Archive for the ‘Designer Families’ Category
My Posts, Just the List (June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012. From Jan. 23, 2016 forward now available @ “Table of Contents 2016 ONLY” Post)
Full post title with shortlink: My Posts, Just the List (June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012. From Jan. 23, 2016 forward now available @ “Table of Contents 2016 ONLY” Post)
Table of Contents
(June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012)
I started this blog in spring 2009. It is my continuous show-and-tell learning curve exposing, as the motto says, Family –and Conciliation — Court Operations, Practices, and History from the early 1990s and earlier.
Nothing was posted or added to this table of contents from June 29, 2014 (Broken Courts, Flawed Practices, Parade of Fools) throughout 2015. On January 23, 2016 (2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers)) I resumed publishing posts. My personal situation wasn’t particularly better at this time, it had just progressed, and I felt it urgent to continue this line of reporting, as I had not stopped investigating (or writing it up off-blog) meanwhile.
This BLOG has two separate Tables of Contents in two different posts, both near the very top of the blog: [Update: as of 1/8/2017, I’m starting one for the new year also…]
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
How NY’s OTDA [social services agency] runs even more fatherhood (and DV) funding through FFFS alternate circuitry
(Post short-link ends “-23A” total wordcount about 6,500, published Jan. 15. 2014. Other than adding this information, I’ve not edited the post since — but may sometime in the future. //LGH May 31, 2020)
From a pre-Thanksgiving draft (and in not much beyond draft shape) I simply want to illustrate how “Follow the money” is almost impossible when it comes to the entrenched systems of Fatherhood, yes, also Domestic Violence prevention categories.
Some things you can’t see without even reading some detailed Administrative Memorandum offering more perks through, as in this example, “Flexible Funds for Family Services.” [FFFS]. I provided about half a post’s worth of intro, so if you want the original (and more picturesque part) please do scroll down at least to the first set of quotes, in tables with a rich brown background. This post relates to the “fatherhood.gov” a.k.a. “the National Responsible Fatherhood Resource Center and an Albany, New York street address on the contact page? and who that relates to. This field and the supposedly contrary field (domestic violence) since 1996 have been funded through the federal government. I did the best I could with formatting and hope the post further enlightens us ALL to (wake up and smell the coffee)….and make a New Year’s Resolution to start better comprehending “government” and how it’s funded. While I’m not the expert, I do have access to some tools which are NOT taught in most schools or reported in the local mainstream media. The tools aren’t to drown anyone with details, but the exhibit certain concepts — and from there, make a more informed decision of where you stand regarding (well, what’s to be done with your future TIME and LIFE). Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eavesdropping into an Indoctrination Center, Hindsight from a Pilot Project Outpost (First publ. Dec. 22, 2013; Updated (format) Aug. 3, 2019).
THIS POST IS, with title lengthened to show when first published (Dec. 2013) and when last updated (Aug. 2019):
Eavesdropping into an Indoctrination Center, Hindsight from a Pilot Project Outpost (First publ. Dec. 22, 2013; Updated (format) Aug. 3, 2019). (short-link ends -2cI, about 12,700 words)
A nearby post I just updated Aug. 3, 201, and referenced on the top sticky post on the blog (created recently to post all my PAGES (vs.POSTS like these) titles + links full-width, vs. tightly wrapped on a narrow sidebar widget) (click on next link for why) was and still is called:
Bypassing the Legal Process in Baltimore: HOW and for WHOM Maryland got its “Family Divisions” in 1998. (Short-link ending “-2cT” and at about 9,200 words, not including this update. First published, I believe, on or about Dec. 24, 2013; this update with a bit of preview & Why the Update section, August 3, 2019).
Also recommended, if you can handle the indignant tone as I was at the time discovering and processing all this information:
Eavesdropping into an Indoctrination Center, Hindsight from a Pilot Project Outpost (short-link ends -2cI)
Once the process becomes clear, it’s easy to see in operation. AGAIN — the NONPROFIT and CENTERS (clearinghouses, you name it) system of communications — laterally — is replacing the jurisdiction-related representative government, if it hasn’t already.
The Indoctrination Center is at UBaltimore School of Law, where concepts like Therapeutic Jurisprudence Promotion and Unified Family Courts are being taught to new law students (Student Fellows) (year, 2013).
Unbelievable. Listen in to the fake conversations…
The Hindsight from a Pilot Project — assistance obtained in this project ca. 2002 — is (to date still in motion) at an economically depressed and, it turns out, educationally disadvantaged region of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna County. They are related.
So, you might want to read post one, and see how one tax-evading GAL was spat out, and got a settlement agreeing their own tax fraud wasn’t over $80,000 [leaving the program enabling fraudsters intact, from what we can tell]. I am showing you portions of the manufacturing and of the product delivery sections of this UFC family-relations-assembly line. I added material (1/1/2014) on inspiration — probably not the best idea – but showing the progressive encroachment from the Supreme Court level and the Presiding Family Court Judge level, of private business interests sold as “in the best interests” of the children.
I find it empowering –and wise — to see the process of having these destructive systems set in place. It’s very easy to see once you become familiar with the HOW, the WHO, and the WHERE. For the end goal? Usually, profit, but also, the undermining of the rule of law and substituting for it, the rulings of mental health experts. AFCC told each other this back in the 1970s, and the public, safely confident that most people were NOT paying close attention to the civil servant-nonprofit sector. I want that to change!
SHARE THIS POST on...
HHS Grants Database “http://TAGGS.hhs.GOV status” is suddenly inaccessible [2wks in Dec.2013]
2014 February 18 — an update on the nonresponse to HHS grants database going down may help us understand what it means to young people, and their parents, when the mainstream public engages in a universal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on their own governments operations; after a long day at work and with their family (if they’re lucky) at home, time to “unwind” with mainstream MEDIA information. The problem with this (and I do understand the need to detach and tune out by tuning in some nonsense or entertainment, believe me!) is that we NEVER get around to reading our own government’s operational “annual reports.” If we were invested DIRECTLY in a business, would we not do t hat? If we were contributing, say, to a nonprofit, might we not occasionally take a look at their tax returns and, as it applies, annual reports also? Let’s try this another way– if we were invested as private shareholders managing our own stuff (or, hiring a trader to) — might we not from time to time read the shareholders’ reports and SEC filings? Or want to get at least a sense of what we’re getting for the money?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Revisit the Rapid Expansion of the AOC/CFCC/Conciliation Courts Model (Get the sense of the flow)
This topic is important and interesting enough that I keep splitting posts. Right now, there are three. Each may have different focus on the detail, but will have overlap.
The inspiration was again seeing a 2012 report on a committee of (basically but not only, justices) from California, called the “Strategic Evaluation Committee” which in response to complaint that the top ruling body of the courts (California Judicial Council)’s “Administrative Office of the Courts” (AOC for short) was completely out of control. Probably a good assessment.
List of the committee right here — you can see one person who is NOT from the Legislative or Judicial or Executive (enforcement) branches of state government — but somehow is on the committee to evaluate the courts. I noticed this immediately, followed up, and learned more (which is coming, another post). The group this person sits on has a known supportive connection to the AFCC. From their website, above:
|
Briefly, the National Center for the State Courts as early as the 1980s became the “Secretariat” for the private nonprofit association which tends, or at least tries, to attempt to literally run the family and conciliation courts. Some people (I’m one) report SOME on the AFCC (most reform groups ignore it and just trade rhetoric), but only a fool would think they don’t have some backing. The NCSC does not acknowledge on its site, while it acknowledges many other groups, that it has had any connection to the AFCC.
[In quickly looking up “Deukmejian” I find there is a courthouse named after him scheduled to have just opened, in Long Beach California. LBJP (Long Beach Judicial Partners) describes who was involved in the project, and another link, from the Administrative Office of the Courts gives a factsheet on the “Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse” (Long Beach being right near the City of Los Angeles, and on the Bay/think “Port of Los Angeles” and you got it.) [[WOW — reading about the new courthouse and “PBI” (Performance Based Infrastructure” reminds me of the private ownership of public facilities, and then who gets billed for the leasing?)
!!!
AECOM offices (see logo), Global enough for you? [this brings up the issue of “Who Owns and Operates the Courthouses? in which lives and livelihoods are adjusted and re-allocated?]
Marv Bryer ALSO brought this up in the late 1990s. (see johnnypumphandle.com, that old site with so many different leads — he talked about the issue of how many “public benefit corporations” is it possible to squeeze into one address, and ways in which we often just do not know who owns the real estate in which justice is dispensed — when they are private corporations.
Wow…. more information (note, the URL ends in a “*.com” so it’s not a gov’t site).
Long Beach Judicial Partners LLC (LBJP) will continue to operate, and maintain the 545,000 square-foot state-of the art courthouse in Long Beach. The project has been delivered under a unique public/private partnership agreement, which has a total development cost of approximately $490 million and a design-build cost of $343 million.
The five-story building houses 31 courtrooms, as well as court administration offices, Los Angeles County lease space, and retail leasable space. The building includes below-grade secure inmate transfer facilities, detention facilities, and separate secure parking areas for judges. A five-level great room atrium enclosed on two ends by a cable-supported glass wall system serves as the single entry point for the public and provide access to a secured central courtyard. Clad in deeply-articulated curtain wall and elements of stone, the project spans two city blocks in downtown Long Beach and replaces the functionally- obsolete court-house building one block away. In addition to the new building, the project team also renovated and expanded an existing 399,000 square-foot parking structure.
This court building is the first social infrastructure project in the United States procured under the principles of Performance-Based Infrastructure (PBI) contracting [[see factsheets]. Under the PBI agreement, the Judicial Council of California (JCC) owns the building, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County occupies approximately 80% of the space.
Then, does the Superior Court of Los Angeles County pay rent to the Judicial Council of California? If so, how’s THAT work in re: conflicts of interest, when the County gets sued, if it does?
The JCC pays LBJP an annual, performance-based service fee for 35 years. The PBI delivery method leveraged the private sector’s access to financing, technological expertise, and management efficiency to quickly provide a high-quality facility serving the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
This project was started for bidding in 2009, I thought. LBJP, LLC, was formed in 2009:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200914110161 | 05/21/2009 | ACTIVE | LONG BEACH JUDICIAL PARTNERS LLC | C T CORPORATION SYSTEM (C0168406) |
515 S FLOWER STREET 8TH FLOOR, Los Angeles 97001
See “Aecom Services, Inc.” dba Aecom Design” (same address and floor):
AECOM Services, Inc., doing business as AECOM Design, operates as a design, management, and technical services company in the United States, China, and the United Arab Emirates. Its services include engineering, architecture, consulting, engineering, integrated facility management, interior design and planning, master planning, security, and sustainability, as well as system solutions and information technology/telecommunications. The company offers client staff augmentation and staff extension, system integration, quality control, and financing strategy services; technology services for intricate and critical infrastructure facilities and systems; and program, project, and construction management services for building projects, including new construction, expansion, renovation, and modernization projects. It serves aerospace/industrial, corporate, defense, department of energy, telecommunication, education, federal, hospitality, nuclear, leisure, and transportation markets; and ports, airports, public and commercial facilities, justice facilities, sporting venues, and government facilities. AECOM Services, Inc. was formerly known as DMJM H&N, Inc. The company was founded in 2000 and is based in Los Angeles, California with additional offices in New Mexico, Virginia, Illinois, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, California, Florida, New York, Arizona, Washington, and Utah, as well as in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates; and Shanghai, China. AECOM Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of AECOM Technology Corporation.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1260794 | 11/05/1984 | ACTIVE | AECOM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. | C T CORPORATION SYSTEM |
| C1745075 | 05/31/1994 | ACTIVE | AECOM MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP. | C T CORPORATION SYSTEM |
| C0390443 | 02/01/1960 | ACTIVE | AECOM SERVICES, INC. | C T CORPORATION SYSTEM |
| C0608461 | 09/29/1970 | ACTIVE | AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. | C T CORPORATION SYSTEM |
- Delaware Corp. with a Fort Worth, TX address (C126074)
- Delaware Corp with a 555 S. Flower St #3700, Los Angeles address (C1745075)*
- California Corp. with a 515 S. Flower St, 4TH Flr Los Angeles (C0390443)
- California Corp with a 515 S. Flower St, #1050, Los Angeles (C0608461)
(*see also Chubb Group of Insurance Companies 555 S. Flower Street, Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 612-0880 Fax: (213) 612-5731
Because I cannot find either LBJP or Aecom on “Public Traded Companies” search in California, they do indeed look to be privately controlled (major scope of activity, international) Incs and the LLC.
On a hunch, I went to see whether “AECOM” was listed in the Bentley 500 that I keep squawking about on this blog (and in other forums). Bentley provides software infrastructure support to major projects, one reason they probably know alot about who owns what assets. I was floored when I saw their list. … Sure enough, AECOM is involved with them (using some of their software) and got an award (from Bentley). I just want readers to see the scope of the projects involved here. They have about 45,000 employees worldwide, are involved in rebuilding the World Trade Center (as in, NYC, rising from the ashes), and:
AECOM is a leader in all of the key markets that it serves. AECOM provides a blend of global reach, local knowledge, innovation and technical excellence in delivering solutions that create, enhance and sustain the world’s built, natural and social environments. A Fortune 500 company, AECOM serves clients in approximately 125 countries and had revenue of $7.7 billion during the 12 months ended June 30, 2011. More information on AECOM and its services can be found atwww.aecom.com.
Essentially it is collaborating across time and space, utilizing high-quality and secure software (provided here by Bentley, Inc.) to complete projects in a cost-effective and timely manner:
“AECOM saves $850,000 using ProjectWise for Work Sharing and Engineering“
25 October 2012
Selects Online Deployment for $416 Million Texas State Highway Project
EXTON, Pa., U.S.A. – Bentley Systems, Incorporated, the leading company dedicated to providing comprehensive software solutions for sustaining infrastructure, today announced that AECOM Technology Corporation, a global provider of professional technical and management support services for government and commercial clients, has selected Bentley’s ProjectWise for the cloud-based engineering content management of its Texas State Highway (SH) 161 Phase 4 project. The ProjectWise system of collaboration servers and services provides industry-proven work sharing, content reuse, and dynamic review capabilities that are essential to leveraging information modeling throughintegrated projects for high-performing, intelligent infrastructure. The $416 million design/build project completes a 6.5-mile link in the loop around Dallas-Fort Worth, managed by the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA). AECOM was challenged to complete the major design elements within 15 months. With the project office in Grand Prairie, Texas, and team members distributed across 22 locations in seven U.S. states, AECOM implemented ProjectWise Online to provide project team members, regardless of their location, with a single, secure environment to create high-quality design documents. ProjectWise enabled AECOM to increase quality, create documents that were 95 percent compliant with its client’s CAD standards, and reduce risk, saving NTTA $850,000 in costs associated with information, workspaces, and standards management as well as quality-control review.
However Long Beach Judicial Partners, LLC (which operates the courthouse now) is sited as underneath a different corporation (while sharing a street address with AECOM).
Did you notice that tiny “A Meridiam Infrastructure Project Company” under the logo for “LBJP, LLC” above? So who is “Meridiam” and what does it mean to be one of their “infrastruct project companies?” Meridiam:
History: Meridiam started as a French/USA (venture?) in 2005, with support from AECOM Technology Corp* and Credit Agricole:
[*note that exact name is not among the four California Corps listed above. AECOM Technology Corp =/= “AECOM Technical Services, Inc.” the closest similar name listed under California Business Entities Search, is..]
A PIONEER LONG-TERM INVESTOR IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Meridiam was established in France and the United States by Thierry Déau, formerly Chief Executive of Egis Projects (a subsidiary of France’s Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations, specialized in developing, financing and managing infrastructure projects), with operational and financial support from AECOM Technology Corp. [operational presumably] and the Crédit Agricole Group [financial, presumably]
Set up to achieve convergence between the needs of public authorities and the interests of institutional investors, Meridiam finances public infrastructure while aiming to create a secure investment framework for long-term savings.
In 1994, John M. Dionisio formerly of Frederick R. Harris had a 39 yr old engineer (in re: bid-rigging for a Port Authority Project) literally commit suicide in his home setting it afire, and forcing Dionisios’ wife and young son to flee. Apparently the engineer also killed his long-term (9 yrs) mistress (body never found). I wasn’t sure IF this is the same “John Dionisio,” but his “Forbes.com” bio makes the connection clear enough: Frederick R. Harris & Co., Inc. became later DMJM & Harris, which became, later a subsidiary of Aecom Technology.
Profile
John M. Dionisio, 64, was appointed Chairman of the Board in October 2011 and has served as Chief Executive Officer since October 2005. Mr. Dionisio previously served as President from October 2005 to September 2011, and was elected to our Board of Directors in December 2005. From October 2003 to October 2005, Mr. Dionisio served as our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. From October 2000 to October 2003, Mr. Dionisio served as President and Chief Executive Officer of our legacy subsidiary DMJM+Harris operation. Mr. Dionisio joined Frederic R. Harris, Inc., predecessor company to DMJM+Harris, in 1971, where he served in a number of capacities, including Chief Executive Officer from October 1999 to October 2003, President from July 1996 to October 1999, Executive Vice President in charge of U.S. operations from 1993 to 1996 and Manager of the New York Operations and Northern Region Manager from 1992 to 1993. Mr. Dionisio is also a director of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
AECOM Technology Corporation
Compensation for 2011
| Salary | $1,000,002 |
| Bonus | $3,000,000 |
| Restricted stock awards | $4,312,516 |
| All other compensation | $125,749 |
| Option awards | $1,437,506 |
| Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings | $264,348 |
| Total Compensation | $10,140,121 |
Options Exercised for 2011
| Number of securities underlying options unexercisable | 153,089 |
Stock Ownership for 2013
| Number of shares owned | 270,657 |
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
Director Compensation for 2011
| Fees earned or paid in cash | $79,500 |
| Stock awards | $64,500 |
| Total Compensation | $144,000 |
Stock Ownership for 2012
| Number of shares owned | 89,194 |
Did you notice who is not apparently from a part, or formerly from a literal part (civil servant as identified) of California government? There is only ONE person, and that is significant indeed. More later. Were members of the public at large actually on the committee? Were people who’d been through the courts? I guess this was an in-house op, except for that one person I mentioned, VOCW.
And that May 2012 Report (about 300pp) is laid out for US to see, how their own AOC developed, and how the ‘CFCC’ (except below, or see p. 81) developed underneath it to the largest sector of the AOC. A timeline is in the introduction, and related legislation setting the scene.
I don’t know where else this was so neatly laid out. All parents in California should read it, and then all parents dealing with custody cases in California AND other states (as much of what’s done here becomes a Model for elsewhere — or came here as an intentional Model for elsewhere. The concept behind “Model” practices is that you already have the “mold” and so its easier to reproduce, without -reinventing the wheel).
It’s an organizational and administrative concept (more on that later). If practices from other states are rubber-stamped, hand-stamped, and mass-stamped onto a certain state — then why bother with, say, having legislators that listen to their own constituents, I mean why keep pretending? Is the “tell us your concerns” factor just there for show?
So, out of my three (so far) posts on the topic:
This first one was taken from underneath “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery.” While I”m interested in that (i.e., no more slush funds) — I’m more interested in getting (us) out of the “name that, repeat that, hammer that in” mode into the SEEING and PERCEIVING mode of how these things developed.
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Testimony for these Times … (hypothetically before an Appropriations Hearing)
The House Ways and Means Committee should quit funding Welfare Diversions (or child support demonstration programs) to promote “marriage and fatherhood” as an antidote to poverty, when we by now know that’s not its real purpose — at all.
(In my opinion) it is a federally franchised distribution network whose central product, apparently, is trademarked curricula, and those who pay the entrance fees (certifications) can get in on the networking. The fun corresponding part is that, regardless of whether or not this actually helps fathers, children, or reduces poverty, abuse, or is in the public best interest — or not — no one, but almost no one — is ever going to consistently follow through and find out which of the nonprofit grantee corporations, formed precisely to get these grants, stay incorporated or not.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
ORPHANS: Where The Great Commission meets the Military-Industrial Complex [First Published May 18, 2013]
– – –
NOTE: this 3,000 word (you’re welcome!) post is out of sequence — belongs back with the “On the Road to Emmaeus” and “”Christian Social Services: Replenishing the Ranks of the Faithful (Bethany Christian Services posts, ca. Eastertime, 2013.
- 6723 Whittier, McLean, VA (Always Look Up Street Addresses!!!)**
…at one time or another these organizations (at a minimum) shared a street address:
- SHAOHANNAH’S HOPE (later “SHOWHOPE”)
- CONGRESSIONAL COALITION ON ADOPTION INSTITUTE (“CCAI”)
- CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE FOR ORPHANS (“CAFO”)
- ASSOCIATION OF FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS (“AFIO”)
File under, if you notice the details, What’s wrong with this picture?
SHARE THIS POST on...
CDRC and Friends: Ever Wonder How All that MANDATORY Mediation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, etc. got passed? [May 15, 2013]
Fall, 2014 update: This 12,000-word post is “sticky” (stuck to the top of the blog) because it illustrates how any special interest group already involving certain sectors of civil servants or other positions of influence (for example, at law schools) can lobby state legislatures and US Congress year after year through nonprofit associations. I have written an update and expect to publish it as a separate post, soon. In this post also see:
This gets “more than” interesting when I looked up the incorporator — just one person, Joel A. Shawn, Esq. of “Friedman, Shawn, Sloan & Ross.” (1981) filing. Because the California OAG site doesn’t display previous to 2000 or so (and nothing previous to about 2004 is even showing on this nonprofit), I see no mention of Dr. [Joan B.] Kelly – although I’m sure the paperwork is on file.
the NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER
(in San Rafael, just north of San Francisco) was registered as a corporation by ONE lawyer, Joel A. Shawn, of FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, SHAWN & ROSS
SHARE THIS POST on...
“On the Road to Emmaeus,” When Life Demands a Major Shift in Understanding
[[Speaking of “Easter” and all that…]]
Phew, what a hard post to complete! I am still not at all happy with it, but posting the information for future reference, while figuring out better ways to communicate it. We are in the realm of public direct payments to evangelical (faith-based) organizations — from HHS — for the primary purpose of evangelizing. It just so happens that these days many faith-based (Christian) organizations are evangelizing throught adoption, as they’ve been trained to. They have been social service organizations for many years as all, but the more I look at the tax exemption angle — and what churches are, meanwhile, doing to men, women and children in the name of God — I’m starting to understand this as every bit as much “PR” to make up for the damages as I also understand that the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords, MacArthurs, (Rhodes), Guggenheim, (Annie E. Casey) and etc. tremendous philanthropic organizations — donating millions (if not billions) to build libraries, concert halls, and other monumental institutions, are doing it (a) with taxes they didn’t pay and (b) with the profits from cartels, monopolies, and in general treating their menials like dirt, if not quite slave labor, and (c) for PR.
What do they have that wasn’t donated to them, or that the followers weren’t talked, or bullied (forced) into handing over? I mean, how many of us really have a say (agreed) to the special tax status churches enjoy and with which to expand infinitely (see internet) without having to file tax returns like regular nonprofits. And then how many nonprofits are simply situated right in church buildings? They cannot really stand independently of government while taking privileges from the same (collectively) to even exist. Meanwhile, government these days is using church-based networks for its own purpose and in my opinion, both have specialized in the hiding assets and money-laundering aspects (while covering up other kinds of abuse) from their followers.
This may not be universally true, but it is institutionally (and in general) true.
~ ~ ~ I was genuinely surprised to realize how blatantly this is happening as we speak.
I would love some morally justifiable excuse NOT to deliver this message, or to sugar-coat it, but see none… I would cut out entire sections, and more would grow in their place, as I continued simply telling what I see — and from government sources (databases, tax returns, corporate registrations, charitable registrations, and public websites advertising the same groups). Finally, it is just getting posted. The substance of it shows up in tables — if you do nothing else, scroll down to them and bypass narrative; AFTER running a search!
So, this post got its start an “Adoption Opportunities” grant series I found (foster care and adoption has been on my mind a while — see page in Children’s Law Centers (NCLN) which thrive off this — and this industry has affected family courts also, by way of promoting the use of GALs for custody cases with even a smidgen of conflict (or domestic violence). To better understand it, please read the comments thread at the bottom of the March 30, 2013 post.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].
with 4 comments
2017 January Update (just blog navigation, not to post contents at all):
Sticky (top) blog on post contains links to 3 different years of “Table of Contents” with links; hopefully most of them are accurate).
Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) <==Post title with WordPress-generated (and case-sensitive) shortlink added 1/9/2017, when I noticed the Table of Contents post had wrong short-link here. When/if that happens, use “Archives” to search the post’s same date.). I have since developed the habit of copying the post name, complete with shortlink, to the top of each post and — if it’s one of several in a sequence or on a theme, including those, too. I have also transferred TOC 2016 for easier viewing to a word-processing, then “pdf” format, and am currently working on the older table of contents (2012-2014, much longer) to clean it up and present in similar format. Thanks for your patience (and any donations!!) //LGH.
Title w/ shortlink & date published (Feb. 1, 2023 update). I see this post is nearly 16,000 words long; some of this is quotations.
“Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].” (Shortlink ends “-1I4” where the middle character is an an upper case “I” as in “Idaho”).
The dark-blue background, small print section (box) below is an update.
In it I quote from a recent find which was referenced at the bottom of this post as to Connecticut’s Fatherhood Initiative, “Male Information Network” and involved nonprofit, “New Haven Family Alliance.” I don’t even remember from three years ago how this one related to the post’s topic focused more on AFCC filings and dealings, at the time.
I was, I know, attempting to get people to pay more attention to those on the Fatherhood Collaborations as “just perhaps” relating to why mothers, painfully in some high-profile cases, continued to lose ground, often at the hands of other women in power in the court system, to fathers who had been accused of molestation or other abuse. See post title.
I still don’t see any sensible follow-up plan on the original expose, nor is the expose anywhere close to finished. I’m approaching burn-out age (if the public doesn’t care about this, I don’t care about the public, let’s each protect our own behinds and screw public interest and responsible citizenhood as characterized by taking a serious interest in learning how to follow public money as it is funneled into and blended with private partnerships. Let’s all continue behaving like children, as we have been coached to, instead of like adults, let alone like business-owners who demand from those they have hired to work for them an account of their FINANCIAL activities. As well as CHECKS AND BALANCES to ensure ACCOUNTING is REASONABLE…IF the relationship of citizen to government is anywhere close to government is still allegedly the servant and service-provider.)
In my personal situation, currently, I have been fighting two full years to get ahold of a certain paper trail and suffered significantly for even daring to ask. I lost permanent rental housing and have been threatened with a lawsuit after (and I believe in retaliation for) reporting rat infestation, substandard structural condition, and in general, a slumlord. I was unable even to obtain rental receipts. [This para. Must be 2017 re: events which took place AFTER this post was first published//LGH 1 Feb. 2023].
ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and if it comes to court (an expense I least of all could afford to bear, being elderly and with an already compromised work history — see family court litigation, child-stealing, child support arrears (for what it was worth — about $15,000 at the time, but significant to what we had available) retroactively reduced in a deceptive manner, repeatedly being forced onto food stamps needlessly, and having no more viable contact with ANY family member) I would become homeless.
Meanwhile I’d been forced to watch one of my children not make it into college surrounding all this, the other one go through college (and now I hear into graduate school even), but at the cost of any viable relationship with her own mother (me) and instead being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda by then had been shown as over time, “taking out” this mother, i.e., me. Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright (one of the couple was my sibling, but both profited from control of (if not direct possession to spend at will as their own) my portion of inheritance. NO legal process declaring me somehow incompetent to manage my own affairs was involved; such a process likely would’ve failed if our life histories, work histories, college track records etc. had been compared.
If anyone thinks this is (in the macro) appropriate behavior for those controlling others’ assets in a position of TRUST (as government is supposed to be doing with, in particular, the Social Security Trust fund and ALL its assets and holdings) then
they’resuch a person may be masochistically “into” a slave/master relationship. In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began — with indentured servants and slaves — and that’s how it will continue until the ability to demand and understand accounts** becomes, like basic literacy and at least SOME comprehension of history timelines, common property.**Awareness of in what ways governments are supposed to ACCOUNT for that which they’ve extracted from or we have given them (via taxation and fees for services, for starters). Not just basic numeric sense, but a concept of “how things work” and “how things are reported” financially.
Also, all people ought to be able to handle some truly difficult subject matter — the position of religious institutions within the economy, and as tax-exempt (private, ability to conceal assets, transactions) and extremely privileged compared to others, because of this historic status. For example, the US. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is now pouring millions of dollars directly into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron).
[This paragraph added only April, 2023, may (or may not..) clarify my points of reference above:]
I have seen it and have reported periodically on it: See “Welfare Reform” (Social Security Act revisions 1996 forward) to promote “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” as a national priority under “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and (essentially, as though RELIGIOUS institutions needed more of this…) getting uninvolved or “in-arrears” (on child support) fathers, aka men, more involved with their children (that’s a reference to Access-Visitation grants handled, administered, through the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and authorized under “Title IV-D” of the revised Social Security Act.
All people — everyone individually whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith — should become willing and competent to address some [of this] difficult subject matter and acknowledge they ought to understand some basic economics and government funding… We must not just balance our own household or family budgets, but (conceptually) also realize what goes into a financial statements and think about which ones we read (of local, state, and federal government entities, or of non-profits they deal directly with, or which deal with topics of interest in concern) mean. [Paragraph copyedited some, 4/2023].
I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy. Looking at the economy involves looking at tax returns that intersect with government, where they even exist. This IS an organizing principle that could be generated easily, locally, among individuals, however, as to religious influence, religious people’s non-work time is often already being organized for them around home-based fellowships, and serving as marketeers (unpaid) for internet-marketed books by pastors and others, and volunteering This marketing scheme as religious service parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been promoting as social service through HHS around the “family values” issue, and some overlap of materials, too.
Collective interest in doing a little homework on this topic remains LOW. Change probably requires a detox from certain types of social media and personal awareness of (attention to) what we are (individually) feeding into the human CPU, i.e., our own thought-life. It requires self-discipline up to a point where the motivation (the more you see, the more you understand) can keep that drive going…
[It seems this did not happen in Connecticut, at a wide enough scale, on these topics… That’s why all the exhortation above. //LGH 4/11/2023]
MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CONNECTICUT (back on topic of post title…)
I just now [2016?] looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obviously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I hadn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this below..
After the publication I’m quoting below (and posting on again in 2016), ca. 2012, this organization quietly phased itself out of existence — or at least of filing tax returns. Don’t let the relatively modest “Total Assets” fool you — in the most recent year shown, “Total Receipts” — nearly all of it (Page I, Part I, Line 8, “Contributions and grants” — were $1.5 Million. Of those, $1.4M were “Government grants.”
WHERE DID ALL THIS MONEY GO? Passing it On as grants to other individuals or organizations? Direct help to families? Well, not really. They claimed 13 board members, and 52 employees and most of the money went to employees. For what services, exactly, apparently whoever filled out the tax return couldn’t be bothered to describe in detail. Take a look:
“Community based fitness services?”
Search Again
Unbelievable….
WE ARE TALKING, THIS TIME, in CONNECTICUT, as a reminder, it’s right near NYC.
Older map of Connecticut show it right opposite Long Island, with Rhode Island to the Right, New York to the left, and New Jersey just a SHORT distance (through NY) away:
This map is from Wikipedia on “Connecticut” (an interesting read, particularly the section on “ECONOMY:”
Taxation[edit]
Before 1991, Connecticut had an investment-only income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%, the highest rate in the U.S., with no deductions allowed for costs of producing the investment income, such as interest on borrowing.
In 1991, under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, the system was changed to one in which the taxes on employment income and investment income were equalized at a maximum rate of 4%. The new tax policy drew investment firms to Connecticut; as of 2014, Fairfield County was home to the headquarters for 14 of the 200 largest hedge funds in the world.[137]
Connecticut’s per capita personal income in 2013 was estimated at $60,847, the highest of any state.[132]There is, however, a great disparity in incomes throughout the state; after New York, Connecticut had the second largest gap nationwide between the average incomes of the top 1 percent and the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent.[133] According to a 2013 study by Phoenix Marketing International, Connecticut had the third-largest number of millionaires per capita in the United States, with a ratio of 7.32 percent.[134] New Canaan is the wealthiest town in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $85,459. Darien, Greenwich, Weston, Westport and Wilton also have per capita incomes over $65,000. Hartford is the poorest municipality in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 in 2000.[135]{how is a 2000 estimate in reference to a 2013 finding relevant? No one studied Hartford per capita income since then?).
HARTFORD COUNTY also, incidentally, and per Wikipedia, is home to, religiously speaking the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (of Hartford — over two other Dioceses, it says) AND the largest Protestant Church in New England, referring I believe to a building. Wiki previously explained that the state (per a self-reported survey) is 60% Christian, if you combine Catholic and Protestant. MIGHT this have anything to do with its views on the roles of women, children, divorce, marriage, and how to handle reports of child molestation by fathers (or priests)?
FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.
These updates to my own older posts are starting to become a frequent addition to some of my older posts which, despite their lack of technical blogging skills, I believe still “nail” (as in “hit the nail on the head” in identifying) strategic and organizational conflicts of interests in the courts, affecting the courts, and through them, affecting the public’s wisdom in even assuming that our public institutions are any more free from privatization and through privatization (with its accompanying complexity of networked interests), the potential for bribery and/or corruption THROUGHOUT the system, and ENTRENCHED WITHIN the system as essential, basic practice.
Three years later, I am now more specific in identifying specific elements, by proper categories, as major sources of undue influence on the courts: whether center within private universities (whose funding cannot be properly tracked), nonprofits (whose funding COULD be tracked by the public, but generally won’t be, case in point, as I’m complaining about here), public agency funding (and public ignorance on how to read governmental financial reports). The line between public and private is well-blurred, and when that happens, the massive coordinated wealth — and this wealth is indeed coordinated when it comes to private tax-exempt foundations of the huge size (Ford Foundation, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, and plenty of others) working through increasingly massive COMMUNITY Foundations (referring to regional, metro areas typically) and availing themselves of sources of federal funding that the public remains unaware of. Apparently there are resources to spare if all these organizations — instead of the public at large — continue to get them year after year after year). LGH/2016.
June 7, 2016: This June 3, 2013 13,000-word post as cleaned up some as to format (especially the table comparing two kinds of reporting on family court custody fiascoes, or problems within judicial decision-making in those courts).
Despite how long and involved this post is, and despite it having focused on then-current publicity regarding a specific judge (Maureen Murphy), specific published articles exposing AFCC activity at the judicial and within public offices while failing to properly register (etc.) below those two tables* there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of detailed information, with links, to state-level committees, decision-making bodies, financial reports — and fatherhood initiatives — for Connecticut. I also made a note of collaborations between: Yale, a Community Foundation, a local nonprofit (New Haven Family Alliance) and public money to establish “MIN” a “Male Information Network.”
*(I took footnotes to a separate table),
Separately, June 7, 2016 (or soon) I am posting something I found simply searching “Male Information Network” — it’s posted as HHS Public ACCESS and as printed in a publication titled simply “FATHERING.” I found it uploaded to. Did you yet realize that among the public welfare purposes of your income taxes are supporting a “clinical management model” for addressing the:
and through addressing all these needs in this manner:
Supposedly helping this demographic sector
to become:
While this was published originally in 2012 (literally 16 years post-welfare-reform, which was 1996) they are still suggesting someone figure out how to test this CLINICAL MANAGEMENT MODEL of SUPPORTING MEN’s PHYSICAL,. EMOTIONAL. MENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH NEEDS by SOCIAL MODELING INVOLVING SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION, ECONOMIC STABILITY, FAMILY/CHILD SUPPORT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015970/
Check who is NCBI separately, and tell me how this got involved in that section of National Institutes of Health!
Get the initial description:
“WE, WHO!” would seem to be the question. Since when is the rest of the world to do a complete social support system for low-income, noncustodial fathers — in addition to (as the opening paragraphs admit) already doing it (through welfare reform) to middle-class noncustodial fathers, which “sure helped” reduce poverty nationwide? [The process:] Cut the [child support? ] amounts back, put a cap on limits, incentivize UNINVOLVED noncustodial fathers (and pay them, too, in the form of free legal support) to start custody battles — make sure not to inform mothers simultaneously of WHO is funding the opposing side, overall and through “Collaboration” etc.
“MALE INFORMATION NETWORK” is not a network, it’s a collaboration. You’ll NEVER track the money unless you track the money to all participants. At the bottom of this post, apparently having looked at it back in 2013, I named several of them. UNFORTUNATELY, the participation of nonprofits doesn’t enable accurate, or “connect-the-dots” tracking of donations to THROUGH the nonprofits TO a network. The administrative burden of monitoring such networks is prohibitive to the average person whose tax dollars support them.
This type of talk isn’t openly circulated where it might be exposed for the tripe (and population control tactics) and offense to reason and common sense it is. This language asks mothers and children as it has always asked mothers and children, to go back to domesticating men so the “powers that be” won’t have to deal with unattached, unburdened, and potentially likely to organize (or cause civil riots surrounding ongoing injustices, including economic in justices and all other kinds).
Some men are not prone to domestication by women and children alone. If the state after all these years can’t “reform” people by their chosen methods,
Why should we mothers be forced to attempt it while working at lower wages, and downstream from this kind of rhetoric about how we should NOT be heading our own households, providing positive NONviolent role models for our own offspring, ]not be allowed to] work without ongoing sabotage by the courts or anyone else, and to CORRECTLY demonstrate to little ones that there is NO excuse for battering, coercion, terroristic threats, physical assaults and injuries, OR sexual boundary violations of children by adults?
How does this practice promote any respect for women and mothers by their own children?
The state solutions have already proven they cannot – or will not — protect children even while IN a supervised visitation situation (August, 2013, a father and son died by gunshot — by all accounts, the father was the murderer, but I don’t see an eyewitness named yet — in Manchester, NH, AFTER he’d been separate for threatening to kill self and/or others. This has been going on as far back as 1992 (and an organization in CONNECTICUT closely connected to AFCC and NACC circles references it). That’s literally for 20 years. And in 2012, they continue to promote this philosophy of defining fatherhood and denigrating motherhood which doesn’t fit that model?
! ! !
Reader Alert — I Just Tossed the Attempt to Tame this Post… [6/3/2013]
I have continued to find such disturbing information (particularly in the Connecticut Judiciary), which connects, very deeply, to long-term trends (economic trends that is), that I have been unable to complete the post without (in astonishment, sort of), digging up more evidence of private takeover of public (so-called) institutions.
I’ve got to take a break here for a while; as the information is going IN My understanding (which happens once you catch onto patterns) at about five times the ability to get it out — certainly on this technology. I have never put a “Donate” button on this blog,** know the information on it (if compressed, and organized) is extremely valuable — but most needed by people who probably are already economically distressed through the courts. I don’t feel like forming another “noble” nonprofit to raise money for the poor people who are snared in the courts.
One reason is, I consider the for-profit/not for profit business to be itself unethical (though it’s been in process for decades in the US). It’s based on two sides of a tax code: Workers, versus Corporations. Add to this, the “legal corporations versus illegal corporations” and all of it being stuck to the workers (whether “low-income” or “middle-class” it’s those who play the game to the max for its loopholes, that profit the most — and are socially most respected [[not for their morality, but because we are so conditioned.]].
{{** Obviously by 2016 — DNR when first it went up — a Donate Button has been added to the sidebar in a few different places. Feel free! (but, I’ m not a nonprofit, so doubt it’s tax-deductible}}.
So I’m publishing here not because the post is ready to be published, but because I simply want it off my chest. The major part is towards the bottom, but dig in anywhere (if you want to). Three others are on the sideline; all have some merit, but I don’t have the time. Plus I’m pissed off at what have been seeing and learning, and need a time out. (note: Probably you would be too; it involves public funding for private polemics).
(Part 1 kept sprouting off sidewise into “show and tell lectures;” this one is going to review how to look for “Funds” on a state Budgetary/Legal Annual report and see, when payment records are obtained, if the notations on the record correspond to any legitimate fund, and if so — what $$ are being held in that fund.
By looking for these funds on the government’s own financial statements (from the comptroller’s office), we are also exposed to what kind of activities the state DOES fund, in much more detail, and the relative balances and monies coming and going. It literally tells us what business it is in, and a scope of that business — much more accurately than any politician or MSM can or will (with qualifications usually noted up front).
Financial Statements are a window into W-T-F?! (do I need to translate “wtf”? Hopefully not. Maybe it’s in Urban slang dictionary) is a state government doing, anyhow? For most, it’s a stunning eyeopener at just how many types of funds there are, and for what. This is rarely discussed (as a whole) in public. Beyond the budget itself (this post) are also the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) which report on the accumulated assets of government, a major scope of “clout” that is out of sight, out of mind, for taxpayers, and basically ignored by the mainstream media, although I have been told, copies of such CAFR are sent to the major outlets. It’s time we understood clearly, that the existence and scope of this funding is NOT “out of sight, out of mind” for certain types of public officials (judges, Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with " State employees are accused of using their position to promote a judicial branch vendor]]" CT 5-20-2013 article, ""Conference shines the light on the plight of battered mothers seeking custody" 5-10-2013 Washington Post article promoting BMCC, "Follow the Money-Find the Billings and Vendors" vs. "Tell Our Stories-Hold a Vigil" approach, "New Haven Family Alliance" listed as FFCA Affiliate. Wake up!, and commissions! (CT Judicial), Arizona Fathers and Families Coalition (dba Fathers and Families Coalition of America) Jeffrey Leving + CJH Services (=HHS grantee too), AX FFCA has divided US into 5 regions (conferences to obtain Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) HHS funding, Barry Goldstein "Time's Up!" Blog squelching comments on money trail, Barry Goldstein promoting "Dr. Daniel Saunders" USDOJ Study, BMCC, California Budgetary/Legal Basis reports linked (for an example to track actual fund#s in CT), Conflict of Interest, Connecticut Committe on Judicial Ethics, HHS 10 Federal Regions listed, http://www.osc.ct.gov/public.htm (Connecticut Comptroller's Public Resources Page), Judge Maureen M. Murphy (CT former GAL), Male Involvement Network & New Haven Family Alliance, task forces, The Merry Month of May 2013 in WaPo and Washingtion Times (UnificationChurch-related) re Family Court advocacy, Two Diff't Angles of Approach to Family Court Advocacy, Watch the committees