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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Fitts Facts: Segments and Illustrations from “Dillon Read and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits”

leave a comment »


“FITTS” IS CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS and “FITTS FACTS” are things she has pointed out in various publications, that intersect with and illuminate the subject matter I deal with here, which is a SUBSET of the larger platform on which the family courts play.  See also (it’s on my sidebar) “Fees for Friends & FITTS

This post doesn’t pretend completeness and serves as an alert.


Understanding the material will make for better conversations about reforming the court, that is, more intelligent ones that acknowledge who government is, and what it’s been doing.  She does claim we are no longer sovereign and makes a very good case for it, particularly as there isn’t information sovereignty (control) or integrity (checks and balances) on even how much governments hold collectively, let alone how much they have lost and how much of illegal profits (i.e., from drugs, weapons, war, or or other crime).  She correlates the growth of private prisons with those (on high) who have invested in them, and confronts the surefire (?) “Go with the flow” and “Never question the tape” (ticker tape of the markets, old term I guess) investment practices which KNOWS that the money is in fields that government regulates and endorses — like the war machine, and pharmaceuticals, not to mention the illegal drugs.  cf.  The Carlyle Corporation type of businesses.

Among them, this piece, read it on-line while you still can:

Dillon Read & Co. Inc. & the Aristocracy of Prison Profits

[I have no association with Ms. Fitts and am not involved in her “Solari Circles,” whatever they are, nor do I expect to be.]


My posting so much “Fitts” doesn’t mean I’m entirely in agreement.  Some paragraphs on why:

FOR ONE, I went through the process of having a family [marriage, pregnancy and labor childbirth, raising them and adjustments to work life involved] have endured religious abuse from that husband, very destructive in part because of who tolerated the “head-of-household-based” privilege (not limited to religious groups, plenty more were aware and were asked for help, and asked to intervene, but neither helped, nor had any real referrals for years….), followed by further destruction in the family courts ,or “Unified Family Courts” it would appear — at a time when they’d been sponsored nationwide (pilot programs) by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and after BOTH welfare reform, marked by promotion of the “family values” rhetoric which I found, on closer look, to be simply a way to facilitate further ways to centralize control of government and set up (privatized) money-laundering capacity under the HHS and under the Social Security Act (i.e., Title IV), AND after the “stolen election” Faith-Based Executive Order, and 9/11 events (no, I don’t believe it was properly reported as I have said, it was used to justify launching another US War).

Having been around for the beginning and expansion of the information revolution//development of the Internet, I have seen the justice system becoming more and more of a nightmare even in the past dozen years I’ve spent in it.  I am always writing, at some level, for my  children, for next-generations to have a record of what the previous one/s just gave them.

Nor has Ms. Fitts so far as I know with, ever even married (if so, it’s not widely published), sparing her MAJOR portions of troubles many Americans, and international couples with one American involved, face, possibly in an exchange for less than protection and intimate companionship (who’s to know) when her business creation was sabotaged and attacked for following the money (see account for details).

So, IF she has significant others (intimate relationships with powerful men) this also is not noted; however she appears to have had some significant emotional connection and bond with the pastor of a major Washington, D.C. area church, and while I can’t tell, possibly as a network of support after the attack on “Hamilton Securities” mid-1990s and ff…See bio/resume for further details of a person raised as a Quaker, no religious affiliation showing til decades later and during a time of trouble.

I did (marry and all that).  I have never been a player in the investment field and was not taught anything about it growing up, so far as I knew, my …family did with their investments (if any) what they did with their kids — drop them off for other professionals to essentially handle, to a degree.   I was never taught about the importance of incorporations, or buying and selling them, only about good study and work ethics, and (thankfully) a love of reading.   As to religious groups, without any literacy on taxes, corporations, or even government, who is to understand religious groups as in partnership (through tax privileges) with the same government that this writer and person labels as a corrupt war machine?


Fitts has not touched — at all —  the issue of religious institutions as factors in money-laundering or missing assets (many of them received from government particularly since 2001, Faith-based grants) — with a ten-foot pole, or by even mentioning it, although some of her references (esp. Chapter 18, below) reference God, Jesus and religious themes — not much, but it’s still there.

Those institutions also like government, hide assets, do business with each other and friends, own (buy, sell, and lease) real estate, and do not normally educate their patrons (i.e. the rank-and-file churchgoers, specifically — although by religion I don’t mean exclusively Catholic, or Protestant Christianity, or other versions) on things they OUGHT to know about to keep their communities and their communities leadership honest.

I have before referenced how Christian missionary outposts in Africa (mid to late 1800s) became essentially centers of commerce and the military, while helping to restructure the “social space” of the populations. (Chronology of Namibia, see sidebar).  Think this is different, or less true today?? If so, WHY?   

NEVERTHELESS, this is a good read and crosses enough topics and vocabulary to get another page in the blog:

Read it on-line while you still can:

Dillon Read & Co. Inc. & the Aristocracy of Prison Profits

From what Fitts says of the investment firm DILLON READ (that she worked for), its board members chose to set up suburban New Jersey, their estates and wealth… while their PRIVATE investment firm, with its Bush connections (Yale, Harvard, etc.) was on Wall Street.  See Chapter 1:  Bush, Bechtel and the Boys, talking a change beginning in the 1980s (note– technology/internet also taking off)

I remember when John Birkelund first came to Dillon Read in 1981 to serve as President and Chief Operating Officer.[2] Dillon was a small private investment bank on Wall Street with a proud history and a shrinking market share as technology and globalization fueled new growth. I had joined the firm three years before and, after a period in corporate finance, had migrated to the Energy Group — helping to arrange financing for oil and gas companies who were clients of Birkelund’s predecessor, Bud Treman. Bud was a member of the old school — an ethical man increasingly frustrated with the corrupting influence of hot money and easy debt.

This was a time of transition. Dillon’s Chairman, Nicholas F. Brady, was considered one of George H. W. Bush’s most intimate friends and advisors. Both attended Yale, both were children of privilege. Bush had left his home in Greenwich Connecticut and with the help at his father’s networks at Brown Brothers Harriman had gone into oil and gas in Texas. Brady had gone to Harvard Business School and then returned to the aristocratic hunt country of New Jersey, where the Bradys and the Dillons had estates, to work at Dillon Read.




Up through the last chapter, Chapter 18, which also begins (not quoted) with a reference to John Birkelund

The story of Cornell Corrections is not a story of powerful evil men doing racist and sexist things. I have known truly evil men. My former partners at Dillon Read are not among them. With rare exception, they were people that I liked and respected when I worked with them. Like the senior appointees in the Clinton Administration, they are well-to-do and well educated people who embrace “the way things are.Conversion to a war economy and migration from democracy to authoritarianism are “the way things are.There are big bucks and jobs at Harvard and universities like it for people like Elaine Kamarck who will give this force a socially respectable face with complex partisan distractions which help obfuscate how the Harvard Endowment continues to profit from something far deeper and far more malevolent than most of us — most likely including Elaine — are willing to face.

Wikipedia reminder:  size, and growth of Harvard Endowment, as referencing the “Harvard Management Company” (HMC) that manages its 11,000 or so different FUNDS:

Harvard Management Company, Inc. or HMC is an Americaninvestment management corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary ofHarvard University charged with managing the university’s endowment, pension assets, working capital, and non-cash gifts.[2]HMC is best known for managing the university’s $32 billion endowment,[1] the largest endowment in higher education in United States.[3]

The company employs financial professionals to manage the approximately 11,000 funds that constitute the endowment. The company directly manages about one third of the total endowment portfolio while working closely with the external companies that manage the rest.[4] . . .

Jack Meyer managed HMC from 1990 to September 30, 2005, beginning with an endowment worth $4.8 billion and ending with a value of $25.9 billion (including new contributions). During the last decade of his tenure, the endowment earned an annualized return of 15.9%.[5] …[[Then he and others left to form their own firms…]]

The university hired Mohamed El-Erian to succeed Meyer as HMC’s next president and CEO. He came from the bond trading company PIMCO and pledged to “rebuild and reinvent” the company. He announced his leaving September 12, 2007 to return to PIMCO after guiding the endowment to a one-year return of 23%.[7]

To review, HMC, Inc. manages the (huge) Harvard endowment, 1/3rd directly and 2/3rds in close connection with “external companies” who manage the rest. PIMCO only counts because a manager of HMC (El-Erian) came from PIMCO. After he leaves, the next HMC manager is going to have come from one of those external companies…

So, who is, or was, “PIMCO?”

(Wiki link, I”m “speed-skimming” the information for an indicator of connections and/or size. See “Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls” in the next paras, for example….

Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC (commonly called PIMCO), is an American global investment firm headquartered in Newport Beach, California, in the United States, and one of the largest active global fixed income investment managers in the world.[2] As of December 31, 2012 it had $2 trillion in assets under management[3] It is the world’s largest bond investor.[4]

[[INVESTOPEDIA explains the term “BONDS” as opposed to “stocks” and “cash equivalents”]]

A debt investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (corporate or governmental) that borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and U.S. and foreign governments to finance a variety of projects and activities.

Bonds are commonly referred to as fixed-income securities and are one of the three main asset classes, along with stocks and cash equivalents. …

The indebted entity (issuer) issues a bond that states the interest rate (coupon) that will be paid and when the loaned funds (bond principal) are to be returned (maturity date). Interest on bonds is usually paid every six months (semi-annually). The main categories of bonds are corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and U.S. Treasury bonds, notes and bills, which are collectively referred to as simply “Treasuries.”

Two features of a bond – credit quality and duration – are the principal determinants of a bond’s interest rate. Bond maturities range from a 90-day Treasury bill to a 30-year government bond. Corporate and municipals are typically in the three to 10-year range.

PIMCO is led by co-founder William H. Gross,[5][6] (usually known as Bill Gross[7]) who serves as Co-Chief Investment Officer, and Mohamed A. El-Erian, the other Co-CIO and the firm’s CEO.[8] Gross manages the Total Return Fund, the world’s largest mutual fund with assets of $242.7 billion as of June 30, 2011.[9] Its head of European operations is Andrew Balls, the brother of the British shadow chancellor Ed Balls.[10]##

[INVESTOPEDIA explains the term “MUTUAL FUNDS“, i.e., “Mutual” enabling smaller investors to pool their monies;]]

An investment vehicle that is made up of a pool of funds collected from many investors for the purpose of investing in securities such as stocks, bonds, money market instruments and similar assets. Mutual funds are operated by money managers, who invest the fund’s capital and attempt to produce capital gains and income for the fund’s investors. A mutual fund’s portfolio is structured and maintained to match the investment objectives stated in its prospectus..

. .One of the main advantages of mutual funds is that they give small investors access to professionally managed, diversified portfolios of equities, bonds and other securities, which would be quite difficult (if not impossible) to create with a small amount of capital. Each shareholder participates proportionally in the gain or loss of the fund. Mutual fund units, or shares, are issued and can typically be purchased or redeemed as needed at the fund’s current net asset value (NAV) per share, which is sometimes expressed as NAVPS. 


The firm [PIMCO] was founded in 1971, launching with $12 million of assets. Previously, PIMCO had functioned as a unit of Pacific Life Insurance Co., managing separate accounts for that insurer’s clients. In 2000, PIMCO was acquired by Allianz SE,[11] a large global financial services company based in Germany, but the firm continues to operate as an autonomous subsidiary of Allianz.

PIMCO oversees investments on behalf of a wide range of clients, including millions of retirement savers, public and private pension plans, educational institutions, central banks, foundations and endowments, among others.

In Sept.2007, HMC loses Mohamed El-Erian, next article shows,formerly working on the International Monetary Fund, back to PIMCO:

PIMCO Announces Mohamed El-Erian to Rejoin Firm as Co-CEO, Co-CIO

NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. (September 11, 2007) – PIMCO, one of the world’s leading investment management companies, announced today that Mohamed El-Erian, its former Managing Director and Senior Portfolio Manager, will return to the firm in January 2008 in a newly created position as Managing Director and Co-CEO and Co-CIO.  In his new position, El-Erian will join CEO Bill Thompson and Chief Investment Officer and company founder Bill Gross, as a member of PIMCO’s senior management team.


El-Erian will return to PIMCO from the Harvard Management Company (HMC), where since being hired in October 2005, he distinguished himself as President and CEO of the world’s largest university endowment.  During his tenure at the HMC, El-Erian rebuilt the professional investment management staff and contributed to outstanding investment results for Harvard. Before joining HMC, El-Erian had worked at PIMCO for 7 years where he was a highly regarded senior member of the Portfolio Management team.  Prior to PIMCO, he had spent 15 years with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). …


With more than $693 billion assets under management, PIMCO is one of the world’s leading fund-management companies.  Founded in 1971 and based in Newport Beach, California, the company is owned by Allianz Global Investors a subsidiary of the Munich-based Allianz Group, a leading global insurance company with nearly $1.5 trillion in assets and represented in 70 countries around the globe.

.That’s just some background on who’s been MANAGING the company (HMC) that manages (1/3 of) the  Harvard Endowment, that’s not the Harvard Endowment….

##Shadow Chancellor — opposition party, shadows the Exchequer, whose title parallels Secretary of the Treasury (governmental finance ministers).  Look who “Ed Balls” is:

From 2005 to2010, he was the MP for Normanton and he served as Secretary of State for Children, ScEd Balls 2.jpghools and Families under Gordon Brown from 2007 to 2010. Balls is married to current Shadow Home Secretary and fellow Labour MP Yvette Cooper. In June 2007 they became the first married couple to serve together in a British Cabinet when Cooper became Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

(Chancellor of the Exchequer meaning):

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the title held by the BritishCabinet minister who is responsible for all economic and financialmatters, equivalent to the role of Minister of Finance or Secretary of the Treasury in other nations. Often simply called the Chancellor, the office-holder controls HM Treasury. The position is considered one of the four Great Offices of State, and in recent times has come to be the most powerful office in British politics after the Prime Minister. It is the only office of the four Great Offices not to have been occupied by a woman.[citation needed]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is now always Second Lord of the Treasury as one of the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Treasurer.

PIMCO, Cont’d.

Jane Mendillo was named the new head of HMC, effective July 1, 2008. She had been Wellesley College’s chief investment officer since 2002. Prior to that, she served as vice president for external management at HMC. A 1984 graduate of Yale University followed by an MBA from Yale School of Management, Mendillo first joined HMC as an equities analyst in 1987.[8]

For a very (very, very) short chart showing American University ENDOWMENT funds (this is Wiki also) listed in Billions and the column for 2012 size of endowments sorted from Large to Small — we can see several universities that ALSO continue to pop up (on my scope, at least) as highly active in directing population control, marriage promotion, responsible fatherhood and other kinds of “relationship regulating” programs out of the HHS sector, i.e., pilot projects on poor people:

List of Colleges and Universities in the United States by Endowments

For this list, short scale billions (thousand of millions) are used. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Institution 2012
Harvard University $30.435[2] $31.728[3] $27.557[4] $25.662[5] $36.556[6] $34.635[7] $28.916[8] $25.473[9]
Yale University $19.345[2] $19.374[3] $16.652[4] $16.327[5] $22.870[6] $22.530[7] $18.031[8] $15.224[9]
University of Texas System(system-wide)[11] $18.264[2] $17.149[3] $14.052[4] $12.163[5] $16.111[6] $15.614[7] $13.235[8] $11.610[9]
Stanford University $17.036[2] $16.503[3] $13.851[4] $12.619[5] $17.200[6] $17.165[7] $14.085[8] $12.205[9]
Princeton University $16.954[2] $17.110[3] $14.391[4] $12.614[5] $16.349[6] $15.787[7] $13.045[8] $11.207[9]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $10.150[2] $9.713[3] $8.317[4] $7.982[5] $10.069[6] $9.980[7] $8.368[8] $6.712[9]
University of Michigan $7.691[2] $7.835[3] $6.564[4] $6.001[5] $7.572[6] $7.090[7] $5.652[8] $4.931[9]
Columbia University $7.654[2] $7.790[3] $6.517[4] $5.893[5] $7.147[6] $7.150[7] $5.938[8] $5.191[9]
Texas A&M University System (system-wide)[11] $7.639[2] $7.000[3] $5.738[4] $5.084[5] $6.659[6] $6.590[7] $5.643[8] $4.964[9]
Northwestern University $7.119[2] $7.183[3] $5.945[4] $5.445[5] $7.244[6] $6.503[7] $5.141[8] $4.215[9]
University of Pennsylvania $6.755[2] $6.582[3] $5.669[4] $5.171[5] $6.233[6] $6.635[7] $5.313[8] $4.370[9]
University of Chicago $6.571[2] $6.575[3] $5.543[4] $5.578[5] $6.632[6] $6.204[7] $4.867[8] $4.137[9]
University of Notre Dame $6.330[2] $6.260[3] $5.235[4] $4.795[5] $6.226[6] $5.977[7] $4.437[8] $3.650[9]
University of California(system-wide Regents portions only)[11] $5.963[2] $6.342[3] $5.441[4] $4.937[5] $6.217[6] $6.439[7] $5.734[8] $5.222[9]

How does it do this?  US News and World Report (October 2013) spoke of how Harvard Endowment “Dwarfs its Competitors”

Universities With the Largest Financial Endowments

Harvard’s $30 billion endowment shrank, but still dwarfed those of its peers.

October 1, 2013

Harvard University, the college with the largest endowment in the country, saw its numbers drop from $32 billion at the end of fiscal year 2011 to $30 billion at the end of fiscal year 2012, according to data reported to U.S. News in an annual survey. But compared to its peers, the prestigious college is still in good shape.

Of the 1,141 ranked National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, Regional Colleges and Regional Universities that reported endowment figures to U.S. News, the average endowment was roughly $329.9 million.

At the 10 schools with the highest endowments, the average endowment was about $13 billion. All but two schools on the list –University of Michigan—Ann Arbor and Texas A&M University—College Station – are private schools.

  For the purposes of this list, endowments were examined by campus, not across public university systems. Unranked schools, which did not meet certain criteria required by U.S. News to be numerically ranked, were not considered for this report.
School name (state) End of fiscal year 2012 endowment U.S. News rank and category
Harvard University(MA) $30,745,534,000 2, National Universities
Yale University (CT) $19,264,289,000 3, National Universities
Princeton University(NJ) $17,404,002,000 1, National Universities
Stanford University(CA) $17,035,804,000 5, National Universities
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $10,149,564,000 7, National Universities
Columbia University(NY) $7,654,152,000 4, National Universities
University of Michigan—Ann Arbor $7,586,547,000 28, National Universities
Texas A&M University—College Station $7,032,203,615 69, National Universities
University of Pennsylvania $6,754,658,000 7, National Universities
University of Notre Dame (IN) $6,444,599,000 18, National Universities

just a sample of some related Harvard 990s (there are several) from the foundation center:

President and Fellows of Harvard Corporation MA 2012 990 262 $56,370,683,000  ~ 04-2103580

The next one (EIN22-3138409, notice I have years 2012-11-10 showing increase in assets) is listed c/o “Harvard Management Company” CEO Jane L. Mendillo, above (pink rectangle, near bottom of the bright pink section of quotes) who is now managing HMC.  Please scroll through and see what’s being invested in.

Her base compensation is over $1 million, with bonus and incentives over $4 million.  Other officers also well paid (though under $ 1 million salary).  Also see the Contractors its paying to invest, specifically (YR 2011) Westbrook Realty? (Palm Beach, FL), a group in NYC and a group on Hong Kong.  Controlled corporations are all over the world.   The purpose of “Harvard Private Capital Realty is (it says) to support the “President and Fellows of Harvard Corporation, above.

Harvard Private Capital Realty Inc. MA 2012 990 57 $3,866,513,950  /22-3138409
Harvard Private Capital Realty Inc. MA 2011 990 70 $3,171,272,623  /22-3138409
Harvard Private Capital Realty Inc. MA 2010 990 57 $2,253,096,339  /22-3138409

AND also (another one): (c/o same person Jane Mendillo):

Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. MA 2012 990 54 $11,136,388,834 ~ 04-3070522

Not to mention HMC itself, which I see is also a nonprofit, with a measly $83 million, not Billions, in 2012, although notice the assets are growing, still;

Harvard Management Company Inc. MA 2012 990 64 $83,518,157 //23-7361259
Harvard Management Company Inc. MA 2011 990 69 $70,086,233 //23-7361259
Harvard Management Company Inc. MA 2010 990 55 $53,036,966 //23-7361259

Etc. etc…..

Harvard-Yenching Institute MA 2011 990 47 $201,124,545 ~ 04-2062394

 (spits out about $4 million investment income — supports the above corporation an UBCHEA (supporting Christian Higher Education in Asia)

Harvard-Westlake School CA 2012 990 42 $253,811,589 ~ 95-1644019

(Above: may not even be related, but this is a Jr/Sr.High prep school for only 1,600 students, that’s a hefty endowment; $73million receipts, etc.)

Harvard University Employees Credit Union MA 2012 990O 23 $415,027,474 ~ 04-6017806

(Above: assets increased by $66 million in only 2 years)…

Then I see the various alumni association (by Year) at least one (Yr 1955) I checked which does contribute to the President and Fellows of Harvard, above (this one — $1.4 million and the only grant it distributed):

Harvard Class of 1955 MA 2012 990EO 5 $24,207.58 04-2818449

Some of them may be dying off from old age, I see this one hasn’t filed since 2005 but something happened that year, to its assets, obviously:

Harvard Class of 1944 MA 2005 990EO 3 $40,389.66 86-1120727
Harvard Class of 1944 MA 2004 990EO 3 $21,986 86-1120727

Finally — get this — the following association (I only noticed because its assets were large enough):

Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair, Inc.** MA 2012 990 76 $11,545,773 31-1745145
Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair, Inc. MA 2011 990 69 $13,750,250 31-1745145
Harvard Center for Neurodegeneration and Repair, Inc. MA 2010 990 39 $15,896,685 31-1745145


**UNlike others, we see its assets declining for three years.    The top tax return notes that the officer are actually EMPLOYEES of “The President and Fellows of Harvard” (top listed EIN#, above).  Towards the last few pages of this (76pager) tax return, I find something “unbelievable” — it was seeking for a “revival” last March, 2013 — as it had been suspended for NOT FILING ANNUAL REPORTS FOR:  2009, 2010, 2011 AND 2012, although (it said) business had continued as usual since the revocation.  Too busy to send in that one- or two-page form (or do it on-line) stating, “we still exist as a corporation”???

Paging through an alpha sorted (no states specified) search for “HARVARD” in the 990sFinder It seems that the nation is obsessed with the word “Harvard” and wants to be associated with it.  That’s not including the medical foundations, either among the largest ones.   And I didn’t even look at ‘YALE” yet.

Harvard (and Yale), admitted women WHEN??? please?

This foundation (at Harvard) was only started in 1995:

Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Foundation for Scientific Research MA 2012 990 73 $70,363,620 /04-3293162
Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Foundation for Scientific Research MA 2011 990 69 $75,220,445 /04-3293162
Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Foundation for Scientific Research MA 2010 990 41 $66,694,653 /04-3293162

It has no employees….earned (Yr 2011) investment income of $3.1 million which it spent….The investments (assets) are exclusively in Public Traded Securities….


(The Benefactor, mentioned for Business and Banking in Italy, died in October 2013, in Rome):

The Giovanni Armenise Harvard Foundation

Scientific discovery for the benefit of humankind


Armenise History

The Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Foundation arose from a unique partnership formed between Count Giovanni Auletta Armenise and Dr. Daniel C. Tosteson, Dean of Harvard Medical School from 1977 through 1997, who together worked to build a new infrastructure to fund the future of science.

In 1994, when Count Auletta brought his wife, Dianora Bertacchini, to Massachusetts General Hospital, a Harvard Medical School-affiliated hospital, for treatment of her brain tumor, the couple came to realize that even the most sophisticated therapies available at that time could not save her.  This realization, along with Dr. Tosteson’s belief that investment in research to address fundamental questions in science could transform both medicine and agriculture, resulted in a partnership through which they resolved to establish a foundation that would support basic scientific research at Harvard Medical School and in Italy.

The Foundation name honors Count Giovanni Auletta Armenise’s uncle and mentor, Count Giovanni Armenise, who launched the first Italian pharmaceutical company to manufacture and distribute penicillin in 1950.

In 2001, in recognition of the current Count’s vision and generosity, Harvard Medical School renamed one of its buildings the Giovanni Auletta Armenise Medical Research Building.


Since 1996, the Giovanni Armenise-Harvard Foundation has established Armenise Centers for Cancer Biology, Structural Biology, Neuroscience, Microbial Pathogenesis and the Host Response, Integrative Biology and Physiology, Systems Biology, and Genomics and Post-Genomics at the Medical School, and supported collaborative programs between these Centers and Italian scientific institutions. The Foundation has also sponsored a series of international symposia that have brought together hundreds of American and Italian scientists to share their work and ideas.

As I’ve been saying, whatever ails the philanthropists or their relatives that’s where their money goes, and so goes the medical, social science, justice improvement, foster-care (etc.) research institutes, AND institutions.

ANYHOW, now that we have a grasp of “Harvard is Huge” concept, financially . . . .

Far above, I was quoting C. A. Fitts from “The Aristocracy of Stock Profits,” Chapter 18 “Through the Via Dolorosa,” and the continuation is here:

…If I were to sit down with Al Gore, Elaine Kamarck, Jamie Gorelick and Chris Edley, I would expect their explanations would involve more obfuscating policy discussions but it would ultimately come down to a similar notion of going with the flow. As would the hundreds of thousands of highly credentialed, well-paid Americans who have actively lead the day-to-day implementation of policies that — when we pierce the veil — are really dictated by powerful private interests outside of the law as most believe it to be. All these policies and actions add up to genocide — of our families and communities and of all living things, both throughout America and around the world. 

. . . . “GOING WITH THE FLOW” for too many of us represents the outflow of blood, from our bodies, within our marriages, relationships, and also the “outflow” of opportunities to re-engage in the work (despite the phrase “Right To Work” in the 1996 “ending welfare as we know it “PRWORA” Budget act – I have found it to be the opposite, and the repeatedly disrupted, violently interrupted actual “Right to Work” AND to choose when, where and how according to natural needs (not unnatural sociopathic need to create a dependent sub-set of a marriage, a family, or a community) according to who actually wants to hire us — and then to retain the income FROM our own efforts and labors, to use as wisely as possible (some might call this “liberty”) — that is NOT a right that women, or mothers, have in the present climate — unless they have already determined, or subconsciously “gone with the flow.”

Fitts describes the flow of power, and money and assets and wealth. She talks about how are too invested/networked in the destructive network.  I agree (with the exception, noted above, that the religious are no antidote to THIS setup!!!) — and believe that it’s up to those who have gone through this “Via Dolorosa” as she calls it — to best judge what must be changed.

BUT — those of us who have, really do need to again, ‘GET HONEST’ about these interlocking systems, and get a better, as I said, language to describe them that is within the realm of reality.



The power of the killing machine rests in part in the broad based popular support it receives through the investment system and the financial markets. How are we to plead ignorance if the profits and growth in our 401(k) plans and investment portfolios have been enriched from prison stocks and the securities of the banks, homebuilders, property managers, mortgage bankers and other groups who managed this process of ethnic and economic cleansing and the gentrification it made possible?

What can our “socially responsible” investment managers say when they invest in the stocks of banks, like Citibank and JP Morgan-Chase, and government contractors, like IBM and AT&T, who are running critical parts of government as these manipulations occur — including the disappearance of $4 trillion from government bank accounts and the manipulation of the gold markets and inventory in a silent financial coup d’etat? What can all those who benefited financially in the stock market, or from cheap mortgage and consumer loans or reduced ATM and checking fees say? We disassociated the source of our financial benefits from what we saw happening around us that we knew was wrong.

When we discuss (if we do) the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and the fact that the public is led to think in terms of Budget, but Government (collective) operates in terms of PROFITS — which fact the public is kept AS clueless as possible about (and reporters trying to change that tend to experience major retaliation) — we are talking about HOW government (collective) profits from the business of governing, in both legal and illegal manners.

Investment return on owned assets, or owned businesses, profits in turnover of housing or businesses, etc. brings up, how was ownership delivered from individuals to the government, at times?

I can’t keep quoting these sections and, repeatedly quoting this material to set the context for an average post, so am setting up this page in 2014, about two years after I discovered CAFRs and Catherine Austin Fitt’s writing about investments in a way I could actually understand — and even with a passing (although it should’ve been more central in her material) reference also to CAFRs herself as ROADMAPS to GEOGRAPHICALLY WHERE is government money. I DNR offhand, but readers may find a section in her writings (these or others) explaining that what the software and technology of her “Hamilton Securities” company (which was targeted for elimination, and whose software and technology was grabbed in the process) – may have been based on locating this CAFR information itself, and data-basing it for geographic search. She has many times stated that in finding the “clean” money, it exposed the dirty (drug profits) money – -i.e., in those HUD housing projects.

I would deeply appreciate people reading through this material (as I have) and when conversing with me on the family court system, making reference to it. Then, those people who are NOT in favor of a privatized government sector and police state posing as a representative or even democratic government providing “Services” (something it’s clearly not) can with me better discuss what to do about it. Other than evacuate the premises, which as it’s pretty much global, is easier said than done. I have seen by looking how the American public is being used (because we still DO pay those income, and sales taxes to fund our own abusive government/s) to help set up the police state globally. So, what do you think is going to happen when the process is complete, or almost complete? (Hint: for an example, look at Africa)…

Thank you. Comment on ANY post, I will be emailed the notice and respond if there’s a genuine comment, or wish to discuss any of these matters. Please stop by a DONATE button en route, if you are able….

Many of the things she explains, I came across separately by following up on perhaps one too many HHS grantees, finding a similar HUD grantee nearby, i.e., Community Development Corporations, etc. of another era. Also, always keep in mind which decade you are in (in any discussion) and that since the creation of the income tax and a few other control systems (like of the currency), it’s been a matter of continuing centralized control, which to be maintained HAS to involve population control (and systems of it) and of course propaganda about what a great, free, and worthy of being sacrificed to country we have here. In my experience, what we have is a great, but less than worthy of allegiance, CORPORATION calling itself a country only because it makes the rules, and different rules apply to government corporations than to commercial ones (i.e., there’s no “Securities Exchange Regulation” for the sectors of government — which obviously are not themselves taxed — pooling investments and investing in corporations, etc. etc.

Some of the projects I ended up looking at (they were “fatherhood” promoters, found as I recall one, on the board of an Arizona-originated “Fathers and Families Coalition of America”) were in Los Angeles, a major port city with known drug issues and a reputation (well-earned) for very corrupt governments — and where, at least in part, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts claims it first started in 1963 (although incorporation records don’t bear that out; it had to keep changing states and names to coverup the previous tax evasion, tax fraud status of the earliest years. [“Look Up A Nonprofit, Impromptu How-To” post]

From that post:


Example: In California, on Secretary of State site, I typed in ONE word under the Business Entities (select “Corporations”) search: “Conciliation” and got two pages of results, which show which are active, and which suspended. As you can see, for such a popular term as “Conciliation” — only FOUR actually ACTIVE corporations remain. Following up on this (not the first time i have on this blog), gets interesting. It sheds light on public persona versus private nonprofit and corporations. LIke, who is making up a sort of public “folklore” of the group’s history for the gullible?

Entity Number** Date Filed Status……… …………..Entity Name…………… Agent for
Service of Process



[[note: a search on “reconciliation” pulls up more results — 7 pages @ max 10/page of results.]]

So the colorful table above is a simple search of CORPORATIONS (i.e., Secretary of State/Business Entity Search) with the word “Conciliation” in their name. I didn’t do a parallel search of “LLC’s” to see if there were some.

As we can see, it’s a very popular word, however the people who enthusiastically incorporated (literally) with this word in their company name, didn’t “go the distance.” It should be noted, there are some who are immoral enough to continue taking funds (in public, possibly in private) after their corporation has been suspended. So, out of public profile here doesn’t mean necessarily out of cash, or non-operating.

NONE of them started in 1963.  the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” started in 1969:

Entity Number: C0576876
Date Filed: 07/30/1969
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 3100 S CENTRAL AVENUE
Entity City, State, Zip: CHICAGO IL 60650

Agent for Service of Process: *
Agent Address: *
Agent City, State, Zip: *

Jurisdiction California, Actual address, Illinois?

Alternately, Jurisdiction ILLINOIS, street address DENVER, but registered agent at the Los Angeles County Courthouse? (below)

Entity Number: C1091990
Date Filed: 10/01/1981
Jurisdiction: ILLINOIS

Entity Address: 1720 EMERSON ST
Entity City, State, Zip: DENVER CO 80218
Agent for Service of Process: MARGARET LITTLE
Agent Address: 111 N HILL ST
Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012


Technically speaking a corporation is identified BY its corporate name — and as such that corporation did not exist in 1963 OR 1969, but only later. EIN# fraud is intrinsic to the establishment and organization (nationwide, internationally to a degree) of the “AFCC’s” beginnings, regardless of whatever else their propaganda and an oral interview with Meyer Elkin (from 1992), one of its founders may say. The essence appears to be grounded in FRAUD… bringing up the question, what is the fraud mostly going to be regarding? Answer: Profits from business operations. What was a primary industry? Answer: Training professionals and others to enter the trades about to be created through creating another entire court system in the United States of America, the Conciliation Courts.

So, please DO wind your way (until it sinks in) through not some but ALL of Ms. Fitts’ “Dillon Read and the Aristocracy of Stock Profits.” Fragments:


My intention for this story is to make clear how the system really works. A system in which a small group of ambitious insiders — who more often than not were educated at Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the other Ivy League schools — enjoy centralizing power and advantaging themselves. Paradigms of Republican vs. Democrat or Conservative vs. Progressive have been designed for obfuscation and entertainment. An endless number of philosophies and strains of religious and “holier than thou” moralism are really put on and taken off like fresh make-up in the effort to hide from view a deeper, uglier face. . . . .

The Clinton Administration took the groundwork laid by Nixon, Reagan and Bush and embraced and blossomed the expansion and promotion of federal support for police, enforcement and the War on Drugs with a passion …. Attracting capital also required making the world safe for the reinvestment of the profits of organized crime and the war machine. Without growing organized crime and military activities through government budgets and contracts, the economy would stop centralizing. The Clinton Administration was to govern a doubling of the federal prison population.[50]

. . .
[[LGH note:  more talk of PRIVATIZING the Federal Prison Industry, and who’d been investing in it, primarily Republican….NOTE:  Compare with my 9/2012 blog pointing out Corrections Corporation of America.  This is in the same “ballpark,” as to subject matter.    Who invests in those privatized prisons?  

CCA-Private Prisons, Slave Labor, Shareholder Profits

 (LGH post…)  I was talking Corrections Corporation of America.  She is talking Cornell Corrections and Wackenhut, etc.  and how a Democratic Administration (US President) helped legislation profiting Republican Interests]]Fannie Mae has been a leading player in centralizing control of the mortgage markets into Washington D.C. and Wall Street. And that means as people were rounded up and shipped to prison as part of Operation Safe Home, Fannie was right behind to finance the gentrification of neighborhoods. . . .

And that is before we ask questions about the extent to which the estimated annual financial flows of $500 billion–$1 trillion money laundering through the U.S. financial system or money missing from the US government are reinvested into Fannie Mae securities.

It is important before closing this description of Cornell’s extraordinary good fortune with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and DOJ in the fall of 1995 and the spring and summer of 1996*** to provide some additional context.

During this period, America was in the middle of a Presidential election. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were running for their second term. Dillon Read was a traditionally Republican firm, with the largest Dillon investors in Cornell giving generously to the Republican Party as well as to the Dole-Kemp campaign, whose campaign manager, Scott Reed, had been Kemp’s chief of staff at HUD and then Executive Director of the Republican Party. The corporate ancestry and relations of Cornell — Bechtel, Houston, their auditor, Arthur Anderson’s Houston office, their attorney, Baker Botts, and their construction company, Halliburton/KBR — are ties all deeply associated with the Bush family and Republican camp.

[Chart shows:] “Federal Campaign Donations of Seven Largest Dillon Investors in Cornell Corrections Found in Center for Responsive Politics Database – 1995 & 1996”


**anyone who has been following this blog (or relevant issues in the family courts) and is NOT aware, yet, of the dramatic impact 1996 Welfare Reform (a budget bill — budget meaning, for the United States of America, and including appropriations to fund all these programs — signed by President Bill Clinton) had  (negative) upon women and mothers, particularly single mothers leaving abuse, in re: the rapid promotion and expansion of marriage/fatherhood rhetoric AND FUNDING throughout government (per executive order signed 1995 by President Clinton, and a lot more — see my blogroll) — should understand that he was under political pressure at the time.  That he was a Rhodes Scholar (Oxford-trained) with a Rhodes Scholar Secretary of Labor at this time (Robert Reich), and I THINK also a Rhodes Scholar consultant from Arkansas brought in — first, privately and under a “code name” — named Dick Morris (source:  PBS frontline interviews, and biographies of Bill Clinton); who had also been in part mentored  by another Rhodes Scholar (the first one to become a U.S> President — i.e., Senator Fulbright).  The discussion, in interviews now published about that time, include the word “TRIANGULATION” and “HEGELIAN” and “AMORAL” i.e., strategies to get a desired outcome.

The “RHODES” factor is simple. Cecil Rhodes set up his trust with a racist (Anglo superiority) and of course sexist imperialist plan to regain the world for the British empire, which includes the U.S. Colonies (then, less than 150 years “independent.”).  If you look at the HOW of the man’s original fortune, you have a character indicator — and American complicity; the man mowed down people fighting for their lives and homes — with a Maxim machine gun; he set up cartels at the Kimberly mine, exploiting the need for water and when people couldn’t pay his prices (having a monopoly on the technology needed), he forced them to pay with shares of their mines.


(after discussing a model which utilized computer training skills IN neighborhoods versus the habit of eviscerating neighborhoods to turn over the properties, combined with the private prison industry, HUD allies, etc…..)

Others were not so positive, including special interests whose business had become managing “the poor” and who would be out of a business if new tools and opportunities were to significantly decrease the number of people who were poor. Many of these were traditionally powerful Democratic constituencies, including private for-profits, foundations, universities and not-for-profit agencies that had built up a significant infrastructure servicing and supporting programs to house, feed and supervise poor people. If people were no longer poor, what was their purpose?

When we made a presentation to a group of leading foundations, in partnership with a Los Angeles entertainment company interested in using entertainment skills to make training fun, the head of low-income programs at Fannie Mae told me that it was the most depressing presentation he had ever seen. It implied that the poor did not need his help — that his life and work had no meaning. It appeared he did not want to end poverty. His personal meaning was derived from poverty continuing, if not growing. Real estate interests that were hoping to gentrify neighborhoods as a result of welfare reform were also not pleased. They would make more money turning over populations rather than helping the current population improve without moving. Their allies were enforcement teams like the HUD OIG that won funding and generated revenues from helping to get one group out, so another group could be moved in.

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

January 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: