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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘Funding Fathers – literally’ Category

How NY’s OTDA [social services agency] runs even more fatherhood (and DV) funding through FFFS alternate circuitry

with 2 comments

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 »

How many “governments” are there? What do they do? What’s the Collective Cost? Example, funding of NFLG (Nat’l Fatherhood Leaders Group, in DC) and others

with one comment

This post, in draft since 12/17/2013, is hereby posted about a month later (1/14/2014) in the context of If we don’t even know who government is, how can we know where the money goes?


And, I added some more examples to the “certainly aren’t staying incorporated” factor of certain groups. While I’m hitting pretty hard (it’s appropriate) on the “IRS tax-exempt status involuntarily revoked” pattern of KEY and STILL-CITED fatherhood groups, resulting in “lost funds” (public is clueless where they went–into pockets, for kickbacks or other bribes, or for ???), the original section was still follow-up on the U.S. Census of Governments link — which I’m splitting it into a second post…. I literally searched the IRS Select-Exempt Organization Site (nationwide), checking “Involuntarily Revoked” list option, keyed in the word “fatherhood” (and no other words) and stood back in awe at just how many groups there were.  Whether or not they all got funding, or never got funding, it still is a message to the fad of forming such groups, then dropping their status!  However, groups are coaching other groups in how to form up such nonprofits to go after the grants.  Who’s minding the shop, then once they turn that waterspout of federal fountains ON?


…If we don’t know how many governments, how can we know where the money goes?  And guess what:  “government” and the groups it funds (nonprofits) don’t stay HONEST voluntarily.  

My point is to point out these loopholes — and say, we (plural, collective, more people — lots of people) have to talk about this! 

Here’s Ron Haskins (in some ways “Mr. Welfare Reform”) himself posted under:

[The Logo is the Link, to his biography under this group’s website] Ron Haskins is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. From February to December of 2002 he was the senior advisor to the president for welfare policy at the White House.c Prior to joining Brookings and Casey in 2000, he spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as the subcommittee’s staff director.   [[timeline:  translates to from about 1986 – 2000, i.e., past two terms of a Democratic U.S. Presidential Administration, i.e., former US President Bill Clinton]] From 1981-1985, he was a senior researcher at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He also taught and lectured on history and education at UNC, Charlotte and developmental psychology at Duke University. Haskins was the editor of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 editions of the Green Book, a 1600-page compendium of the nation’s social programs published by the House Ways and Means Committee that analyzes federal social programs and domestic policy issues including health care, poverty, and unemployment. Haskins has also co-edited several books, including Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net (Brookings, 2002), The New World of Welfare (Brookings, 2001) and Policies for America’s Public Schools: Teachers, Equity, and Indicators (Ablex, 1988), and has contributed to numerous books and scholarly journals on children’s development and social policy issues. He is also the author of Work Over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law (Brookings, 2006).

He has lent his name and clout to NFLG.  Look for the similar yellow-box below and you’ll find out, the group incorporated a certain time, had its nonprofit status INVOLUNTARILY REVOKED by the IRS in 2010, kept functioning throughout (apparently without a hitch – PROBABLY BECAUSE NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK WHEN FACED WITH RESPECTABLE (WHETHER LIKED OR DISLIKED) AUTHORITY FIGURES, SUCH AS THIS ONE!!!).  You will also see that the same characteristic likely applies to some of the outfits (corporations/nonprofits) IRS Select Exempt Organization Check [read intro paragraphs carefully, they are self-explanatory on the three categories of data you can search] shows it didn’t file tax returns for three years in a row, to get to this “Revoked” status!  more similar organizations listed below:   First date is effective revocation, second, the date it was published by the IRS on their “involuntarily revoked” list:

[[2017 update: The logo doesn’t display because “NFLGonline.com” isn’t a current link.]]

45-4542131 NATIONAL FATHERHOOD LEADERS GROUP WASHINGTON DC 20001 US 00 15-May-2010 12-Nov-2012

ALSO listed on the board of this NFLG (see list); in fact, this habit is a character trait of the entire field, as I have pointed out before on this blog, and demonstrate again by an expansion of “Fatherhood” nonprofits who got their IRS status revoked within the last few years — which means over 5 years of non-filing.   Whether the last name is Haskins, Ballard, or Stoica (California Healthy Marriage Coalition) or some of their spouses, or famous-female-friends, such as those on WIFI (Women In Fatherhood Inc).

So, when you get the next paycheck (if the shoe fits, i.e., you have a job that issues some!) or buy something at the store which has a “tax” category — remember that, where it goes — nobody knows (unless — they find out! = learn how to find out and follow through!).    Happy New Year 2014, yours truly, Let’s Get Honest

(and there’s a Donate button on the right side to help support this work, and I’m NOT a nonprofit, either.  I filed a corporation in 2011 in hopes to find a way to make a living which didn’t require a geography I cannot protect from stalking, assaults, and ill-timed frivolous lawsuits, child-stealing events and other trauma-inducing (and unprovoked) behaviors.  ….I am on the phone daily (most days, that’s 7 a week) speaking to others going through similar situations and encouraging/teaching to follow up on the funding; usually these are people who read the blog, or read my comments on other blogs keeping this information at least on the radar in the “family court” and “domestic violence” blogs — those not dominated, of course, by industry professionals.  I approach it as professionally as anyone in my situation could.  From the sidebar:


Donate Button with Credit Cards

There’s been a real “feeding frenzy” in this type of programming. WHY?? In part, see “sheep” section, above. But also, courts can order participation


[[Also — because so few people are tracking what happens to the grants. If they are not followed, if public funding isn’t understood — then they very easily could be used for kickbacks, bribes, or anything else — not necessarily just for private fun and pleasure on the conference circuit. It is a PUBLIC responsibility to participate in the checks and balances of power towards government. This is most effectively done with at least a LITTLE basic concepts and instruction on how it works, and what’s been done, the ability look at some of the obvious and call it what it is! Of course it takes time, but stopping money-laundering is worth the time!! ]]

For “Ballard” (Charles Augustus), do a google search on “Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Neighborhood Revitalization” — and ONLY my link is going to be talking grants accountability and corporate records.  (The link also looked up as best I could at the time, the clearinghouse in its title, which led me to Mr. Braswell (also NFLG membership) and HIS corporate/incorporation wanderings — and also below, I show how fatherhood funding can be “facilitated” through Social Services Flexible Fund account, in fact — good luck ever trying to follow the trail, but I have left some footprints. The question ought to arise — as our country is OBVIOUSLY dumping money to dishonest corporations run, often enough, by civil servants and/or respected professionals — who can we quit funding the “pump, slush, and come back for some more” process, and at which point in the process?

“National” “Responsible” “Fatherhood” “Clearinghouse” – Let’s Get Honest

and I did blog earlier, as well as more on the corporate habits of another NFLG board member (who is probably also still? a public employee over at the New York State ODTA, and the contact for a state-funded fatherhood initiative): Kenneth Braswell – Bio Father’s Incorporated Read the rest of this entry »

Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2)

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.


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 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.  In addition, I was unable even to obtain rental receipts.  ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and it 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.  Being 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) around the contexts of being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda was over time, “taking out” this mother.  Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright.


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’re possibly masochistically into a slave/master relationship.  In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began, and that’s how it will continue until the ability to account is, like basic literacy and at least SOME understanding of history, common property.

In addition 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.  Add this to HHS is now pouring millions into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron)  — and be able to handle this whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith.

I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy.  And that 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 it happens to religious influence, 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.  This parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been doing through HHS around the “Family values” issue.


Collective interesting in doing a little homework on this topic remains Low. It probably requires a detox from certain types of social media, and personal awareness of what one is feeding into the  human CPU, i.e., one’s mind.


I just now looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obivously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I didn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this.  It would appear that 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 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 IT GO?  Passing it On?  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 detail out.  It has about a single sentence:

(Code ) (Expenses $ 1,240,533 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $
Case management services, family preservation and reunification services, Male Involvement Network, community based fitness services

“Community based fitness services?”

Search Again

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2012 990 21 $118,437.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2011 990 25 $246,260.00 06-1324343
New Haven Family Alliance CT 2010 990 26 $148,285.00 06-1324343

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. DarienGreenwichWestonWestport 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)?

Recent immigration has brought other non-Christian religions to the state, but the numbers of adherents of other religions are still low. Connecticut is also home to New England’s largest Protestant Church: The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Connecticut located in Hartford County. Hartford is seat to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford, which is sovereign over the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Diocese of Norwich.

FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.

Originally known as The 1st Baptist Church in Hartford, Connecticut,[1] The First Cathedral is the fifteenth oldest historically black church founded in the city of Hartford, Connecticut; and the third congregation to be known as The First Baptist Church of Hartford, Connecticut.[2] The phrase The First Cathedral is used colloquially to refer to the Christian ministry based in Bloomfield, Connecticut as well as the edifice in which the ministry is held.

The pastor is Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr.


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:

physical, emotional, mental, economic and spiritual health needs

and through addressing all these needs in this manner:

Through a relational approach and social modeling it includes skill development in education, economic stability, family/child support, and mental and physical health. Implications for testing this approach are suggested.

Supposedly helping this demographic sector

a model for outreaching, connecting, and serving low-income, ethnically diverse, non-custodial fathers. Men are engaged “where they are” by building their strengths and addressing their needs

to become:

positive and healthy role models by increasing their attachment to their children and families

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:

Fathering. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 May 9.
Published in final edited form as:
Fathering. 2012 Winter; 10(1): 101–111. 

doi:  10.3149/fth.1001.101

PMCID: PMC4015970
NIHMSID: NIHMS565788

Increasing Outreach, Connection, and Services to Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Know

 “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.  Cut the 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 offence 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, working without ongoing sabotage by the courts or anyone else, and CORRECTLY demonstrating 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 reference 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 undestanding (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 »

Written by Let's Get Honest

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Responsible Citizenhood 101 — Look It Up! Marriage/Fatherhood HHS Funding Minnesota!

with 2 comments

This is a wakeup call.

So — Are you still Fiddling Around while Rome Burns? This is something interesting to “Fiddle” with.

What’s below — How hard is this? Not hard. Just do it!

This morning {{when post was in draft, that is}}, I looked up and looked at CFDA 93086 (Marriage/Fatherhood) selecting the state of Minnesota. This “How-To” page can be applied in any state. It shows less than the tip of the iceberg, but that an iceberg does exist. I decided to post it here for an example of how EASY it is to get started looking things up and compiling at least a basic understanding of how the federal government is funding local policy in this field, and you will have taken a few steps away from “passive” and might actually be able to better understand some of the local craziness in the courts, or among, for example, some of your neighbors.

So this is just a quick look. It took me only five to seven minutes to find out some fairly valuable information, for those who live in the state — about how some of the program funding is distributed.

Then teach someone else (and after you teach one, then teach four more, for a total of five (5) others). Encourage them (and I encourage you) to spend one hour, once, to acquire and follow up on their curiosity about this field, to look it up, wake up, make it their own. See if curiosity remains among the populace, and then apply some basic evangelistic, franchising or MLM (Multi-Level-Marketing) techniques back on the government — after all, it’s been applying them on us through HHS for years…..



Examples: How HHS Dumps Federal (=your) Dollars into Attracting Money to “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.” See the Pattern, Look ’em Up Locally!

Read the rest of this entry »

Spelling It Out Again, Basic Players, Basic Blueprints [yawn…][well, we’d better not, actually…] (Publ. Oct. 28, 2012)

leave a comment »

Spelling It Out Again, Basic Players, Basic Blueprints [yawn…][well, we’d better not, actually…]

(Published Oct. 28, 2012; about 12,700 words.  Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-1cD”).  This information and minor (readability) format changes added June 22, 2019 on realizing the post needed a “Read-more” link, when it came up in a blog search of a specific term “Saddleback,” among about seven other posts.  //LGH

 

MDRC (1974ff), TANF (1996ff), Gov Leavitt (1998ff), Gov Keating + Wade Horn (2000ff)

Actually, don’t yawn — because this is an infinitely expanding program until the US goes bust, which it is probably just speeding up.  At which time program engineers (*including a few former US Governors, and such) plus funders (Federal Government + Major Foundations built by corporate wealth), and a variety of religious leaders who also are being enriched by this (including those that are already on the Forbes list, like David Green of “Hobby Lobby” was, as I pointed out recently, who gave (literally, a donation) over 150 acres to Saddleback Church/Rick Warren, who is already marketing HIS wares through the church and trademarks on it, too.  These are Purpose-Driven Programs, I’m just deducing some of the Purposes by observing their Practices.)…and of course the gatekeepers such as the lawyers, judges, mediators, custody evaluators and so forth . . . will be able to afford THEIR exit plans in their retirement years, potentially.  They are already internationally connected and doing business, in many cases (whether through travel, having corporations registered overseas, or simply the internet).

Heck, the US Government is investing internationally for sure, and I’ll bet that every single state’s public employee pension plan (CALPers, New York States’ Pension Plan, Pennsylvania’s — probably every single one – and you can find them on their CAFRs and look) — probably also  is investing in multiple currencies and countries, playing one against the other, plus in various corporations.

But I believe there is likely to be a continental lockdown, which may explain perhaps why so many are in privatized lockUPs..  

The number one feature I notice is treating the human population like a material resource, which (from that point of view) it is — if they are poor, because of prior policies set up (by the same crowd) — exploit it.  If they are divorcing — exploit that, too.

Then sell it to them (because any good businessperson is adept at getting other to fund its startups, and of course many things are also tax write-offs) and have their income taxes pay for it, and the income taxes of the middle classes’s taxes who hasn’t caught onto this yet because they’re working 9 to 5, detoxing from work part of their time off, and stressing out about the future while at work, etc.

MAKE SURE the Middle Class believes that the real problems are the shiftless poor, the fertile female African Americans or anyone else with dark skin, or heck any color female skin, and things like DIVORCE. ANYTHING but the bottom-line reality….  

Then go about to help the other side of the equation…. based on some profile.

Hopefully  people who read the last few posts (sorry, I don’t have any gold stars or discount coupons for the effort!) will start to understand that something less than above-board (at some levels) and “in-your-face” (at other levels) is going on involving:


  • Religious beliefs held in common by at least Mormons, Catholics & Evangelicals
  • Certain of the 50 United States well-knowon for their Mormon, or Evangelical roots (Utah, Oklahoma, specifically)
  • Certain individuals in responsible positions at the top-of-state level, whether Governor (Keating OK; Leavitt:  Utah; and a family divorce lawyer also serving as a Utah State Rep and on its Judiciary Committee, proposing legislation and getting it passed…)
  • Federal Grants to the States from HHS involving Welfare Funding.
  • Family Lawyers and Related Industries — Seeing as to get legally divorced, one often utilizes a lawyer — or at a minimum, walks into some sort of family courts to get that divorce — there is also a marketing element in the marriage promotion business by family lawyers, which capitalizes on the HHS grants and their influence in the legislature to mandate or promote purchasing of services, seminars, books, and classes by the same.I have (now) a sky-blue-background “rant” (about three inches of vertical space? or so) at the top of “Christianity and Its Sects in the Statehouse” in which I completely derailed into a NHMRC (National Healthy Marriage Resource Center) website and gave a short, but detailed reference to what money is supporting that operation — and the products, services, and goods that the FOUNDATIONS supporting MDRC (look it up) in promoting and dissemination, essentially “fatherhood” promotion, even though HHS is already granting corporations quite a bit to set up shop in this field.  MDRC was formed in 1974, I have posted on it, and a very old (why can’t such a wealthy firm update their own website with a better diagram for the public?) — pie chart, 2010, showing the main sources of its funding.
    • Another way to call that what is is, would simply be AFCC, NACC, CRC, and friends.

The sky-blue rant at the top of my Oct. 21 post “Christianity and Its Sects” shows how a visit to a federally-funded site which spins off business to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative PR Firm (Public Strategies Inc.) and friends — then links to a nice MDRC program evaluation, which spins off money to its subcontractors, and you can follow who is supporting this from the acknowledgement in the front of the report.  Not to mention the number of the federal HHS contract used to do the study.  In short, the people getting the most employment profit from this do NOT appear to be the poor, but those studying them.

I think I have more than demonstrated that the public access database TAGGS.hhs.gov isn’t going to help us study where the bulk of the HHS money is going in any efficient or meaningful way.  I say that after three years of scrutiny, mostly showing screwups in the basic design, not just data entry and a whole lot of them seem like MORE than accidental.

I also find groups that don’t file taxes with their chief personnel (CEOs, who got over $100k salary from apparently the original HHS) then being further promoted to more responsibility — i.e., I”m talking about for example, Mrs. Charles Ballard, commonly known as Frances Ballard, sitting on the board of WIFI (Women in Fatherhood Inc.) AND being somehow involved in the administration of the “national responsible fatherhood clearinghouse” which it assures us, is funded by the US Government.  So how can a person be an “Executive Director” of what looks like a government-supported website unless he or she is a government employee?

I haven’t figured that one out yet.  Maybe you can: The first title given in her description is ED of the NRFC — which is a website!  She is doing this while also on the board of WIFI — so on HER tax return (assuming there is one) where’s the income coming from and reported as? I also note that while wifi is not a D.C. organization, most likely the clearinghouse (being a website), IS:

Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC

This site is, literally, steering and setting national federal policy.  Was Ms. Ballard somehow elected as a public official, or was this website voted into existence and then privately contracted out to her?  I notice that the WIFI link has a direct link at its bottom to “childtrends.org” which is an Annie E. Casey foundation “thang.” This is certainly ALL about the children, that’s why no one need to explain to the adults– their parents — where their inheritances (or household incomes) went, or is going in the future, except out the door and from there, who knows?

This website has a *.gov address.

So, what does it mean to have an “executive director” — is that person an employee or a contractor — it should be one or the other.  To be an “Executive Director” of a *.gov site is a very interesting job title.  Is that not an accurate job title?

[next section in different background color is a quote.  Not sure why I didn’t use the “quote” function originally…//LGH comment added June 22, 2019 during post format quasi-cleanup]

Who are we?
The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse is an Office of Family Assistance (OFA) funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families.


The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.”


Contact Us information:

Mailing address
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
307A Consaul Road
Albany, New York 12205

Federal Contact
Lisa Washington-Thomas
Branch Chief, TANF Technical Assistance
Office of Family Assistance
lwashington-thomas@acf.hhs.gov
(202) 401-5141
Read the rest of this entry »

What It’s Still About….(… in Summer 2013)

with one comment

(Post title changed to remove “Election Year Update 2012.” The message is still appropriate now….Also in reviewing this post (and adding some quotes) I’m temporarily moving the “more” link further down the page, (in other words, the “abstract” is almost post-length) to call attention to the material.)


[This post is “sticky” and stays on top.  New posts are beneath . ..Some additions, March 2013…(As I learn more, it shows up on the blog). ~ Or see “The Last Seven Let’s Get Honest Posts” links, on sidebar ~ better yet, See also my other blog Cold,Hard.Fact$]; 


This blog has VALUABLE INSIGHT on the family courts money trail (a trail of tears), and about many crisis intervention groups who are in on it (and hence, won’t blog it), and from some of whom I sought help, solace, or actionable information — and got NONE.  


Question: WHY would any group which truly wants to save lives withhold relevant information, tools to find that information, and prior ground-breaking conversations about that information — in the amounts of billions of dollars of federal incentives to the statesaffecting — custody outcomes (as to the child support system, HHS/OCSE) while feeding less helpful information to their clients?Another Question: You should also ask why — where is that money coming from, and why does our government always want to raise taxes when they can’t keep track of what they already collected (MUCH more than is commonly realized) and when a lot of that is simply fed to fraudulent or evanescent corporations that don’t stay registered at the state level?

When it’s a matter of eminent domain and someone gets sued over bribery, then it makes headlines and people get indignant. Daily News 2001, Los Angeles Area.

COURT MAY RECEIVE CLOSE AUDIT. 2001. Similarly, and around the same years, other people were asking questions about “court-connected” funds of a different sort. 2002, this one, there was a series of articles:‘SLUSH FUND’ PROBE POSSIBLE KUEHL MAY ASK FOR INQUIRY INTO JUDGES’ PROCEEDS.[one has to actually read these – I’m not outlining them for those who won’t….]
This one in PARTICULAR shows that in 1999ff Marv Bryer and others were doing what I do now — reading tax returns, looking at the fronts of checks, looking at the BACKS of checks, and noticing that what’s written out to ONE fund sometimes gets deposited into another, which fund happens to be a private judges’ association.

Here’s a yet more detailed one (best: read the series; see “related articles”):

GILDING THE GAVEL? SUPERIOR COURT PAYMENTS DEPOSITED IN JUDGES’ PRIVATE ‘COFFEE’ FUND.

(Now that you’ve read it, naturally, with attention…..)

Read the rest of this entry »

Outstanding in their Field. Now, about that Field… (Fatherhood Grantees/Practitioners)

leave a comment »

Again, I am only sampling a field that was sent in place decades ago, has major foundations supporting it (one should ask WHY) as well as the many resources of the HHS, and the “yeah, man — right up our alley!” of one too many tax-exempt religious foundations. Or, as you will, faith-based.

TAGGS.hhs.gov on this group (I searched by its EIN# — which is below).

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION  WASHINGTON DC 20019 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA $ 2,549,350

 

Before we get too far into the economics of this field, I’d like to post a sample of what some of the DYNAMICS of it are about.  This 2001 Appeal is interesting because it incorporates how the court responds to evidence of injuring a child on visitation and severe violence (breaking a woman’s sternum and grabbing her by the throat) — that woman being the 2nd wife // stepmother — and because the man in question is on the board of (another — not the above) Fathers’ rights group based in WDC (ACFC).  This is one child — a girl, born in 1989 (divorce, 1991, first evidence of post-separation bruising of the girl, ca. 1996) and it covered two states, Michigan and Louisiana.  It’s a short-double-spaced read, and I hope you do.  Because at least in part — no offence to non-abusive Dads — this is also what the “FR’ movement is about — that FR are FR even when these things happen:

Lauren Hollingsworth v. James Semerad,

Appeal from 3rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana Trial Court No. 43,428~  Honorable R. Wayne Smith, Judge.

(Dad, see very far below same photo, looks like a very upstanding man):

Similar personnel to the ACFC group (far below) found on this one also:  Baskerville, Semerad, Mike McManus (who wants to do away with no-fault divorce), etc.  Click on link:

The Center for Marriage Policy

Dads of Michigan Related site, it says (read to see the spheres of influence involved & connection with another WDC organization, “ACFC”):

Rebuilding heterosexual marriage as the social norm is the necessary structural foundation for successful American socioeconomic reconstruction.

Among this testimony we can see both parents being court-ordered to attend a class, one of the (3) experts calling “parental alienation” but the testimony of the others (who felt the child to be credible, and not coached, esp. with the bruises) were concerned.  Moreover, it appears that the same father had literally broken the stepmom’s sternum and grabbed her throat’ they were divorcing.  he lied under oath about that event and had a new girlfriend to whom apparently the daughter was exposed.  It appears that the court’s response is simply to adjust the supervised visitation, not terminate it!  This Appeal in question comes fully 10 years after their divorce.  Get the picture?

Seriously, it’s a short read and covers many typical issues in family court these days in a case which divorce pre-dated welfare reform but still had the PAS charge…

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: