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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)’ Category

The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].

leave a comment »

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

But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, which may save some blog’s sidebar vertical acreage under on “Most Recent Posts,” making for a subtitle:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming. And that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.      “Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”).  See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)

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

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

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

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

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


This post will reference interactions and commonalities (obviously not so much in overall SIZE!) several of the following organizations.  Trust me, this connects with the subject matter above.  The table re-appears again below as do tables of other organizations which, keying off some of these (and like these, also backed significantly by the Ford Foundation), are taking it to a whole new level (global) and faster (accelerating specialty technologies to get more people faster on public benefits, and/or technologies to speed up the movement of money outside the U.S. to better compare how poverty here correlates to poverty elsewhere, and what the (elites in specific fields sponsored for this specific purpose for decades) could do, while maintaining their own upper or middle-class lifestyles and social niches, manage and run “randomized controlled trials” (and that IS the theme and what they’re called) to discover “what works best” in solving the intractable social problems such as — poverty.

In the list below, which entity do you think MIGHT be best positioned to throw the most weight around by picking and choosing favorite organizations to get the grants while putting the investments “where the sun don’t shine” and paying reduced taxes on them, obviously (the natural goal of ANY business is hardly to pay as many taxes as possible, and ignore ways to get around paying as much as the average middle or lower-income person might?

Total results: 6. Search Again. (I compiled this table from 6 different searches)

Center for Family Policy and Practice WI 2015 990 10 $299,210 36-4038873
MDRC NY 2015 990 68 $121,599,657 23-7379473
Urban Institute DC 2015 990 55 $165,064,431 52-0880375
Brookings Institution DC 2016 990 63 $473,918,510 53-0196577
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2015 990 51 $115,865,634 13-2612524
Ford Foundation NY 2015 990PF 428 $12,242,896,362 13-1684331

Meanwhile, (see this again, and more tax tables below) when it comes to welfare reform and restructuring government to better internationally align it with other countries globally, and produce, I guess, a more just, equitable and sustainable world, Ford in just one year has funded many nonprofits I already know (MDRC, Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, Fund for the City of New York) from their roles in evaluating and conducting projects for “welfare reform” and as associated with major personalities (professors, PhDs, etc.).

The subcontractors, assets controlled, and payroll for nominal hours per week (let alone full-time) employment within these sponsored nonprofits, and what they are doing with their (a) maintained assets and (b) millions of dollars of grants (some, mostly private, some, about half from government) is yet another cash-flow circuit on the home (domestic) front, whether New York, Delaware, D.C., or in the case of Ford Foundation itself, Michigan. And something to behold.

When it comes to the Robin Hood Foundation-connected (spinoff) nonprofits also, I see at least two spinoffs in recent years under the direction (Chairman of the Board in one case) and credited to a single individual, Michael Weinstein, formerly for many (about 14) years “Chief Program Officer” at RHF.  These two spinoffs were (and as organizations still are) SingleStop USA, Inc. and ImpactMatters, sharing common board membership and, it seems, policies.

However, RHF chose only to feature one of those two in their announcement about Mr. Weinstein’s move:  ImpactMatters.

ImpactMatters is identified (on its own web page) with “Innovations for Poverty Action” another nonprofit dating back to only about 2002, and so far, clocking in at about $35M of government grants in a single (recent) year, while working alongside the MIT-based, and MIT-professor-initiated “J-PAL” or Abdul Lateef Jamil Poverty Action Lab.

Which I see is now as a US nonprofit taking directly also from the UK DID (Department of International Development), while based in Cambridge Massachusetts. And focusing globally (especially but not only in Sub-Saharan Africa) what has already been tried and successfully managed to disrupt families and help get more of them ON welfare while promising the opposite, domestically, in part as demonstrated through the MDRC (1974 forward and acknowledged to have been started by a combination of the Ford Foundation and federal agencies).

The best place to see such connections is not, generally speaking, organizations speaking about themselves on their own websites, or promotional foundations speaking about them (or even nonprofit publications such as “Philanthropy Circle” or others announcing new personnel) but by sooner or later getting to where they are registered and what financials they may have coughed up… For example, a recent article announcing the new executive director of “Impact Matters” (which was Michael Weinstein) had an earlier link to their searching for more staff — which was on no related website whatsoever.

I go over this again separately on another post (in the pipeline…), just bringing it up here for repetition and points of reference.

$16M USD for Governance, Crime and Conflict Research including some from a Development-oriented part of the (see “former British empire,”) UK. Link to J-PAL website here which at the top declares: Our mission is to reduce poverty by ensuring that policy is informed by scientific evidence. We do this through research, policy outreach, and training while minimizing the name of its billionaire Saudi namesake on the logo (and, in fact, barely referencing it on the site). “J-PAL AND IPA makes sense as J-PAL doesn’t seem to have registered itself separately from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, i.e., “MIT, while IPA actually did (although it’s a NJ corporation, not an MA one). Money donated TO MIT would be difficult (if even possible) to trace, while through IPA at least must be recorded on an IRS tax form under US Internal Revenue Code”

“randomized evaluations in 80 countries” a J-PAL recent home-page call-out amid the various photos and links to project descriptions.

A closer look at the various organizations also shows major focus on behavioral modification tactics for the poor, as further emphasized by an organization started by one of the J-PAL originators which began as “Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc.” but then changed to “Ideas42.org.”  On following those leads, I found that Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc.” was a successor to a Harvard Center called the IQSS (Institute for Quantitative Social Science), and connected through board membership (and President) a man Eldar Shafir now directing a 2015-inaugurated Kahnemann-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy. At “psychology.Princeton.edu.

[Better link:  https://www.princeton.edu/news/2015/05/04/gift-establishes-kahneman-and-treisman-center-behavioral-science-and-public-policy

If I may compile some of this and warn about the trend of corporations paying big bucks (and through a variety of multi-layer disguises of where the money actually came from, including by having it come from one place, be reported on a second’s Form 990, handled by a third, and then periodically switching it up; choosing website names which do not match organization names, and so forth.

The Princeton connection to “IDEAS42.org” comes in part from Israel, through military training needs (obviously this will involved the fields of motivation and behavioral modification strategies), and Brown, Harvard, MIT (of course Princeton) with a dash of Stanford, and more.

This is interesting and relevant to the direction public policy is moving, so….FYI:

Eldar Shafir has sterling academic credentials (his bio on that website: BA Brown, MIT PhD, now professor of psychology at Princeton) as well as some background in the Israeli military, and I see in only 2014 he was being interviewed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, talking about how he got interested in this field, which he answers up front.  (For the curious, my awareness of him came only through reading tax returns for what is now “Ideas42” — he was on the board of directors and for at least some years, President):
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NRA (not) On the Record | Modeling Gun Control/Gun Violence Prevention Laws after Domestic Violence Prevention Laws [i.e., Moving It Under the Mental Health Umbrella], Strategized through Unregistered “Consortia” or Misleadingly-labeled Nonprofits East (D.C.) and West (S.F.)? No Thanks!! [Started Nov. 4, Publ. Dec. 3, 2017]

with one comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Post:

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

[[Dec. 1-2 pre-publication context: I have been working on several posts identified as “in the pipeline” over the past few weeks, some of which work entails exploring new ground, other, reviewing or reformatting/updating references to earlier posts which mentioned some of the same subjects. THIS post is not meant to be complete, but on what it says, it should be as authoritative as the entities’ own tax returns and filing history, subject to IRS and state registrations/filings, and the reliability of any database claiming to get their data from the IRS. It is also a stark reminder NOT to just rely on an organization’s website, or high-profile spokespersons, or a recent dramatic event demanding a swift response, in judging whether to support, ignore, or oppose their various agenda.]]

How are we to identify and recognize, other than when they show up in press releases and mutual self-promotions, the many organizations who manage to get laws passed, including organizations of nearly 100% lawyers, and among these any groups who are engaged in deceptive “naming and framing” practices over time? (Naming themselves and framing the issues, that is).

I have a problem with ANY organizations involved in deceptive naming practices in ANY field effectively getting laws passed, but especially when the topic is gun control.  In addition when modeled after domestic violence laws (something I have direct experience with, as a protected person with minor children, also protected persons initially) and then when, as has happened within the “violence prevention” and “abuse prevention” fields, a push to expand under the mental health umbrella.  [[*This 2nd opening paragraph was re-written after I spent more time on the web pages — and multiple tax returns — of some of the nonprofits referenced for this post, and picking up the topic nearly a month later.]]

Brief summary of organizations and issues in this post and what inspired it:

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

First, I’d noticed the “NRA ON THE RECORD” website when looking up an individual it had commented on, as regards another nonprofit.  This led to my look at “CSGV” (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence — which is a 501©4) which took credit for the website of NRA quotes and public stands of various people on the issues.  The related entity (not acknowledged or even identified on the NRA on the Record website) was started, say its returns, back in 1978) and is a 501©3 EFSGV — Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence.  Both are based in DC. They are backed, it turns out, by the Joyce Foundation among others which doesn’t seem to be acknowledged on either entity’s website but is on the Joyce Foundation’s.

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


(Footer to Giffords Law Center and Giffords PAC website)

Although information is released, in narrative form from this center and how it connects to the LCAV does show on the website, the description of that connection, in combination with references also to an “Americans for Responsible Solutions” (“ARS” for short, and it is focused on gun control and reducing gun violence) which was backed by Congresswoman Gabby Giffords who was shot and seriously injured while speaking in public (starting back in 2013), the truth (regarding “ARS”) is more complex if not perplexing, than as narrated, in that there have been, so far, at least FOUR identified “ARS” nonprofits, including the first one which only lasted just over a year before closing down and pouring its assets into another — plus a fourth one identified on some of (their) tax returns only by a name and EIN#, but no return found yet. I go over some of this on the bottom of this post (it takes a while!).  Further complicating this, on the California Charitable Registry website, the California group’s documents haven’t been uploaded before 2008 (leaving at least a decade of “mystery”) and, although I write in December 2017 now, no FY2016 tax returns (by the Calif. group) are showing, nor are its founding documents or any audited financial statements.

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

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

Gabrielle Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions merges with California group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as  ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published   Nov. 5)

(See also Footnotes post related to this page — link found within it or on the most recent posts (for a while, after which see November archives)). The next images is from the above post, and referencing the “Mental Health Consortium” referenced in the title, convened (?)2013 and called the basis for a new California GVRO (Gun Violence Restraining Order). After that, three more on-line mentions found, including a Dec. 2013 whitepaper.  I’m not saying much more about the mysterious “Consortium” on this post.  (Detangling the various versions of other organizations took up most space below). But you can see classic “Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze” tactics in operation, and as published on-line just since 2013, 2014 ,and 2015, about when the Americans For Responsible Solutions organizations started incorporating in D.C.

The other oddity about this is how small the various nonprofits are.  None are even over $5M/year, and the largest backer I saw so far (Chicago’s “Joyce Foundation”) is still just a bit south of $1B (one billion U.S. dollars) which makes it smaller than several others with big, shared, globalist dreams and plans to implement them, too via the nonprofit sector driving government, driving the people, too…

ScreenShot from LGH (i.e., my) “Before WHO’s HIAP…” post, referencing Consortium for Risk-based FireArm Policy. Excerpt is from near the bottom of that post.








I like to back up statements and look up missing information when quoting some source on something or someone else I’ve been posting on — and in this case the website referencing CSGV.org led to some disturbing truths about the “Gun Control lobby,” such as complaining about unregistered firearms, or laws that don’t take enough registered ones away from people that some believe shouldn’t have them, while getting laws passed (apparently) without their own registrations being visible, documented, and truthfully self-described on their ownwebsites.

Another issue is appearing through impressive-sounding, or emotionally laden names, sounding more grass-roots and pervasive than they may actually be.  The CSGV’s characterization of conservatives as degenerates (basically) and groups supporting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as subversive to government is a sad statement on the mentality behind the organization as a whole.

SOME of this information then is on my prior post, a part of it on a footnote to that post cited in it, and what I just found out in the last 24 hours, is here.

Incidentally, I do not have an administrative team, or research budget.  Anyone who would like to work with me in compiling some of this information (sorry, unpaid!) for the public interest, and blogging it, please speak up, or tell me of others already working on it and posting.** (I am reluctant to engage in private dialogue off-post.  There are comments fields.  If you wish any comment to NOT be posted (generally speaking, there aren’t many in the first place…) please say so up front with the message.

*I do NOT include in this mix posting which segregates itself by political party and the standard menu of issues.

That’s a great way to get “played” by both or either sides, as I witnessed over many years in the “domestic violence prevention and services field” and “family court reform” groups –which pointed and flagged the least influential organizations when talking about “fathers’ rights” and omitted, by and large, the largest elephants in the room, who were standing grouped together and identifiable in the HHS and USDOJ grantmaking while the on-line dialogues ignored them. While they were distracting the distressed, the infrastructure expanded, continued to obtain millions of dollars of free grants from the taxpayers (i.e., Congressional appropriations to HHS and DOJ) AND private tax-exempt foundations progressive (example:  Open Society Institute in Baltimore) or conservative (example, Heritage Foundation) who thought the situation was “just great for PR”.

Until then (until some more committed “colleagues” surface in this effort), I will keep repeating the mantra — LOOK IT UP and START DEMANDING HONESTY FROM NONPROFITS, and when it comes up, from journalists reporting on them.  Embarrass the writers by submitting the information as appropriate on comments fields, and referencing the blog where you’ve posted more info!  Or write short, effective letters cc-ing legislators and/or involved groups, or those maintaining the state-level databases (I’m working on some!).

Debates in the realm of the dissociative are fruitless.  Start with something YOU can identify, and cite the basis for it.

Speaking of which:

The “Giffords Law Center” footnote 1 lists which part of California Code (“Giffords” being the organization [[actually, make that just the WEBSITE, details later revealed) renamed after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords; but the organization apparently started after a 1993 rampage in a SF law firm:

In 1999, we began extending our services to include nationwide assistance to advocates, lawmakers, and community leaders. The tremendous need for our expertise led to our organization’s expansion over the years,*** and in 2012, we rebranded to better reflect the national breadth of our work.

*** More  screenprints providing the self-described timeline, towards the bottom of this post (and in part to preserve its first, draft format, which was making other, though related, points). I’ll mark them clearly with a title…

*** searching one of the few non-lawyer names on this group’s nonprofits (“Leutwyler”) I found a single website who claims the Joyce Foundation was sponsoring much of the group’s work.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Dark Sides (Bottom Lines) of Web-based Donor-Advised Funding: Donor Disclaimers, Buyouts, Emigration (JustGive [US]–>JustGiving [UK]). And Interesting Related Ops (IronPlanet: ZOPB Highway ByPass J.V.) and Bank Bailouts. [A July 26, 2016 section repost].

with one comment

This material isn’t new, just the title, the introduction and for the reposted segment, aspects of its format (appearance).

On a closer look, “just give” in general is probably NOT a good idea. For why, see this and related posts (listed below).

When writing this I was still unclear on the relationship between “JustGive” and “JustGiving” (with controlling entity based in London, UK “Selota” whatever that means).  I’d deduced that JustGiving’s tax returns weren’t showing up because it wasn’t a tax-exempt entity, unlike JustGive, which WAS a tax-exempt entity — although one which had simply opted to make viewing, or getting an overview of its DAF-based grantees virtually impossible.  First, by making the presentation “virtually invisible” (fine print), thereafter, by showing them 1 per page (!!), then, 3 per page (not much better) and those, sorted NOT by anything logical, but from smallest to largest by amount of grant (!!). … “Good effin’ grief“… Then JustGive “gives it over” to a software company which it was already using for solicitations?

“JustGive” is still showing up as an active charity at the California state level, and despite how large it gets (i.e., the millions of dollars passing through it), I see not one audited financial statement uploaded to the state OAG (Office of Attorney General) RCT (Registry of Charitable Trusts) where they ought to show (and, for some organizations over a certain size, do show).

I found these after writing the post below, but felt they should be shown at the top here.  Read the fine print at the bottom of 2nd image: (faces, logo, and pink background).  Seeing this up front may help make more sense of the discussion of it below and on the earlier post on the same topic.

It reads: “JustGive.org” is a JustGiving(™) service. Find out more “here.” © JG US Inc. 2000 to 2017. (etc.)

Let’s review this again, from (part of) the “find out more HERE” link above (also at footer of the images in pink, in finer print):

JustGiving is a trading name of the local JustGiving entity as identified in the country specific terms of service. JustGiving operates http://www.justgiving.com (the “Website”) and its associated services. These core terms of service (and the relevant country specific terms) (together the “Terms of Service”) govern your use of the Website and its associated services. Please read these Terms of Service carefully. If you do not wish to be bound by these Terms of Service, you should not continue to use or access the Website or its associated services. … (another excerpt displayed in image form just below):

More about “JustGiving” includes “JustGiving Crowdfunding” (causes, not necessarily registered nonprofits) vs. JustGiving used by registered charities. I.e., this platform (and the for-profit UK company owning and operating it) facilitates fund-raising for both types.


While the “progressive thinktank” Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFFPP.org) featured JustGive among its many famous donors, too)…

In fact, just below this paragraph are those screenprints, taken from the website.  I started looking up some of them up recently, and apart from the more well-known ones (such as Open Society Foundations), and JustGive, some related to equalizing the digital divide (TechSoup) and if further explored, led to a circular maze nonprofits EACH of which had a list of “who’s funding whom” — and who started as an initiative of whom before spinning off — all the while featuring digital, on-line solicitations, streamlined….

Various funders claimed by the (modestly sized) Center for Family and Public Policy. an Illinois legal domicile corporation with a longstanding Madison, Wisconsin address. In four images:

CFFP Funders, dated May 22, 2017 (#1 of 4 images for just one web page)

CFFP Funders, May 22 2017 (Image #2 of 4 … but just one web page)

CFFP Funders, May 22 2017 (Image #3 of 4 … but just one web page)

CFFP Funders, May 22 2017 (Image #4 of 4 … FYI link to this one (UW PILF) reads “no longer hosted.” I didn’t find an EIN# and what does exist elsewhere on this entity (click image to see a URL) seems to be “log-in” need-to-know based, although plenty of other law schools (Columbia, Hastings, Loyola, UCLA, Stanford, Rutgers) seem to have similarly-named foundations. When I searched 990finder, I just didn’t find, oddly, this one…




It’s two several days after Thanksgiving, and, challenging myself to clear at least six of the ten posts I named as “in the pipeline” within six days,** I reviewed one from 2016, with its own predecessor post as far back as 2010, on SFFI, CFFPP and its named private foundation funders, including one large entity called JustGive, featuring “Donor-Advised Funding.” Let me explain in three numbered post titles with their respective links.  (As usual, I had some more comments between (1) and (2), though this time none between (2) and (3) below).  **Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017[Published 11/21/2017]

There’s (1) an immediate parent post, (2) THIS post, the full-grown offspring, and (3) the upcoming one I’m paving the way for, now in the pipeline [just published, Tues. Nov. 28, 2017]. Complete with names, links, and a little background, that’s:

(1) The Parent Post (July 26, 2016) is: SFFI – CFFPP – JustGive, Inc. – IronPlanet, Inc. – ZOPB – Texas DoT’s $1B GrandParkway Project – US Gov’ts Big Banks Bailout|SunTrust (while Fixing Fragile Families?) [First Publ. July 26, 2016. See also my ~>March 3, 2010<~ post]. (blog-generated, case-sensitive short-link ends “-43Z”) from which this, except the lead-in, is a basic, blanket re-post. It may display a little differently (background colors and fonts), but basically the same content. Now the nest is a little more empty over there as I’ve just removed about a third of its volume…
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 29, 2017 at 8:58 pm

Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare) and Collection Agencies (JustGive.org) so enamored of Funky 501©3 Filers — like Wisconsin’s barely still there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?

with one comment


Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare and others) and On-line Mass Solicitation, DAF-collecting Companies (like JustGive.org) so Fond of Funky, “Failed-to-File” 501©3s — like Wisconsin’s barely-still-there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Its Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?”

Technical details/stats: Case-sensitive short-link ends “-7So.” Started Oct. 29, published Nov. 28, 2017. All images are “Click image to enlarge” unless otherwise labeled. (Some viewing devices may not need, but I believe laptop computers might, tablets, ipads, cell phones, probably don’t.. This blog can be viewed on cell phones, but was designed for larger display screens (width 700px is built into most posts)…Approx. words after post-publication addition of short section on fatherhood groups referenced in a CFFPP board member bio blurb (which referenced an NPLI (apparently “PLI”) institute run by CFUF, as well as NPCL  and, of course, HHS grants]: 9,646 10,000]

Can you keep the board relationships straight on this “CFUF”* return for 2013 (five years after a spinoff nonprofit/related entity, CFUF* Fund, Inc., for its capital campaign, was started up), on its first page, mis-labeling $2.2M of contributions (moved over from CFUF* original entity started in 1999) as “program service revenue”), in addition to $1.8M as “contributions”?  Or perhaps make an educated guess WHY this Baltimore-based organization isn’t posting its tax returns on the website?
[*Obviously, “CFUF” is the acronym, not the full name as shown in the Form 990 below, and as displayed on the Forms 990 for its spin-off nonprofit started in 2008].

CFUF who’s involved in which businesses with whom.. (Sched O, FY2013)

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #1 of 3 images, webite (Pg1) reads “N/A”

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #2 of 3 images, somehow a transfer of assets isn’t a (Line 1) donation

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #3 of 3 images, Sched R showing the $2.2M transfer was indeed from related entity “CFUF” (the ‘parent’ company) and wasn’t “fees for services” or “Program Service Rev.” as reported on Pg.1, Pt. I, Ln.9 Summary AND on p.9, Pt. VIII, Ln.2a.


FYI, as the country’s “tax-cut” budget is pending, and news coverage of whether or not it will be passed, and in what form, continues, quietly and without news coverage, the ongoing federal funding under CFDA* 93.086 (healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood) which HMRF funding first kicked into gear under 1996 welfare reform act, “PRWORA,” continues, and basically, so does the infrastructure, now embedded in: child support, family courts dealing with custody and visitation issues, domestic violence prevention (sic), and social services provision of many types.  This (infrastructure of embedded HMRF funding or programming) also apparently includes various centers at universities, and/or nonprofits associated with professors or nonprofit management leaders (or social workers) with historic ties to such centers or such nonprofits…
[*CFDA stands for “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance” and is labeled by two-digits (representing a federal department) + 3 digits (identified program label). See more at “Grants.gov”].

Or religious orders controlling a system of hospitals and healthcare development organizations which got in on the trend, clearly, in the 1990s.  (Section in yellow borders with many images below relates to a South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families (I’ve seen it around for ages, and while looking this time whether any direct HHS grants to CFFPP, decided to follow up).

I may move the section later, but it’s here now to illustrate some of the complexities (and vulnerabilities) of having the federal government decide to sponsor fields of practice called simply “Fatherhood,” and how that works.  There’s “a surprise a minute” once you actually start looking closer.  Even after all these years on my part….

CFFPP in Wisconsin (street address)/ Illinois (legal domicile), by (major) contrast doesn’t seem to share the same conservative religious values as this group in Southeastern US — however, it’s still in the same basic field. And does share at least one identified funder, the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Sample from TAGGS.HHS.gov Advanced search (name search for CFFP as potential direct recipient of such funds, that links saves the search specs, not the data). I discovered a new $2.0M/year grant to a longstanding (grants since 2006 shown) The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, shows grants 2006-2011, then a gap, then starting again in 2015, called “Destination Fatherhood.” (notice various award titles over time).  Entities that got grants under 93.086 also often obtain related-purpose grants under other CFDA#s.  On that link, the CFDA#93601 shows is “Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects“)(First two digits “93” representing the Department HHS overall) .

TAGGS grantee list, taken Nov 28, 2017, for South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. Click IMAGE to enlarge, or here (http://tinyurl.com/y7nteayj) to re-run the search (same specs and column headers, but if data changes meanwhile, so will the results. That version will be sortable by column headers, and clickable where you see active links).

While this represents only public grants, and for the most part, the different entity “CFFPP” mentioned in this title doesn’t seem to be funded primarily by public (HHS-originated) grants, although some state-level gov’t entities are listed among its funders then, and now, every professional IN this created field of “fatherhood policy and practice” likely knows that such grants exist, and many individuals are involved either as board members and/or founders, or as consultants TO such HHS CFDA 93086-funded organizations.  Nonprofits for years have been formed, and still are, specifically to engage as intermediary (passing grants through) or destination (final recipient providing some kind of services) for such grant-making (or evaluating results of the same), and then networked if not fiscally at least by reference so as to refer to their other accomplishments in the field on the board member of some different organization, i.e., career-building and credibility as an expert in the field, regardless of performance of the underlying nonprofits individually, or in their networks.  {{for examples of this regarding “CFFPP” see bottom of this post, which posts the biographies of board members.  For example:  of Guy Bowling:

[This next subsection’s background color is altered to signify the sub-section is not about the groups in South Carolina (in the light-green-blue background you see for this paragraph and above], but as an example of how just naming an association or affiliation can be misleading — or is at a minimum “not enough information.” The moral of the story?  when someone’s bio blurb spits out a series of references, especially in the HMRF field (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood] either “take it on faith” or “look it up.”  That also holds for domestic violence advocacy groups. Studying both sides of the cause-based rhetoric, in fact, is one way to find where leadership or advocacy groups are (speaking metaphorically! not literally) “in bed with each other” and collaborating (cutting deals) with each other on what is, and is not, classified as, specifically, abuse. Among other things.  

Generally, “taking it on faith” is not recommended, if the subject is of concern to you as a reader!  For example, see this next example:


GUY BOWLING {{<== link to CFFPP website checked Nov. 2017}}

Guy Bowling is the Program Manager for the FATHER Project, a program of Goodwill/ Easter Seals Minnesota. Mr. Bowling has been a leader in the fatherhood field for 18 years with a special focus on working with low-income, non-custodial fathers in culturally specific communities. He has been the Manager of the FATHER Project since 1999. In that role, he oversaw the successful implementation of a five-year $2.5 million grant project funded through the federal Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Family Assistance (OFA). He remains in that role as the FATHER Project has received a one-year, $1.7 million grant award from OFA to expand its proven service model across Minnesota. He received the 2001 “Spirit of Fatherhood” award at the National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership’s (NPCL) Annual International Fatherhood conference.** He received the Ronald F. Johnson Award to be inducted into the Spirit of Fatherhood Hall of Fame in 2012 at the 14th annual NPCL conference. Guy was recently selected as an emerging leader to participate in the National Practitioners Leadership Institute (NPLI). The NPLI Leadership Academy is designed to assist field leaders in growing their network and expertise in one or more of the following areas: Responsible Fatherhood, Family Stability, Workforce Development, and Black Male Achievement.

It’s probable (though not certain) that by “NPLI,” he means what’s now being called just “PLI” over at Baltimore’s CFUF (Center for Urban Fatherhood), and while “formally established in 2011” (Note: when another round of HHS HM/RF grants (CFDA 93086) were approved, as I blogged at the time, herein)  it’s still called an initiative of the other nonprofit, CFUF:


CFUF image, notice the subtitle, while the business name says “urban families” the focus is still on helping FATHERS (and families)..

Each year, the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore, MD is visited by social service and community-based organizations from across the country that wish to replicate its program models, by policy makers and community leaders interested in learning how responsible fatherhood, family services and workforce services directly affect the lives of those that participate, and by media outlets interested in featuring the organization’s successes.

Formally established in 2011, the Practitioners Leadership Institute (PLI) is a nationally focused initiative designed to provide Responsible Fatherhood, Workforce Development and Family Strengthening practitioners with experiences, skills and information that will strengthen their ability to improve outcomes for low-income fathers and families, impacting black male achievement.

CFUF Believes that men (who connect with women, children and “the workplace”) are key to restoration of (WHOSE — EVERYONE’s??) stability and optimism.**

Central to CFUF’s mission is the belief that men—the most disconnected and underserved citizens in urban communities—who connect with women, their children, and the workplace are key to the restoration of stability and optimism. Consistent with this mission, our organizational goal is to assist individuals in regaining the personal power needed to benefit their families and communities.

Since 1999, CFUF has served over 26,000 vulnerable Baltimoreans providing the bridge that many have needed to attain stability, while emerging as a leader in the national conversation on responsible fatherhood and black male achievement.

**Assuming an about 50/50 ratio of men to women in this country (although women tend to live longer), what does that say about permission for women, or fully-functional women raising children NOT to have a connected male, for example, particularly after experiencing violence within a relationship from the father?   

Does this entity post its financials on the website?  No!  (It’s also apparently not been updated as to the “history” since presidential election of 2016). Image for the first (2013) such PLI notes cooperation of: OFA (i.e., federal department of HHS), Open Society Foundation (Baltimore is its US program home, I recall from prior study), and this nonprofit:

1st PLI summit held under “CFUF” of Baltimore…

ALSO ON THE BIO BLURB ABOVE: CFFPP’s Mr. Bowling appears to work for Goodwill Easter Seals in Minnesota; Goodwill is also a major fatherhood grants recipient in general.   For example, in just the 90FK00__ grant series referenced for the SC Center for Fathers and Families near top of this post, Goodwill recipients of those grants across Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota totaled $12.7M grants just since 2011 (that “tinyurl” shortlink is sorted by grant#, or click any column header to sort by that field).  (“…/ESM” in award title column no doubt means “Easter Seals Minnesota”) Or, not restricting the grant # to “90FK” but to Goodwill in Minnesota only and the two CFDAS 93086 (marriage/fatherhood) and 93601 (Child Support) $1.7M grants do show up, $9M page total, although he is not listed as principal investigator at least on TAGGS.  Click to repeat that search). This only shows results 2006 forward (possibly because I specified by CFDA 93086).

Acronym finder (click image to access that search result on-line)

The NCPL (“National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership” / Jeffrey M. Johnson) is (if I recall it right) in New York state, and another nonprofit — they do conferences, announce awards and honors, and this type of nonprofit sometimes also run “institutes” all focused on maintaining “Fatherhood Promotion” as a professional field, and lending it credibility– while the field is sponsored by a combination of federal grants AND private backing (including from groups sometimes as large as the George Soros’ “Open Society Foundations,” and others.  Acronym Finder says that the reference is its “former name” (possibly a spinoff?):

NCPL (I explored the website years ago, it’s not changed much) – “now moved to DC” and runs certification trainings in “building strong families,” etc.):  EIN# 521994048 — this is NOT an organization I would boast about my association with to anyone who is liable to ever look at its Forms 990!  (Words consistently mis-spelled in “Program Service Accomplishments” obviously as a boilerplate situation, included:
workshop (“worksop”), leadership (“leardership”), strengthening (“strenghtening”) and fragile (“frazile”).  That’s in addition to, listing activities for which no $$ amounts are filled in (repeatedly), sometimes putting a board member’s name in the wrong column (under “Title”), major gaps in information, and it appears, functioning only so long as government grants were available, whether $200K or $400K, and then spending it on, typically, “Professional services” (Forms before 2008 ask for professional contractors paid over $50K; I saw FY2007? had Dr. Johnson — $75K and, possibly his wife or other relative, “Uriel Johnson” $75K — and no one else.  You’ve GOT to be kidding — but apparently someone isn’t, for this one:

Total results: 4Search Again.

National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2015 990 17 $0.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2013 990 12 $298.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2013 990 18 $298.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2010 990 20 $2,232.00 52-1994048

NCPL Image 1 of 3

NCPL Image 2 of 3, coaching nonprofits, etc.

NCPL Image 3 of 3, advertising a 2-day “strengthening families” certification, etc. date and time “TBD” (Click HERE for that URL)

Click on some of those returns.  Amazingly, in a year when it claimed to be receiving government grants ($40,000 — or more ,another year) and have 3 independently voting members on the board (on line1) and was signed by “Jeffery Johnson” — under “Key Officers, Directors, and trustees,” the word “NONE” was typed in, more than once.

Strangely, this one was revoked and reinstated on the same day in May, 2013, which the IRS posted the following October.  But it does not show up on a “revoked” list, although plenty of prior years tax returns are not found either on their own, or under Form 990-N filings.  The entity, “surprise, surprise” shows a 1996 start date…

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

(Back to the South Carolina situation, not including some (actually SIX (6) 3 photo, 3 re: IRS + 990 excerpts) images from NPCL which will overlap some with the text:)

Since I mentioned this South Carolina example from a recent “TAGGS” search, I of course looked up its tax returns, and was surprised to find that this 2002-created nonprofit is operating from Cleveland OH and has many related tax-exempt entities, only a few of which are even based in South Carolina — because it’s a health system associated with the “Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine” (i.e., religious, Catholic organization).  Originally (FY2002 Form 990), some of the officers were paid directly from “The SC Center for Fathers and Families” but now, it shows “0” employees (leadership is paid by “related entities” — although which of the dozen-plus ones, isn’t shown), and redistributes most of its receipts to six fatherhood programs throughout South Carolina.

SC Center for Fathers and Families listing at SC Charitable Registration Search

So it’s easily showing a good charitable profile — “98%” goes right to charities — in part by simply having related entities pay their (very nice, incidentally) leadership salaries.  It looks to be closer to about 33% admin overhead, from what the tax returns are showing.  Profile for 2015 from SC Charitable Registration (with disclaimer, it gets info from the SC Sec of State Annual Reports (which SOS doesn’t independently validate!) and the IRS Forms 990:

A FY2008 Form 990 (tax return) of the “South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, Inc.” shows it’s controlled by a foundation (also based in OH) controlled by SCHS (Sisters of Charity Health System) associated with a religious women’s order (in Ohio too), takes credit for formation of its own grantees, i.e., the father-focused organizations.  While the much larger “Sisters of Charity Foundation” seems to give much smaller grants to various groups EXCEPT its spin-off Center for Fathers (and the State of South Carolina’s Social Services Department), once that(much smaller) SC Center for Fathers and Families gets the funding, year by year, it re-grants most of it in larger amounts (over $100, $200, sometimes $400K) to fewer organizations, giving them the “fatherhood promotion” edge in the state, I guess, with less than average transparency….

EIN# 364506347 SC CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES, Direct recipient of $8.7M of HHS grants (2006-2017) mostly under health marriage/responsible fatherhood promotion (CFDA 93086, and if not, under Child Support Improvement programs for noncustodial parents, strangely, is run from Ohio (although legal domicile SC), something not reflected in the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database (see this generated link from an Advanced Search run Nov. 28, 2017) which locates it in SC. Regardless of location, what it’s doing is, as a grantmaking organization, funding (currently, and it seems recently) just six fatherhood programs across the state, thus concealing from direct observation of TAGGS without other research, where and on what these tax receipts from the federal “coffers” or at least appropriations, are actually being spent.

Form 990, Sched O Supplemental Info for SC Center for Fathers & Families (EIN# 365406347, an OH-based, SC Legal domicile-entity formed in 2002 and re-distributing HHS grants to six fatherhood programs throughout SC, with leadership paid by its related entities in the religious health system. Sole member is as shown on image — another foundation..

Total results: 3Search Again. This “Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC EIN#57-0708391” with $93.8M Gross Assets, spun off SC Center for Fathers and Families only in 2002.

Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2015 990 45 $93,838,419.00 57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2014 990 43 $94,488,556.00 57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2013 990 38 $92,938,192.00 57-0708391

This foundation, formed it says in 1983, is itself controlled by (has a “sole member”) of yet another, and its main income is from selling accumulated assets, almost all of which are held in “public traded investments. However (after all this writeup I finally went to the website) its own website says it was formed only in 1997 — meaning, it suddenly decided that “fatherhood engagement” was the way to go immediately after passage of 1996 PRWORA reform saying the same thing:

The Sisters of Charity Foundation, founded in 1996, serves the entire state addressing the root causes of poverty statewide through grant making, advocacy, and capacity building. The Foundation launched a statewide initiative in 1997 “Reducing Poverty through Father Re-Engagement” and [specifically, five years later] later established the SC Center for Fathers and Families to sustain the Initiative.

I finally went to the State of South Carolina, Business Entities search, and see that it goes back to 1937, with prior name “Providence Hospital Foundation.”  No images or further details are available at that site than the summary page, like this one:

SC Business Entity Search, Sisters of Charity showing 1937 founding (and in good standing)

Sisters of Charity Foundtn of SC (Bus entities search at SC State level) showing docts on file and prior name. Not that clicking on any will bring up a pdf image or further details.

Currently its website home page features (across top right) pro se modification of child support, visitation and “expungement” (see banner with dark-red background above the featured photo, “Need to Modify Your Child Support?” (next image w/ photo).

SCFathersandFamilies.com (see gray top margin of website for page title).

While it only grants out a small percentage of the total holdings — of just this one among its MANY related tax-exempt organizations — its two largest grants in FY2015 by far ($250K, $450K) were, respectively, to the South Carolina Dept of Social Services –i.e., a State government department —  (which elsewhere is stated as partnering with the fatherhood initiatives) and the above SC Center for Fathers and Families nonprofit created in 2002. Other grants (that year) were ALL of them, that I noticed, under $50K and many only $5- or $10K. The funded nonprofit (SC Center for Fathers and Families) is itself basically only receiving grants from (a) related entities (apparently this one) and (b) “government” year after year, while its employees’ income is reported from “related entities.”

Meanwhile, SC Center for Fathers and Families, once it gets those grants, is re-granting them to, according to some of the originating foundation’s descriptions, created by it in the first place.

So, if this organization is likewise funding the government funding SCFF or its fatherhood programs,  that does seem a bit circuitous!  I also saw references to involvement of Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Duke Endowment. Without reading the tax returns, I would not know this? A thorough follow-up would, for EACH such organization re-granting, to look up those grantees, or at least take core sampling of their legitimacy over time, and which programs they are running.  WHO’S EVER GOING TO DO THAT, OR HAS BEEN? is a point I wish to make in this post. It’s designed AND implemented in ways to logistically defeat monitoring of where the public (and private) funds actually went!

The above statements may make sense with a few annotated images which are below.  Know as you read that this is part of the larger CONTEXT of welfare reform, and proliferation of faith-based (in this case) controlled entities setting up their own nonprofits to commandeer more government grants and distribute them ‘where the sun don’t shine.  [I’d noticed this SC Center for years while researching TAGGS, so finally took a closer look this time. I had not noticed how deeply entrenched it is in (1) a health system, and (2) that health system and the associated religious order are focused on maintaining and supporting “Catholic women religious” (i.e., the sisters // nuns) in their ministries during a time when involvement is declining. There are also internal consistencies within the tax returns, with no formal preparers and no real outside contractors displayed throughout, it seems.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References. [Publ. Nov. 24, 2017]

with one comment

This topic came up in my recent posts during discussions of the “Global Framework for Tobacco Control” and HiAP (Health in All Policies) cited as an example of how to get national (countries) and local (states or territories in the USA, or presumably provinces in Canada, Australia, or elsewhere, i.e., sub-national political divisions) to implement a policy and laws to go with it, at the lower (lower than planetary) levels.

This post, Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References: (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24), came from  HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”, published Oct. 24, 2017). That title added to tags as “Originating Post.”  This post in its concept also relates to a post published Oct. 26, (“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule: ) and with extended “Foreword” section added later (but still pre-publication) and minor post-publication updates for clarity is about 8,500 words.

I am increasingly realizing how, for example, “tobacco cessation laws” and changes to the very health departments around the USA can be and have been initiated FIRST at the global level by NGOs and related organizations.  This has been given a “health” focus for justification.

See also financial standardization at the global level: My recent “Happening Now” post also references the processes in place as I write, and fairly recently (since the 2008 economic crisis) to standardize the system of “Legal Entity Identifiers” and to better monitor if not control “shadow banking activity,” meaning not necessarily illegal activity, but “bank-like activities” not under direct regulation by, for example, bodies like the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission). This is the economic, trading, finance, money sector with major implications for whether it will be completed and if so, how complete, and how well run.

The conversation (so to speak) below started on that HiAP (“HEALTH not LAW”) post with a hypothetical question I posed, and having noticed my own breezing right past the question of “sovereignty” when it came to global citizenship, I put on the brakes, looked it up in my favorite etymological dictionary. [“A map of the wheel-ruts of the English language”] and started looking for historical usages of the world. [“sovereign” in OED also includes other definitions using the word; see next two images:]

(ETMYonline.com, “Sovereign“)Note usage: “tax (n.): early 14c. obligatory contrib. levied by a sovereign or government.“)

search results for “sovereign” at ETMYonline.com



And, under “hegemony,” linked from the same “OE” search results for “sovereign,” (emphases added):

hegemon (n.)
1897, originally with reference to the position of Great Britain in the world, from Greek hegemon “an authority, leader, sovereign” (see hegemony).

hegemony (n.)

1560s, “preponderance, dominance, leadership,” originally of predominance of one city state or another in Greek history; [[Obviously, over the others..//LGH.]] from Greek hegemonia “leadership, a leading the way, a going first;” also “the authority or sovereignty of one city-state over a number of others,” as Athens in Attica, Thebes in Boeotia; from hegemon “leader, an authority, commander, sovereign,” from hegeisthai “to lead,” perhaps originally “to track down,” from PIE *sag-eyo-, from root *sag- “to seek out, track down, trace” (see seek). In reference to modern situations from 1850, at first of Prussia in relation to other German states.

Right away, you can see the usage is asserting “sovereignty” in opposition to something or some other authority.  This is where the concept of global citizenship as a tactic to minimize and place on a lower level “national sovereignty” (the laws of nation to which their citizens are subject) to some other source falls short of the language of reason, i.e., it wishes to take the positive connotations of one term, and omit the negative ones of the corollary term, while apparently not getting caught at it, which on closer look seems more like force by subterfuge than, overall, concern for the common good.

The more momentum and force is obtained through subterfuge, the less effort it causes those obtaining it, and apparently the less necessary it becomes to even pretend to legitimacy. This increasing quality unchecked will simply continue to saturate the economy and public institutions.  There are many parallels to mistakenly getting into a close or committed relationship with an abuser, batterer or in short, sociopath, from which exit is a serious and costly fight.  The basic lesson is, don’t enter into it by consent in the first place; know who one is dealing with.  And, know the wider context in which he or she  operates, including “with whom.”

Without something sovereign, it seems there can be no “citizenship.”  In the language used exalting global citizenship — I’ve added just a taste and reminder of this within a “Foreword” section below — the silence, or attempt to substitute the global “we” “us” or even “the planet” “earth” (etc.) — leaves an major information not just gap, but a chasm where credibility of the terminology does not exist.  Just exactly who do the leading advocates of “global is good, nationalism is bad per se, (by definition),” say is sovereign; and does that match who actions indicate some believe are already sovereign over the earth itself, and especially of its people?  Is it WHO, the World Health Organization, or the UN, or a collection of NON-government organizations?  And if these are NON-government, then how can they represent those global citizens being governed..

See also, published just days before “HiAP (Health Not LAW)”…

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.”  Re-posted  (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017] (**the Chatham House Rule is basically anonymity of speaker within group conferences whose results may be published.  See post for more.)  About half that title added to tags as “Originating Concept Post.”

Examples of the language “global citizenship” language entrenched in institutions but without the corresponding discussion of the related concept, “sovereignty” alongside it.

When citizenship is to be re-imagined (it comes up below) and that citizenship is to be global, this entails a change of sovereign entity to which the citizens subscribe, and under whose laws they are to exist, and whose infrastructures they will be supporting with life energies and using, likely, that nation’s central banks currency, too, as well as its registration standards for corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit, and so forth.

I’m including a substantial “Foreword” with two “for example” sections to make the point that we are constantly being primed institutionally and business wise for “globalization + global citizenships” as a great, a “21st Century,” value”  (1) Common Core and Globalization, (2) Rutgers and Globalization or even the (as previously published) Tobacco Framework also in that context, but the related concept rarely discussed in the “Global Citizenship as a Positive Value” promotions and publications.  But this point was neither the inspiration for the post, nor its main point. They are there for examples, and added information, but they are not the “why” for this  post.

Also, in talking about Rutgers example below (which was not part of the original spin-off post, just an introduction to it), I’m in no way against “study abroad” programs or bringing international students here to study either.  That can and should continue happening.

But does it require going nuts over the “global citizenship” and “integrating it into the curriculum across 30 colleges and a biomedical research center” and granting awards for doing this — as Rutgers has?  [Documented below]Not really.  And IF one is going to talk “global citizenship,” then the question comes up, and should be handled in the same circles and on the same publications: “So, who’s “sovereign” (who’s on top?) of the whole “let us now globalize all” culture?  It isn’t, so I gather those behind the globalization are MUCH more interested in achieving it (their business and transformational goals) and not a fair or balanced presentation of the rationale behind them.

If we’re going global from cradle-to-career, where’s the corresponding discussion on switching allegiances and sovereignties?  You won’t find it in the examples given below.  The process is incremental and designed (so it seems) to alleviate violent protests over the erosion of the national, political jurisdictions. Among the countries that I say has the most to lose in that situation is the United States.  We’re large, we’re a developed country, we already support WHO and so forth.  Smaller countries, less developed countries, and those without constitutions that protect the public, and at least on paper, could handle major corruption, have a lot to gain. (See Thanksgiving-Day published post referencing the G20 and standardizing economic systems and business identifiers for better trade…).

Foreword — Other (than “HiAP”) Examples:

The common phrase “global citizenship” apparently is now to be engrained into the US Education system, it seems at PreK-12 and university levels both.  The Dean of Global Education at University of Oregon’s College of Education explains how in a global economy, business really does follow the lowest wages, so the least likely to profit from this are American students.  And other references.

(1) Globalizing a US PreK-12 Public Education (some Common Core debates, and featuring anther Opportunist 501©3 Organization promoting the Transformation Tools)

Washington Post, 2013, The Answer Sheet posted by Valerie Strauss, Article by Yang Zhao, “Five Key Questions About Common Core.”  The Q&A makes sense on its own, but take a look at the author’s affiliations:

…Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon’s College of Education, where he also serves as the director of the Center for Advanced Technology in Education. He is a fellow of the International Academy for Education. Until December 2010, he was director of both the Center for Teaching and Technology and the U.S.-China Center for Research on Educational Excellence at Michigan State University, as well as the executive director of the Confucius Institute/Institute for Chinese Teacher Education.

Read the rest of this entry »

Happening NOW: Locally and Within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, But Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017].

with one comment

Post Title with Shortlink…

Happening NOW: Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, but Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7To”; moved here Nov. 3, 2017, publ. Thanksgiving Day). (About 8,000 words with some post-publication revisions).

…and Geneaology.”  Where it was moved from (which post also has its own “Footnote Post” published 11/22/17):

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ~ ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published  ca. Nov. 3)

Miscellaneous (blog-related) FYI: Images here (and as a rule) are clickable to enlarge unless otherwise noted that clicking on them will lead to the website quoted. Sometimes quotes and images may display similarly; one indicator is that the images usually have borders and a caption. And are more likely to have logos, photos, etc. I’m about to stop saying this on each caption, to simplify image captions and save space on them. “CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE (if needed) is the default…. Why: One drawback of linking directly to the website is that websites change so often, links later end up broken.  A saved image, however, is a saved image (Printed from the website, saved as “png” or “Pdf” files on my computer, then uploaded and stored on this blog domain; not the Internet-at-large.  I’ve been blogging for over nine years; “change happens” in those URLs meanwhile!!).


As detailed as my post titles are, they typically don’t name all topics covered in the post.  The next two numbered paragraphs summarize what didn’t make it into the title but did into the post.  Between numbered paragraphs (1) and (2) I added a quote and images reviewing the background and timeline of the HHS and its previous incarnations as it relates to these topics.

Para. (1) is just below this Foreword, and starts:

(1) This post also contains a section reviewing the greatest ad agency of the 20th century (Lord & Thomas) and the philanthropist Lasker family’s (who controlled it since the early 1900s) political and HHS-expanding*  influences…

For reference and because of the sizeable explanatory gap between them, Paragraph (2) starts:

(2) Oh yes, “Choose Chicago” is the name of aI 2012-formed 501©3, with a board of just about three individuals, but it’s related to and was formed by a different 501©6 dating to 1970.


The TOP “HALF” OF THE POST deals with FIRST HALF OF ITS TITLE, demonstrating how messy it can get following LOCAL nonprofits (Prime example: Paragraphs (1) and (2) as mentioned above).

The BOTTOM “HALF” (not including a “experiential footnote” section at the bottom) CONTRASTS BY SHOWING EFFORTS TO STANDARDIZE AND ORGANIZE INTERNATIONAL ENTITY TRACKING AND IDENTIFICATION.  This section has less explanation and more and larger images in a series numbered “#1/11” through “#11/11.”

TWO MAIN TOPICS, but in “A-B-A” format:   The post has basically two subjects, but as previously written, then expanded to add the HHS background and “Choose Chicago” IRS Form 990 tables (in interactive format), I see there are actually three major sections, making for an “A-B-A” format: the third section (after the 11 images and International section with all those acronyms: LEI, LOU, GLEIF, KYC etc.) returns to the subject matter of both ad agency and Choose Chicago.  Then there’s a minor commentary footnote at the very bottom.  Switching it back to “A-B” format I feel would push the International Section too far down on the page, also some of the third section may be review for people who have been regularly reading the blog or followed my posts on Tobacco Cessation and Big Tobacco Litigation, Settlements, etc.

Different sections are shown by large subtitles.  The first two are easily seen, and here’s the third (the return to original subject):

Two Famous Ad Agencies, one succeeding the other, and a client, “Choose Chicago” and related philanthropy

In General. What concerns me is where nationally-based errors (which are built-in and at times, “beyond belief” for how large, and how many they are, based on what I’ve seen so far as just a single blogger, though I say a consistent and diligent one) will be uploaded to the global level, let alone who will control it. If you amplify corruption, you get more corruption concealed, potentially, and harder to fix.

Consistently dishonest reporting on nonprofit entities is corruption.  I’m not sure the international level of business identifiers referred to here is directed at the nonprofit sector, but it comes along with the corporate sector; they are interlaced and “joined at the hip” through funding and asset investments.  We are dealing at the G20 levels in this topic.  (See “G20.org” for more info.)

Just a reminder….(Google Search results). Click here (G20Germany.org) to expand the map and for more info.

A few reminders of who are the G20, the G7, and its purposes:

Quote July 2017 from “theBalance.com” should be taken “as-is” (website uses independent contractors as contributors):

What does the G-20 Do? | World Leaders Address Terrorism, Climate Change, and Economic Crises, by Kimberly Amadeo in “The Balance” (Updated July 18, 2017)

The G-20 is the G-7 plus developing nations such as BrazilChinaIndia and Russia. The G-20’s members represent two-thirds of the world’s people and 85 percent of its economy. Since 2007, the media has covered each G-20 summit. That recognizes the members’ role as significant drivers of the world economy.

The G-20’s primary mandate is to prevent future international financial crises. It seeks to shape the global economic agenda.

It lends the perspective of Asian and Latin American growing economies. That “broadens the scope of international economic and financial cooperation.” (Source: “The Group of Twenty: A History,” G-20 Study Group, 2007.)

The finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-20 countries meet twice a year. They meet at the same time as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. (Source: “G-20 Information Centre,” G-20.)

In 1999, these ministers and governors created the G-20. They needed dialogue between developing and developed countries. They were responding to the 2007 Asian currency crisis. The meetings started as an informal get-together of finance ministers and central bankers.

2017 Summit Meeting

July 7-8, 2017: Hamburg, Germany. The meeting focused on climate change and global trade. It made little progress.  U.S. President Donald Trump opposed the views of the other 19 countries.

From the G20.org website (Germany was President in 2017, and the meeting in Hamburg in July 2017).  Some general facts: (I replaced “bold” with “underline” here):

Partners – key international institutions

At the invitation of each Presidency, international organisations also regularly attend the G20 meetings. These organisations include the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the World Bank (WB), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations (UN). The German G20 Presidency has also invited the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2017.

Participation – the most important guests

Spain attends the G20 Summits as a permanent guest. The Presidency can also invite representatives of regional organisations and guests to the G20 Summit. The German Presidency has invited Norway, the Netherlands and Singapore as partner countries to the G20 process, as well as the African Union (AU), represented by Guinea, the Asia‑Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), represented by Vietnam, and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), represented by Senegal.

And in case there is any question whether the 2008 financial crises led to the formation of the G20, and from there, a Financial Stability Forum and “FSB” (Financial Stability Board) now resulting in the global LEI system, second decade of the 21st century, with (see the 11 images below) intent to better control “Shadow Banking”, next image also from G20.org says this:

This time, Click IMAGE to access website. (G20.org describing role of 2008 crisis in elevating participation to the “heads of state” from central bank leaders, etc.)


Also interesting is how recently this level of business identifier was developed.  It’s still evolving and registration I’m sure so far is incomplete..   [End “Foreword”//LGH.]


Identifying Underlying Realities* Domestically and Keeping Track of them over Time: “How Messy It is!”


See first ½ of post title:

Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them* Remains (for Most) a Messy and Expensive and Unreliable Process at Best….

(1) This post also contains a section reviewing the greatest ad agency of the 20th century (Lord & Thomas) and the philanthropist Lasker family’s (who controlled it since the early 1900s)political and HHS-expanding*  influences, then checking back in with current successor ad agency Foote Cone & Belding(“FCB”)’s new CEO (German, in the process of becoming an American citizen) and according to some descriptions (incl. “Wiki”) one of FCB’s key Chicago clients, “Choose Chicago,” promoting international (especially from mainland China!) tourism to this Great Lakes City.

*(so to speak; HHS was only formed in 1980, predecessor HEW in 1953, before that see “FSA” (Federal Security Agency) (Suggested review includes at ALLGov.com, or @ HHS.gov (Highlights)

(This, and next image, from “ALLGov.com”)

One of the largest civilian departments in the federal government, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the implementation of numerous health and welfare-related programs. HHS’ budget accounts for almost one out of every four federal dollars, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS’ Medicare program is the nation’s largest health insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare and Medicaid together provide health care insurance for 25% of Americans. Many HHS-funded services are provided at the local level by state or county agencies or through private sector grantees. With its large size also has come a large number of troubles and controversies involving birth control, prescription drugs, food safety and more. …

[[See next annotated image for Public Health Service (1902) with Food and Drug Act, NIH (1930), up through Carter Administration’s 1980 HEW becoming in part, the HHS + (separated from “HEW”) the DOE (Dept. of Education). Not referenced, but generally known — a few World Wars, Korean War, Viet Nam War meanwhile, and (less well-known but still relevant) Congressionally-granted (to the U.S. President) the authority to reorganize the executive branch, particularly relevant and utilized by FDR in 1939 (on the eve of WWII) and not rescinded until 1980.  Basically, it seems the drastic expansion of what is now HHS occurred during the years this Reorganization Authority was in force.  
Read the rest of this entry »

Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” [Published Nov. 22, 2017]

with one comment

Ideally, this blog format should be upgraded to a more structured website with options besides Posts, Pages, and Sidebar Widgets (with more links and some accompanying text) so I may leave “supplemental” and more detailed texts or backup facts with clickable links to other parts of the website.

But until then, what I have now is either:  Omit It, Post It, Page It, or (less space, less viable option), “Sidebar-it.”  Or footnote it on the same post.  If I knew how to insert a navigation link (as many websites do — for example, Wikipedia, or academic writings posted on-line often have this) TO a specific place lower in the page, and from there “Back” or “To Top” — I would.  Presently, I don’t.

THIS POST IS: Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7T1” started Nov. 2, 2017, published Nov. 22.)

For now, consider this post as although it’ll be published separately (and later) as its own post, as “Footnotes” to:

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ~ ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published  ca. Nov. 1)

Footnotes, they may be interesting if long or detailed enough, but are still “footnotes” not headlines, and not designed for reading separately to, or before, reading the main points in the body of the text.  So here, if you read what’s below before reading the post referenced above (its main body), you may find it intriguing, but incomplete.  For example in the first section (commentary on a NYT article), the images are back on the main post.  The paragraphs here would add too much vertical space between title and the first image, and so were moved to another place, as important as I consider the points made.

Visual Style:  Each footnote is long — or it’d have been left in place on its parent post.   A new Footnote will be distinguished by Title starting with the word ‘FOOTNOTE’ and separated from each other also by different background-colors.  They are somewhat shorter than normal width to alert readers to the fact this is not attempting to be a normal post with a continuous narrative, but exists as a supplement to a normal one, written in continuous prose (although typically in different sections).

Perhaps I could make a continuous “Footnote page” separated by Post names (like “chapters” as in a book).  Hmm.  But for now, you have these “footnotes”  for just a single post. I also added a “Post as Footnote” tag.  Publishing this knocks of one of ten “in the pipeline.”  Enjoy: it’s under 2,500 words!
Read the rest of this entry »


Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: