Table of Contents 2020: FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Just Ten Posts (Jan.-July) and Its Only Page [Publ. May 18, 2021..]
This post is “in transition” (I am off-ramping introductory sections in order to feature more table, less talk).
Just now, I stopped mid-edit in a narrative section after adding some quotes on “stakeholders,” a bit of a sore point from my perspective. So-called “stakeholders” in national (and global) policies demand a closer look at usage of the term and who decides who is NOT a stakeholder, typically those most impacted by exclusion and/or decades of policy- and field-building without reference to things (we) know about, things easy to observe once attention is called to their existence, something (for efficiency and power reasons) typical stakeholders in the operations don’t particularly want.
I am NOT happy with this post just now, but not kidding myself about the level of traffic coming to it. Will consider editing options…
Post revision will not happen immediately. Thanks for your patience meanwhile. The Table Of Contents is still here, and plenty of other reading material on the blog, accessible through main pages and sidebar widgets //LGH, 6/15/2021.
Title: Table of Contents 2020: FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Just Ten Posts (Jan.-July) and Its Only Page [Publ. May 18, 2021..] (short-link ends “-cKH”)
This is a “sticky” post. For more on that and short-links nomenclature see my “Front Page” (just type “FamilyCourtMatters.org“). “Sticky” (pinned to the top) makes this now the top of 14 sticky posts accessible through the “Current Posts” doorway (page) to this blog. That’s why you get some introduction before the actual table of contents… Expect some post-publication revisions, including removing excess text where I feel it appropriate….
Some posts are marked sticky to provide access other years’ tables of contents. For example:
Reviewing those 14 sticky posts, which go back to January, 2017, to shorten their “teasers” (how much text before the “read-more” instruction), I found two I’d like to mention here. The first one (despite its wordy title) was top of the blog when I restructured it, with a “Let’s Talk!” message. The two posts, both from April-May 2018, and so about three years old now, are:
May 2, 2018
Post Title In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018) (case-sensitive short-link ending -8Ly,” about 10,700 words)
April 19, 2018
Post Title:Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 11,000 words]
**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘Family Court Matters’ Issues Summary, At This Time: Right Sidebar ‘GO-TO | Current Posts’ Widget (Publ. Dec. 21, 2019 as 13th Sticky Post).
Post Title: ‘Family Court Matters’ Issues Summary, At This Time: Right Sidebar ‘GO-TO | Current Posts’ Widget (Publ. Dec. 21, 2019 as 13th Sticky Post). (short-link ends “-bUM,” )
(Section (2) of (3) additions bring this to about 8,000 words as of 12/25/2019. (Detailing some footnoted organizations on the featured page… explained in context as it comes up). Though short, Section (3) was the main part — listing text boxes on Sidebar Widget for easier access.
This post further advertises the updated top right sidebar widget of my blog (by posting all its contents and marking the new post sticky) and features one of the pages which caught my attention during the update. The post was edited and/or copy-edited post-publication, adding mini-sections to the middle part, so while it no longer qualifies as “short” it still qualifies as I believe relevant.
For the straightforward list of Ten text boxes from the top right widget (titles and links) scroll or page-down to Section (3) of (3) announced by:
(3) (Lists Text Boxes; in diff’t background color):
However if you intend to eventually read this blog, what comes before it — sections (1) and (2) — shows what you’re in for and where I’m coming from. Expect to be challenged and to exercise reason (engage in plenty of reading), comparison, probably some basic vocabulary development (unless you’re an accountant or financial services advisor — and even then… the perspective differs) and to along the way acquire “non-partisan” insight into how our country is run.
WYSIWYG: At this point, I don’t do consulting, conference circuits, presentations, webinars etc. so what you see here (and on my Twitter account) is what you get from me, except for any personal contact, which I generally keep to a minimum, in part because of what I have to say about the system and in part for how personal privacy relates to personal safety as it has for years… If you want more or appreciate what’s here, please consider that DONATE button (suggested minimum: $10.00).
//LGH Dec. 25, 2019 update…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31(complete list).
(Post updated month by month since first posted Aug. 5. Some updates include explanations or commentary..//LGH Dec. 19, 2019
I added the last post published in 2019 (Dec. 21) to this Table on June 10, 2020; dates covered are later than date first published//LGH.
YOU ARE READING:
Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 31 (complete list).
(Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 9,600 words (w/ monthly updates extending the table; word-count high in part because of the post “tags” added to the table as their own rows). Last update Dec. 19, 2019, adds all Nov. posts and all Dec. posts so far (@12/19).
Post published August 5, and updated periodically as the blog grows. The post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th, but being marked “Sticky” remains in top position of “Current Posts.” TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading for my current research focus (browse titles) as is anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget. Direct links to both this post and TOC 2018 show on my right sidebar, and both also are marked sticky, so TOC 2018 is also stationed among the top 12 posts. I’ll explain this again below with some images.
Within the table of contents, you’ll see this August 5 post easily from its white-on-black color scheme:
| 2019 | FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org The Year in Posts & Pages (so far, through Dec. 16) (with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some) |
URL: short-link ends: |
|---|---|---|
| (Normal color for a row containing a post title & link) | ||
| Aug. 5 STICKY, & THIS POST |
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far). (“Sticky.” About 6,000 words initial; the word count growing month-by-month with each update of course) |
-ayV |
Table of Contents Post PREVIEW
Table of Contents 2019 here, unlike TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, and 2017, incorporates any new pages by date published. Individual TOCs for late 2012 – 2017 can still be accessed within the top dozen sticky posts through the one for “2017” which internalizes links to the others: full title: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. Shortlink-ends 5qZ,first published Jan. 9, 2017..
SHARE THIS POST on...
58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019.
You are reading: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ends “-ar9“. //LGH July 31, 2019. About 8,000 words as updated Aug. 4, 2019) This title will be repeated a few inches below (that time with a Footnote [1]).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)
I had fun writing these; hope you enjoy reading them. Browse their titles, pick somewhere and dive in!
The “58 Essays” referenced in the title came from ‘PAGES’ (widget) from off right sidebar with all the links. The list of those titles with links directly to each one, also a 3X3 (nine total screenshots index) of all titles as seen formerly on the sidebar widget are the only illustrated (images involved) items on this post and are at the bottom. Look for images with some colorful lines and arrows, a bit of side-line commentary like these next two:
4
8
All material is my writing except where quoted, and all 58 pages were previously written across that ten-year time span. Now pinned to the top of the blog (designation “Sticky”), this post features them as basic content (and shortens the sidebar considerably).
As ever, I voice my concerns about and continue to raise awareness of both current developing and longstanding situations whenever/wherever I have opportunity, including while writing this introduction.
Having written too much while creating this administrative/index post, I then off-ramped extra introduction text to:
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky).
That post holds key content on current developments and actors seeking to change family court legislation “locally” (within certain United States) and, I see, the battle pro/con “parental alienation” continuing internationally, with some of the same players on the “opposed” side, regarding publication by WHO of another “ICD-11” nomenclature for diseases. … (July 10 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO … RE: Inclusion of “Parental Alienation“[2]
I just happened to write the material on my mind while setting up this post. There are still some opening comments here, though; some navigation, some, just want I want to say: call it my opening spiel. (That too may be condensed later)…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
You are reading: Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (Shortlink ends “-auh”, marked sticky, this is currently 10,600 words. That includes two lengthy footnotes, one of which I expect to remove to its own post.)
Most of this post’s content has been moved from: 58 More Essays (Pages) on Essentials** of the Family Court Arena. **IMHO, as expressed 2009-2019. (Published July 31, 2019; Short-link ends “-ar9”) after both posts were published “sticky.” Because of that, there’s an element of “patchwork” in the post; but each part I hope communicates.
This post describes current projects in process, re-iterates my rationale for the blog, and gives key examples, “clues,” with links to where more may be found, showing that such clues have been around for a long time.
My blog in general alerts people (it cannot fully cover, solo) to the existence of a major information gap in reporting on family court-related matters, a gap it seems has been maintained by those wishing for a global restructuring of family law (nation by nation, apparently under UN / WHO standards) to go a certain way without addressing what, in fact, happened in the United States of America, where we have an allegedly secular (or at least Congress shall establish no-national-religion) government but somehow want to maintain official fatherhood policy — moderated by “family violence services” — closely mimicking several major religions, including those historically at war with each other, while emphasizing compromise with criminality and systemic abuse of women and children as the norm … “for family unity…”
BOTH the “Pro” and the “Con” sides on any (gender-based or”faith-based”) issue seem to be profiting from it. With this type of prolonged conflict an obvious question is, who stands to gain what from refusing to resolve it according to law, or common sense? How genuine are the causes being put forth as put forth?
I see this as more than just a power struggle for the role and place of women regarding men. It’s also a power struggle for control of future generations of workers, i.e., population regulation, and it’s a power struggle for economic dominance through infrastructures that continue to supersede and undermine from within (any jurisdiction, including country), the rule of law specific to that country. So, I’m going to continue testifying in this media, if not allowed another, to what I have not only experienced, but also witnessed and have been documenting for ten years now (and taking historical look-backs by government agency, nonprofit organizations, where available, and also reporting changes “in action” as they occur).
Just two post sections reflected in post title:
- Acknowledgements
- A significant part of the landscape, i.e. “The Problem” is a “Rolling Blackouts” situation // a sarcastic thank you to those generating a need for this blog. it’s also in part a statement of the problem; could’ve gone under “Executive Summary” where I see the title has it.
- Executive Summary
- “Current Projects” just names a few themes (geographies of interest) I’m working on now, of enough significance they got onto this top-ranked (pinned) post.
- Executive Summary contains quick summaries directed at people who may not “get” the role of the U.S. Congress in the current family court problems, and some exhibits (images).
- While I might expect that from people who don’t live or work in the USA, it’s a sad testimony that it continues being under-estimated or ignored by so many who do. (See “Rolling Blackouts” reference).
- Any footnotes to the same (or, they may be integrated into main text, if it flows right). Right now I have one referring to the State of Pennsylvania only.
These categories were added after I wrote, providing handy but casual labels, not for hard and fast rules.
This post despite its beginnings as a placeholder is I feel appropriately still near the top of the blog (right now, in Position #2) because it references currently developing events in different states (USA) and countries, some of which demand urgent attention from people who may not be aware of them, or of what seems like a coordinated strategy across different countries and in different states, frequently involving people and organizations I’ve had to report on, and at times personally deal with regarding those strategic cover-ups Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
“The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019 [Updated (shortened) July 2-5, 2019].
THIS POST IS: “The Family Court Franchise System” (Blogspot.com, 2012 only, 40 posts and 7 Pages) Is Now Grafted into FamilyCourtMatters.org here (WordPress.com) as of April 7, 2019. (shortlink ends “-9Aj”)
… [2021 update: I never merged the blogs; the other one still seems functional, so links provided here should work… It’s still good to know about…//LGH]
2020 FORMAT UPDATE: THIS POST EXISTS TO PUBLISH A TABLE OF CONTENTS REPRESENTING THE MERGING OF ANOTHER OF MY non-WordPress BLOGS into this one to preserve its contents. I assigned short-links to the posts in anticipation of publishing them here, on my main (major) blog. However, as of July 28, 2020 (this update) most of them aren’t yet published (Life’s been busy…), and they may, or may not still be available in on prior blog. At the time, I had some messages that domain was going down and so moved quickly to preserve content by moving it here.. Here’s a partial image of that table. There’s a lot of explanation matter up front, for example, of why each title appears twice. (links to old blog also preserved here).
The visuals will be clearer than shown on this image from the post below//LGH
A snapshot of the table on my sticky post with short-link ending “-9Aj” published April, 2019…
[END, July 28, 2020 Update, to add this image].
This post may not be the best one to jump in on for a general blog overview. It’s actually an overview of a blog I merged into this one in 2019, having written it several years earlier, while the material is still relevant because the practices (and organizations pushing them, such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or similar entities) are still pushing similar programming, and the same federal agencies (U.S.) continue also to fund programs, and have expanded scope and quantity, it seems affecting family court (and “human development”) outcomes.
A historic look from a different perspective (which mine still is!) is always helpful. If the concepts are new, the index below still shows post titles as a kind of overview, but I have not written this post for the purpose of re-summarizing everything (or this blog). I wrote it, as the title says, to merge two blogs and retain the record of post titles separately from my normal tables of contents.
This post is sticky because it serves a specific purpose for which I didn’t want it buried among all posts, however it’s only on [now, “near”//LGH July 28, 2020] the top (if it still is when you’re reading this) because it was published last. If you need less complicated visuals, or more plain text and fewer section titles, I recommend start at the top right sidebar, or just continue scrolling further down on this page to browse tables of contents, or current post titles. In mid-2019 I’ve been working on re-organizing and some streamlining of the blog, while continuing to write, and still many people just do not speak ‘economic’ when it comes to this subject matter, or in general, so explaining it gets a bit cumbersome….
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019].
Post Title: 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019] (Short-link ends “-9p3.” This post is under 4,000 words).
This post lists, links to, and thereby publicizes, one year’s worth of posts. It’s an informal TOC. By “informal” I mean you’ll be seeing my Administrative Dashboard versions of post titles (with published dates), by Quarters (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, 2018).
It does this in two different layouts. Both Layouts follow short Introductions I and II only because this ended up being the top “sticky” post on the blog (…which it no longer is // LGH July 28, 2020; it’s one of 13 sticky posts).
Layout by Date Only {{Short Form, no titles: Links by date only (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)}} precedes Layout by captioned images displaying full post titles & published dates {{The image captions show only dates published; click on the date wanted to read the associated post}}.
SHARE THIS POST on...
In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)
Welcome to my blog.
You are on nearly the top** post of the page which displays all posts.
You probably got here indirectly from the Main Page “FamilyCourtMatters.org” Sidebar “Current Posts”
or having been given the case-sensitive short-link “https://wp.me/psBXH–8Ly” from social media (or me).
Labeling/Linking protocol:
I typically begin the body of posts now repeating the title (clickable – with active link), then for your — and my — convenience keeping them straight (because I often reference them on other platforms, such as Twitter) I identify in three characters the end of its short-link (here, that’s “-8Ly” as you see right above), date published and/or updated (if major updates or revision), and approximate word-count. Remember the first part (wp.me/psBXH- for posts and wp.me/PsBXH- for pages) and you can copy (hint: tweet, share, etc.) any post without that long title. Just pick a few words from it and get the link right). (This information is reiterated on my Front Page, too//LGH July 28, 2020).
I also try to consistently include the date published as an actual part of the title, for convenience and FYI.
For this post, then, its title with short-link, the last 3 characters of that shortlink posted openly, and approximate word-count:
In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018) (case-sensitive short-link ending -8Ly,” about 10,700 words).
However you got here,
Let’s talk.
FamilyCourt Matters.org, this WordPress blog, has been available on-line now over nine years and as of today (Dec. 8, 2018) has 785 published posts and 45 pages. By posts, you’ll see quickly, I do not mean a few thousand words and quoting an expert, referencing a problem, and maybe including a link or two. These posts have (I feel confident to say) as much detail and background links as the average mainstream media journalism reporting on even one aspect of similar issues. The overall purpose of the blog differs from the purpose of mainstream media or even many blogs focused on similar topics.
I am calling out to concerned people to educate themselves— as I had to — on the structure and operations of the family courts which ties directly into other major topics — the structure and and operation of governments (plural) + the structure and operation of private corporations, especially in the nonprofit (tax-exempt) charitable, advocacy or “philanthropic” sector which has become the extra arm of government, not the altruistic, neutral mediator between government and citizens as it is commonly being characterized.
I keep blogging to name names and report developments (in this field) from an “outsider/consumer” point of view, while continuing to assert there are other places to look for more productive grounds from which to argue for or against specific agenda within and around the family courts
SHARE THIS POST on...
Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)
Full Post Title:Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 11,000 words]
**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8MD’].
You are reading:Seven Posts from DECEMBER, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 14, 2018)(with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8MD”).
This post is about 7,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month in 2017 only), near the top of this blog. I’m repeating the olive-background section reminding new readers where to start the blog or to find Tables of Contents covering a larger time span — and in more condensed (titles-only) form — near the top of each Q4 2017 (Oct., Nov. and this one, Dec. 2017) sticky post listing that month’s published titles (with some intro text to each).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) [Short-link ends ‘-8KE’].
You are reading: Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) (with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8KE”). This post is about 10,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents for a single month only, near the top of this blog. (June 29, 2019 update: The best place to start the blog now is at the top: (FamilyCourtMatters.org) or as shown on the right sidebar, near the top “For Current Posts Most Recent on Top.” This post is still helpful, so I’ve kept it “Sticky” still. Thanks for understanding.//LGH)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018). [Short-link ends ‘-8Kh’]
Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (short-link ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.
I’m adding this preview (ivory background, blue borders) section just today (June 30, 2019):
Click image (this time) to access full newsltr., 16pp
To clarify, the NCJFCJ gets paid to do this newsletter, by the public (HHS Grant# shown)
Value-added on most Tables of Contents: even short ones like this often have extra material, mostly because I can’t keep my mouth shut about whatever I am investigating and writing up at the time. These two images are a sneak preview.
Also a new page announced below is still useful:
“…I finally published a related PAGE, How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/ PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov (Page started 8/29/2017, published Mon 9/18 evening. With case-sensitive shortlink ending “-7w9″)”
I also want to call attention to the post on anti-smoking (Tobacco Litigation) revenues which are still influential in subject matter areas overlapping with the family courts, and the one on “Chatham House Rule” (<~~a good concept to understand).
Tobacco litigation (master settlement agreement — billions over the years) and added-tax revenues are indeed also being used nationwide to continue promoting increased father-engagement (because of the focus on Zero to 5, The First Five Years, and/or Early Childhood Development). They are well known about, I imagine through most state-level social services systems, so we might as well learn about it too and they are combined at the program level with existing HHS-sponsored incentives. I read tax returns EVERY day, and I’m telling you, there are (from what I’ve seen so far) MILLIONS of dollars slipping through the cracks, let alone used for dubious-based programs to be forced on parents when what they may need instead is food, clothing or transportation — not preaching and attitude adjustments!) in combination with chameleon corporations as service providers. But that’s more current writing, so enough on that now…//LGH.
SHARE THIS POST on...
2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [Published Jan. 9 2017, last updated July 1, 2019] [Shortlink ends ‘-5qZ’]
THIS THE EARLIEST “STICKY” POST ON THE BLOG AS OF JULY 28, 2020. IF YOU GOT HERE BY SCROLLING DOWN THROUGH ALL THIRTEEN “STICKY” POSTS — thank you for your persistence — KNOW THAT NEXT UP IS THE MOST RECENT ONE. YOU CAN ALSO SKIP MORE DIRECTLY TO MOST RECENT POSTS FROM AN AUTO-GENERATED A SIDEBAR WIDGET WITH THAT NAME, i.e., “THE TEN MOST RECENT LET’S GET HONEST POSTS” SET TO “10.” WORDPRESS DOES THOSE UPDATES, NOT ME… It’s still several inches down. below other key links, on that sidebar…
.//LGH.
This post presents three different ways to view three different time spans’s tables of contents. I had previously posted for two of those time spans, but never in page-sized (8X11) format for viewing or printing. This post pulls it all together and put the links in one place to older tables of contents direct from here (in 8X11) or directly on their original posts (links to those posts).
Terrible title. But, here you have:
Tables of Contents for:
- 2017 (most)
- 2016 (all)
- 2015 none (I published not one post that year for personal reasons).
- 2012-2014 (some),** and
- significant “Value-Added” content, the (4) See Also More Info Below referenced in the title.***
**I got as far back as about Sept. 21, 2012, and after June 29, 2014, I stopped blogging, again, for personal reasons, basic limitations on one person’s waking hours.
For posts before about Sept 21 or 24, 2012 (i.e., March 2009 – 2010-2011 & almost ¾ of 2012), you must use Archives function by month or search individually if you’re aware of a post title or keywords…Earlier posts are in rougher format (I am a self-taught blogger and there is a technical, not just subject matter, learning curve!) but I believe the basic principles reported that far back still apply. While writing on new material, I sometimes still have occasion to quote from the earliest posts of this blog, sometimes even re-formatting them for better viewing (if I’m going to add a link to a current blog), etc.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. [Draft, Oct. 26, 2021, Publ. May 18, 2022: at 27K words…].
This is what’s going on: I’m in housing transition: I’ll be out of this place within the next 24 hours, literally, and still not exactly sure how to reach the next (safe place) destination about one state away. I know it will represent a blogging pause, so I went through my most recent drafts, looked for some which were most helpful, and least embarrassing in format. Three or four qualified, but I chose this one. The most embarrassing aspect is its obnoxious length. On the other hand, within the contents is plenty of useful information; people who may follow my writing will understand better. It’s focused on a key concept and I think illustrates it at length (literally…). It was drafted eight months ago — that’s a long time, but this is still a worthwhile post for the patient readers, or those who understand it may work better read in installments (some today, some tomorrow…).
Parts of it apply to different situations: for example, (not its main focus, but) I see on scrolling through it today (5/18/2022), I’d shown the tax returns of what’s now called “Evident Change” but was then “National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” (inc. 1907 and I’d said, may just have been the model AFCC was following, only with family courts, not juvenile…) NCCD began with associations of probation officers, definitely a focus on the juvenile (age group), which I’d just Tweeted on yesterday. NCCD’s California Registry of Charitable Trusts “RRF” filings also show which governments — this usually shows which USA governments or government agencies — it was taking grants from. I still remember the shock of discovering, it was taking grants from a whole selection of governments OUTside the USA. From yesterday’s Tweet, I recall (possibly post http://wp.me/psBXH-2KW, but check Twitter) I’d written in 2014 but (another long blogging pause, that time for family court aftermath litigation) only posted in 2017. These delays happen at times, especially when your out put doesn’t keep up with your own research, which never stops… NCCD (Evident Change) has an office not far from AFCC’s office in Madison, Wisconsin (by “not far” I mean, when I last looked, a very short WALK away, around the block). I would say that’s an entity to watch although it’s not much in the news. Learn who it’s been and what it wants to do: this link will redirect: https://NCCDGlobal.org
I may never get around to splitting or further developing the material on this post. I can’t see that far into my own future, but I hope its serious topic resonates with gut instinct that there HAS to be a better way to categorize and keep track of advocacy groups, and governments. Before 2022, VAWA Reauthorization and other media “events” and campaigns, this was where my blog was going: to revisit and re-emphasize the concept of “Entity.” (Without the entity you can’t track the money…Looking for them is its own set of lessons). Another example: I see I had a link to the California Secretary of State Business Entities Search site. This will redirect — the appearance and function of that state has since migrated into a whole new format; at some levels it has more functions, but in display, in many ways less, making communications on findings among (normal people) harder… Government (and private) databases migrating platforms and undergoing format changes will happen, but still important to notice as it happens. “ENJOY…” //LGH May 18, 2022.
From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.
Post Title and Shortlink:
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!
Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.” Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t. This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.
Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.
That means, relevance to accountability. And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.
It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.
The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].
Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?
Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search. Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear. The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country. A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats). Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.
On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted. These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site. Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access.
But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.
For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General.
Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.
To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:
…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.[h]
Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”
When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year. This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities. There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines. Example: The Tennessee Valley Authority.
The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).
It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.
Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.
And that’s a shell game!
Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction. The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is. Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic, Family-Court-Beleaguered and the UNbeleaguered FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocates Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022].
THEME #1: The BELEAGUERED v. the UNBELEAGUERED.
(THEME #2 is: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE)
This dynamic,
The BELEAGUERED (first by in-home abuse and violence, then in the Family Courts, as people attempt to exit abuse) vs. the UNBELEAGUERED^ (by the family courts, “the beleaguered,” (their victims),
effectively excludes the former’s voices and with that, valuable insight or feedback (we) have to the field, which is typically dominated by the “Unbeleaguered.” The former are sidelined, and are not taken seriously (regardless of how valid any claims) except when, where, and as it suits the various experts…. to fulfill minimum token “survivor” representation in any organization, testimonies, or at a conferences, etc.
This ever-widening discrepancy guarantees a bias in the information throughout the field which never self-corrects. If it were corrected, careers would need to be restructured, people who have invested their lives and reputations in and on it discredited; they would have to find other lines of work in other fields. I.e., function as the “beleaguered” have had to all along.
The next section is another summary, written May 14… which pushes my footnote (definition of) “Beleaguered” and “THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE“ further down, but both are still there. Scrolling through the post for an overview before reading individual parts may help, or read it (patiently) in order. But understand what you read has been layered in sections over time; many sections simply develop a statement a little further, and reflect many ways to express what I’m thinking. This is a blog, not a fully-developed, complex website with many sub-menus and “portals” to information, so most of what’s on it is linear.
Exposure of major cracks in any form of advocacy potentially exposes even deeper cracks in all forms and if taken seriously by enough people who might act on their understanding could rattle the foundations much deeper. Those for whom such systems is working nicely (i.e., jobs, housing, careers, publications, citations, positions in life, etc.) are pitted against and naturally resist those for whom it isn’t.
Face it: Advocacy as we understand it has typically meant “public/private partnerships” and involved tax-exempt organizations (with different names and tax processes in different countries). When criticizing advocacy calls attention to its forms as innately unfair — that has a potential ripple effect. It could be a subterranean earthquake which triggers a tsunami with far-reaching impact in such an interdependent world. The categories of economic existence involved the taxed, the tax-exempt (including those working for them), government (the same) and their respective, pooled or allocated assets, either producing income now, (sometimes tax-exempt, sometimes not), or held for possible sale (for profit, is the general idea) elsewhere. Selling profits to friends below-cost solidifies friendships; selling distressed assets (whether or not people wish to sell) is perceived as rescue.
Right now, distressed PEOPLE, and made so often through court systems, are a known (if unofficial) asset class. Marketing to their “kind” and managing them is major business. Those on welfare, those fleeing abuse across borders, OR those fleeing abuse individually (within a country) all create different kinds of opportunities…not just problems. The question is: for whom.
The assumption that, among advocates and survivors needing their services “we are all on the same page” is false, when the viewpoint is accounting and accountability. A constant narrative (public advocacy and outreach) is maintained to encourage the referrals and continual application for help from advocacy organizations, while the same then go appeal for more resources and funding for the good cause/s.
I’ve read too many tax returns, experienced too much (I was never in a shelter, but I could’ve used some shelter and did need help) to mis-read the constant “we, us our — join us” branding from websites, individuals and individuals associated with websites and/or entities where funds ARE going in, but where they go (even as shown on a tax return) can’t really be tracked by the public — and even less so by the “beleaguered” among the public.
I’d love to post more Forms 990 and audited financial statements (including — again — ALL of the (corporate) entities and for each, most recent tax returns within the DV Advocacy field USA, and the DVRN regionalized networks), but between new developments (in this field, i.e., NationalSafeParents.org “coalition” website teaming with the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, (literally, Law.GWU.Edu/(description) pushing hard for the VAWA Reauthorization with “Keeping Children Safe IN Family Courts” (Kayden’s law) tweak), (as I recall about ten posts in late February/March on this, and a few more in April), my NOT being on the same page as these (and hence getting not referrals or cites from them), and my private life events — I cannot out-produce or out-publicize solo when even top producers and websites (pick some and look at the publication “Acknowledgements” front matter, even for an annual report) which require many specialists for the output, and other sponsors to distribute. Case in point, why the post title. See “Tactics: Divide and Conquer” below. As a tactic, it works. I still hope it may work both ways when enough people get sick of being mentored, monitored, lied to and betrayed — but this won’t be seen without looking outside the mainstream that is, looking to the accounts and accounting infrastructures. Start SOMEWHERE to take those repeated snapshots and get a picture!)
Oh– and did I mention, most of these websites (USA) decline to post BOTH Forms 990 (reliable and current) AND audited financial statements. I don’t even know whether or not the IRS even requires that they do post the latter — it just asks how they make them available. I’ve seen responses such as “not available” (View IRS Form 990 Part VI.C. ‘Disclosure’; it’s near the bottom of a page). But I DO know that transparency and a sense of duty to the supporting public would’ve posted this information voluntarily (not shelter addresses of course, but the financials of those running the shelters, etc.)
Tactics: Avoid and distract: rather than starting by considering ALL possible causes and choosing the most likely, advocates constantly raise and publicize less fundamental ones (such as “unsound psychological theories,”).
Tactics: Divide and Conquer: Manage Quarantine/Isolate veteran survivor dissidents, then emphasize “Solidarity” first for whoever is left, especially newcomers, and mentor them. Anyone, especially survivors, who’ve seen through that strategy and remain vocal about it, could potentially “contaminate” the ongoing fresh-blood of headlines and horror stories, which is a currency in this field. Speaking of currency, almost any survivor who brings up and looks at the topic of “finances,” and calls attention to resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations (which the field is peopled by), becomes and is treated as a threat to its stability.
Major energy and money is poured into publicity claiming concern, advertising “progress” in problem-solving, ensuring those politically advantageous get a seat at the decision-making tables. How is that really the best use of public resources?
Tactic: Ignore the National: ALWAYS talk and go Global. Within my country, you will not find any systematic discussion or “reveal” among advocates of their own funding and reporting policies, of welfare reform, of the potential of negative nonprofits (tax-exempts or trade associations) as an issue. The focus is to be kept away from “accounting literacy” and a specialized shared language of “cause literacy” is the unifying force for system change.
What if the accounting systems locally, within any single country, are THE major facilitator of abuse, at the national, local and (guess what, also) familial/individual abuse? Are not access “resources” often what people (and countries) fight over most in the first place?
“The game seems to be not proving (actually, anything much) but persuading whoever “matters” to accept and invest, and casting a few crumbs to those who evidently don’t…
Persuade, publicize, legitimize, legislate, reproduce…. when problems surface, leverage that to further embed more investment — thus solidifying the same foundations. That’s how reformISTS think and operate. (Cambridge Dictionary:”reformist” noun, verb; Wikipedia “reformism” as a movement within socialism, referring to gradual change rather than revolution — but the end goal is the same. At least read the “Overview”).
(Post title, and my related one just published are shown again below):
Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….). Published imperfectly at about 12,000 words, the latter situation I hope to correct eventually, the former, “in my dreams..” Any writer knows it takes longer and is harder to write a good short post than a halfway decent longer one.
This weekend and next week I’m packing up a household and relocating (no new residence obtained yet, but a temporary safe place has been offered). If this post helps you and you can, please use the DONATE button and/or let me know. I’m not relying on Donations (or, a tax-exempt) but IF you appreciate it, small amounts help, and for those who might not, the DONATE button is not the forum. Read the fine print here:
NB, Recently, a certain man whose name appeared ONCE in this post in 2016 or 2017 as I recall, chose to use the “Donate” button (a second time) to, this time, threaten (or attempt to threaten) to defame me unless I removed his name. The name was mentioned — not featured, just mentioned — appropriately in context as a board member of a charity. Via a second PayPal Donation of $20 (after I’d belatedly, saying why and with an apology for the delay, refunded his first one of $10) note to me, and a link was provided to a ‘substack” to threaten me with further publication if I didn’t comply. His (rant) used the word “tarnished” several times and “conspiracy” (some form of it) even more, without proving I’d either tarnished the charity’s or his name, or proving that I was a “conspiracy theorist” (I’d quoted one). …. In the protest he at least included a link to my post complained about, showing that even the section on the charity was only the bottom half, and quoting none of it. I.e., anyone who compared what he summarized to what was said, could see a difference. The guy actually started a “newsletter” to discredit the blog, based on his experience with me responding to a complaint about one of my posts (representing about 1/870th of the posts published). (this was the first and only post shown). Other than a street address he sent me (for which I found no direct connection to that name) and the association with the charity, very little about him shows on-line.
I posted a single response (yesterday), asked him to grow up (or prove his point, if he could), said I was returning the ($20) and did so. I’m also looking into how I might block any further donations to deliver notes to (attempt to) bully me at the PayPal level. FYI, in the post in question, I was looking at another individual (now deceased) who did talk “Conspiracy Theory” and asked for donations to an entity. I looked up the entity, posted, and talked about it — as this led to other interesting topics. My post also mentioned that I’d done this on the suggestion of a friend (not as a normal part of my blogging). People who join boards of any public charity which must file tax returns should understand that strangers, not only friends, may be reading those returns: it is public access information. The alternative if privacy is more important is to not join such boards. For example, so far, my privacy is important, and so far, I haven’t…
Therefore this notice is my way of saying: if you want have issues with this blog, or any post on it come at me with something that holds water, but don’t use PAYPAL messaging to come at ME personally as its author or complain about it; I will return that donation and seek to block you. Substituting name-calling for a process that involves proof trying to get me to retract something truthful and (in that context, it was also innocuous) reflects more on the individual. It’s also made me want to look even more into a single nonprofit he was on, based on what I’d found back then: why is it even so important for this individual to have privacy, but not me? If you want the text of those exchanges, ask and I’ll provide links or full texts. For “defamation” the guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and failed to state any falsehood I’ve posted about him; in fact it was disturbing to speculate, given no legitimate cause, why it was even worth a protest: but I if this keeps up, I may have one for harassment. RE: Donations: I’ve made it plain in and around that Button that I have not organized a nonprofit (formed one or joined one) and FYI, historically Donations have been mostly inactive, year after year. Occasionally someone who knows me may send $20 or $40, for example, on a birthday or otherwise.//LGH, May 14, 2022.
If people wish to debate either my facts or my conclusion from the facts (links, quotes, etc.) which result, mostly, from years of looking into things in this manner, go ahead: PROVE me wrong, or mis-guided somehow. I’d especially appreciate this from anyone with a background and mindset to understand the difference between proof and supposition.
^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:
Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links. Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)
By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:
^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc.
Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions. These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.
^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere. Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.
(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).
To these, I say (and it’s a rhetorical question: So many already have the answer):
Will you ever hear us, on the basis of common sense, reason, and that country economic and government differences exist for a reason and should not be set aside or undermined lightly?
To uninvolved observers, inside and outside the USA, ask yourselves:
Does our [the beleaguered] often less slick presentation and fewer social networking connections really mean we are less credible?
Are we ALL talking only anecdotal evidence/our horror stories, thereby becoming only “survivors” (unless we’re selling books or consulting services the existing field endorses), not real “experts”… or do many of us have other and possibly at least equally credible bases (than the ones you’ve fed us) for understanding the situations, appropriately labeling the situations, and recommending what to do about these situations?
Regarding the attempts to internationally align policy through privatized (but government-endorsed) nonprofits and charities backed by major wealth, or civil servant leadership (i.e., trade associations with judges, or as seen in CAFCASS), I challenge you:
Why is having good country boundaries as a country considered “bad” if not extremist and a danger to society — while poor personal boundaries is discussed cross-border as “healthy” and in the public interests — generating sponsored education and public awareness campaigns about healthy relationships vs. bad ones (coercive control, domestic abuse, etc.)?
My complaint and opinion:
–>I’m reporting and getting REAL tired of significant boundary violations (of the United States of America, the country I live in) which have nothing to do with a wall on our southern border (48 contiguous states) with Mexico or blocking truckers’ protests on the northern border with Canada based on vaccine status.
–>I am talking policy-setting, public-purpose boundaries being set from outside the reach of the people living here and without regard to circumstances long-documented to be occurring here, which are not and cannot be openly discussed in a common language with other countries where so many integral facets are not common: our tax systems, our laws, and (after a few generations past welfare-reform) the forces driving social policy through our welfare system, parts of which derived from the UK to start with.
Briefly, some World War II-era history: “When so much infrastructure is wiped out, and resources depleted, how to rebuild?” (Did the USA ask to apply the UK model? If not then, why now?)
(See “1942 Beveridge Report” (William Beveridge lived 1879-1963) and The Beveridge Report and the Foundations of the Welfare State” (75th Anniversary, 17 Dec. 2017 from UK National Archives). Quote is from the second source (and from its cover page / summary only, all emphases added):
“Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching..”
Churchill received a copy of the report on 11 November 1942, but was no doubt quite busy conducting the war, so instructed the chancellor Kingsley Wood to ‘have an immediate preliminary, brief report made on this for me’. He soon received Wood’s ‘critical observations’, as well as comments from his close friend and adviser Lord Cherwell.
These two reports sum up the initial reception Beveridge’s ideas received from the Prime Minster’s inner circle. Wood described the plan as ‘ambitious’, but worried it involved ‘an impracticable financial commitment’. Wood said that ‘the abolition of want’ was an admirable objective that would have ‘a vast popular appeal’, but he was concerned that Beveridge’s plan was ‘based on fallacious reasoning’.
…Wood, as well as Cherwell, also raised concerns about how the United States (who were by and large bankrolling Britain’s war efforts at this point) would react to such bold proposals for state provision by a country brought so financially low by an all-consuming war. Cherwell pointed out that the US population might take umbrage at financing the creation of a far more generous welfare state than their own. Wood worried that it would appear that Britain was ‘engaged in dividing out the spoils while they [the US] are assuming the main burden of the war’.
Concluding, Wood expresses the cautious attitude the Report initially provoked
I say, the Social Welfare State USA and UK are NOT identical, nor should they be.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Drafted Oct-Nov., 2021; Publ. May 12, 2022].
Before you read this post perhaps read the lead-in, at The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 4, 2022] (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here). …. if I’ve published it by then. If not, read it soon after: these are a pair and (I hope) go public within one day of each other.
Post Title: “AFCC-aligned in the UK (and Australia)”: CAFCASS, Relate, Resolution First, (And in Australia: add AIFS & ANROWS) w/ help from The Nuffield Foundation Incubating a ‘Family Justice Observatory’ (With Easily Identifiable CAFCASS, AFCC and Fathers’ Rights Connections) through 2023 [Oct-Nov., 2021 draft].. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dd3”).
Preview, “Where I Stand” and Disclaimer (not too long).
Don’t get too excited on “Disclaimer” — it only applies to inter-post copyediting to check points of reference — not fact-checking on the content itself.
On reviewing this post right before finally publishing it mid-May, 2022, I diverted its section on the coordinated use of mantras, but my related Widening Credibility Gap post may still refer to it. My staff of (so far) no one doesn’t edit for cross-coordination of internal references among related posts. The purpose is to publish enough information on every post to provoke some deeper thinking and to exhort (urge, beg, warn, plead with) people to be wary of passive consumption/absorption of the theories, presumptions, and pre-fabricated Family Court, Domestic Abuse/Violence/”Coercive Control” and Child Abuse “fixes” coordinated internationally and, as to state-jurisdiction matters within the USA, nationwide.
This “preview” section addresses that practice — the coordinated use of shared mantras to conform governments more and more with each other, despite different constitutions and the different values expressed in those constitutions over the decades or centuries. Below this preview, my post content (marked by another headline) documents what its title describes: some of how this is done, naming specific entities. So the preview does summarize the more detailed content below. That’s where more colorful images, links, uploaded media and quotes begin. Right here: this is my thinking and opinion.
Coordination of those mantras among at a minimum the organizations mentioned here is international, as citations among academics and advocates within governments, within university centers, and people running advocacy charities and/or the curricula and trainings those charities promote repeatedly show.
My next sentence has a long subject labeling the single word “preference.” It is still one subject with one verb “reveals” and just one direct object “agenda” which is also described as “much larger” than an alternate agenda obviously NOT preferred by certain people and their organizations speaking in internationally-coordinated mantras.
The preference of selling “mantras” delivered by experts over encouraging ALL of the public to acquire the needed skills and with those skills consistently exercise independent analysis based on independent observation reveals an agenda much larger than solving the named problems: including some of the original problem-solving courts. The more I read and learn, the more I must acknowledge that choices were made long ago to limit access to independent analysis to only certain classes, ALL of which relates to the nature of government and social control tactics employed by it. I have however been basically saying (and blogging) this now for over a decade.
Above, I mentioned the “Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.” Look through its website — or Cafcass — or similar ones –and notice how graphic, visually engaging and how full of blank white (or other background color) primary colors or very bright colors, their home pages and most of their content is, even the “annual reports” or strategy statements. Are we all now to be watching cartoons and thinking in such images? Are we to be treated like infants with short attention spans and who need pretty colors to stay on topics pre-chosen for us by overseers?
The question “internationally coordinated mantras” raises is: how much globalization is acceptable?
How much of the world should be setting national (or NGO member states’) government policy to match (for just one example) UN Sustainable Development Goals?
Why is “global” now glorified among advocates (including “#familyCourtReformists”) and a constant gesture, while the specific “domestic” (internal to this country) or “local” (meaning, in the USA, sometimes an entire very large state such as California, Texas, or (geographically) Alaska basic information never makes it significantly to the top publicity level, media messaging, or advocacy rhetoric?
I’m well aware of the United States’ shortcomings (it’s where I’ve lived), but I debate and reject the practice of integrating the values systems sold under specific symbolic and innately self-contradictory branding (mantras) of former empires and colonizers with monarchs, official, designated caste systems, and national religions — or the opposite, official state opposition to religion/atheism/socialism. Here’s how I feel about all of it:
I’m sick of what I call “FamilyCourtReformists” including but not limited to the United States Federal government-controlled (through strategic centralized public funds) but privately exercised within the states and regionally “DV Industry here:
I’m sick of their rhetoric, policies, self-descriptions, their withholding on almost EVERY website their own financials and typically even EIN#s, knowing well taxpayers fund them; their withholding on almost EVERY website, their documented collaboration (as if a GOOD thing) with known fathers-rights (more technically, when it’s phrased according to their funding sources, “fatherhood-promoting”) organizations and entities.
I’m sick of such people, talking of their various entities and too many non-entities, such as the National Family Violence Law Center (at George Washington University) or the “National Safe Parents Coalition” at (God knows where — “it” doesn’t specify: there’s a website, but no legal domicile mentioned) and others, such as and/or even at University of California, Irvine, an “EndFamilyViolence.UCI.edu” center: exploiting their residence or connections here at top U.S. universities) claiming concern for us (who have been battered and abused and somehow are still “alive and kicking” and to our children — especially any little (still minor) children, especially any — and mothers, I do apologize for using this term, but it applies — “dead kids” (murdered children) — to audiences elsewhere in the world, while we who have been sidelined, betrayed, and “thrown under the bus” (Family Law Courts and elsewhere) know quite well what they cover up and [probably for this reason: it interrupts the controlled scripts] have systematically excluded from the international dialogue.
Note: my calling out the above types does not in any way endorse or approve the substantial, similarly* organized but differently labeled, and also Welfare-Reform advantaged “marriage/fatherhood-promotion” crowd USA, and, likewise, with ONGOING centers at various universities (sometimes a program will migrate to another university with its founder), i.e., the “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and (it accompanies and needs for full effectiveness in the family court systems) “access and visitation” grants stream from federal government targeting state operations to influence custody outcomes in favor of fathers and to discourage (sideline the cause of) full separation from abuse by mothers trying to do exactly that.
The first many years of my blog exposed this and talked about it (the “fathers’ rights” contingent, federally funded) “all the time.” I just feel that now it’s time to show how the “DV / Family Court Reform” groups have all along failed to acknowledge this even exists — that is, habitually lied to the public and to clients (women) who come to them for help — Nor, on public or the private tax-exempt advocacy corporations websites, has anyone, really, been taught to explore audited financial statements of governments (for better understanding) or of private entities required to produce them, or for that matter, generally, even IRS tax returns where such are required.
I know — I don’t even speculate, it’s not speculation any more — that, taken as a whole, this represents something far larger and more significant than either of the causes (fathers’ rights promotion, protection of women and children) spoken of.
I may not be significantly heard but out of conscience, concern, and (I say), love for the truth, and uprightness, justice — and hatred of the opposite so built into policymaking — I have spoken. As long as this blog is active (and, with whatever I can preserve of it should it become inactive) my words are witness to what I said when. Look back in a few years and see whether I was right or wrong… but I still say, better to think about these issues now and IF I’m right (as I said in blog posts ca. March 2014, “WHAT IF I’M RIGHT HERE?”), a different response is in order to what we are being coached and encouraged to agree to by chief advocates pro/con any cause — and especially on ones involving life and death matters and (for the extremely high marketing value on claiming this concern) the safety and welfare of children.
I say this for next generations of women and mothers and their children, and fathers — the decent ones, not the over-entitled ones: “QUIT being played one against another!!” Where apparent conflicts of fact and basic truth lie, there is a why. Dig deep enough to see the lowest common denominator. If you haven’t even dug for a few financials to rule out greed (i.e. accounting anomalies or dark areas facilitating or criminal-levels of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc.) as a possible cause (since when was “the love of money” NOT the root of all evil — or even a primary cause among many…) you haven’t scratched the surface.
At what point…after how many years, or indicators they matter… does “I haven’t dug for a few financials” become “I won’t…don’t care to…don’t think it’s relevant… if it’s so important, why aren’t the experts aren’t doing this, or or more of my friends?” For some, this is a matter of using the mirror into one’s own reasoning and life choices.//LGH (Let’s Get Honest) May 12, 2022.
The Post’s Title Content Begins Here:
SHARE THIS POST on...
Child Justice, Inc. , First Star, Inc., and the Tennessee Valley Authority — All in the Family? (Eileen King, Sherry Quirk) (Child Advocacy + Energy Law). [Begun Feb. 9, Moved Here Mar. 30, Publ. Apr. 29, 2022].
In this post, “NSPC” represents the website National Safe Parents Coalition which became active shortly before February 9, 2022 — it seems to be February 4 — obviously timed as something to refer to and publicize an VAWA reauthorization testimony featuring Angela Jolie and others, and (yet another) law named after a needlessly murdered child. This time, this law was named after Kayden (but the website references others, which I have posted recently also). (VAWA Reauthorization 2022).
No post on the NSPC with the goal of sharing drill-downs on its claimed membership, that is those on display as logos with links would be a short post. I’ve been whittling it down by sections, while continuing to research, post, write, and where I can stay engaged in social media on these themes. My last few posts have diverged a little, but not too far, as they tie into one of the partner websites of NSPC.
It’s been taking weeks, sometimes over a month, to get these out, and is quite stressful to see what I know to be “fake advocacy” and diversion from following the economics by the loudest (most public) actors involved in the campaigns. Two centers at two different law schools are supporting the agenda, with the entourage of protective parents organizations (one, so delinquent and status-suspended for now legitimate reason, it’s embarrassing), and a nearly two-decade-long conference which still isn’t incorporated, vaguely refers to a nonprofit it’s part of, but doesn’t identify it (referring to the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference), along with an entire administrative networks along two or three lines only: resource centers (DVRN) and state coalitions against domestic violence all claiming concern about it and responses to it.
Today is April 29, 2022. I am about to be “off” blogging for a while (household move upcoming, major logistics involved), and in looking for which of these drafts to put out next, I chose this one begun February 9th! That soon after the activation of the NSPC website tells you its high priority — but it was not an easy explanation, and so has waited.
Child Justice, Inc., First Star, Inc., and the Tennessee Valley Authority — All in the Family? (Eileen King, Sherry Quirk, Child Advocacy + Energy Law). [Written Feb. 9, Moved Here, Mar. 30, , Published Apr. 29, 2022]. (short-link ends “-e4O” –> final character is capital “O” as in Ohio). As published (before any revisions), about 5,200 words only.
The information may not be commonly known; I only found it (several years ago) from excessive curiosity on how things work, and what was driving the strange, ritualistic behavior of certain people and organizations.
There were a few other honorable mention (drafts in the pipeline) and I’d also considered (and still recommend you use archives to review), six years old now, what I laid out in a series of posts during March, 2016. I went back and cleaned up the appearances of those posts. In doing so, I found about twelve more I’d written during the same time frame.
I want this information out, and understood — the situation we are dealing with (“We” because VAWA was reauthorized with the alterations to “incentivize” states to do better at keeping kids safe IN the custody courts, and if you’re in the USA, that includes you.. If you’re not and think this is a legitimate or responsible action by us, you’re deluded.).
These movements have affected a major part of my own prime working years, and of course relationships with adult children, by effectively turning as many people as possible in power aside from a rational cause of what’s driving poor judicial decision-making into one which better suits those who wish to profit from exactly that. Read my definitions of “hierarchical” below, which was the first term which came to mind in describing the situation, overall.
~~>This post is about a specific portion, one of the “members” of NSPC. It’s a short post, not hard to read, but you need to think about it for the impact to sink in.
~~>Because of my housing situation, I’m not going to polish it, add transitions, or babysit readers to show them what A + B + C + D add up to. I may (maybe) come back and do that in a few weeks. Questions are welcome, here (there is a comment option for every post), or if on Twitter, include short-link and date published, at least part of the title if you want an answer from me, or where more answers may be found.
If you consider what I just did in a quick run-down on NOW Entities (4/28/2022) or, did in part (“Table Talk on Task Forces,” 4/26/2022), that’s the kind of work that could/should be done with the tax-exempt entities mentioned here (First Star apparently has more than one now). Get to the Tax Returns.
But this one, beyond that, ask (yourself) some hard questions: WHY are these people pushing this agenda? How is it that on both the east and west coast** of USA, leadership with very close ties to and background in the energy / utilities provision industries are so into helping vulnerable children / foster children/ cleaning up the family courts through more training, featuring all the murdered and abused children / talking constantly about ritual child abuse (CPPA et al.), and soliciting — all these years — case information from traumatized mothers, and using that to get laws passed to (allegedly) fix the situation?
**For the energy part, Child Advocacy Institute, see also background of Robert Fellmeth, who has or at least had connections to First Star also. Below, I’d blogged earlier in some detail; links and partial quotes are below.
I’d be interested to see what conclusions others come to after asking some hard questions: Again, WHY doesn’t NSPC choose to file for business entity / membership organization status up front? Why put out numbers it can’t back up as to how many members, and much more.
(WHY is it so necessary to have people in power already (see “TVA”) steer the futures of those who are not?)
THIS POST IS:
Child Justice, Inc., First Star, Inc., and the Tennessee Valley Authority — All in the Family? (Eileen King, Sherry Quirk, Child Advocacy + Energy Law). [Written Feb. 9, Here, Mar. 30, 2022]. (short-link ends “-e4O” –> final character is capital “O” as in Ohio).
A post on the NSPC became necessary the moment it surfaced. There are still some “survivor mothers” (fka battered mothers) out here who don’t believe in and don’t join cults like this one, and while we’ve lost a lot, haven’t yet lost our minds… or powers of observation as campaigns develop. I happen to specialize in rapid-fire drill-downs of the new, and an elephant’s memory (and I take notes) of existing tax-exempt entities known to have impacted, or attempted to impact, negatively and needlessly, my and my own offspring’s safety and prosperity, tax-exempts specializing in demographic and profiling terms we happen to match. (single mother, noncustodial mother, domestic violence survivor, “protective parents” in the family court (that last — “give it a break!!”), etc.
The (reference deleted: think bovine excrement) never stops, it just gets repackaged and piled higher, spread wider, too.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Revisiting and Remembering National NOW’s “Six Core Issues,” Like Number Two: “Ending Violence Against Women,’ vis-a-vis How Far Down A. Domestic Violence and B. “The Family Court Crisis” Are Buried.. and Several NOW IRS Forms 990 [April 28, 2022].
I was curious whether “NOW” is no longer a force to be reckoned with for women’s rights, despite some high-profile individuals involved with NOW criticizing others who aren’t doing what they haven’t, yet, either. (See previous post, link below).
What I found at apps.IRS.gov/app/eos/: (“EOS” for “Exempt Organizations Search”): many scattered and (for the most part) small tax-exempt chapters and national IRS filings. Many were IRS-auto-revoked, and some seem to have stopped filing altogether (they may be extinct, maybe not). The generic search brought up 425 results, so I narrowed it down to those who had Forms 990 copies. Of these, based on a name-search at Candid.org’s “Research and Verify Nonprofits 990-finder,” which displays total assets (note: not revenues) in a table, not one was significantly large.
NOW national isn’t that big compared to other influential foundations. (I cannot speak to the collective impact of the grassroots). Tax returns (with active links) are posted to several NOW entities below.
Again, the context of this post was from the previous one on who gets appointed to DV Task Forces, and how “feminist” are they (or, are they not, in the final analysis).
Caution in interpreting the numbers: Total (gross) Assets at Candid.org or anywhere else is not a reflection of how much revenue is processed through any nonprofit, but, I saw nothing recent over $5,000,000 — and we have billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations with their hand in the family courts, domestic violence/child-abuse-prevention, diversionary justice, juvenile justice reform, etc. field, as well as other domestic violence resource network organizations (so to speak) funded by both HHS and DOJ federally, well over $10,000,000 revenues annually (two examples: NCJFCJ in Nevada and Futures Without Violence in California, which controls real estate and was as I recall over $40M revenues at one point. These organizations also trade funds among each other, i.e., sub-grant or pass-through to each other.. I didn’t check just this moment but in New York, I imagine that Vera Institute of Justice would also be quite large.** Of course NOW isn’t running shelters, it has a different purpose, but still, I wasn’t too surprised to see that its not showing up financially as a major factor player. It may be politically, but doesn’t seem to be financially..)
Looking for these also brings up — any search does — even more database issues (separate from any organization/entity filing issues). This comes with privatization, i.e., private ownership and administrations of such data, this time (again), with Candid.org which grabs tax returns from the IRS and posts them.
“Candid”has a user interface to search for these by entity name — which it gets wrong so often, I wonder whether they are manually entered, or what…so you must use EIN# with it for halfway reasonable search results ,and correct for errors, repeat the search, and pay attention to what does or doesn’t surface with each filter applied. It has other benefits (presentation in columns, some ability to track earlier tax returns through url tweaks, something the IRS database doesn’t seem to have.
In searching for all these NOW entities on Candid the other day, I noticed you cannot enter more than one, distinct EIN# per search. Why not? That would seem to be one of the most basic standards of a user interface. But no, you must repeat, repeat, and repeat again. It’s free, but horribly inefficient!
This post is:
Revisiting and Remembering National N.O.W.’s “Six Core Issues,” Like Number Two: “Ending Violence Against Women” vis-a-vis How Far Down: A. Domestic Violence and B. ‘The Family Court Crisis’ Are Buried.. with Several NOW IRS Forms 990 [April 28, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eot” and middle character is a lower-case “o” as in “oh, my!”). About 6,000 words.
Like many (if not most) of my posts, it arose from another one just published:
In it, I’d quoted New York City NOW on the New York (State) Council on Women and Girls’ Melissa DeRosa (you can’t miss it — the two largest images on my post, or link on the caption, below).
and on its disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, so I decided to review and post some of the NOW national, and city basic information, in a quick overview.
It’s good to know when reading output in major media citing to any nonprofit, what its financials show — and if they’re showing on its website. I also look at NOW (National’s) Six Core Issues...
Disclaimer:
This is not that detailed a drill-down; I wanted to take a look, and publish what I’d seen so far. There’s more that could be done (and should), but not my research and writing priority, or interest, at this time. This post may however be interesting to some to see why I stand where I do in not holding my breath for help from these sources.
Some posts come out in one, almost nonstop session. This one did: I knew what I wanted to say and how much I decided might be helpful to show (not just “say”), resulting in some quotes, and several more tables with the last three years of tax returns. That’s this post.
In quoting what an entity says about itself, why shouldn’t I quote both its own websites and (once found — NOW entities seem to specialize, like many in the DV infrastructure, in NOT volunteering their EIN#s or uploading sufficient financials) its own tax return and transparency habits?
For when those financials or EIN#s aren’t posted on entity websites, New York State’s charities search site is quite helpful, and it has a business entities search site also. Add to that what the IRS may have (that CharitiesNYS.com doesn’t already) and it’s a good start. For anyone also exploring more of the New York State COVID-19 DV Response Task Force (appointed May, 2020; its chair resigned in disgrace August, 2021), that link will help. Many members, obviously, might be and were on New York non-profit entities.
This post states where I stand as a feminist — I still believe I am — who didn’t sign on the line for this agenda, but whether or not I ever did, regardless of the reasons I did not, this post illustrates that, and possibly why help is NOT coming from this quarter as to, specifically, abuse of women as women and as mothers who’ve already dealt with domestic violence through/by way of, the family court system.
Listen to the organizations spell it out in their own words!
It’s not a right/left dilemma politically. Yes, the DV infrastructure (and certainly NOW) leans to the Left, but that doesn’t mean it’s above throwing innocent people, particularly mothers who may not be “full-on” with NOW’s list of issues, in the middle of a highway with federal-grants-laden state and federal buses speeding and aiming right at them, but fails to even sound an alert. Targeting us, when we have children, it’s going to hurt our children — the next generations many of us gave birth to, and still hope to see a future for. The states want us “out of the way” so as to do its system-change, societal realignment and infrastructure capacity-building, and be complimented for it too.
NOW had positioning, it had opportunity, and it has certainly had the information timely. It just wasn’t interested…. I’ve been a witness.
I think at the end of the day, we (in the “demographic” I mention above and will spell out later in the post (fine print, though) — and other than being a woman, I don’t fit any — not one — of those demographics that seem to interest N.O.W., although for a season it** seemed to show some interest in what was going down in the family court systems — are going to have to help ourselves, whether individually or in clusters through networking.
**I should refer to a single organization as an “it” not a “they.” Here, there are several entities at the national level, and chapters, but still as entities, I’ll say “it” not “they” to keep this in mind.
What “we are going to have to help ourselves,” means when obstacles such as internet access, or internet/media platform screening algorithms impede connecting, and being often separated geographically,^^ we can’t spend all our time processing others’ information and trying to “get on the same page.” That’s the corporate world: collectivism, and the lowest common denominator (I’m talking, of information) rises to the top. Energy spent seeking with whom to collaborate can be redirected, and perhaps should be.
BELOW here is everything I wrote earlier on the topics mentioned in the post title. Taking the content here lets me publish the related “Table Talk on Task Forces” (short-link ends “-egn”), which is was my goal (it was published 4/26)..
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘Table Talk’ Helps You Quickly Analyze Any Task Force*, Council, Commission, etc. (*Here, New York’s Task Force for a COVID-19 DV Response): Add Columns for Entity/Non-Entity, Website, Legal Domicile, and (For Size/Operations), Even For Some EIN#s, to Find AND read Any Tax Returns [Publ. Apr. 26, 2022].
Note to Readers:
I’ve published without having fully filled out a table at the bottom identifying the categories of every member of this task force’s listed affiliation. Several not filled out are entities or individuals on whom I’ve already researched and/or posted.
On the blog’s right sidebar, I just added a long explanation under a DONATE button near the top, that I cannot be publishing or so active on (Twitter) for the next days or possibly weeks because I must move within the next three weeks and do not even have a new place secured yet. I’m not really even sure of which city (or state) I’ll move to — only of a gut sense that staying local/urban won’t work. Failure to move out on time is not an option; not having a new lease signed before then would complicate the move and increase expenses, so I have to shut down my urge to keep writing and reporting.
But, as that explanation on the sidebar says, I’m still vitally alarmed about current developments in the family court reform field. Based on the backgrounds of the movement and the wording of the recent legislation in that context, I see and say that the recent alleged progress/triumphs (VAWA-based, or about endowments to push this through, state by state) are real triumphs for those talking it up — not for the victims or the public. I don’t see others on-line developing and posting any coherent reasons why, but the leaps in logic and requirement to engage in quasi-fantasy are obvious. Yet who will listen to survivors who don’t play their assigned roles?
I have the background (from writing this blog and continuing to follow so many elements), and ability to make a forceful statement (formally), but not while “on the move” and not yet.
Housing/Location: Towards the end of my years in California I’d been forced onto long-term hotel living (fiduciary abuse: main reason I left California). The last week, I had to move to three different hotels in four days; negotiating room rates constantly, while others pulled various strings such that I couldn’t even fulfil the rates I’d bargained for, and prepping for an out-of-state trek based on ONE connection in a state I’d never been to before.
Systematic production of fugitives: As we speak, I’ve known and now have some phone contact with women whose fugitive situation is far worse than mine ever was. What we are being put through has been (all along) outrageous: so is the hypocrisy of those taking HIGH salaries (see some below) for private-agenda advocacy, USA. I sometimes wish the field of “domestic violence” had never been professionalized, and I assert it never should have been privatized either.
RE: my last major move: I still remember how great it felt to have signed a 12-month lease again, in a new place far from the individuals who’d been behind over a decade of aggression in the family court system yet who were still not satisfied it’d been destructive enough. With a sense of privacy came a huge relief and sense of safety too. As a decision, I rank it high — alongside a much earlier one to file for legal intervention and protection from abuse with kick-out order, with young children. I had never before made a major move telling so few people (less than four and not my own children, because of the potential leak to their elders) where I was going. It was costly in the short run, but staying would’ve been even more costly. I’m so glad I made it out!
I’m thinking this next move might be the same. I do not know what’s up next, but it will be a change, not a perpetuation of the same dynamics. I’m seeking to again halve monthly living expenses and avoid both slumlords and mega-developer landlords who perceive and treat residents as their personal, perpetual ATMs, not human beings with real rights. I’ve experienced both (FYI, at least two of the slumlords were also lawyers., whereas high-rise developments outsource so many services, when billing fraud happens, you’re often faced with 1. another research project and 2. denial, no matter the facts. The alternative is litigation both sides know you can’t afford. There has to be another way to live! I’m looking for a place closer to ground level, with an enclosed garage (not just parking spot) where I can work on some projects, and enough land (need not be a lot) on which to grow a few vegetables, i.e., counteract some of this food inflation. It’s many variables at once, and of course, logistics.
(In case you’re wondering, physically the current place is fully functional in a way I can’t remember in many years — all appliances work, no vermin, generally speaking warm enough, and no one so far has messed with a parked car underground. The place is full of key-fobs to go in and out. Even the mailroom is secure (that’s a big plus). …But, the over-billing/double-billing — large and small amounts/relentless attempts to add on fees (then subtract only some of them after complaint) is never corrected, it’s adding up, and I do think it’s RICO. FYI, for this size operations, the issue of database integrity (billing and payment platforms) is a major issue, as well as transitions between one platform (or site-manager) and another: frequent turnover, and data (such as, my payments!) often lost in transition.
Speaking of that DONATE button, by the way, to at least encourage or show appreciation, feel free to contribute any amount ($10 or over); just realize it’s not tax-deductible (yet). I’m not trying to live off the blog, but beginning to need better justification (to my self) for taking time from planning for personal (longer term) survival. I will remove these opening comments after a few days; they are (after all) really NOYB. I may also remove the top section (in this background color, which was a spontaneous, last-minute effort, if I feel it doesn’t communicate well.
I enjoyed learning and writing this post so far, and hope you enjoy reading (all of) it. Another one (already complete) will be posted tomorrow. ..Thanks in advance for your time/LGH.
“Table Talk” in quotes is a pun here. It has another more common meaning, but here, I’m referring to that I literally think in terms of Tables with Labels when faced with such lists, or even an unknown (website or reference by some quoted expert). One of those key fields, which I so often talk about is defining the presence or absence, in the given name or affiliation, of an “Entity.”
My “drill-down” and full list (with plenty of links) is at the bottom; this part is just a sample showing how (based in prior knowledge, or recent look-ups for what I didn’t already know) I would think about such a list. In between is an even more interesting history on it, relating to its Chair…
SHARE THIS POST on...
USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022].
As previously threatened (?) or promised (see Twitter image, below next quotes), I re-allocated about one-third of my previous post (published April 19, 2022), the extended preview section, then, on reconsidering, the whole section on the main topic it discussed: why I believe that topic relates to USA’s domestic violence advocacy Infrastructure. The topic is BCCI – Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
I’ve been writing about the DV infrastructure and its parts with emphasis on business entity and operations (and relationships to the federal and state governments which funds it) for years, and still am. However the same could be said of other public/private infrastructures based on other causes. It’s a symptom of how we do business in the USA: extreme collaborations between private tax-exempt interests and governments (which are also tax-exempt), in ways that make fiscal accountability to the public (or internally, I’m sure), near-impenetrable, if not (overall) impossible.
This post is:
USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW” — about 7,500 words + about 500 more I just added April 22…
To understand why I believe the problems with USA’s DV-response infrastructure (NOT just its operations or administration of the structure) is comparable with BCCI, you should grasp the basic facts on BCCI operations and why both the USA and England had issues with it.
Although BCCI was in part a bank, both systems definitely receive and move funds through a wide network and many types of entities; both seek to exert influence outside their own jurisdictions, in ways that are less than, ah, “accountable,” leaving it (the DV infrastructure) open to UNDUE influence by private actors. (I’m no accountant or financial advisor but if you think about it… )
Banks (like BCCI): move money beyond their borders; invest in real estate; issue loans and earn interest on those loans; individually or networked, have owners, often with other related businesses; and in many countries are beholden to a central bank which controls the currency: I.e., the Federal Reserve in USA, The Bank of England in the UK, the European Central Bank (established in 1999; Investopedia article, Dec. 2020), the South African Reserve Bank (establ. 1921 after World War I):
…The uncertainty of economic conditions after World War I motivated its creation, reflecting the need for monetary regulation and government control by a single financial entity. It was one of the first central banks established outside of the developed Western world (the U.S., the U.K., and Europe). Prior to SARB’s establishment, South Africa’s currency was handled by commercial banks….
Banks can have holding companies. So do nonprofits (and for-profits) — they are just not called “banks.” For more understanding (USA) go to IRS.gov and read the different categories of tax-exemption. While I’m here, churches and religious institutions ALSO engage in many activities that banks do, but under different (and often far less) regulation.
Even the Bank of England, says on its “who we are/what we do” page:
(This page was last updated on 19 May 2020) High-street banks are not that different from any other business. What sets them apart is that they work with money: looking after it, lending it, and helping you pay for things with it.
By “high street banks” I believe they mean, retail banks as opposed to central banks for any country.
There are many “development banks” by continent, region, or by the world, but these differ (as I understand it) from central banks in any single area which set currency rates and the currencies used and, to varying degrees, regulate it.
I’ve added to the content I copied from previous post links to two more indicators of what was so “major” about the BCCI (1992, news; 1999, an opinion by the judge finally closing the criminal case (USA) indicate how far-reaching this scandal was and in how many countries). The post already holds several more, with quotes, below — it’s a substantial reason for this post! I close the post actually, with a link to the BCCI Liquidators suing The Bank of England — ironically (?) an extinct criminal bank suing a very much alive one for failing to catch on earlier.
Seems to me it was a tough few decades for the Bank of England, and BCCI’s operations contributed….
Anything in ANY way resembling BCCI’s operations still around and functioning within or under the name of “for” government (and thus for the people), should be scrutinized where questions continue to arise (or efforts to make sure those questions do NOT arise continue decade after decade). This would all come under the basic theme of, understanding government operations (and money systems).
Some people grow up in households where this is a given, with examples and mentoring, and connections to others who will provide more of that information. I wasn’t, and it seems public schools USA (K-12) have little interest in explaining this to future adults, nor do academics or many people in specialist professions who, so long as they can maintain employment and look forward to a retirement (and consulting or other entrepreneurship beyond retirement, in addition to (say, if civil servants) those pensions) don’t really need that understanding. I don’t believe all lawyers need it, and I’m sure most psychologists don’t either. The ones who need it the most are those who are vulnerable and those bounced from job to job — and often through domestic violence, or subsequent to forced engagement in our family court systems through separating from such violence.
Before I get to those two quotes (and my Twitter thread), … I also kept thinking how right after all this, after The Bank of England also shut down BCCI in 1991 [not a simple or a single-event process…], then the next year, 1992, George Soros (℅ Stanley Druckenmiller) bet big against the Bank of England. British currency was already struggling and had joined the EU (about then). With all that’s happened in the last few two to three years, remember a few decades later, Brexit? (These topics are not mentioned in this post outside the next inset:)
Other MAJOR world-changing events in 1992, just before and just after..just food for thought.
(The Berlin Wall (1961-1989) goes down, Savings & Loan bailouts, The Bank of England & British Pound Sterling vs. Soros (the Bank loses), the European Union begins, and U.S. elects President Clinton (who then signs both VAWA (1994) and PRWORA (1996)…
Meanwhile, in Rwanda... (Doctors without Borders (“MSF,” in French) was there <~~Trigger warning — both content and many disturbing photos, but it gives an in-person timeline). “Preventing the Bloodbath: Could the UN have Predicted & Prevented the Rwandan Genocide?” Journal of Conflict Studies Vol. XX No. 1, Spring 2000 (publ. 8-01-2001), by A Walter Dorn and Jonathan Matloff.
I reference several major events here, but in connection with BCCI, it was the “Bank of England-Soros” that got me reviewing major events of the time.//LGH)
What I keep also remembering The Bank of England also shut down BCCI in 1991 and in 1992, George Soros bet against the Bank of England (shorted the pound sterling, in a coordinated attack with other investors, such as J.P. Morgan), and won — and made $1.1 billion pounds. {HistoryOfYesterday, August, 2021 “The Day George Soros Broke the Bank of England To Make $1.1B | A look back at a large-scale speculative attack led by the American billionaire in the early 90s.” Clear but brief with one graph. DNAIndia (here, but no year given) explains, quoting Soros’ son Robert, it wasn’t exactly his idea (Stanley Druckenmiller’s), but how Soros does things was a factor. (Exchange Rate Mechanisms tied to the German mark). Investopedia, “How did George Soros Break the Bank of England?” (again, it as Stanley Druckenmiller working under or with him at the time’s idea) (2021, explained in lay terms; click on the Treaty of Maastricht link (within) to read more. Treaty of Maastricht set in place the European Union and later a central bank and currency. The Berlin Wall had just come down (i.e., unified Germany) a few years before (remember?). In the US, we had the Savings & Loan scandal of the 1980s (the FederalReserveHistory.org summary, with some photos). (leveraged buyouts profiting many, job losses others), and President Clinton began his term, 1992. By 1994 we had the Violence Against Women Act (associated with then Vice-President Biden) and 1996 “Welfare Reform.” WHAT an eventful decade!
U.S. Attorney’s Testimony Reopens Issue of BCCI Prosecution (AP,
Or, (really, start reading the Intro to the Opinion and Background of the Case):
-
- 1. of 3, US v. BCCI Holdings (1999) for my Apr. 21, 2022 post)
-
- 2. of 3 US v. BCCI Holdings (1999)
-
- 3. of 3 US v. BCCI Holdings (1999)
C. BCCI’s Connection to General Noriega
BCCI again came to the fore in 1987 and 1988 in connection with investigations into narcotics trafficking by Panamanian General Manuel Noriega. It was known that Noriega had a banking relationship with BCCI and First American. Federal prosecutors, and then committees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, investigated allegations that BCCI was laundering Noriega’s drug proceeds. BCCI was indicted in the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida and subsequently pled guilty to federal money laundering charges. Certain BCCI employees also were indicted, tried, and convicted on money laundering charges. See United States v. Awan, 966 F.2d 1415 (11th Cir. 1992) (affirming convictions in large part).
On a lighter note, I often make alterations after seeing a published post, that I didn’t see or have the patience to make beforehand (there comes a point when you’re just DONE with the writing, not willing to work it any further, and the only solution/relief is to publish):
Wow. I JUST published a post (https://t.co/ez5SlO4Pic) with a huge, multi-section, multi-color preview, and I hate !! how it looks. After a stretch & more caffeine I’m thinking to just grab that whole “preview” and repost it today — (4th imge- 5/26/2019 post) pic.twitter.com/04bnEpcse2
— SheLooksItUp: AbsolutelyUncommonAnalysis DV FamCts (@LetUsGetHonest) April 19, 2022
(The eight-tweet thread covers a few more topics, with some media; worth a look…It reads “1 Reply” but click on the image to see the thread).
The second large section (more and more extended quotes on “BCCI” to explain what I mean when comparing the US DV system to it) occurs in a completely separate, second box with this background color.. The division is marked clearly; it’s all one content delivered in two different installments only because part came as “preview” and another part from what was being previewed. Some pronoun references (i.e., “this post”) may refer to April 19th, while others are to April 21. The move (not the original writing) was done quickly because I have other posts to move from pipeline to published.
This material is from:
How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”)
and is now here, which, to identify its main content, I’m calling:
USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW” — about 6,600 words including that Twitter reference above)
I’d posted on the BCCI before (2017); why include it again? (Eight paragraphs, informal):
I felt a reminder of what the BCCI case was and to identified direct correlations (I’d also been making in 2017) to specific nonprofits lobbying for H.Con.Res.72 which is being cited (repeatedly) as the success story underlying what’s also supposed to be considered another 2019, then 2022, success: reauthorization of the Violence Against Women’s Act to better accommodate those who wish to help their friends and colleagues (self-referring, not too hard to identify a basic cast of characters) get in on the existing judicial and custody evaluator trainings, i.e., Kayden’s Law add-on.
This V.A.W.A. version has been tweaked to produce something IN the family courts those family courts are guaranteed by design to NOT produce, no matter how many more judges are trained — they’ve already been groomed, mentored and trained (as to Family Courts) by a variety of private nonprofits — nonprofits whose main themes seem to be the points people and organizations “(sic)”** who support “Kayden’s Law” add-ons say is the problem (can you spell “domestic violence and coercive control,” “child abuse, trauma and parental alienation” and of course “Why they DO that” when “they” means batterers. **..when it comes to #NFVLgwu and NSPC (see recent posts; neither is an entity).
IF these (especially parental alienation, or failure to understand coercive control) is the problem, the most likely source of that problem, logically, might be how these judges have already been trained and by/whom, in addition to the venue (family courts, per se) itself. It doesn’t take TOO hard a look to see these courts weren’t ever designed to Keep Kids Safe or Protect Kids (or their parents). The main purpose (the venue) was to add more counseling, behavioral health therapists, and programming to (first) keep people OUT of divorce courts to start with (if married) later (second) to keep them from repeatedly returning to the same courts (the routine labeled “high-conflict”) — which, predictably, generated more and more of a need for those returns.
While I’ve concluded this (as I just said: that the courts weren’t designed to Keep Kids Safe; more likely to keep abusers and batterers and other criminals safe from prosecution so as to maintain the profits…) from a long, HARD look at their claimed designers and those designers blueprints (not to mention the roadkill results), and repeatedly posted it, it didn’t take me a decade, or two, or even half a decade, to figure it out. I did it done, broke, sometimes on the run, being often threatened with (forced) homelessness and in and out of all kinds of trauma-producing situations relating to family courts failure, and surrounding advocacy organizations simple refusal, to deal with (i.e., HELP), past the “triage” stage — issuing that initial restraining order. For long periods without even access to a laptop (for a long time, taking buses in areas that had poor transportation to and from libraries which limited usage to an hour or two only… For a season of my life I was constantly arguing for internet access when a bus or commuter train was late, making me also 10 minutes late for a computer station reservation).
This venue is now and has been historically (see the history of AFCC for just one indicator) an assembly line for court-connected corporations / “franchises” that derive their income streams from judicial referrals, judicial consultancies, and marketing curricula which (so it seems) doesn’t work any better on abusive parents coming through the system than it has (to date) worked on the judges who sent them there.
What Family Court DOES successfully do is prolong and maintain conditions of conflicts and mutually-contradictory ideologies on WHAT causes (violence, abuse, poverty, etc.) — which both public (governments) and private (individuals going through it, or with relatives going through it) must pay for, to the point they often cannot even support themselves properly, and certainly in no normal maintain employment and functional work history way.
[Originally the next paragraphs were much closer to the top of this post!]
Knowledgeable mothers and experienced lawyers not in on this training scam (=my assessment, so far) have (like me) continued to express this on-line (on Twitter) — we know that judicial training won’t remove judicial training, any more than (I went through in detail and tweeted again the other day, the same post), “mandatory arrests” for certain offences do not remove police discretion and do not create any individual entitlement to having criminals arrested, i.e., producing protection for those needing it.
But others just do not care. Others seem more expert, ‘collaborative’ and resourced, year after year, and they’re mentoring next-generation professionals within universities (George Washington University (school of law) in D.C., lately University of California-Irvine (School of Law) taking (in the case of George Washington University), so it’s said, anonymous donors to fund a center based on, pretty much, a single professor’s fatally flawed (not “flawless”) continued self-promotion (with the related “cast of characters” — basic advertising and persuasion tactics) reports that even I could dissect — and which other more analytical fathers’ rights organizations also have.
So, I reviewed the BCCI (with new summaries and resources describing its and lessons to be learned from it — even one from the International Monetary Fund library — and linked to some posts tying in the Arkansas factor, which naturally led me to the Governor/President Clinton, Senator Fulbright.
I also posted more (mostly from Wiki, but some from the Fullbright Scholars Page) on the famous senator from Arkansas’s influence, how his time at Oxford University (Rhodes Scholar as a very young man), and his later legislative and Council of Foreign Relations involvements helped shape the America we have today. I think it’s interesting — but my previous post was complete enough without it. So, here (but with fewer background and font changes) is now a REview of what was just the other day a PREview, from. (I did not repeat or move many tags from there which now may apply more, here).
~~ Quick post preview before of what I published April 19. Well, maybe not that quick…~~
These paragraphs copied here (4/21 post) to show the correspondence between the two posts. They are marked with a dark-red border. The last part of this section shows where I got onto the BCCI topic:
The How USA Has Standardized, (April 19) post’s two middle sections deal with the HiAP topic (how the entire topic of violence and abuse is framed, internationally and with intent that nations should make sure to get in line with this approach) and — only because the current arrangements USA, and as the domestic/family violence prevention field (notice I’m not saying “and child abuse” in that phrase) resemble in character and operations the same organizing and multi-layered, multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction arrangements that — until it collapsed and was shut down — were found from the 1970s until the early 1990s at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (“BCCI”). I found and added a few BCCI-summaries, but, people, this is NOT off-topic!
After those two sections, and moving towards the final summary, an extended set of paragraphs and some images/quotes regarding Lundy Bancroft (NOT my original focus in this post) made their entrance, and the bottom section is recognizable by its color. In fact, this is how it starts:
My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)
For example, within the domestic violence (prevention and services) field, USA, it’s already been strategized and organized into statewide coalitions (primarily government-funded) with member organizations in each state (and/or territory), ALL tax-exempt and the delegated (and by law, better funded, from the US government at least), “Domestic Violence Resource Network” (on Twitter, I use “#DVRN”), itself a combination of entities and non-entities. The DVRN provides the main theory and information to distribute; the statewide coalitions provide feedback and control operations within each state (via membership status for pass-through grants, typically small).
(WITH THE ADDITION OF THIS PREVIEW, that SUMMARY IS NOW ONLY ABOUT ONE-THIRD OF THIS POST)… IT HAS MORE TO SAY ABOUT SPECIFIC MALE LEADERSHIP (a list of 8, but some more details on Jeffrey L. Edleson, in his own words from his own web pages, and influential through connection to the 1999 “The Greenbook” (Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice) published by NCJFCJ that year, and which became a basis for a strategic “pilot” Greenbook Initiative multi-state, basically social science behavior modification / “best practices” etc., “RCTs” (not quite, but…) run on USA Family Courts 2000-2008 (!)… As his web page describes it:
[[Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice) became“]].. the basis for Six Federally Funded and numerous other demonstration sites across the country. Prof. Edleson has also conducted intervention research and provided technical assistance to domestic violence programs and research projects across North America as well as in numerous other countries..”
Why is “Six Federally Funded” initial caps there?
…..Moving on, in this “PREVIEW”** I have another section on the relevance of BCCI to the Child Abuse Protection IN the Family Courts movement, and the State of Arkansas, as I blogged in May, 2019. Let’s talk famous (ex-) Senator and President from that state — the one who presided over Welfare Reform 1996… Both also Rhodes Scholars, but it was Fulbright who took Rhodes Scholars to another level, post World War II, and with his position on the Council on Foreign Relations:
**What’s above referred to the post published yesterday: How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words
Now I’ve ended the dark-red border because the whole section now deals with the BCCI . I was remembering when I’d written the “Arkansas” post and seeing how things were organized, that it really did remind me of the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals.” The BCCI also had known Arkansas ties. As anyone does, I looked up BCCI (and about Senator Fulbright) again; one reason all investigations of ongoing or influential situations (institutions, policies, etc.), and most serious writing involves RE-search.//LGH.
Another BCCI summary from the IMF.org (International Money Fund) Library summarizes HOW it happened. It’s got an abstract, please take a look! I’m quoting from Chapter 19 in an entire book.
Chapter 19 BCCI: The Lessons for Banking Supervision
Author: THOMAS C. BAXTER JR.Keywords: BOOK; chapter; banking regulation roundtable; banking supervisor; master agreement;agreement; chapter 22; chapter 18; Bank supervision; Commercial banks; Credit; Securities; Global; Europe;Eastern Europe; Africa; Central and Eastern Europe
Abstract In July 1991, a consortium of central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the Luxembourg Monetary Institute, coordinated the closing of a multinational bank known as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). The discovery of a massive and widespread fraud, perpetrated over several years, precipitated BCCI’s closure. At the time of its closure, BCCI had become a truly global bank. The fact of its closure and the reasons for it provide a particularly graphic illustration of the special difficulties inherent in supervising complex multinational banks.
Structure of BCCI BCCI’s organizational structure was key to its avoiding consolidated supervision by any home country. The apex of the BCCI organization was the parent holding company, BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., which was chartered and headquartered in Luxembourg. Below were two principal banking subsidiaries: BCCI S.A. and BCCI (Overseas) Limited. These were chartered in Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands, respectively. … [details para. omitted]
In sum, out of the 72 countries in which BCCI maintained offices and did business, no single supervisory authority had an unobstructed view of BCCI’s entire landscape. Furthermore, because BCCI’s operations spanned multiple jurisdictions, the supervisors in each assumed that the other would deal with BCCI’s problems. In actuality, no one did.
In time, when BCCI’s problems were too widespread to ignore, a group of countries with major BCCI operations agreed to meet periodically as a “college of supervisors” to monitor the affairs of the bank. Even under this arrangement, however, no single supervisor had overall responsibility for the organization’s combined operations. Additionally, the group’s mandate did not allow it to provide the type of supervision needed by BCCI, and what supervision was provided was too little, too late.
Covert Presence: BCCI had another means for evading supervision: the operation of secret subsidiaries through nominees. BCCI used this technique in countries where supervision and regulation were more rigorous or where, for whatever reason, BCCI’s presence was unwelcome. For example, in the United States …
Remember (on this blog), when H.Con.Res.72 USA was being passed (and has since become the point-of-reference to justify the current VAWA authorization with Kayden’s Law (Keeping Children Safe In Family Courts) amendment, i.e., “add more trainings of judges…”), I looked up a nonprofit with a powerful politician (inexplicably) on one of the lobbyists registered to promote H.Con.Res.72: the post was focused on the state of Arkansas. (Searching H.Con.Res.72 on my blog –>
I called it out then — the maze of impenetrable (entities, non-entities, multi-jurisdictions) is a quality of the DV prevention field, and the Fatherhood Promotion field both — and part of (innate to) the tax-exempt sector. Below a section on Wisconsin CADV, I wrote (prefacing another summary of BCCI on that post):
…Then people want to know why institutions or organizations named after addressing problems in a favorite issue (cause) area don’t ever seem to successfully get to the bottom of them — or at times even address them. JUST POSSIBLY they were not put there for that purpose in the first place!
Impenetrable mazes of non-accountability is only a problem for people seeking accountability. It’s no problem at all for those seeking to hide influence, pay bribes, or set up evasive, networked relationships to launder money obtained illegally under some respectably framed business (including nonprofit-businesses organized for advocacy) purpose. The evasion possibility is built into the DNA of the tax-exempt system. Add to this mega-dollars in the form of institutional (pension, state agency, etc.)) funds and control of their investments and you can see what a major temptation for the wrong personality types these are.
Do yourself a favor, if unfamiliar with the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) saga, also colloquially called the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals International.”
This “follow the money” presentation is from AFPN (who I don’t follow), but it puts names, dates, and basic understanding to the general concept, i.e. impenetrable, spider-like structures, functioning in areas outside government regulation and (where not doing so) bribing regulator and other officials…
I am seeing this in the tax-exempt sector. I’ve seen it in the DV sector as controlled regionally and state-wide both. I’ve seen it in the fatherhood-promoting sector; it is very much as standard part of the USA today. That’s a problem!
Hopefully, most people’s basic history of U.S. Presidents and maybe even some famous Senators, recalls before William J. Clinton was U.S. President, he was the Governor of Arkansas. For anyone familiar with the Rhodes Scholarships (Clinton was one) with their UK (Oxford University privileges) basis, one of the first major successes of the Rhodes Scholars in attaining major inroads to U.S. politics was Senator Fulbright from — WHICH state? Now there are Fulbright Scholars, (UK to US, US to UK too.
Evan Stark’s version of a “c.v.” (with exhibits, himself, I guess): https://evanstark.weebly.com/cv.html
(Evan Stark, Ph.D., was one [I just found his oddly-organized c.v. (huge photo of self relaxing outside in the woods with a dog, tiny font on the right side, which was available at his “Weebly” website, with another huge photo of himself (in a brown suit jacket, apparently lecturing). Such a modest guy….).
I go on a while with these Fullbright / Senator Fullbright/ Rhodes Scholarship quotes, so have given them their own background-color:
The global Fulbright Program was created in 1946 in the aftermath of World War II through legislation introduced by Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. A 1948 treaty between the US and the UK governments specifically created the US-UK Fulbright Commission, one of the first Fulbright programmes in the world.
Since then, thousands of Americans and Brits have benefitted from the opportunity to study in each other’s countries, and the experience has impacted their work and careers long after returning home. Today we are the only exchange programme offering scholarships for students and scholars both ways across the Atlantic and our awards span every discipline.
Our work creates impact through the promotion of academic excellence and curiosity, advancing human knowledge. Through our immersive exchange programmes we invest in human potential and increase social mobility. Our programmes cultivate communities and deepen understanding between the peoples of the US and the UK. Our alumni have gone on to be politicians and authors, business professionals, composers and Nobel laureates.
And a few “minor difficulties” with Senator Fulbright and issues of racism (it doesn’t mention sexism):
Senator J. William Fulbright
William Fulbright was a prominent and gifted American statesman of the 20th century. His unequalled contribution to international affairs and his tenure as the longest serving chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee distinguished his political career of over thirty years in the United States Congress. He had a profound influence on America’s foreign policy. It was his vision for mutual understanding that shaped the extraordinary exchange programme bearing his name, a programme that explicitly promotes the empathy gained from cultural immersion as a key learning for all its awardees or, as they are known, Fulbrighters.
As the United States and nations around the world continue to grapple with racial and social justice issues, it is important to recognise that there are negative and painful aspects to Senator Fulbright’s biography. His voting record on civil rights contributed to the perpetuation of racism and inequality in the United States. His segregationist stance and his opposition to racial integration in public places, including in education, are clearly at odds with the ideals of the Fulbright Program and its legacy of hundreds of thousands of distinguished and diverse alumni, who are contributing to a more peaceful, equitable and just world.
Senator Fulbright was a Rhodes Scholar at a very young age (looks like 20), before which he spent most of his life in Arkansas — by 1943 he was in U.S. Congress (the first Rhodes Scholar to reach U.S. Congress?) and soon onto the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR corresponds, pretty much, to the American version of the RIIA)… (the following found at “Fullbright/Korea”
…Born in 1905, Senator Fulbright spent the majority of his life in Arkansas prior to receiving a Rhodes Scholarship for study at Oxford University in England from 1925 to 1928. His experience as an educational exchange participant abroad would prove transformative, contributing to the internationalist outlook that would characterize his later political life and pioneering vision for the Fulbright Program. Entering the U.S. Congress in 1943, Senator Fulbright strongly influenced U.S. foreign policy and international affairs over the course of his political career, serving first as a member and then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position he held for 15 years,…
From Fulbright’s Wikipedia:
…Fulbright credited his time at Oxford with broadening his horizons. In particular, he credited his professor and friend R. B. McCallum‘s “one world” philosophy of the world as an interlinked entity, where developments in one part would always impact on the other parts.[5] McCallum was a great admirer of Woodrow Wilson, a supporter of the League of Nations, and a believer that multinational organizations were the best way to ensure global peace.[6] Fulbright remained close to McCallum for the rest of his life and regularly exchanged letters with his mentor until his death in 1973.[6]
(Incidental, though interesting: R.B. McCallum was an “Inkling” (think C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien) and the first “lay” leader of Pembroke College (Oxford) since 1714..)
Fulbright received his law degree from The George Washington University Law School in 1934, was admitted to the bar in Washington, DC, and became an attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Well, well, well, here’s George Washington University Law School making an unexpected appearance (from a different direction) on yet another of my posts… A bit more — in Senator Fullbright’s first election to the Senate, he defeated the FIRST woman ever to serve a full term in Senate, or preside over it, or be re-elected (Hattie Wyatt Caraway), and she introduced the ERA… Unlike Fullbright, she grew up poor. She was first appointed when her husband died, i.e. as a widow to temporarily take his place, But she was re-elected. She wasn’t particularly feminist (in modern terms), but defeated her first opponent, whose slogan was his gender:
In 1938, Caraway entered a tough fight for reelection, challenged by Representative John Little McClellan, who argued that a man could more effectively promote the state’s interests using the slogan, “Arkansas Needs Another Man in the Senate!”[3] With backing from government employees, women’s groups, and unions, Caraway won a narrow victory in the primary and took the general election with 89.4 percent of the vote over the Republican C. D. Atkinson of Fayetteville in Washington County. In doing so, she became not only the first woman to be elected to the Senate, but also the first to be re-elected.[3]
(END of the “Fulbright/Rhodes” section
This material is from (was briefly published on):
How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words
A basic internet (Google) search of BCCI (written out) yielded a July 7, 2020, article published by a publication called Foreign Policy. The title on window frame reads: “BCCI was a bank run by dictators in the Middle East that tells the story of America’s foreign corruption.” My interest is that (this, and other accounts, including several from 1991) describe what I’m seeing in lack of accountability, system-wide, however not in the banking sector so much as the tax-exempt policy-making (and certain other) sectors. I couldn’t post much — the publication wants my log-in and subscription; I declined. Fine print at the bottom shows it’s a “Slate” publication.
The BCCI example raises important issues which (says this article, and I tend to agree) seem to have been forgotten.
The Dictator-Run Foreign Bank that Tells the Story of America’s Foreign Corruption: BCCI was a kleptocratic institution whose influence reached the White House—and a model for today’s global crooks.
July 7, 2020, By Casey Michel, an investigative journalist and author of American Kleptocracy: How the U.S. Created the World’s Greatest Money Laundering Scheme in History, and Ricardo Soares de OliveiraOne bank, above all others, highlights the modern realities of transnational corruption and how authoritarian governments abroad can sink their tendrils into Western governments. Overseen by autocratic oligarchs abroad, this bank used everything including shell companies, fake foundations, and anonymous real estate purchases to launder billions and billions of dollars. And when Western investigators got wind of its financial fraud, this bank immediately began bankrolling white-shoe law firms and shady PR operators—even going so far as to fund leading U.S. presidential campaigns, corrupt the leading voices in at least one American political party, and even grow close to the American president himself.The story is, in many respects, the perfect blueprint for modern kleptocracy—and how autocratic regimes abroad use strategic corruption and financial secrecy tools to swindle billions of dollars while also shifting U.S. policies to their own corrupt ends.
“Senator John Kerry addresses reporters October 1, 1992 at the U.S. Capitol about the release of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism’s report on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International’s (BCCI) illegal financial dealings. ROBERT GIROUX/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES” Found at Foreign Policy, 7/7/2020 [“The Dictator-Run Foreign Bank that Tells the Story of American foreign corruption” (for use in my post mid-April, 2017)…
But there’s one thing: This bank no longer exists. Instead, the story of this bank—the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, or BCCI—takes place decades ago, from the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
It’s a saga that has been largely forgotten. That’s a shame, because in many ways the unprecedented graft and collapse of BCCI foretold precisely the kinds of transnational kleptocratic practices that would take root around the globe over the past decade—and how wide-open the United States remains when it comes to the infiltration of foreign dirty money.
….And for a while, that scheme succeeded. BCCI ended up operating in over 70 countries—including the United States, Switzerland, France, and the United Kingdom—and at one point boasted over $20 billion in assets (or nearly $50 billion in today’s money). By the mid-1980s, BCCI appeared well on its way to meeting its goal of becoming the world’s largest bank by the year 2000.
And it wasn’t just the size of BCCI’s till. Those running BCCI spun the bank as an institution interested more in achieving moral gains, rather than increasing its total assets. (“The spirit of BCCI is permeated by a moral dimension and this eases the burden of management,” its founder once claimed.) To that end, BCCI bankrolled the Third World Foundation, which it said would help “relieve poverty and sickness” in developing nations, and even created an award to mirror the Nobel Peace Prize, which it awarded to everyone from Nelson Mandela to former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.
Unbeknownst to those small-scale depositors taking advantage of BCCI’s services, though, the bank was in reality little more than a Ponzi scheme for the higher-ups involved, who were simply pocketing the deposits while trying to recruit new customers. By the time BCCI collapsed, nearly $10 billion had disappeared, never accounted for.
[..Eventually the bank collapsed under the weight of its own fraud… (etc.)]
New York Times summarizing BCCI on Aug. 12, 1991 “World-Class Fraud: How B.C.C.I. Pulled It Off — A special report: At the End of a Twisted Trail, Piggy Bank for a Favored Few” by Steve Lohr
[No quote]
The Washington Post, “BCCI SCANDAL: BEHIND THE ‘BANK OF CROOKS AND CRIMINALS” By Steven Mufson Jim McGee
THIS one is follow-up, claims by the Liquidators that the British banking system failed to regulate. It includes an interesting history; black & white, no images. The Bank of England is being sued… the total value of the case (at the time) was to be, USD $1.5 billion or British Pounds 850 million.
Basic reading: https://www.iiiglobal.org/sites/default/files/christophergrierson.pdf (quote is just the opening paragraphs), and another section referencing banking regulation (Act of 1979) in the UK, and how (it seems) BCCI got around this type of regulation.
By the way, the “iii” in “iiiGlobal” stands for “International Insolvency Institute.” It’s a nonprofit showing a Virginia, USA location; check out its mission statement… And read (the obituary, unfortunately) about its founder, E. Bruce Leonard (1944-2017), prominent insolvency lawyer, and lead agent in the Canadian restructuring for General Motors and Chrysler, who saw a need for cross-border coordination of insolvency cases. You can see how the BCCI situation would be within its interest area…
While reading this next quote, as you can see, one bank (BCCI was a bank also) vs. another (the Bank of England), keep in mind, as it says in the first sentence, “the Bank” here refers to the latter — the Bank of England. It’s being sued by the Liquidators on behalf of about 6,500 depositors who were affected by the fraud… It took until 1998 to even let it proceed (after appeal), with that permission granted by “The House of Lords.” Sounds like (don’t quote me) “the Bank of England” as so close to England itself, cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued.
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA V BANK OF ENGLAND CHRISTOPHER GRIERSON, LOVELLS, LONDON
INTRODUCTION/CASE OVERVIEW
The Liquidators of BCCI SA are suing the Bank of England (“the Bank”) on behalf of approximately 6,500 depositors who have assigned their claims to the Liquidators for the purposes of the proceedings. The proceedings were commenced in May 1993 but were struck out at first instance by Mr Justice Clarke in July 1997 and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in December 1998. The case was finally allowed to proceed to trial by the House of Lords in March 2001. Since that date there have been regular Case Management Conferences and interlocutory hearings (over 30 in all) dealing with a range of different issues, including two further appeals.
The claim is based in the tort of misfeasance in public office (the Bank cannot be sued for negligence). The Liquidators allege that the Bank failed in its statutory duty in its licensing and supervision of BCCI. If the Bank is found liable this case will obviously have major implications for regulators in financial and other sectors.
The trial started on Tuesday 13 January 2004 and is taking place before Mr Justice Tomlinson in Court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Court 73 is the court room which was used for the Hutton Inquiry. It has been wired with the latest in IT, including image display and simultaneous live transcription of the hearing. There are remote links to offices. The trial is expected to last between 12 and 18 months. The claim is worth about £850 million (ie about US$1.5 billion).
THE EARLY YEARS
BCCI SA was incorporated under the laws of Luxembourg in September 1972 with backing from the Bank of America as a large minority shareholder. In November it established its first office in the UK and commenced its business in the UK as a deposit-taker. Two years later the structure of BCCI was altered by the incorporation in December 1974 of BCCI Holdings SA (“Holdings”) in Luxembourg, of which BCCI SA became a subsidiary. In November 1975 another subsidiary of Holdings called BCCI Overseas (“Overseas”) was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Overseas opened its first branch in the UK in June 1976. Overseas was set up in order to get round restrictions on the branch numbers in BCCI SA imposed by the Luxembourg supervisors. At this stage a substantial part of the issued share capital of Holdings was still owned by the Bank of America. Although the group was trading through various branches in the UK it was not subject to any regulatory system in this country. But BCCI SA was subject to supervision in Luxembourg by the Luxembourg Banking Commission (“LBC”), later known as the IML. At the end of 1977 the Bank of America decided to withdraw from its relationship with BCCI because, the Liquidators assert, of its concerns about the dangerous state of BCCI. It sold its holding of shares in Holdings to International Credit and Investment Co Ltd (“ICIC”), which at the time was BCCI’s largest shareholder, and provided finance to ICIC for such purchase: a conversion of equity to debt!
…Prior to the Banking Act 1979, banking in the UK was not subject to any formalised system of regulation. Control was exercised in an informal way by the Bank and in an indirect manner by means of various statutory provisions which gave privileges to banks which were recognised by branches of government and by the Bank. After the publication of a White Paper in 1976 (which followed the serious secondary banking crisis of the mid 1970s) and the First Council Banking Co-ordination Directive (77/780/EEC), steps were taken to establish a new statutory system of banking supervision in the UK. This was contained in the Banking Act 1979, which came into force in October 1979. It provided for the recognition of banks under section 3(1) if they satisfied the criteria in Schedule 2, Part I, and for the licensing of deposit-taking institutions under section 3(2) if they satisfied the less stringent criteria in Schedule 2, Part II. Those criteria dealt with such issues as prudence and fitness and propriety.
(This document is 10 pages long, appears to be 1.5-line spacing, followed by tables (3 pages) to chronicle the timeline of the litigation… over a decade’s worth).
THE BANK OF ENGLAND (BankOfEngland.co.UK) Straightfoward explanation: Chartered 1694, operated as a private bank until 1946, when it was nationalized (‘like most other European banks at this time’), added responsibilities in 1997, what it does. I’m adding this section for the basic definitions (removed any images, some link to videos. Very simple terms and direct address, as though talking to the readers (“we … you…” etc.)
What is a central bank?
A central bank is a financial institution whose job is to support the economy for a country or group of countries. It can also be called a ‘reserve bank’ or a ‘monetary authority’.
In which ways is the Bank of England independent of the Government?
For over 250 years, until it was nationalised in 1946, we were a private bank owned by various shareholders.
Today, we are owned by the UK Government, who appoint all of our senior policymakers. But we have independence from the Government in terms of how we carry out our responsibilities. …
What does this mean?
Well first of all, Parliament has given us very precise goals and responsibilities. For each one, we have specific tools we can use to meet our objectives.
Take our target for inflation, for example. The Government sets the target – which is 2%. Independence for monetary policy – which we’ve had since May 1997 – means that we set interest rates (and ‘quantitative easing’) at what we think to be the most appropriate level to achieve the inflation target. A committee meets to agree on these decisions eight times a year.
(It explains how a central bank differs from “high street banks” for which a nice big graphic is included:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-do-banks-do High Street Banks are not that different from any other business..
This (again, from a basic Google search on the bank’s (BCCI’s now) name and nothing else, April, 2022) is an extensive, single-spaced “Executive Summary of the BCCI Affair” by detailed numbered paragraphs, followed by numbered recommendations at the bottom.
It’s fine-print and no call-outs, graphics, just straight text (and headlines) — and it’s scathing. Please take the time to read it, and ask, why, in other sections of policy-making or government, should we have (should there be) ANY similarity to the practices that, taken as a whole here, still let BCCI (though it was eventually closed) get away with its strategy?
https://irp.fas.org/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm it’s hard to pick just one or two paragraphs to quote. I’m leaving the link. FAS.org is “Federation of American Scientists.” The ‘IRP” stands for “Intelligence Resource Program.” As you can see from the url, it’s dated 1992, right after the scandal broke in both the UK and the USA. This document talks about who dropped the ball when, and (Paragraph 16, the last, I’ll post the image) problems with followup from withheld documentation. Keep in mind, it’s now thirty (30) years later, and there would be more recent reports, I’m sure more than the one I just quoted above by BCCI Liquidators suing the Bank of England.
-
- https://irp.fas.org/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm (about the BCCI, one long page with numbered paragraphs. This image top, other image, the last para. (16) before recommendations. Recommended reading! LGH 2022.Apr.20
-
- https://irp.fas.org/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm (about the BCCI, one long page with numbered paragraphs. Image #2 of 2, the last para. (16) before recommendations. Good to know! LGH 2022.Apr.20
The basic IRP.FAS.Org website references two creators and states it’s no longer maintained (But latest entry, an “Annual Report” is dated Feb. 2022; I just read most of it… and will post two (top, and bottom) screens from it
NAVIGATION:
To go to the originating post: How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”)
To go back to the top of this post, click:
USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 21, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW”).
SHARE THIS POST on...
How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022).
which I’d taken from and which was the original focus of this post (only published 4/18/2022):
My sentiments (opinions) regarding USA’s] … Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots, take a while to express. So did my expressing how the post is organized. Enjoy the ride; there’s content and entertainment (at least my brand), and I trust more insight into current events (in this field) throughout whether preview, intro, or “basic quick summary.” As a blog, it’s still informal in structure, not a book with chapters …//LGH
~~ Quick post preview before I publish this today, April 19. Well, maybe not that quick…~~
This post’s two middle sections deal with the HiAP topic (how the entire topic of violence and abuse is framed, internationally and with intent that nations should make sure to get in line with this approach) and — only because the current arrangements USA, and as the domestic/family violence prevention field (notice I’m not saying “and child abuse” in that phrase) resemble in character and operations the same organizing and multi-layered, multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction arrangements that — until it collapsed and was shut down — were found from the 1970s until the early 1990s at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (“BCCI”). I found and added a few BCCI-summaries, but, people, this is NOT off-topic!
After those two sections, and moving towards the final summary, an extended set of paragraphs and some images/quotes regarding Lundy Bancroft (NOT my original focus in this post) made their entrance, and the bottom section is recognizable by its color. In fact, this is how it starts:
My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)
For example, within the domestic violence (prevention and services) field, USA, it’s already been strategized and organized into statewide coalitions (primarily government-funded) with member organizations in each state (and/or territory), ALL tax-exempt and the delegated (and by law, better funded, from the US government at least), “Domestic Violence Resource Network” (on Twitter, I use “#DVRN”), itself a combination of entities and non-entities. The DVRN provides the main theory and information to distribute; the statewide coalitions provide feedback and control operations within each state (via membership status for pass-through grants, typically small).
Several parts of this approach are unfair and lack transparency. Some experts in particular, being more prominent and adept at self-promotion (in addition to positions of prestige to start with), have done irretrievable damage with obsession with behavioral modification (training perps, training judges, training everyone within reach), that is with not handling “domestic violence” as a criminal matter involving attacks upon individual persons, as opposed to establishing and building capacity of a privately run, public-funded (mostly) system-of-change enterprise, with favored “warriors” and specific battle-cries featured and the overall truth — about the economic motivations, conflicts of interest with the public interest — often buried, no matter how many non-brainwashed survivors report it openly, usually individually, and usually without support of mainstream journals or advocacy (tax-exempt organization) groups compliant with the overall “privatization” schema.
Most of us “lone wolf bloggers” regardless of what we’ve researched, said, or know don’t have the public relations “pull” which is, bottom line, also connections to media, and access to the finances.
Moreover, if we don’t play up the “survivor” element in the right way, with the right demeanor and appropriately loyalty to the infrastructure — this includes keeping BIG secrets — we typically don’t have the stable employment, many do not have the pertinent advanced degrees (i.e., lawyers, psych, sociologist, etc.) common to the Family Court Reformists, regardless of what many may have had before the Family Court Fiasco experience involving (typically) years of litigation, broke or funded — the litigation continues…
We face paywalls regularly (journal subscriptions), no way to write off airfare, globetrotting consults or conferences (pre-pandemic or after), and, some having become also fugitives (for lack of the safety they/we didn’t get through normal legal protections or interventions), are often not even in the same public location, and not prone to divulging widely where we now live. “It’s complicated.” This leaves advocacy by the publicity-seekers but NOT personal long-term family court or domestic violence/child abuse issues — how many are even married or parents, or if so have gone through divorces post-welfare reform USA (1990s) or in this century, (CAFCASS was formed in 2001, right?) I often wonder — a wider-open field.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Noticing GWUToday (5/29/20) Promoting Joan Meier, NFVLC as new ‘COVID-19 Global Response to DV Quotable Expert’ Led Me (2 Years Later) to OPDV.NY.gov’s Task Force Members List (Announced 5/20/2020). [Begun Apr. 5, 2022, Publ. April 18].
This post was prompted by an article put out nearly two years ago by George Washington University’s Communications Services, domain name “GWUToday.GW.edu,” that I only noticed nearly two years later.
I’ll show how I came across certain information and decided this might as well be an example to talk about how “task forces” are presented to the public. I thought this would be a “short and sweet” simple, straightforward post, until I looked at not only the task force members, but also the Chair of the task force, and her boss, the former Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. That information has already resulted in at least two off-ramped posts.
Dog In the Manger (Phrases.Co.UK) explains that Aesop may not even have existed, but so what, now ….Img added 15April2022
Here, I set the larger context and express my personal opposition** to the established habits of GWU, NFVLC, and its newly installed Endowed Professor, Ms. Meier, found this time (May, 29, 2020) expounding upon things beyond her level of expertise without citing references (or even being required to), while having historically done a half-&ssed (that is, at least HALF the relevant information has been sat on, not divulged), “dog-in-the-manger”*** job of reporting and driving “family court reform” policy somewhere in the realm of fantasy, pretense, and extreme poetic license demanded at all points.
**(Why lose an opportunity when handed such a prime example?)
***dog-in-the-manger may not have been originally Aesop’s Fable, but its basic meaning is: “a person who selfishly withholds from others something useless to himself.” (or, herself…)
Why do I apply it here? Look behind the public relations pieces, understand the background:
You can’t see the level of “poetic license” demanded of the public without looking behind a few curtains. The background exists in things read seeking it — not just responding to the theatrics and scripts we are delivered routinely. People who don’t do much more than that type of response may have little grasp of what kinds of backgrounds can be looked up and looked at (for free, public-access, assuming an internet connection) by type. In this blog, I feature accounting-based, not cause-based literacy for dealing with the cause-based campaigns, including paid-for media and recruitment of others to add to it, free-referrals.
To perceive background information, including what is not but should be divulged for a balance of power with government operations, requires taking a closer look at and having an entity-focused vocabulary to describe the workings of governments, universities (i.e., creating “centers”) and contrasting information there with information is presented for public consumption, that is, when [for example] the public may be wondering where its (the public’s) tax dollars=the governments’ (plural) tax-receipts went and why the Violence Against Women Act grantees have been historically collaborating with federally funded fatherhood promotion grantees, USA.
What’s “Family Court Reform” (or true “VAW” prevention)
(or “empirical” or even “scientifically sound” — a.k.a. logical –)
About the “we STILL just don’t want to talk about it?” policy?
THIS POST IS:
Title and link will be repeated below in the post and at the bottom.
The points made here apply to other kinds of task forces. I emphasize developing and maintaining awareness of how information about who’s setting policy (and why) is presented….and what that likely represents.
Task force lists, like donor lists, partner/sponsor lists and (too often) even lists of “Our Team” (Board members of an organization) don’t really show the “relationships within relationships.”
This task force member lists doesn’t distinguish task force member affiliations by whether the affiliation is to a clearinghouse, resource center or ‘project’ (that are not entities — meaning, they cover for who is, in each case) or whether they do represent entities. This could easily be handled (shown up front) by including (where it’s a business entity) the suffix representing that entity: If an “Inc.,” “Inc.” or an LLC or LLP, “LLP,” and where it’s not, the name of the underlying entity running the program.
Often geographic information is missing and as is almost almost always information on how many and which (if not ALL) of said task force member’s listed affiliations — whether entities or not entities — are in effect public-funded projects run as private corporations or associations. For this New York State task force, isn’t it relevant to whether the state or the federal government sets policy which members, or their affiliations mentioned weren’t residents of New York State? For example, here, Washington, D.C. is obviously not New York State.
This information is ALWAYS relevant, so why is it SO OFTEN withheld?
Who determined, and since when (in the internet age) that the public just doesn’t need to know, and shouldn’t be told or even encouraged to even think about such basic categories of existence?
It’s a problem, and tells the public “Don’t bother trying to put together what’s actually taking place within and in the name of the purposes of government, whether the United States federal, or individual states or how and where they interact.”
HOW I FOUND THIS INFO:
I saw the information about a new task force only from my habitual curiosity about who, what, when, and where within a university news is posted; that’s how I learned (although nearly two years later) that a COVID-19 Task Force for Domestic Violence Response had been formed in New York State, and that a George Washington University Law Professor who’d barely — it seems only mid-2019 — persuaded the university to back her in supporting and naming another “National Center” to stop or prevent family violence.
This non-entity center** is conveniently named and organized to support Joan Meier’s approach to the problematic family court disgraces: scandalous minimization/denial of high-lethality risk, domestic violence, child abuse issues, leading to insanely criminal acts against women, children, AND men
That response, innately seeks to (further) enshrine and preserve the basic meat-grinder institution of the family courts (USA), insisting that with just some more trainings and tweaks it could be made “SAFE” for children.
That is what Kayden’s Law – VAWA (Reauthorization) campaign claimed for passing the federal, and now claims (present tense) as a reasonable cause for getting the federal standard ensconced* in state laws, state by state. (Now taken to another post, link only active when it’s published. This is a reminder, brief, and not meant to be in-depth, but to back up what I just said, above..)
Talk about a mis-nomer, and avoidance label:
The ‘Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence,’ VAWA Tweak [is] Yet Another Federal Fable ℅ NFVLC (2019, fka DVLEAP 2003f), NSPC (website 2022), and Dear Friends [April 15, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eg9”)
Subtitle: NFVLC (started 2019, Anonymously Endowed 2020?) seeks to Affix (Ensconce, Enshrine) to State Laws, So it’s Said, “for the Kids.” I review this and state my opposition.
Enough preview of the more immediate context….
GWUToday.GWU.edu (webpage footer; the top is news. See About/Mission” statement.
GWToday.GWU.edu is the university’s external/internal official communications channel: I understand it to be their public relations. Before starting this post I read and looked at all listed Staff bio blurbs to get a better sense who was running it. The website will have those links; I also saved it to pdf for future reference at: About | GW Today | The George Washington University (Staff, incl Exec Dir, Sr. Man[a]ging Editors, & others (See Also bio blurbs)~~2022.Apr. 05 (Pdf, a second clink to load may be required. The link is my filename, not the website’s).
George Washington Today serves as the primary source of news and information for George Washington University students, faculty, staff and alumni. Through original journalism and communications from the GW administration, George Washington Today offers a range of stories and information about university operations, campus events, higher education trends and articles that showcase members of the GW community.
Again, this post is:
Subtitle: In-bred (with the DV-orgs network) Task Forces Chaired by Governor’s Office Council Chairs
Sub-subtitle: Lists in this format are designed to impress — not inform. I’ll show in Table Format to illustrate WHY, and, whatever format the lists come in, how (we) should be mentally understanding them in columns with a few extra columns to check off “category.”
It’s also smack in the middle of the “relationships within relationships” section I wrote (quoting an earlier post), just another lesson in the same “Relationships — public/private etc. — within relationships” Level 101. ENTRY level…
Here are a few more titles I tried which reflect my concerns and astonishment:
- Window Frames on Websites Matter!
- Does appointment to a Task Force named at Domestic Violence COVID-19 Response make one an instant COVID-19 Global Expert with no need to cite sources on any data?
- No, but it makes another reportable for GWUToday.GW.Edu and another mention for Joan Meier. Anyhow, about that task force…
- May 29, 2020, GWUToday.GW.edu (University Public Relations): Joan Meier, Specialty, Family Law Appeals on DV Response, On New NY State Task Force Talks Global COVID-19 DV Expert,
- New York State’s COVID-19 DV Task Force (Announced 5/20/20), Chaired by Top Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Most Loyal ‘Enforcer’ Secretary to Governor Melissa DeRosa ~~>BEFORE She,Then He, finally Resigned (8/2021) Amid Sex Abuse and Other Significant Scandals. (Let’s Talk..)
This was going to be a “quick-and-easy” post until I, feeling responsible, looked up not only the task force members but also the chairperson, which led to a variety of headlines showing the context of a shakeup at the Governor’s level (where Chairperson of this task force was operating. I off-ramped that discussion to a new post** leaving my more innocent version and understanding of the task force here, to be published first…Some references to it remain here but I will discuss more fully on another post.
I also took a (quick!) look at New York State’s “OPDV” (Office for Prevention of Domestic Violence). It puts out reports in short, or long format. I included two reports as footnotes: (Dec. 2021) report from the Gov. Kathy Hochul’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Forensic Child Custody (only 16 pages) and “Report on Public Hearings for Accountability for Those Who Cause Harm” (Also Dec., 2021, much longer).
Both are interesting for current developments and (one of them) history of the “batterers’ intervention movement.” The main content (though it takes a while to get to it) is formatting a task force list as tables with (ideally), links to those affiliations which have known websites. Perhaps the footnotes will become their own separate (short) posts…
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo …? [Begun Feb. 6, 2022, Publ. Apr. 4].
[I’m moving post declarations further down the page since beginning to include “Display Content” on my “Most Recent (Ten) Posts” widget, April 27, 2022. Otherwise the only content it displays is another version of a very long title. I want the short-links near the top so will leave abbreviations of the full title in place. //LGH)
Short version:
NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities … … ? [Begun Feb. 6, 2022, Publ. April 4]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”).
PRWeb.com Fri April 1, 2022 Promo by NSPC for NSPC and NFVLC re getting STATES to pass VAWA ALL 50 States to pass Kayden’s Law). NFVLC Quote (right sidebar press release) ref. Danielle Pollack.
Why I use “NSPC” but those behind it, don’t:
The theme being promoted through NSPC is “Safe Parents” in the family (private custody) courts. I don’t see that “NSPC” is the acronym used by its promoters or members, but it matches the website’s stated label: “National Safe Parents Coalition” and is shorter, so that’s what I’m going to use. It’s also often paired with “NFVLCgwu,” the other part of this dynamic-duo of non-entities^^ with shared messaging on a professional (PRWeb) press release which I just blogged the other day (see nearby image), asking whose money? was behind this:
^^Non-entity** ‘NATIONAL Safe Parents Coalition’ + non-entity ‘NATIONAL Family Violence Law Center’ (actually, GWU.edu) = WHOSE money behind attempt to (inter)NATIONALIZE DV, CA and the FamilyCourts? [From Feb. 6, 2022, Moved Here April 1]. (-e5D, posted April 1, 2022).
GW Law’s Joan Meier Is Installed in Newly Endowed Professorship Supporting Family Violence Survivors | A $2.75 million gift from an anonymous donor endowed the new GW Law National Family Violence Law Center Professorship…
April 01, 2022, By Greg Varner (Photos by David Scavone)In recognition of her groundbreaking work to support victims of domestic violence, the George Washington University installed GW Law Professor Joan S. Meier as the inaugural holder of the National Family Violence Law Center Professorship…
… After the ceremonial remarks from others, Meier spoke briefly, thanking the dean as well as the donor. “This moment feels like the culmination of a journey,” she said.
Briefly discussing the evolution of her work, Meier said she started out representing clients and helping them win civil protection orders, but then moved into the child custody arena, where she faced pushback from judges.
“We saw courts resisting the idea that children were at risk where women were at risk,” Meier said, “and the idea that fathers’ access might need to be limited to keep children safe.”
Meier’s research and litigation experience convinced her that systematic appellate advocacy was needed, so she launched DV LEAP, the first organization that would systematically take appeals in such cases
THIS POST IS: (full title):
NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Begun Feb. 6, 2022, Publ. Apr. 4]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”).
The same day of the installation, I’d just asked “WHOSE money?” This appears to be yet another level of the “None Of Your Business” answer, the first levels involving having a center at a university which is itself not quite transparent (as to its financing) and the other, the NSPC.
The “safe parents” label (within “National Safe Parents Coalition”) is weak and vague and the intended “in the family courts” application for it’s (and NFVLC’s) Kayden’s Law/VAWA campaign is ridiculous and off-target (IF safety for children is indeed the real goal), so I won’t be using that phrase any more than I have to in my ongoing posts this year about this campaign and about those behind both websites and that campaign. Until some better solution comes to mind, I’ll use NSPC instead.
Passage of #VAWA Kayden’s was planned to be applied to individual states as quickly as possible based on recent passage of the federal version, to which I object even more, as a survivor, a witness over time of these systems, an investigative blogger and a person not afraid to ask “why” and point out where proof and logic aren’t even on the table; just more pressure, persuasion are and now, even more money for more of the same.
Now you know what the acronym “NSPC” (Twitter, “#NSPC”) stands for when I use it. What it represents is a different matter; I talk about it below the post title here, and (eventually) get down to documenting the member logos shown on an early version of the National Safe Parents Coalition website. We are going to see the Archive.org (“Wayback Machine”) version showing the probable start date.
This post has been in draft so long, I’ve already published parts of its content in the process of discussing the two acronyms NSPC and the associated NFVLC. I’m counting nine posts since February 6, most related to this topic and developments then and since. See my right sidebar, “Last Ten Posts” widget. Not all mobile phones show the sidebar, so for convenience, here are the last nine. (The tenth covers the use of the word “National” (Feb. 1, 2022) and is related, but started before this one). Dates posted follow the titles. Click on any title to go to that post.
- Non-entity** ‘NATIONAL Safe Parents Coalition’ + non-entity ‘NATIONAL Family Violence Law Center’ (actually, GWU.edu) = WHOSE money behind attempt to (inter)NATIONALIZE DV, CA and the FamilyCourts? [From Feb. 6, 2022, post moved here April. 1]. April 2, 2022
- Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022 from Draft Post Feb. 6] March 30, 2022
- (1) Four Reasons Why I Wrote “High-Conflict on Steroids,” my March 1 post, Now and (2) Intro to my March 26 Revisions of the Same [Publ. Mar. 28, 2022]. March 28, 2022
- Journals, Their Editors, Sponsors + Publishers | #FamilyCourtRvw: The Voice of AFCC w Help from Hofstra — Editorial Board and Access-Visitation Grants as I re-explained/posted May 21, 2018. [Repost with my March 21, 2022 Update**]. March 21, 2022
- Moms New To and Seeing Through #FamilyCourtReformists Rhetoric 2002-2022 Have Other Options.. [March 20, 2022]. March 20, 2022
- Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 19, 2022]. March 19, 2022
- @LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. March 8, 2022
- “NPEIV envisions a world free of all forms of interpersonal violence.” Hmm… Let’s Look Into That… [March 3, 2022]. March 4, 2022
- ‘High-Conflict’ Court-Ordered Parenting Classes and Certified High-Conflict Divorce Coaching USA is Now on Steroids. Yet USA FamilyCourtReform Collaborators Using This Jargon still expect to be taken seriously (and are, for example, by at least one UK/Europe-focused journal.) [Begun Feb. 16, 2022, Published March 1.] March 2, 2022
This post focuses on NSPC, but as both websites and their related social media accounts (of these, I only use Twitter) continue promoting what each individually and each other, and others who share their perspectives and paradigms, have been accomplishing, I now understand that the NSPC (website and campaign) was intended from the start to be the more temporary and to help promote NFVLC. The NFVLC needed the passage of “Kayden’s Law – VAWA” for its director’s credibility, a victory to point to, on agenda of further nationalizing, first, United States’ family courts and eventually, the world’s. I will deal more with NFVLC and that claim separately, however read nearby pre-launch announcement carefully: it includes a statement of purpose.
Without passage of Kayden’s Law – VAWA, the credibility behind NFVLC as stated in its pre-launch announcement ‘Joan Meier and GW Law Announce New National Family Violence Law Center~~2022.Mar.29 Tues, pdf; a more recent post shows more of this) is basically: (1) A 2019 NIJ-funded study focused on mis-use of parental alienation, published by GWU.edu itself, and (2) Prior work at DVLEAP.org (“Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appellate Project”) based at George Washington University Law School. Not much of a basis! Please read my May 19, 2019 Page (“-8um”) documenting DVLEAP’s: leaky logic; laughable claim of thought-leadership and negligent/irresponsible shortlist of “DV National Resources>” with several long-expired (as of 2018) links. In a list of ten, three broken, one entity name had changed, the fellow-thought-leader at another had been (since 2012) working out of a different nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. (one that is now listed under NSPC).
See also nearby screenshot from it, where I’d noticed that both the UDSOJ/OVW and “The Leadership Council” had given their blessing to DVLEAP’s practices; I said “If this is leadership, then we need a new type which better understands why domestic violence law, unenforced OR even enforced, doesn’t counteract $150M a year and deliberate saturation of the system with PRWORA-plus marriage and fatherhood promotion”, and identifying myself as someone whose experience (exposure) to the DV and family court gauntlet pre-dates the formation of DVLEAP…
Screenshot from my May 19, 2019 Page (not post) on DVLEAP.org, DVLEAP New Website Still Derails OPEN Discussion… (see text on image, or that page)..
I wrote the that page January 2018, thought I’d published it but needing to quote or link to it in May, 2019, discovered it was still in draft and so published it the next day. At the bottom of the page I also showed proof (screenshots from blogger’s dashboard) it was written January, 2018. under 6,000 words with many annotated or captioned images: DV LEAP’s New Website Still Derails OPEN (Uncensored) Discussion of The PROBLEM, Digging A Deeper Hole for Survivors of Abuse and Their Children (Started Jan. 27, 2018 | Publ. May 19, 2019). (shortlink to this PAGE ends “-8um”). I stand by that title: this applies to the developments since.
Basically, I called DVLEAP out (as published) three years ago, but as I also must have been talking about (and for the same reasons), four or more years ago. Meanwhile NFVLC was started about the same time, sometime in 2019.
While I am no “influencer,” my page identified many weaknesses (more than flaws) within DVLEAP’s self-presentation, its statement of “The Problem” and proposed “Solution” as well as for sending readers who happened by on some wild goose chases with its list of references. At least one of the references is now (under a different entity name) at NSPC…. The same fallacies in logic (making leaps without connection), even more arrogance in claims, and (on closer look) constant self-promotions, characterize the NFVLC, under the same individual leader (Joan Meier), with decreased visibility in following the money behind it, which I just blogged April 1.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019]
with 5 comments
Title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7″…)…
Sept. 2019 update: preliminary “TWO HELPFUL LINKS” insert (may be found scattered on other posts, too)…
Because we had enough ‘sticky posts,’ when compiling a Table of Contents for 2019 (“so far”) in August, 2019, I didn’t mark it sticky — but did stick it on the blog sidebar as its own widget. Then I added (right below it) the link to this post. Then I took that information and patched it onto a few existing posts (from 2019) as a quick link to a general overview of the last two years of my writing. As shown here:**
re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)
TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.” About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and,
(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)
(** other versions you may see have same content but the light-green background. I made this one light-pink for contrast with existing post). Thanks for understanding. //LGH Sept. 1, 2019 update.
Again, the title of this post: 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages (Full List with Titles) in Standard TOC Format [provided March 24, 2019] (Shortlink ends “-9y7”; about 4,000 words. )
[[LGH, shortening sticky post intro’s, I noticed this one has somme exchanged comments below. Most posts don’t, so these may be of interest to some people: it deals with an appeal to join a class action suit re: (as I recall) the family courts. I did not join and was dealing with housing issues, my exchange indicated, at the time…//May 18, 2021.]]
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
March 24, 2019 at 6:16 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)
Tagged with (Extended exchanges on Comments), Browse Post Titles, FamilyCourtMatters'org New Pages added in 2018, Table of Contents 2018 (in Table Format), Table of Contents 2019 (thru Aug 31) AND 2018 (all) (℅ 'Two Helpful Links' insert)