to solve basic human problems.  The poor — not just the rich — need access to the freedom to choose more than one way out. Possibly one that neither the White House nor the Children’s Defense Fund and friends has thought of….  Resist, Regroup, Retrain.

_ _ _ _ _The ability to think symbolically and get those symbols in sync with reality now, and desired reality future — IS a form of power.  Because these packages are then sold to the public, to gov’t, to corporations and through media THEY OWN, omitting major elements of coverage. Bread & Circuses…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _We can’t possibly accurately monitor government as it now stands (even with internet access for everyone ) and continue to feed, clothe and house ourselves, get water, self-defense, handle criminal behavior, etc. etc. if 125% of our free time is spent at work, supplementing what public schools do Not teach our kids, working against gangsterism and drug use in their lives too, or their classmates — and so forth.  Can’t fight this. . .

_ _ _ If we don’t understand the language of groups that are selling the future, and for what — and including WHY the USA is the world’s largest per capita jailor!  Or, if we don’t understand where the profits GO when a bargain is made.  And it’s not just dollars.

We’re trying to act like we still have state-wide governments and some representation at the city, county & state levels and not states-as-federal-colonies. The 50 states & territories are themselves dependent upon the Federal (Reserve) to function, and the Federal Reserve (IRS, the whole 9 yards).

RIGHT NOW — but not indefinitely — the centralized powers actually need the cooperation of the peasant population, particulary in not being enough onto their agenda to make a contrary one — that will succeed.  They apparently NEED our cooperation for import or export activities (manufacture & consume goods) – but there may come a time when most of us are NOT needed in the economy.





images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0M5X9cljYrcDI6qHS-w7HNjBZpy1R6hezocjhTIbhaeDpKh632 minute video:

Developed by African slaves imported to Brazil.  Brazilians knew the territory too well to enslave easily, so Portugal brought ’em in.  Capoeira — powerful — a way of survival  …. weaponless, not united (different cultures), out of their homelands, not speaking common language, and being enslaved . . ..
Slavery has always been about economics (greed, exploitation), right?  Is it much different now?  It’s been about preservation of one set of (tribal) interests against another subordinated population, usually few against many.  The few KNOW they’re few, so develop specialty language, associations, technology and ways of subordinating the larger group, and encouraging them to behave.
Including withholding (financial) literacy . .  Nothing new…
We (pick your tribe) need a form of financial “CAPOEIRA” — which also means that it’s not going to be discussed in entirety on the internet, which (frankly) simply ain’t private. The things that led to this (scranton & nationwide) situation were concocted and discussed AWAY from the public (cf. the economic situation) and then presented as the solution to the latest emergency or crisis (REAL emergencies, by the way).

Where I live, capoiera is still practiced, popular, but if it’s not in Lackawanna, here’s what it is:

(WIKIPEDIA): In the 16th century Portugal had one of the biggest colonial empires of the world, but it lacked people to actually colonize it. In the Brazilian colony the Portuguese, like many European colonists, opted to use slavery to supply this shortage of workers. Colonists tried to enslave Brazilian natives in the beginning, but this quickly proved too difficult for many reasons, including the familiarity natives had with the land. The solution was importing slaves from Africa.[1]

…Even though slaves outnumbered the Portuguese colonists, the lack of weapons, the colonial law, the disagreement between slaves coming from different African cultures and their complete lack of knowledge about the land and its surroundings would usually discourage the idea of a rebellion.


…In this environment capoeira began to develop. More than a fighting style, it was created as a hope of survival, a tool with which an escaped slave, completely unequipped, could survive in the hostile, unknown land and face the hunt of the capitães-do-mato, colonial agents armed and mounted in charge of finding escapees. . . . (an UNUSUALLY good article, of survival in changing conditions, including after slavery was banished, then the freed slaves were without home, living, and regarded as lazy. But the capoeira skills were handy in raids, or in hiring henchmen, etc. — and it got banned…..)

People need a powerful form of FINANCIALLY unarmed self-defense — and are going to need it more each passing year.  Take a lesson from some survivors of mini-tyrants (like an abusive partner, or what happens when someone seeks “help” from outside intervention — only to later discover (at your kids’ expense) what THEIR agenda was.  

FYI, I went to an organization similar to “North Penn Legal Services” (and it turns out, one of their grantees) in order to break out of a violent marriage).  They give the client ONLY enough information to “close the case” (like cattle, new ones are always needed to justify grants I guess) and NOT enough to get all the way to freedom.  Thereis no free lunch, but moreover those who weren’t even LOOKING for a “free lunch” may be forced to eat one, or two and then mortgage their family later. … 

The middle class usually gets to be (or stay) middle class by minding their own business (jobs / professions etc.) and not thinking like the wealthythe elite — falsely assuming that the wealthy think like them, that there is some kind of social contract in place — we do OUR jobs well, now you do YOUR job well. This is projected, and the same class doesn’t (really) listen to the POOR (why should they — after all, they pay taxes and subsidize welfare, right?  The lazy bums!!) — about how some / many of those poor GOT poor….

– – – -Part of what the elite do is sell the middle class on best ways to protect themselves from the supposedly dirty rabble of illiterate, “low-income” people. . . .the elite form foundations to teach others a certain message and I find it crazy how pre-occupied they are with children, families, adoptions, foster care, etc etc.  . . . . .

Here’s Jonah Edelman’s bio — silver spoon turned help-the-poor?  even if it means socialism and bullying at the state level?  “I came, I saw, I raised $3 million?

Jonah was born and raised in Washington, DC, graduated from Yale University in 1992, and attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, where in three years (1992-1995) he earned masters and doctor of philosophy degrees in politics. In 1996, Jonah moved from direct service to activism, helping to organize Stand for Children Day. Since Stand for Children’s historic founding rally in Washington, DC in 1996, Jonah has helped Stand for Children become a pathbreaking child-advocacy organization. In 1998, after closely studying the work of a range of organizations, he conceptualized Stand for Children’s grassroots advocacy approach and then moved to Oregon to field-test it himself

WDC, Yale, & Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship?  Then back home to take over the US on the crest of a Children’s Rights Movement?

February 2012 “From Transvaal to TANF (welfare) via Rhodes (and a Rhodes Scholar). (my blog) (covers the Clinton years and how he got TANF passed) plus:   “Rhodes Scholars in the US (Sir John Templeton“.   SIR JOHN was also Yale & Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and there’s a reason he got a British knighthood, being an American citizen….law degree from Oxford in 1936, then..

Templeton started his Wall Street career in 1938 and went on to create some of the world’s largest and most successful international investment funds. He took the strategy of “buy low, sell high” to an extreme, picking nations, industries, and companies hitting rock-bottom, what he called “points of maximum pessimism.” When war began in Europe in 1939, he borrowed money to buy 100 shares each in 104 companies selling at one dollar per share or less, including 34 companies that were in bankruptcy. Only four turned out to be worthless, and he turned large profits on the others.

He understood buying, selling, borrowing, thinking independently, etc. . .and clearly understood leveraging & going against the crowd…. (this post also talks more about FDR prohibition on US Citizens hoarding gold, etc.) and mid-1900s concern about the role of tax-exempt foundations on the US (political) landscape….all stuff I didn’t learn in school, but could’ve (instead of daydreaming because because most of the schoolday was irrelevant — and FYI that didn’t mean poor grades, either).





(maybe there’s a Pennsylvania Dutch version, pardon me…)

(PS.  **I don’t have one. i just know one is needed).

will post, then “spoil” to save vertical space….

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Saturday 23rd of June 2012 03:23:21 PM

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Saturday 23rd of June 2012 03:25:25 PMborn

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 24, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Reader Quiz — What Decade Were These Stories? About Fathers..

with 2 comments

My last post (Luzerne County) was at least a triple-header, ending with some emotion over a mother of three who has taken her case to the international level in disgrace at the U.S. treatment of her civil rights.

I am changed as I blog also. Maybe it’s just another bunch of incidents to you, but to me, I learn and expand the context of this system, look at its history, reflect when compared with my immediate reality and acquired readings.

What I learned — yesterday — is this: Restraining orders are not enforceable, and probably never were. IF a police officer wishes to arrest, or needs to, the RO may make his job easier. But if he or she witnessed a violation of it, and does NOT wish to arrest, the protected person has no entitlement to that arrest, no matter whose life is at risk. Now that “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” has gone to the Supreme Court and been turned back, it is being quoted in similar cases to protect the officers (not the women or children). While most of government’s operations are self-justified on providing services and protection to the populace, who they are diligently training to expect this from them (and not from within or their local communities). This is closer to feudalism, serfdom, and monarchy.

U.S., Rome, or the British Empire?

It’s time to expose the truths that in the United States of America, and have moved from being “the colonies” (with the colonized populations that came along, or were removed from their lands during westward expansion) to being colonized (if not virtually cannibalized) by our own elected leaders, many who have some real “bad attitudes” towards those they are supposed to represent and serve. Power tends to congregate with power, and unless it’s kept in check, will simply continue to do so, justifying it with manipulation and manufactured “needs.”

  • (#1) we are closer to monarchy then ever before, and willingly/passively in more denial of it also, and
  • (#2) that this emperor has no clothes has been known for a long time; but the tacit “Bread-and-circuses” agreement to pretend we don’t know, is wearing as thin as the “social services” provided by the superstructure. and
  • (#3) in a country such as the U.S., with this Constitution elected officials are sworn with an oath to uphold, the pretense that in practice we are actually OPERATING as a republic (not democracy) is even more deceptive.

Who has the bread, the weapons, and the supply lines to the decision-makers? Who’s issuing the propaganda? That’s the power base. As of about 1980, 1991 (creation of the Health & Human Services/Administration for Children and Families Dept./Operational Div. in the Executive Branch of Government of which the CEO is our President), the fields of propagation (family design) and the downward to Head Start & Home Visitation (education) up through university (foundations sponsoring studies and institutes, often regarding fatherhood and marriage, and the entire work force) have gone from idolizing motherhood (while tolerating beating mothers) and, in response to mothers getting OUT of some of that (feminism/violence against women movement, battered shelters, etc.) to scapegoating single mothers on welfare (for being on welfare), (see bottom of my post), to simply eliminating the word mother from association with the word “family” or “children.”

This is starting to resemble the planned production of human beings from womb to tomb, with the aide of pharmaceutics, apparently, and mental health professionals to categorize and drug the dissidents, which any mother in her right mind would be when she’s been beaten in the home, or terrorized there (or for attempting to leave it) and has noticed — which is what mothers do — the effect of this on her children. They are educated to subjugation and only to the level of their intended place in a fully managed society.

When I say “womb” to “tomb,” I do mean just that . . . . It’s being studied and categorized, and one major database is at ICPSR below. Fertility, lethality, and population studies in 3 urban centers (Chicago, Boston, San Antonia, TX).

Those “in” and cooperate on the planning and distribution of this will prosper, while the supply lasts, and receive government grants and contracts in abundance, which will then compromise them from informing the subject matter (human beings) what the overall plan is. For example

  • HQ in Denver: PSI (“policy-studies.com” is the URL, “Performance, Services, Integrity” is the motto)
    • Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
      • Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
        • Case management and community resource referrals
        • Enhanced child support services
        • Employment and training assistance
        • Peer support for NCPs
        • Parenting and conflict resolution classes
        • Access and visitation services
        • Mediation services
        • Mental health and substance abuse referrals
        • Legal referrals
  • HQ in Los Angeles: AFCC (“Association of Family & Conciliation Courts“)
    • AFCC brings together members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. As a nonprofit professional association, AFCC is unique because members do not share a common profession. Instead, 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.
    • “History of Innovation and Positive Change”For more than 45 years, AFCC and its members have served as a catalyst for generating major reforms. Dispute resolution processes such as child custody mediation, parenting coordination, and divorce education are just a few of the innovative ideas developed by AFCC members. AFCC developed Models Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators, Child Custody Evaluators and Parenting Coordinators. Task forces and special projects address the ongoing challenges faced by AFCC members and the families they serve. AFCC actively disseminates innovations and ideas {“Parental Alienation, anyone? Mandatory mediation, anyone? Shared parenting, presumption anyone?”} to its members. The ripple effect can be seen in courts and communities throughout the world. {ONE of those stories I copy at length, below, in blue. The ripple effect was most definitely felt, and you can read about it, below.}
  • HQ in Denver: what I call “CPR” (Center or Policy Research) [Since 1981, 6 women, only!]

Did I mention that Jessica Pearson is also (per some sources) a founding member of the AFCC, if not also CRC?

  • In fact AFCC, CRC, CPR, PSI, HHS funded studies, and conclusions that MOST of our nation’s real poverty, inner-city, crime & juvenile delinquency problems is simply the ration of sex/conception/marriage, i.e., too few fathers (as opposed to, poor-quality fathers) in the home, and that the solution to this is through seamlessly blending mental health services with child support services, with the legal process — tend to congregate around similar key players.
  • Don’t believe me? See RandiJames’ “The List or Liz Richards pointing this out in 1993 “Fathers Rights and corrupt judicial cronies,” or again, in 2010, to the House Ways & Means Committee (found at House.gov, this committee, June 17, 2010 hearings, on left side), or an indignant “Fathers Battling Injustice” 2001 complaint “Liz Richards Hates Fathers with a Passion, which provides (if you scroll down) a good listing of key players and their interrelationships — including those on the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) 501(c)3 incorporation papers, and tying into others pushing mediation and Gardner’s “PAS” philosophies through the courts. I’ll try to upload that listing….

Around 1998, a disgruntled grandfather — and CPA — started tracking some of the founding documents of this AFCC, and has something to say about the money trail related to Jessica Pearson of CPR, and AFCC, who weems to be (with others) women of some real foresight and planning, and ingenuity in desgining systems — and evading tax accountability. THIS is listed UNDER “Is Justice for sale in L.A.” a.k.a. at “johnnypumphandle.com”

    • :Mr. Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998. You can hear his tone of indignation and upset, and he flat-out calls this Mafia, RICO, money-laundering, etc. The people he is talking about are listed in part, above. I doubt if he ever got justice, or compensation (let alone more discovery), but at least me blew the whistle!. People who want to “reform” the courts ought to at least read the material. OR, they could go back and try to reason more with a professional that may or may not be one of these type of conspirators from long ago. The system remains, I’m pretty well deducing at this point.
  • Another take on AFCC et al.: He’s not talking psychology or sociology, but money, IRS, EIN#s and incorporations…
    • DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!

      I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

      I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTYCONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN. In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

      In an incredible BREACH – a Judge from Detroit Michigan was listed as the Second Vice President His name is Victor J. Baum. The corporation number is 576876. I have no record of what EIN they used.

      In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. [CPR, above, dates to 1981 also as a nonprofit] This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    • (WI, Colorado, L.A. and IL if you can keep up with that…)
    • I just found a strange, but possibly corroborating 1986 document, the “February 1986 Newsletter of the Alabama Court News, “Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System” On page 3, it reads, under headline: “Federal Grant funds Sexual Abuse Study:
    • The Research Unit of the …(AFCC) and the American Bar Association have been awarded a grant from the federal dept. of Human Development Services* to study sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases. The goal of the study is to find how court officials [such as…?] are presently handling such matters, identify preferred procedures, and develop educational materials on the subject.” “Court officials [sic] desiring to participate in the study should contact AFCC at the following address:

    • [Wow… Preferred procedures for handling sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases, such as — Gardner’s theories? They want to educate judges how to rule?] Also – it says since 1981 — at that address:]
    • [*Note: the HUGE “HHS that now dispenses welfare, child support, medicare, head start funds, and sometimes is the largest (as to expenses) Exec Branch Dept — was formed in 1991, as I recall. This is 5 years earlier).

  • In fact the information arm is one of the most important, to quell rebellion before it gets going.

Maybe Rome went down because of lead in the pipes, or maybe some “karma” (or god) just got sick of all the slaughter for entertainment. Ever read about what happened in that Colosseum?

Back to this millennium — and the last decades

of the last one (1980-2010). In re: marriage, abuse, divorce, custody..

And the concept of “protection from abuse” or “restraining orders” as if they were NOT certifiably insane, as to fulfilling their supposed purpose of protecting or restraining.

While the literature tends to focus on, “it’s just a piece of paper and can’t stop a bullet,” the ones we REALLY can’t count on are the arresting officers. It’s an additional component of Russian Roulette that a woman can’t afford. And suing for any sort of damages on the basis of, they had a duty to protect, a procedural due process right to the victim, a substantive due process right to the victim, or in short, any consequences that “absolute judicial immunity” or the 11th amendment wouldn’t make LEGALLY protected (let alone the practical aspects) — they don’t, and probably never did.

Some judges are crooked — I don’t know how many. Some attorneys are also, and get nailed on RICO like the Luzerne judges did, RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations“) being a criminal enterprise. There’s a case I may post out of suburban Chicago (older) where the husband (an attorney) did murder for hire, but not until he’d conspired in advance to wire-tap (jealous), someone had been prepared to dispose of the body (i.e., of his wife) and someone had been prepared to obstruct the investigation. (Alan & Dianne G. Masters, West Suburban Chicago, 1982 she disappears~ 1988 RICO charges)

As RICO does require some organizational skills, and Masters had already been engaged in other forms of crime, all the players to add murder-for-hire to this were in place, and he didn’t resist the temptation to engage, showing us to drop our illusions that every person in public office, or in positions of power, influence, and with access to streams of $$ isn’t per se there for service. Some are, some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t would be normally attracted to people in compromised situations (like a troublesome traffic ticket, an illegal enterprise of their own, or divorcing with children from a frighteningly dangerous spouse who’s already committed some crimes against your body, or your child’s). This attorney was acting more like a pimp with a stable, and some affiliate marekting reps in uniform. Maybe he liked the thrill of the danger and risk (one sees definite business skills that migh twork just as well in legal activities) or maybe it was simple greed.

It didn’t save her life, and no one was ever charged for murder, but the three “perps” got caught on racketeering and put away for a good many years, and fined. Oh yeah, and he had a $100,000 life insurance policy on his wife also.

So are some officers. And some are good. – – – – that’s just life. Why, then, (though) when women come for help, were they then (1990s) and now (2000s) doling out protection from abuse orders as if they were reliably enforceable? They aren’t. They’re real good at getting men angry though.

~ ~ ~ ~I can’t put my story up (or too much of it). But it’s been so many years in this system here. My infrastructure is repeatedly broken down, year after year, and access to things like transportation, (sometimes food), internet, health care (uninsured presently) just shouldn’t be.

~ ~ ~ ~If you have not been in a situation similar to the one I’m about to post (the part below is summary of her judicial proceedings after deciding to leave– having gotten a real severe beating (while naked), a threat for another, having had a young daughter molested by a visiting stepson, her husband was no inner city young black male, but a nasty computer analyst who’d (it turned out) abused his first wife, too.

~ ~ ~ ~Sleep deprivation is a factor and technique of weakening someone (I know). Attack on personal private parts (ditto). Rules almost uniformly designed to remove one’s humanity, with severe punishment for falling short (and they’re impossible to fulfil) with no rule for him. . . . .Having to choose which child you can do more to protect, potentially sacrificing something important for the other. Having your strength or skills as a professional work against you post-divorce. Historic revisionism (no remorse or acknowledgement of injury, and of course the father was the real caretaker all those years). Health care professionals treating injuries and not really asking questions. Your kids watching the assaults.

I’ll pick up this story mid-stream. See if you recognize the characters: judge, psychologists, attorneys (#1, 2, and 3), theme of supervised visitation, and her knowledge that if she requested it, he’d go for custody, professionals continually minimizing the situation and playing their own games . . . all too familiar.

I want to say something about “stories.” THEY HELPED ME while I was in the abusive relationship. One of the cruelest things is the isolation and dealing with the man’s anger when he perceives you may be connecting with someone who might validate or connect with you, and to whom you might report. You might get out, but there also may (or may not) be retaliation for doing so. Or you might be put through hell beforehand, so you get out, in public, in trauma, shaking, or in shock. One trick pulled frequently in our home (with kids) was I’d have enough gas in the car to get there (when a car was available) but not enough to get back. Hearing of women who got out HELPED me. If nothing else, to feel less guilty.

I pick up the story mid-stream, and admit that I am exhausted today.

Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self–promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty–five thousand dollars.

As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex–wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge’s recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, “You’ll just get someone worse.”

@ @ @ @ @Z

I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ’s live–in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children’s psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, “WHAT???!!!” I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ’s having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.

After learning about Russ’s abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, “Let the ink dry on the judge’s custody order.” That was the last straw and I fired him.

I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ’s girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ’s girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew––and Russ knew––that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.

Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn–out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.

As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.

He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. “This is what’s best for you,” he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.

Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.

@ @ @ @

C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law

Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on–going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers’ Rights movement. [80]

Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.

Mary’s story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims “look like” and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad’s fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.

Mary’s custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children’s “best interest” [81] and that Russ’s visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers’ counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]

My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children––and Russ––could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system’s sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.

@ @ @ @

F. Any “Solution” Not Based on Battered Women’s Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure

We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors’ stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]

Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women’s safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]

Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near–magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper’s ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator’s. Battered women’s expertise does not seem to matter. [122]

Sometimes, it seems that battered women’s voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi–respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the “good old days” when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims’ lives.

@ @ @

As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where “anything goes” and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.

But rules are different in a batterer’s house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one–way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.

The rules in a batterer’s house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self–image. Batterer’s rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim’s isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136][137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation. Even “little” rules, like “don’t play the radio when I’m gone” and “keep the curtain in the kitchen down” are part of an overall pattern of isolation.

In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone’s needs, but they do not destroy family members’ self–esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]

Second, the batterer’s list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non–abusive “dinner at six” dad. We have all known non–abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non–abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. “Just feed him on time and he’s a happy man” is not something an abused wife would say.

Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non–compliance with rules. [143] The non–abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.

Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: “Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they’re not met?” With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter–of–factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]

H. How Physical and Non–Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When [XxxxxXxxx] Generals Do It,
But Not When It’s the Guy Next Door?

People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.

~ ~ ~ ~

In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones’s book Next Time, She’ll Be Dead. [155] In the left–hand column are non–physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and cata

logued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right–hand column are battered women’s descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary’s story to what appears in Jones’s book.

Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non–physical abuse. When seen in context, a “slap” is not just a “slap”; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer’s demands “or else.” Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, “you could be next.” [159]

We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]


(hover cursor above to find the copyright and which attorney related the story).

Hover over THIS and I’ll tell you when this woman married & got her RO.

It could’ve been a decade later, and wouldn’t have read much different. I found this story after, with curiosity, searching on the man who wrote the article below. I hope readers may go back (click on this link, the “READER QUIZ” link) and actually read Mary’s Story, which was an actual case (name changed), and too damn typical. I doubt a person who has experienced abuse would respond the same as one who hasn’t.

NOW, for comic relief, of the monotous drone of fatherlessness being the nation’s crisis (and we have JUST the solution to fix it . . . . ).

Fall of marriage seen linked to decline in domestic murders Drop in homicides called ‘ironic benefit’ of change

The decline of marriage and the breakdown of stable relationships have produced a paradoxical benefit: Domestic murders have declined, with the most dramatic reductions among African- Americans, a University of Missouri criminologist reported yesterday.

“We’re living at a time of dramatic changes in marriage, intimate relationships and family structure,” said Richard Rosenfeld, speaking in Baltimore at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Those changes have had an ironic benefit in reducing the number of intimate-partner homicides.”

Dr. Rosenfeld’s findings are the flip side of the much-reported increase in young men killing young men, which he said may be attributed in part to similar factors — family instability and lack of supervision by harried single parents


(author date & cite show when cursor hovers over link)

OK, now that you know when Dr. Rosenfled (a criminologist, not a PSYchologist) found out that the decline in marriage rates among African Americans meant reduced DV homicides among African Americans (although young men were killing each other more, they weren’t apparently killing so many wives or “intimate partners.” )

Let’s say what the head-honcho elected mostly white men were saying about the same year:

I searched the 104th Congress (1995-1996) for the word “fatherless.”

As we know, fatherlessness has been for so long blamed on the nation’s troubles that you can barely walk somewhere in a government agency, or any social service community agency (after you come back from either a Catholic church, where the (celibate?) priests are called “Father” in direct disobedience to Jesus’s command in the gospels, “call no man Father.” Or, an evangelical Protestant, not quite mainline (or, megachurch) where, after the ranks were being drained to women, they are adding testosterone to the doctrine, and teaching men to be more sensitive (in men’s groups, of course).

If you want to go without the straight-up religious variety, there’s always “The Mankind Project” and one can get a seminar of the Robert Bly type. There are fatherhood practitioners everywhere one looks, practically.

All I really wanted was the conversation where a legislator expresses shock and dismay that African American boys and girls are waking up on homes without their fathers. (NOTE: The “Mary” story above happened in the late 1980s, and HER 3 kids were waking up with their father in the home. In fact, her little girl Elizabeth, at age 3, had gotten an early introduction to sex when her stepbrother came there for the summer and molested her, after which her mother had another job of making sure they weren’t left alone together. (That couple were white and suburban, so maybe they didn’t count in this topic).

I got a little more than I expected in this 104th Congressional record:


I met a man who was an administrator of one of the hospitals in my community in the 15th District of Florida, and this gentleman told me that, before he had moved to Florida, he had lived in Oklahoma, and he had taken part in a program where he would go into inner city housing projects and read to young children in those projects. This program started because it has been shown in research studies that, if you read to a child, you can improve their reading score. Actually there are some studies that show that, if you read to a child, you may actually be able to raise their IQ slightly, {{Noble cause. Some Oklahoman going to raise inner city kids’ IQs}} and he told me something that I will never forget.

So this anecdotal evidence of an unnamed Florida Hospital Administrator, about (how many years previous?) that administrator going into the projects (hence, he wasn’t from them) was not 2nd-hand but 3rd-hand hearsay — if the event ever indeed happened. The impassioned delivery is to state how Welfare is Cruel — listen up how this is done:

He was going into those projects and reading to those kids, and those children were, by and large, children of single parents on welfare, and he would ask, many of them 5, 6 and 7-year-old children, `What do you want to be when you grow up?’ And, yes, some of them would say I want to be a fireman or a nurse, but some of them would say:

`I don’t want to work. I want to collect a check.’

Not all of them wanted to be firemen or nurses (separate by gender; I don’t know how many female fire”men” there are these days, but we know there are lots of male nurses… And probably were in 1996, too..)

Mr. Speaker, a program that does that to millions of children is not a program of compassion and caring to children. It is a program that is cruel and mean spirited to children.

Here’s the process — a man in Florida heard a man in Florida talk about his experience trying to improve the iQ of little kids in the projects (did he talk to their Mamas?) in Oklahoma, and concludes that (although even in the story some WANTED a profession, others wanted a check) FEEDING such children was mean-spirited and cruel…

Today a young male being born to a mother, a single mother on welfare in the United States, has a greater likelihood of ending up on drugs or in the penitentiary than graduating from high school.

I showed in “Luzerne County” that you don’t have to be poor or (presumable here) black to be a crook. There’s a difference between being a crook and actually being jailed for it. It should be common knowledge now, and I bet then (1996) that America, being the largest jailor (per capita) has those jails disproportionately filled with black males. Some of them got their assaulting their mother’s attacker, too. He’s taking two statistics (if that) and creating a CASUAL connection rather than a CAUSAL one. Of course, how many poor black males — or females of any social status or color — were there in Congress in 1996 to comment on his reasoning process?

And the young females, (single mothers have both boys and girls, right?) — are THEY ending up on drugs or in jail?

The problem that we have with illegitimacy in our Nation today is a problem that has been created by the program that we are trying to change, and you cannot fix this problem by tinkering around the edges. The illegitimacy rate in this country has gone up from 5 percent to almost 25 percent in the white community. In the black community it has gone from less than 25 percent to, in some areas, as high as 70 percent.

If you look at what correlates best, what correlates in communities with problems like teenage pregnancy, drug use, illiteracy, juvenile crime, the thing that correlates best in those problems in those communities, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of illegitimacy, the amount of fatherlessness in those communities. A program that perpetuates and cultivates things like this is a cruel and mean-spirited program, and that program needs to be changed, and our bill makes a serious attempt at doing that.

We are not talking about tinkering around the edges. We are talking about promoting family unity, discouraging teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy.

The fact that this program perpetuates it, Mr. Speaker, was driven home to me when I was a medical student working in an inner-city obstetrics clinic, and I had a 15-year-old girl come in to see me who was pregnant, and I had never seen this before, and I was so upset. I was grieved to see this. I looked at her and said her life is ruined, she cannot go to college, and I said to her, `How did this happen, why did this happen,’ and she looked up to me and told me that she did it deliberately because she wanted to get out from under her mother in the project, and she wanted her own place and her own welfare check.

Again, on the outside looking in, and one anecdote.

This program needs to stop. The people have asked for it; we are trying to deliver.

WHICH people? I mean, these are elected representatives, are they really speaking for their constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the minority to stop their partisan rhetoric and join with us in reforming welfare and creating a program for the poor and the needy that strengthens family, does not undermine them, that strengthens the bonds of marriage, because it is strong families that make strong communities that makes strong nations, and our Nation cannot survive with a perpetuation of a program like this.

Is it the lack of marriage, or the lack of fathers that counts? Because I tell you one thing that makes lack of fathers — WARS. Another thing that previously, broke up families in a callous manner is called slavery.

Who created ghettoes? Who created the two-tier school system, good for some lousy for others (a factor to this date). Who directed one populace into “jobs” and the others (elite ones) into how to run businesses and understand investments, political connections, foundations, and skills that would go along with that goal?

So if you want to know how much we (we WHO???) have invested in the old welfare program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than the United States of America has invested.

Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment, 30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30 years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the Government today, and by any definition of quality of life, fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were when we started the current welfare system.

When we started the War on Poverty {{and another war in Southeast Asia to follow up on the Korean war I guess}} in the mid-1960s, two-parent families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has tripled.

I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers dependent. It has taken away people’s dignity. It has bred child abuse and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we are here today to change it.

Grammar: Is this guy going to “own” the welfare program, or objectify it? First it was guilt trip, “we have created” and net thing it’s got an independent life, like a disease, perpetuating itself of its own accord, where it can be separated from the rhetorical bosom of the speaker, and be viewed running around tearing up the place. As an “it” it can now have stones thrown at IT first. And after the vivid picture of 5, 6 , 7 year olds wanting to collect a welfare check (“millions of them”) (Seriously, that’s the subliminal message — guilt trip first, it’s ours” and then relieve the guilt by blaming the same thing “we” created, and QUICK, call to action.….) Some action is needed to take away

Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are going to find that there are two things that get individuals and nations out of poverty. Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the current welfare program of the United States of America.

This man seems totally unconscious of the fact that SOME ancestors came to America in the bottom of a slave ship; that a lot of wealth, including likely some of the wealth that helped put people in Congress, came from came from businesses that included plantation labor, sweat shops, and some very, very hard work. When he says “us” as to doling out benefits, he also seems to have forgotten that those taxes came from employees’ wages, courtesy a few reforms dating back to 1939. He seems to have forgotten everything about “Jim Crow” and era of attempting to turn back the clock on some serious industriousness by freed slaves.

The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.

I admit I’m maybe sensitive to this because I know HOW HARD I worked over the years, and none harder than while in a battering relationship that could’ve been a variety of the one above (but a decade later). This relationship, within marriage shouldn’t be happening any more in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, but it is.

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

(SEPARATE TOPIC, above)) just saving the link).

%d bloggers like this: