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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov [published Sep. 18, 2017]

leave a comment »

This page (#28901)  I have named:  How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/ PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-7w9”; page was started 8/29/2017, published 9/18).  The post introducing it is already published (mid-September) and has been post-publication updated  and expanded…)

Also, a shortish long preview of this page may be found on the post “Introducing My New Page, ….(its case-sensitive short-link ends “-7xs”). Towards the bottom this post references a California Collaborative Justice Foundation (“CCJF,” formed after 2008) with some details.  Perhaps that foundation was formed in part in follow-up to the 2005 document I profile in this page.   I have not yet researched or blogged, but did locate another apparently related association to the “CCJF” called The California Association of Collaborative Courts.

This page also refers to some May, 2016 posts which I consider valuable and “right-on-target” about the progressive consolidation/centralization of the courts within this state, while accountability is dispersed throughout related nonprofit sectors and public/private partnerships too.  This one, Federal Designer Families:  How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation (May 26, 2016) (shortlink ends “-3F1”) has a table in the middle of it summarizing some of the timeframes.  Look for the dark-olive background.  In fact, I’m including that table, from the middle of that post, here too.  Also, now that I know how, I’m adding screenprints/images from the report I’m quoting.

The table of timeframes section below looks like this:

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide.

Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts) ….Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

Keeping Page Contents’ Chronology in Mind | Publication Dates:  Remembering my 2016 post was on a 2012 report (by a “Strategic Evaluation Committee”) on the AOC, however in general, after taking this into account, this new September 2017 page’s primary exhibit includes a 2005 document published by the same Judicial Council but authored by, apparently, a Communications Director for “partnership” from New York State (Center for Court Innovations).

Other Preview of this Page: I also ended up discussing a Minnesota mini-nonprofit that allegedly started up on a kitchen table, drafted legislation which was submitted “within six weeks” to the legislature (for rebuttable presumption of 50/50 custody in family court decisions), moved onto the William Mitchell College of Law campus, continued meeting and soliciting law student intern help, was featured in the student newspaper as “community outreach” and THEN, later, incorporated itself — but failed to file annually, got twice involuntarily revoked, once reinstated, and finally someone apparently said “enough” and the right to use the business name, “Center for Parental Responsibility” was revoked in 2014.  As part of this review (for me at least), I also further looked at the CPR Inspiration claimed, a Professor Erlinder at Wm. Mitchell College of Law.  Of recent (2010, 2012, 2014) fame for his activities on ICTR (“ International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda“) in 2003, and upon traveling to Rwanda in 2010 to help and opposition candidate, in part because of his prior work on the ICTR, getting jailed for genocide-denial (briefly), to international outcry, then on return to his professorship, and having also been removed from the ICTR, banned from campus at William Mitchell College of Law in 2012 — after which he sued the Dean of the Law School (2014) and continued posting his alternate views on Rwanda at a nonprofit website he runs.

I had already noticed how William Mitchell College of Law merged into another name, while housing “Big Tobacco” litigation info at “PublicHealthLaw”; and am wondering whether the notoriety of the Erlinder lawsuit in an international genocide context has anything to do with that timing (which was 2015/2016).  I also noticed that several of Erlinder’s articles are featured on a Canadian publication (GlobalResearch.CA) I noticed wasn’t particularly enamored of the U.S. Way of doing things, earlier, and on an unrelated topic (CAFRs), which I also bring up below.  Sooner or later in this (FamilyCourtMatters’ blog’s) field, prior investigations cross paths with new ones, different topics, same entities.  That’s just how it seems to go!

Separately, a longstanding, well-known, it seems, NON-entity in MN, the “IDVAAC” claims to have opened in 1993, 1994 — and closed in 2016; which leaves me wondering how it could “close” when evidence of IDVAAC as an entity at all didn’t surface inbetween, regardless of how famous the name and its primarily leadership (a UMN Professor at the CEHD — College of Education and Human Development) was in certain circles and on the conference circuit.  On finding that it was, however, “closed” in December, 2016, per the website, and that the work would continue at “Ujima, Inc.” (No further identifiers provided, and that’s hardly a unique name among nonprofits, I learned quickly), I found that the new organization in question, whose founder had an affiliation for several years (about five says one page) with IDVAAC isn’t actually “Ujima, Inc.” (that I could find) but “Nerlow Afriki, Inc.” which I DID find incorporated in New York State — although not WHEN the website claimed it was…

A further hunt for Nerlow Afriki turned up a fascinating and courageous/inspiring story line, which I have no reason to disbelieve, but unfortunately not one tax return (including a Form 990-N) and a discovery that the IRS thinks this entity exists in Maryland, while the NY registration says its address was in Maryland, but neither NJ or MD has a record of any such entity.  Meanwhile, if anyone is on a conference circuit, SOMEONE pays for travel and honoraria, so exactly how this happens is a mystery, just now.  Why a better economic footprint wasn’t left?  Probably those involved just chose not to, and that is a deliberate choice.  And that’s a problem when the paradigm-shifting, transform the planet people get together, leaving the rest of us (or those so interested) to figure out where justice went, and how it could exist without corresponding financial accountability for federally-funded (and otherwise public-funded) operations.

That’s a lot to discuss, and there’s plenty between also, so, starting with images from the 2012 SEC report, followed quickly by the olive-background table (my highlights from it):

A bit of history from the 2012 report. Read!!

Intro, cont’d from “A Bit of History” image

SEC, “Strategic Evaluation Committee” report cover May 2012

Chapter 3 “Overarching Issues and Themes” from the TOC — Read!!

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide.

Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.


(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d.  Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS — not the entire family law system.  Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.”

Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind.  These are rarely 100% neutral.  [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name.  It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members.  This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them.  Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC?  I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post [May 26, 2016 is the reference] –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY:  The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show.  The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind

But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office.  Then, they combined them.  Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts.  “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC.  AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.


Blogging Basics for Readers (Posts vs. Pages: topics temporal vs. a bit more “eternal” and, like eternal or at least more universal truths, sometimes buried a bit deeper on this domain):

While this page supplements an existing post, it also has wider relevance, which is why I made it a page and not a post…

In blog terms, posts are automatically entered in a chronological procession on main blog space (underneath several “sticky” posts continually in top position) and onto the sidebar’s “most recent posts” area (and as links to the date only, within the “Archives” drop-down menu), while Pages are simply “there” and not even visible until I manually link them to a post, and/or to a place on the sidebar. Pages are therefore supposed to be more timeless, and are not displayed in chronological order anywhere in particular.

Of course pages still relate to where I am in my blogging interests and deepening (that’s fair to say!) understanding of pieces of the national economic, governmental, and policy-making puzzle and public, private, and public/private infrastructure/s affecting where and by what means I live, and what I can do (and what others can or cannot do to me or my offspring, whether the actions be legal or illegal) while there.  So this one has some temporal and some timeless aspects (as examples of specific processes illustrating what I say are important principles involved, and/or violated).

This page (#28901)  I have named:  How and When Problem-Solving (make that ‘Collaborative Justice’) Courts were Institutionalized and other Consolidate/Coordinate/Standardize/ PRIVATIZE Stories at Courts.CA.Gov  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-7w9”; page was started 8/29/2017.  The post introducing it is already published (mid-September) and post-publication updated (expanded…).

I was talking on an earlier post  —  NAATPN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (Hattiesburg MS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe. ..  [Published 8/28/2017 evening and as usual may be updated for clarity, basic copyediting, or length (splitting)//LGH]  —

— about how the 1996ff (PRWORA-related) events overlapped with my current blogging interest, the 1998 (Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement) events, and similarities (not to mention overlap) of involved networking nonprofits, along with the stories told the public omitting the details of Who’s Who and the gradual, (dare I say “progressive” in today’s political climate, but referencing the generic, not political, meaning of the word?) incremental erosion of local or even state-level accountability to citizens living within those state, as opposed to privatized special-interest nonprofits continually telling us all that the same are protecting against other privatized special-interest FOR profits as though these two were unrelated….

Notice the lone author is cited as “Center for Court Innovation.” That’s not an “Inc.” and I explain that again on this page. It’s a Public/Private Partnership (mega-style) with both the private and the public partners located in New York State (one of them in NYC)…

This page looks closer at a 2005 document with url actually labeled “California_Story.pdf” and copyrighted by a California government entity — or rather, a part of the State of California — while authored by what is actually a project (not an incorporated entity) between the NY Unified Court System and Fund for the City of New York (which IS an entity — a private one.  As a 501©3 it’s in the private sector.  That document and some images posted on it below have a dark green cover page.  I’d previously, years ago, noticed, flagged on this post, and over time periodically watched the Center for Court Innovation’s ongoing promotion of certain types of programs, especially diversionary, specialized courts, and in general themes that mesh closely with the known and stated agenda of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

In addition the CCI features coaching and training people in other states (with a view also towards moving it internationally) as well.  If people want things to go global, it seems that NYC (coordinated well with California) and a fund with backing of a major philanthropist family (the Fund for the City of New York, Inc., started in 1968 by the Ford Foundation) would certainly kickstart and tend to keep the process going.

While a quick search on Google may say that the “Center for Court Innovation” is a nonprofit — it’s not.  It’s a public/private partnership on a major scale.  Does the website, even when it becomes clear that the “private” part is “Fund for the City of New York” offer up its financials?  “Not hardly….” (but check out, it takes several images to get there, the Board of Directors’ various connections…):

“Founded as a public/private partnership”

The “CENTER” is a public/private partnership with a motto. Check out list of topics on left side: I told you: diversion, specialized courts, (incl. drug, mental health, domestic violence..) & “Problem-Solving Justice.”… get it?

Google search results to left, SPONSORED search results to the right say CCI’s a nonprofit. It’s not… Notice also it started 1996 (PRWORA just passed), during Clinton White House Admin. PRWORA with block grants to the States under TANF began freeing up federal money for some of these programs, $10M/year nationally for access visitation (administered by HHS/OCSE which handled child support enforcement) and $150M/year (I believe then, but at latest by 2006 as specialized CFDA 93.086) for healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood, baked into” the welfare infrastructure, and with the FCNY (Fund for the City of New York) helping promote the same through this partnership…

Clicking on ‘Fund for the City of NY” under “Who We Are” brings up this page — hasn’t changed much for years..

Clicking “Fund for City of New York” on previous image showing something that looks like a flow-chart or hierarchical chart with this at the top in purple, leads to this descriptive page. Notice (left) it lists Bd of Directors, a National Center, and an International Institute — but not its financials or even EIN#. This fund is also, looks like (and as I recall, but not recent review of the IRS returns), operating as an intermediary lender, which would have a major impact on its typical size of “AUM” (Assets Under Management or Total Gross Assets) at any point in time.

Board of Directors; check it out (there are two more which didn’t fit in this size image, shown in next one). Mary McCormick (listed only in this function) in 2012 was the only non-Californian invited to an evaluation/major review of the California Judicial Council/Admin. Office of the Courts” task force, responding to complaints that it had become top-heavy, aggressive (unresponsive to local court initiatives and needs). The AOC also oversaw major grant programs including some which flowed through its “CFCC.” Again, while I posted it, that’s “As I Recall.” I may be remembering instead someone from NCSC, (last name McQueen?)...

Last two listed FCNY directors. Interesting how this entire listing isn’t in clear, large-font black and white, but small gray-and-white lettering.


Meanwhile California’s own court systems have undergone fast consolidation in the 1990s – 2000s. The “story” (it’s factual, evidence uploaded, not some “story”) I’m telling here calls attention to

  • the increased consolidation at the higher level of government + increased privatization (dispersion of accountability for funding with referrals to AND input/influences from private associations networked and organized often from outside the state), and
  • how the manner of story-telling (self-reporting) typically fails to identify AND classify each component as: private entity (and if so, when founded, where legally domiciled – it matters!), government entity (when formed), and how these interact.

In case you wonder why so many of my images are so heavily annotated — I call attention to omissions, mis-statements, and mis-leading statements, as well as “accountability avoidance.”

Caption follow-up re: Mary McQueen:  Mary McQueen was 2014 ABA’s John Marshall Award recipient has a brief bio (I remembered the name right; she has been NCSC Staff since 2004, before then was Administrator of Courts for Washington State.  She has a bachelors (in what, not mentioned) from the University of Georgia, and a J.D. from Seattle University School of Law:

**[Year: 2014] McQueen has served as president of the National Center for State Courts since 2004, and previously worked for 25 years as the Washington State Court administrator and Director of Judicial Services for the Washington State Office of the Administrator for the Courts.  McQueen holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia and a JD from Seattle University Law School.

National Center for State Courts, headquartered in Williamsburg, Va., is a nonprofit court organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to the state courts. Founded in 1971 by the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger, NCSC provides education, training, technology, management, and research services to the nation’s state courts.

Looking for my reference to the 2012 California Evaluation Task force (on-line, not on this blog), I came across Ms. McQueen in context of a Harvard Executive Conference declaring how courts should start to model the practice of hospitals, with “loosely coupled relationships” with other organizations (i.e., the experts).  From the NCSC website (more on NCSC near bottom of this post.  While it’s not mentioned in “the California Story 2005 pdf, the foreword to that document published by the California Judicial Council does reference two of its chief affiliations, including the Conference of Chief Justices mentioned just above.  Check out the wording!! expressed in the leader of this Virginia-based nonprofit which, for a single year in 1983, gave the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” a hand-up by serving as its Secretariat: “Governance: The Final Frontier.”  Notice the sidebar link, “court re-engineering.”

Click image to enlarge if needed, and here for the source url (a video is also included)

“In Governance: the Final Frontier, NCSC President Mary McQueen argues that court leaders should replace their longstanding focus on the model for governing private corporations and executive branch agencies with the more appropriate model offered by what are called “loosely coupled” organizations. State courts, like public hospitals and universities, provide services requiring extensive and specialized knowledge in a context of decentralized decision making.  Consideration of the processes and mechanisms developed by leaders of loosely coupled organizations provides a new direction for achieving effective court governance and delivering public satisfaction.”
The document is dated 2013, was supported by a BJA grant, and end matter, both references (footnotes, actually) and who was on the Executive Committee for this series, are course interesting.  I see one retired Minnesota State Senator also associated with an entity I looked up (in its context of ethnicity-specific domestic violence prevention organization startup) years ago, in other words, the APIAHF helped kickstart and spin off a similarly-titled DV entity in the Northern California area. The exclusive makeup of the “Executive Committee” and lack of representatives from the public in general, is obvious.  It looks like Harvard convened the series;

Mee Moua

Vice President for Strategic Impact Initiatives, Asian & Pacifc Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF); Senator, Minnesota Senate, Retired.

I expect to move (“off-ramp”) the next section, which explains my interest in this connection to someone on the “Executive Conference” mentioned above, and deals with the above organization (APIAHF) and how its spin-off nonprofit (or at least one of them) in San Francisco, now in Oakland, got started after some time of funding as a project, and staffed by people already entrenched in the mainstream, by now standardized “response” to domestic, or as this group calls it after spin-off, “gender-based” violence.

This move will happen in stages, and may be a bit of a bumpy ride until the process is finished.  A title isn’t set yet, but this is the “Read More Here” link, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7Eo”. (As of Oct. 10, 2017, this was not published, but is about to be now — “Government, the Final Frontier”

I posted quite a bit below until realizing that the spin-off entity’s Board Chair was not only a long-time “Futures without Violence” staffer (since 1980), but also, as found on the website “MoveToEndViolence.org,” fronting, leading, or otherwise involved with the NoVo Foundation, which is a half-billion-dollar assets Form 990PF filer out of New York (but legal domicile Nebraska, per NY filings), run and funded (it says since 2006 in NY, otherwise since 1999) by the Buffett Family (i.e., in a recent year, Warren Buffett donated $150M in the form of non-cash (i.e., equities) a single year, out of which $81M was distributed as grants to a variety of groups, including (a few pages worth, i.e., millions of dollars) to the Tides Foundation and Tides Center.

the NoVo Foundation is domiciled in Nebraska, while address in NY, probably because of its management. It is a Buffett-family funded foundation. Too bad the website didn’t use black on white, instead of this “dishwater-gray” on white font, huh?


Total results: 3Search Again.

NoVo Foundation NY 2015 990PF 53 $528,162,041.00 47-0824753
NoVo Foundation NY 2014 990PF 48 $527,185,379.00 47-0824753
NoVo Foundation NY 2013 990PF 41 $395,245,222.00 47-0824753

Three images from the Harvard-convened “Executive Sessions” under McQueen’s “Governance: The Final Frontier” pdf (available to read for free on-line in several different places, including at the Virginia-based nonprofit formed in 1971, NCSC). The print quality not too good in two of them:

Front matter from “Governance: the Final Frontier” 2013 by Mary McQueen of the NCSC; available on its website showing Harvard Kennedy School (of Government) may have been the convenor.

Of the four entities shown above, only the BJA is [part of a] a government entity. SJI (State Justice Institute) (which website ends in “*.gov”) is an Active Virginia-based nonprofit, EIN#621301780, which apparently has not filed a tax return (and no Form 990-N postcards) since FY2010, and whose primary purpose is, with government (federal) appropriations, grantmaking to speed transformation/court re-engineering processes.  I say “apparently” because after checking on-line for the above, I didn’t follow through with more phone calls or seeking (fee-based) certification of that info. A look at existing tax returns (2010 or earlier) is interesting, particularly the grants and program service accomplishment descriptions. I saw a grant to “Center for Policy Research” (Denver) which leadership also active in FRPN.org; most grants were to either organizations similar to this one, or directly to specific courts.


Four websites to learn more about the Executive Session for State Court Leaders in the 21st Century.













I also located my earlier post (and some others) referencing some of this material, especially on the gradual centralization, with NCSC input, on the State of California:

24 Federal Designer Families:  How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation May 26, 2016
25 Georgia Center of OPPORTUNITY (for whom?) in re: Exploiting 1996 PRWORA  (Personal Responsibility and Work OPPORTUNITY Reconciliation Act) HHS grants streams May 29, 2016
26 1942-2016, He Fought Men, Racism and War Itself.  He Fought Well, Changing The World.  (Now, about Sexism…) June 4, 2016
27 Courtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network” [post tags below] June 08, 2016

FCNY = ‘Fund for the City of New York.’  I clarified a passing comment to the NCSC and Mary McQueen in a caption above, but we were looking at this Fund in the context of “Center for Court Innovation” — which was one of the two major entities associated with the publication pushing “Collaborative Justice / Problem-Solving Courts” in California.


FCNY Quick Board of Directors look-up:  Skadden Arps’ “Wiki”.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates (often shortened to Skadden ArpsSkadden; or SASM&F), founded in 1948, is an international law firm based in New York City. With approximately 1,700 attorneys, it is one of the highest-grossing law firms in the world.[8]Forbes magazine has called Skadden “Wall Street‘s most powerful law firm.” The firm has been ranked “America’s Best Corporate Law Firm” in Corporate Board Member‘s survey of public company directors every year since 2001.[9][10]

[Prominently donating more to Democrats… see internet for more info….]

While this page supplements an existing post, it also has wider relevance, which is why I made it a page and not a post…These are the overlapping paragraphs, image and quote (identified by background color matching the post’s); the reference to variety of Southern States, Minnesota, and California relating of course to issues dealing with the post this came out of…I’ll make this smaller font.  Note: some images re: Center for Court Innovation’s FCNY from above may extend into this one; the “wrap” is hard to predict or control.

Also as a Californian, I have certain issues with people from North Carolina, South Carolina and Mississippi and/or Georgia with known connections and support from a law-school nonprofit in St. Paul, Minnesota characterizing themselves as representing the best interests of people who, like I do, actually live in this state and must deal with some of the crazy policies set in place through social engineering here since 1996 Welfare Reform, PRWORA, let alone since the (two years later) Tobacco Litigation Master Settlement Agreement, not to mention the (in this state) increasing consolidation of control of the courts at the top level and in the administrative sector over time,** some of which I blogged about four years ago as it pertained to AFCC inordinate influence over family, divorce and custody courts, and ongoing reversal and erosion of whatever gains were made by laws against domestic violence and spousal battery.

(**Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Unification Act of 1997 (<==2005 Fact Sheet (partial image shown below) from Courts.CA.gov on this); then consolidation of already statewide Family Court Services with Children’s Services ca. 2000/2001 into the “CFCC” (Center for Families and Children in the Courts) under the Administrative Offices of the Courts (AOC), and gradual but consistent movement of operational (jursidictional?) responsibility for the court buildings, employees, and judges away from local upwards towards the state level — and we are a large state.)

(2pp, Click image to read the rest)

This abstract from NCJRS.gov Virtual Doc’t #NCJ 200028 (28pp, 2003) references some of the events I just described between 1997 and within the next five or six years… These events and changes were occurring simultaneously with the “Big Tobacco” Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, and major transitions affecting divorce, custody and the future of domestic violence / child abuse protections within those family courts re: child support enforcement responsibilities (a consequence of PRWORA Act of 1996, nationwide) from local District Attorneys to SDUs (Statewide Distribution Units) and facilitating the incentive payments for increased noncustodial parenting contact (access and visitation program support) at $10M a year nationwide, and (later established as CFDA 93086 under HHS) the nationwide promotion of marriage/fatherhood in the form of federal grants which tended to land in organizations willing to run downloadable curricula, and intermediary organizations chosen to  “train the trainers” in doing so and in general, set up new professions and the infrastructure to support it, in that field, as I showed in part in my previous post, and reviewed more on the “About Blog Motto” page).  This NCJRS Abstract, however, refers to only California.  NCJRS is under the USDOJ, Office of Justice Programs, i.e. federal (not state) government:

Four major reforms have enabled the creation of a stronger infrastructure for the State’s judicial branch. The goals of the reforms were to bring greater efficiency to court operations and improve public access to court services. The first reform was to consolidate all funding decisions at the State level. The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 did away with the system under which courts were subjected to two separate budget processes – at both the county and the State level. The second reform was the 1998 voter-passed constitutional amendment that provided for voluntary unification of the superior and municipal courts in each county into a single countywide trial court system. The third reform was the Trial Court Employment Protection and Governance Act in 2001, which mandated the transfer of 21,000 court employees from the counties to the courts. The fourth major reform was the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 (Sen. Bill 1732) that initiated a shift in governance of more than 450 court facilities from the counties to the State over a 4 year period. These changes have reduced budget requests and absorbed reductions to date while avoiding serious compromises to public access and to core duties. In the future, the judicial branch will continue to strive to achieve these goals by further organizational restructuring and possibly the raising of court fees.


I’d posted on the NAATPN, (<==8/28/2017 post; current website; for a breakdown of tax returns, recorded HHS grants and more, see the post) relating it to a specific CDC program office programming targeting specific populations to fix health disparities; I continue to mention that the NAATPN was itself an Intervenor in the 21st (USDOJ initiated) not 20th (state attorneys-general-initiated) lawsuits against Big Tobacco (Phillip Morris et al., including an industry trade association, nonprofit), and was named in various other “big tobacco” lawsuits over time.

This “Memorandum Opinion (7/22/2005)” in the same Civil RICO case is an 11-page Opinion on whether the Intervenor organizations’ request for intervenor status should be allowed, found at TobaccofreeKids.org (one of those organizations), “Kessler Opinion.”  (The TobaccoFreeKids.org website handles (or did according to most of their tax returns) both a 501©3 (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, name changed from “National Center for Tobacco Free Kids (per Form 990) back in 2003) and a 501©4 (Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund), with the ©4 having been one of the intervenors.  Both entities started only in 1996.  There’s also a © 2009 http://tobaccofreeaction.org/about/  website, see small inset image).

“[Click to] Learn more about the relationship between these two orgs…..”]…Rather than call attention to their Forms 990 and mention the basic concept of “related entity” as reported on Schedule R of a tax return… (Note: neither website posts org. financials) which would provide visuals with $$ figures attached to the concepts, and might also lead to other uncomfortable (for both entities’) awarenesses, and for some readers, increase their general nonprofit/ accounting literacy and sensitivity which might lead to further lookups of the orgs.’ friends Form 990s, too….

Please read the reasoning behind it; these sought to intervene when the RICO case didn’t get sufficient “disgorgement” and when the Government in 2005 (about this time) first reduced, then increased, its recommended remedies.  The Memorandum Opinion states why neither the three membership organizations, or the others, had a significant hurdle to leap in proving enough standing to intervene.

From 722/2005 Kessler Memo Opinion in Civil RICO case (USDOJ v Phillip Morris USA, Inc. et al.) on whether the six organizations should be granted intervenor status

(from 7/22/2005 Kessler Memo Opinion) Look at the drastic change in billions of dollars over how many years referenced here..


Later, the 2007 Civil RICO Action Amended Opinion, face sheet lists six Intervenor organizations (USDOJ  Plaintiff AND (Intervenors 1-6 named) v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. et al. Defendants).  The whole document (un-annotated) as uploaded to PublicHealthLaw.org website.  This doc’t is far longer.  I took time to (again) annotate the face sheet with some identifiers as to four of the six plaintiffs (so the original B/W face sheet now has an art-and-crafts colorful appearance).  Two of the six (Americans for Nonsmokers Rights and NAATPN) I’ve already posted on, incuding their tax returns and founding documents (and there was no more room on the page) so more details than geographic locale for those two are not included.

The cleaner version:

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (¼ images; cover page

Obviously, the more marked-up version; I crammed as much individual organization comparative, identifying (EIN# etc.) info. in as I could in the space available:
Follow up on NAATPN, all two weeks of it (as of 8/29/2017) included also notice that a subsequent executive director (Delmonte Jefferson) had hooked up (sic) and been featured at the Public Health Law Center (which also posted many documents on Tobacco cases).  You’ll see that reference on NAATPN post.

I felt this NAATPN / Public Health Law Center partnering,  with its reference to a Tobacco Control Consortium it was leading was relevant, so took a closer look at the Public Health Law Center in Minnesota not just as a website, but as a 501©3, thinly veiled as if not, in fact, being run by its related nonprofit entity, the William Mitchell College of Law (except that it’s now called Mitchell Hamline School, not College, of Law).

Among the major named projects of the Public Health Law Center is its leadership of a Tobacco Control Legal Consortium (for more exact name, see next image obtained from that link on the website, and a page from it describing what comprises the Amicus Curiae-filing Consortium). Note:  this is not the same document as the US DOJ RICO filing above, just an organization also named in it:

TCLC (Tobacco Control Legal Consortium) named as an “Amicus Curiae” among others — but is it a legitimate “entity” and does it, if not, have the right to be named as if it did, that is, as an Amicus? (See neighboring image for footnotes showing how the TCLC, coordinated from (what is now) Hamline U. School of Law, names law centers IN other places, but no single entity by this name. How can that be?

(See question about TCLC’s apparent non-entity status, which brings me to question whether “it” (apparently not even being a definable “it” as either incorporation or unincorporated association) having the standing to be included with other legal entities (albeit at least one — NAAPTN — with $0 assets year after year) in filing this brief…

Wm. Mitchell College of Law I already knew from my extensive interest and blogging in Minnesota, graduated many of the judges within the state and had a law professor or associate professor prominent in AFCC circles also (and at least at one point, an editor of the AFCC/Hofstra University-sponsored “Family Court Review.” (Nancy Ver Steegh).

I also remembered how Minnesota as a state, and the University of Minnesota specifically, through its School of Social Welfare under Jeffrey Edleson and co-authorship with (the late) Susan D. Schechter (1999) of the Greenbook Initiative affected the direction (as was the purpose) for re-purposing of criminal acts against family members as social/behavioral problems to be solved through services, referrals and “treatments” (such as batterers’ intervention programs, supervised visitation, etc.) and a “coordinated community response” system-wide.

This rationale prioritizes diversion over prosecution as a deterrent, which (it seems) backfired, sending a message to perpetrators that prosecution can be avoided and coaching them also how to reframe it as a relationship problem, and avoid serious jail time.  Meanwhile, the diversion itself is an evolving ATM-machine for court-referred community services which will typically be in the private sector.  Because the social scourge is so bad, as the literature continues to relate, public media (advertising!) and marketing campaigns as well as classes and an entire infrastructure is justified to both prevent and allegedly stop it, whether or not there is a cause and effect relationship between programming and the current national, state, or local levels of violent deaths from “intimate partners” or not.

This cause — like the cause of tobacco, also a national health issue as it is seen — lent itself to more HHS appropriations by Congress, and sent out a signal to line up for federal grants.  As I have blogged, major players in this game were chosen not from a grassroots level, but by HHS, to receive major funding:

PCADV (Pennsylvania), NCJFCJ (a National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges organization! in Nevada but with operations in Pittsburgh PA),** DAIP (in Duluth, MN), the National Domestic Violence Hotline (based in TX, along with a related “Family Violence Council”; I do not recall exact name presently; see my Table of Contents for 2016 for titles mentioning any of the above groups (esp. NCJFCJ) or the FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) of 1984).

**Supplemental reference to NCJFCJ from one of my 2016 posts, other posts led up to this one also referencing “the Find.”  What I found was that NCJJ referenced in the title.

In other words, in one sector, there was the push for major diversionary justice programming through activity on private nonprofits (such as NCJFCJ) with public officials on the boards.  Remember that a nonprofit is a privately controlled, nonstock corporation accountable to its board of directors and bylaws (etc.), and only to the state so far as it pertains to laws governing corporations and tax-exempt ones; and/or if I gather, as a business “person” it commits some sort of other crime for which a human being person also might be prosecuted under state or federal law.  What these nonprofits are NOT accountable directly to are “the people” in anything close to the sense that government entities might be.

So here’s a nonprofit with certain kinds of people on its boards of director who may be currently or may have previously held public office in the courts, seeking to re-purpose the courts, and at least one of the board members (there, E. Hunter Hurst III) separately has invested in the exact kind of corporation which might profit from repurposed, diversionary courts. Check out that post for more info.  The multi-million-dollar organization only went public in 2004, meaning that before then it was privately controlled (as I recall). When it, or part of it was finally sold (as that post relates, just extra “gratuitous “information), the financial deal-maker entity Moelis & Company, was founded by someone who had been trained up under the later-disgraced junk-bond promoter, Drexel Burnham Lambert. Note:  I am not a financial advisor or legal expert and this paragraph is recall from my personal, “memory bank” which does not make claims to perfection, but holds a lot of details under categories as researched over time. I remember the deep impression this whole situation made upon me, regarding an entity I’d known about in other contexts (such as the Greenbook Initiative) for years at the time.  How could an entity so proud of one of its own, on commemorating him when he died, “forget” one of his major corporate accomplishments, that SEC-traded entity?  Or, did they want to distance themselves from it as possibly a less than honorable association reflecting on why so intent on diversionary justice in the first place?

By association with this College (then) School (now) of Law (William Mitchell~> Hamline):

However, simultaneously in MN, promoting responsible fatherhood through networked nonprofits and pushing for “equal parenting rights,” the policy of diminishing and minimizing the seriousness of “DV” was also well under way, as I discovered blogging a nonprofit started out of Wm. Mitchell College of Law (as it then was) run by Molly Olson, but in essence a fathers’ rights group, one among others, which sought to get a state law passed regarding 50/50 parenting rights as the default standard.  I have never met Ms. Olson or conversed electronically, I don’t consider this nonprofit (or her) a major player in the field, but it does seem to represent a type of front group which can come out of universities, and how women are “inspired” to front for men in the family courts (among other places).  I wonder if she is also a biological mother, or has undergone divorce, is a stepmother or second wife, or for that matter, in a significant-other relationship or marriage.  I wonder what kind of people decide they will offer themselves to front for a cause before investigating it thoroughly, and while (as this shows) simply refusing to follow basic corporate rules for continuing to exist….

(The “Center for Parental Responsibility” as identified in this opinion piece, 2012, in “Pioneer Press”).  The article lacks links, and took only one paragraph to get down to the main keyword:  “fatherlessness” in the context of “old paradigms…” and “court-forced.”

Implication:  “Bad courts… Why not let some of the same associations (with some of the loyal leadership working as law school professors or associate professors) claiming leadership, instrumentality, and best-practices in the courts for a few decades, fix their own (?) paradigm blunders resulting in court-forced fatherlessness?”

Molly K. Olson:  Put a presumption of equal parenting into Minnesota Law

Why has the Minnesota Legislature struggled for two decades to decide whether the law should include a presumption of equal parenting for each fit parent – mom and dad – after divorce?

Whoever decided that when you get divorced, one fit parent must divorce their kids? Certainly not the parents. For no good reason except persistent old paradigms that create unwarranted, court-forced fatherlessness, too many kids are growing up without a meaningful presence of their fathers.

Without a statutory presumption of joint physical custody and equal shared parenting, the courts have legislated from the bench. Minnesota Court of Appeals decisions have directed judges that joint physical custody and equal time are not appropriate, except in rare cases. Meanwhile, a substantial percentage of parents are finding ways to make equal parenting successful, but often only after expensive legal battles to achieve what is best for 90 percent of kids: joint physical custody and equal shared parenting. …

(byline:) Molly K. Olson is founder and volunteer executive director of the Center for Parental Responsibility. She can be reached at JPCeffort@cpr-mn.org. A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legislation she refers to is scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday, March 21, in Room 15 at the Minnesota Capitol.

Having a woman run this organization was important, but it was focused on how men are deprived in the family court scenario.*

*In saying this, I’m citing to research I did years ago on the 501©3 involved and its origins.  At this college also was an associate(?) family law professor, (first name Nancy) as I said above with AFCC allegiance and ties involved in that organization.  Here’s a two-page pdf (state-level filings on CPR) showing its sketchy history:

MN Bus & Lien Record on CPR (MollyKOlson) @4:2005, InvolunDissolved 2008, Reinstate 2011, Involunt Dissolved 2013, name lost 2014… (2pp only).

CPR (Center for Parental Responsibility) (non)-filing history from MN Sec of State (fr. 2 of 2, taken 2015 annotated 2017)









Apparently the CPR re-instated itself (it’s not exactly hard — just send in the paperwork or possibly even electronically file and any fees) in January 2011 just in time to get quoted again in association with the name and the JPC bill they wished to get passed:

 “Students bring gusto to debate of joint custody bill” By 

Gail Rosenblum

The debate over family law reform continued in a surprising venue last week: the basement of the IDS Center in downtown Minneapolis — home of Globe University (www.globeunivers ity.edu).

{{Uncaptioned, so it’s unclear whether the professor is pictured here, or what “nontraditional” means…}}

Three months ago, Globe adjunct instructor John Schaffhausen challenged his business law students to peruse a host of bills winding their way through the Legislature and pick the most intriguing. They chose House measure HF322, or Joint Physical Custody/Equally Shared Parenting (JPC). ….

JPC would grant each divorcing parent at least 45.1 percent parenting time, unless the parents agree otherwise. Exceptions are detailed, such as in cases of domestic abuse or child endangerment. The bill will not affect current child support guidelines. The bill (and its Senate companion SF1168/SF1402) is largely a nod to fathers, often marginalized in custody disputes, but is intended to empower mothers, too.

House champions Diane Anderson, R-Eagan, and Peggy Scott, R-Anoka, attended the June 9 debate, as did Molly Olson, founder of the Minnesota-based Center for Parental Responsibility. Olson has volunteered for a dozen years to get the bill passed, driven by a belief that children do best when both parents are actively involved in their lives.

Many family law attorneys remain deeply troubled by it, however. They say it is unnecessary and will only exacerbate problems. And Jennifer McIntosh, a psychologist from Melbourne, Australia, visited the Twin Cities last week to talk about new research from Oxford University (tiny.cc/znwcn) (<==broken link) that finds shared parenting legislation is damaging to children.

Interesting that both “House Champions” were women… Meanwhile, the initial filing here (2007) shows only three officers — the other two were men, one is Vice President and no “President” referenced.  The organization barely exists!

Total results: 3Search Again.  (website is or was CPR-MN.org).  Only 3 officers, the other two are men and unlike Ms. Olson, were occasionally paid or reimbursed for their efforts…

Center for Parental Responsibility MN 2009 990EZ 12 $9,521.00 90-0125880
Center for Parental Responsibility MN 2008 990EZ 10 $24,598.00 90-0125880
Center for Parental Responsibility MN 2007 990EZ 16 $39,768.00 90-0125880

[INSERT MORE RELATED IMAGES HERE PRODUCED THU/FRI Aug 31/Sept.1, 2017 from Internet Archive WayBack Machine] [Showing degree of college promotion of this nonprofit cause dates back to years before it incorporated in 2005…]

Ctr for Parental Responsb’ty (CPR-MN’org]80 @WayBackMachine (Sep2-2004) see bottom paragr– free mtgs at Wm Mitchell College of Law TOPIC#1 Parental Alienation, + Child Support (Entity

In two images from this link; the first one shows that the “WayBackMachine” snapshot on the CPR-MN.org website (which since it was shut down, sometime later, is now highly stripped-down, almost bare) is from Sept. 2004 and already they are talking about “parental alienation” and of course, child support.


WMCOL The Opinion ANNOTATD* Vol17 Aug-Sep2004 pp11-12 (featuring CPR Molly Olson acknowldgs WMCOL Prof inspired CPR) pp11-12 (via WayBack Machine) @ 2017Sep1 copy

This “Spotlight on Community” seems to have been originally lit by a WCOL Professor, by admission of the writer in August 2004, claiming an organization started a year and a half earlier on her own kitchen table….quickly drafted a bill and got it introduced at the state legislative later, and then a year or two LATER actually got around to filing for corporate status at the State level….but not annually…(??)

“Molly credits Professor Peter Erlinder for propelling CPR’s passion for family law reform…. CPR began in January of 2003 around Molly’s kitchen table to draft a bill for the Minnesota legislature which was introduced 6 weeks later…”

(with the WCOL law library their preferred one..)  That “doesn’t” sound like coaching to me….

(same newsletter, next page has a “memories of my father” style article):

C. Peter Erlinder (appears to be the same person) was arrested in Rwanda on “genocide denial” charges, imprisoned in Rwanda, later released in 2010 and banned from teaching at William Mitchell in 2012, per Wikipedia, for which he later (2014) sued the University.  I’ll image the top part (of Peter Erlinder’s Wikipedia), and quote the bottom.  Sounds like a passionate guy at the least.  I’ve read books and own at least one (not recently) on the Rwanda genocide; long before “Hotel Rwanda” with Don Cheadle became famous, and from this write-up it’s not exactly clear which side he was representing.  There are many footnotes, some broken links, many from 6/2010.  Here’s one from BBC on his original arrest.


Here’s footnote 12 from the “Wiki” (which is further below), which I understand better as it also references Kagame of the RPF having triggered the original genocide by ordering the plane shot down in 1994; we also see that Erlinder tried to have Kagame served, claiming jurisdiction, during his engagement at Oklahoma Christian University, but failed, after which he went to Rwanda.  (Footnote is auto-numbering but represents fn#12):

  1. (#6) On June 5, 2010, Author Editor Sharon Schmickle says: (2010-06-05). “Erlinder’s arrest puts focus on fierce fight over record of Rwandan genocide”. MinnPost. Retrieved 2010-06-27.

Confrontation in Oklahoma
The latest Erlinder-Kagame clash started on April 30 in Edmond, Okla., where Kagame was to deliver a commencement address at Oklahoma Christian University.

On the day before the president’s appearance, Erlinder and two other attorneys filed a wrongful death lawsuit [PDF] in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, alleging Kagame had ordered political assassinations that triggered the genocide in April, 1994.

Erlinder tried to personally serve Kagame with the legal papers. This is his account of what happened, quoted in Montreal-based Global Research:

A cover-up?
Erlinder, 62, had taken on mighty adversaries in his crusade to recast the generally accepted history of the genocide. || One of them is the Pentagon, which he has claimed was complicit in the Rwandan massacres and in a subsequent conspiracy to cover up Kagame’s role. His list of alleged co-conspirators includes the United Nations and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the United Kingdom and its former Prime Minister Tony Blair, officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations and a Canadian official.

The ‘Rwanda Genocide’ cover-up has been going on for at least a decade,” Erlinder said in 2008 in a guest column for The Jurist, a publication of the University of Pittsburgh Law School. || He alleges that the Pentagon had backed Kagame years before the genocide and that it “could have stopped the carnage with a phone call.”
|| Since the massacre, he said, the Pentagon has worked to manipulate proceedings of the ICTR in order to conceal war crimes committed by Kagame.

Erlinder had some basis for the claim that Kagame and his people committed war crimes. A French judge said in 2006 that Kagame should stand trial for the political assassinations that set off the fighting, the BBC reported. And in 2008, a Spanish judge issued arrest warrants for officers in Kagame’s army, accusing them of genocide, terrorism and crimes against humanity.

“Between 800,000 and 1,200,000 Rwandans died before the fighting ended, largely in civilian massacres. At its end, current Rwandan President seized power in Kigali, as the victorious general in the 1990-1994 Rwandan Civil War._________________ Madames Habyarimana and Ntaryamira allege, in their wrongful death lawsuit, that Kagame, then leader of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, ordered their husbands assassination, and, that his and his army’s actions brought about the mass civilian massacre known as the Rwanda Genocide” (This article quoted in GlobalResearch.CA is © 2010 Ann Garrison in Digital Journal, as its heading says.)

Peter Erlinder Wikipedia (who was also cited by Center for Parental Responsibility spokesperson Molly Olson for having inspired its “passion for family law reform..”


Arrest in Rwanda[edit]

Erlinder was arrested on May 28, 2010, in the Rwandan capital.[2][4][5][6] He is currently defending opposition leader Victoire Ingabire against the same charge which he now faces, a law prohibiting “Genocide Ideology” – speech refuting that the 1994 Rwandan Genocideoccurred exactly as the Rwandan government claims.[3][7] The Republic of Rwanda has issued a statement[8] that claims that Erlinder “continually engaged in conspiracy theories and denial surrounding the circumstances of the genocide [and] has promulgated this dangerous and distorted fiction over many years.” This statement claims that he was arrested for allegedly denying the Rwandan Genocide, and accuses him of links to FDLR. Police spokesman Eric Kayiranga claims that Erlinder said that “no Tutsis were killed by Hutus.” [9] As a result of Kayiranga’s claim, some media have reported that Erlinder’s defense of clients accused of genocide included the argument “that the Tutsis were not the primary victims but the instigators and that the massacres were actually part of a civil war.”[10]

Although “Conspiracy to commit genocide” is just one of six possible genocidal crimes enumerated in the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” the crime of genocide still requires proof of “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”[11]

Erlinder has sued Kagame for ordering the Rwanda Patriot Front (RPF) to commit war crimes, including murder, and has accused the United States of turning a blind eye to Kagame’s wrongdoing.[12] Amnesty International has confirmed that the RPF committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the crimes have largely escaped international notice.[13]

The National Lawyers Guild called for his immediate release.[14]William Mitchell College of Law stated that it stands in solidarity with Erlinder.[15] The International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association condemned Erlinder’s arrest as “an attack on the right to counsel and the independence of counsel,” and demanded that he be freed.[16]Paul Rusesabagina, the subject of the film Hotel Rwanda,argues that Erlinder is a political prisoner who should be immediately released, as President Kagame frequently silences his political opponents by charging them with the crime of genocide denial.[17]

Despite the American State Department’s call for Erlinder’s release, a Rwandan judge denied Erlinder’s request for bail on June 7, 2010, and Erlinder stayed imprisoned in Kigali.[18] In the wake of Erlinder’s continued detention, the work at the United Nation’s International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has ground to a halt. Current defense attorneys refused to proceed with their casework, for fear that they too could be arrested and held by the Kagame regime.[19] Recognizing the effect of Erlinder’s arrest, the American Bar Association has called on Rwanda to respect the U.N. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, and to “refrain from harassment of lawyers practicing law consistent with their professional obligations.”[20] Other groups, including Advocates for Human Rights[[I looked up, see below//LGH]] and the Society of American Law Teachers {{acronym “SALT”}}, joined in calling for Erlinder’s immediate release.[21][22] U.S. Congressional Representatives Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison have introduced a resolution calling on Rwanda to immediately release Erlinder, pointing out that the U.S. gives Rwanda hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid every year;[23] Senator Amy Klobuchar has also called for Erlinder’s release, and has asked Rwandan authorities to grant him an expedited appeal.[24]

Writing in the Harvard Law Record, an independent student-edited newspaper based at Harvard Law School, Patrick Karuretwa said that Rwanda was right to prosecute Erlinder, stating the country’s anti-genocide denial laws helped ensure its stability and progress, and that no exemptions should be made for an individual’s privileged position.[25] || Erlinder was released on bail on June 18, 2010.[26]

Here’s another one, May 30, 2010, Chicago Tribune, quoting his daughter and brother. Apparently he was arrested only about a week after he traveled to Rwanda to defend the other person. Quoting this one in part for some background, and in part for the timeline.

Law professor who grew up on South Side [of Chicago] jailed in Rwanda

Peter Erlinder went to Rwanda to help opposition candidate

May 30, 2010|By Kristen Schorsch, Tribune reporter

…”I think that this actually has very little to do with 1994 and the genocide and much more to do with representing unpopular opinions and people, opinions that are outside of the official government line,” said Sarah Erlinder, 29, a University of Wisconsin law school graduate who lives in Flagstaff, Ariz.

Peter Erlinder started working for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 2003, his daughter said. He also runs the Web site for the Rwanda Documents Project, where he publishes articles and commentaries critical of the Kagame government.

Erlinder grew up in Chicago’s Brainerd neighborhood, the eldest of two boys, his brother, Scott, said. Their father owned Erlinder Manufacturing in Roseland, and their mother was the bookkeeper.

He graduated from Calumet High School and received a bachelor’s degree from Bradley University, Scott Erlinder said. Erlinder attended Georgetown University Law School for about two years until his father died, then came home to Chicago for about three years to run the family business until it closed, his brother said. Erlinder went back to law school and graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law.

In the late 1970s, Erlinder was a teaching fellow and lecturer at the University of Chicago and clerked for the Illinois attorney general in the general law division, according to his resume.

And from the Minnesota Post, the College of Law working to get him freed (he was released in 2012):

(from the Minnesota Post)

More information on the Erlinder’s involvement in the narrative of the genocide:

4/27/2011 in the New York Times, by Josh Kron:  U.N. Bars Peter Erlinder from Rwanda Tribunal Work

KAMPALA, Uganda — An American lawyer who was arrested last year in Rwanda has been barred by the United Nations from working at an international tribunal for Rwanda after refusing to appear in court.

Judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda removed Peter Erlinder, a law professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota, as the defense counsel for a major Rwandan genocide suspect, the tribunal said Wednesday, because Mr. Erlinder had failed to travel to the court, which is based in Tanzania.

“…Defense lawyers at the tribunal protested Mr. Erlinder’s arrest last year, saying that he was being prosecuted specifically for his work in trial at the court, which focused on the downing of a presidential jet in April 1994. Mr. Erlinder has said the evidence he presented in court suggests that members of the current, Tutsi-led Rwandan government — not Hutu extremists — shot down the plane, challenging the conventional narrative of the event that helped set off the genocide

  • From this article I realized he’d been held three weeks and released on medical bail.

Why We’re Prosecuting Peter Erlinder by Martin Ngoga (July 3, 2010) in the Guardian..

As Amanda Pinto wrote on 30 June 2010, Peter Erlinder was arrested in Rwanda and accused of genocide denial, genocide ideology and of being a threat to national security. He was not, as Pinto suggests, arrested for submissions made during proceedings of an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda case in which he was acting as a defence lawyer. Nor was he arrested for entering Rwanda to help in the defence of Victoire Ingabire – official records show that Erlinder never registered as her lawyer.

Erlinder came to Rwanda in the full knowledge that he had broken the law. He has, for many years, propagated his own, false theory about the genocide and worked hard to build an international network of genocide deniers to amplify its diffusion. Erlinder’s theory is based on the selective use of conclusions of an ICTR ruling which acquitted four prominent senior military officers of one count of conspiracy to commit genocide. Out of court, Erlinder generalises this specific ruling to the whole genocide and argues that there was no conspiracy or planning in Rwanda, and therefore no genocide. He says it was a spontaneous and uncoordinated act of panic and anger following the shooting down of the president’s plane.

….The grounds for Erlinder’s arrest were based on his writing of essays like this, claims made during appearances on television and radio and the organisation of conferences which convened the who’s who of Rwanda genocide deniers.

These were not the actions of a lawyer, and thus not protected by immunity of counsel. Immunity of counsel does not grant lawyers free rein to say whatever they wish, wherever they wish, so long as they once defended someone who also held these views. Erlinder’s defence of an individual accused of genocide no more entitles him to moonlight as a genocide denier than a lawyer’s representation of a child molester gives him license to traffic in child pornography.

Article also notes that 11 European countries have similar laws re: Jewish holocaust-denial.

Article from “Above the law” and more links at the bottom of it, found here.

June 2, 2010, from “Above the Law” lists six more links at the bottom and points out that his involvement with the ICTR (Tribunal) had been in 2003, and was one reason he was asked to become involved with the opposition candidate for President in 2010; also that the situation in 1994 was “more complicated than it looks,” which after discovering this in the defense of a Rwandan accused of genocide in 2003, Erlinder began publicizing.  The article references his “controversial views” including one on Darfur (& Somalia) which references Ugandan/Rwandan involvements, critical of US/UK involvements in the area, and which gives a general idea of his style of writing and possibly of political views on international affairs:  “Erlinder’s views are generally controversial. See, e.g., this open letter he wrote about Darfur (via the WSJ).” [WSJ requires sign-in or subscription — try the “open letter” link to “Darfur Deception” published in SACSIS (see logo nearby):  “A nonprofit news agency promoting social justice. Seeking answers to the question:How do we make democracy work for the poor?”

Darfur Deception, 16 September 2008, by Peter Erlinder:

“South African Civil Society Information Service,”

….Actually, over the past two years 1.1 million Somalis have been displaced by the Ethiopian army1 with the assistance of Rwandan army (both of which have been funded by our own government with the assistance of US military advisors and equipment)2 and Somalia has displaced Sudan’s Darfur, as the world’s most dangerous region, awful as the Darfur crimes might be.3  We must also note that the attacks on Muslim Somalis by “Christian”  Ethiopians/Rwandans have not been characterized as a “genocide” by US leaders, despite its larger-than-Darfur scale, although others have.4The awful number of civilian deaths in Darfur — some 400,000 we are told — has been eclipsed by the 6.4 million deaths in the Eastern Congo as a result of the invasion of the Eastern Congo by US/UK-supported armies of Uganda and Rwanda beginning in 1996[5], which are continuing at the rate of 45,000 a month, today.

An October 2003 UN experts report describes how the economy and resources of the Congo have been stolen by Ugandan and Rwandan militaries, and their surrogates, during the ongoing, decades-long war in Central Africa[6] with not so much as “peep” from western HR advocates.  And the killing is continuing as I write and you read these words. But no regular reporting has appeared in the US press.  There has been no condemnation of any kind from USG and no human rights “movement” has materialized to condemn the invasion or the killing in the Congo, much less Somalia.

And, European Union Reports from 2003 make clear that the recent electoral debacle in Zimbabwe in 2008 was merely a repeat of similar tactics, such as physical attacks, arrests and deportation of the political opposition that occurred in Rwanda, when President Kagame was “elected” with 95% of the vote in 2003[7]. Interestingly, Zimbabwe has been almost completely cut-off from “western” economic aid — with the predictable results in the African context.

By contrast, Uganda is Africa’s largest recipient of UK military and economic aid, and Rwanda has a similar relationship with the U.S. Both countries have become centers for trading gold, diamonds and coltan (the rare mineral that makes cell phones possible). Although none of these resources exist in any quantities in either country, they DO exist in great plentitude in the Congo. US military aid to Rwanda has ballooned the Rwandan army from 7,000 (before Kagame’s war 1990-1994 to seize power) to 70,000-100,000 to today.[8]  Rwandan troops are now being “farmed-out” to the U.N. and U.S. allies for cash, not unlike the mercenaries, called military “contractors,” being used in Iraq and elsewhere

August 11, 2010, Vo. 14 No. 26 in “Insights,”  journal? of the ASIL (American Society of International Law) outlines the two issues, I guess venues (jurisdictions), ICTR, where Erlinder was defense counsel for a specific individual, and in general in Rwanda regarding an opposition Presidential candidate and alternate accounts for the genocide (not denial that it occurred): The Arrest of ICTR Defense Counsel Peter Erlinder in Rwanda 

Finally, probably not for the professor or this cause, but at least on this post,  Feb. 10, 2014 (reports the Star Tribune, under “Local”), Erlinder is suing Wm. Mitchell College of Law for barring him (he was escorted off the campus by security in 2012 and described as erratic and disruptive) for behavior he says came from PTSD.  Article mentions another organization he created:

Click image to enlarge, or this link to read the rest of that short article.

I also found and article dated Feb. 3, 2014, in the ABA Journal on this lawsuit, with further reference to where it’s posted, at an “International Humanitarian Law Institute” (IHLI.org) which website also posts papers relating to Rwanda.

Activist law professor claims he was banned from campus wrongly” (image below).  I am wondering whether this notoriety from a notorious (if I may use that word) “genocide-denier” and activist law professor had any role in Wm. Mitchell College of Law’s decisions to merge with Hamline University and as the survivor entity (renamed) expand its size, and preserve its reputation of concern for the maligned, as reflected by that Public Health Law website involved with the tobacco litigation I was referencing above.

Maybe not, I just was wondering — the lawsuit predates the completed merger by just over a year, I seem to recall.. The Form 990 states for the college stated that it wasn’t in effect until 2016 while completed in perhaps Dec. 2015… (feel free to check facts…)


With this timeline, one wonders how (several paragraphs, quotes, and images above) Ms. Molly Olson got inspired for family law reform at Wm. Mitchell College, or whether he had any direct in put or involvement to the same.  Maybe it was from a distance; I’m sure the 2003 involvement was also covered locally..


Curiosity — “Advocates for Human Rights” (mentioned in the Wiki article above, background-color: “seashell”) could be correctly described, still, as a SMALL (Twin-cities-based) 501©3 started by lawyers ca. 1983 (per the Form 990) but which also holds (per 2004 Form990) consultative status with the UN and is working, among other things, to establish a global perspective on a variety of issues with K-12 students.  Here’s the Form 990-table, then some screen prints on Program Purpose Accomplishments from an earlier (2004) tax return, and/or there may be some Schedules A of Support shown in there too.  Earlier website was “MNAdvocates.org,” but it now reads “TheHumanRightsAdvocates.org”

Again my purpose with this one isn’t show and tell, just “show” and the fast version of it, too.

Total results: 3Search Again.

The Advocates for Human Rights MN 2016 990 41 $695,863.00 36-3292374
Advocates for Human Rights MN 2015 990 39 $718,898.00 36-3292374
Advocates for Human Rights MN 2014 990 34 $1,052,536.00 36-3292374

(Link to the 2003 Form 990, i.e., ten years before the bottom row shown above, dep. on Fiscal year End). (The image filenames are off by one fiscal year; they read “2004”  So this is about 20 years into its existence:

This one (above) I find just SAD, as the lawyerly eagerness to protect women in other countries is accompanied by lawyers also standing by while an association (or more) of their colleagues helps turn women and mothers in their own home state into virtual fugitives and refugees from domestic violence, or, when failing functional protection, to arrange some other version of it for their children, and find themselves hunted down, carted back, and incarcerated — along with others who may be so foolish as to think of supporting them. For example, the Grazzini-Rucki case, and before that, others…The Grazzini-Rucki case also seems to be “about” a substantial trust fund (as motivator) in addition; for access, the mother must be criminalized and discredited. StopVAW doesn’t stop the family court fiascoes, which are permitted to continue year after year…plenty of business for lawyers..and therapists — and batterers interventionists…

Program Primary Purpose statemt./UN Consultative Status (above).

Schedule A of support shows as “moderate.”

(EIN#36-3292374 in MN, “the AdvocatesForHumanRights.org“)

I guess “The Advocates for Human Rights” (see “Quick Links” for important issues, and notice them protesting the proliferation of hate groups in the US to the UN (right side) in MN shouldn’t be confused with “Human Rights Advocates” a Berkeley-based group with several key members on University of San Francisco (USF has Jesuit basis and also has many ties to current family law situations, and at least a few important professors and at least one activist judge (now retired) in the area — search this blog to find on which posts).

(a Berkeley, California-based 501©3 around since 1981)

Which I say because I just did, briefly, mix up the titles in a search for the organization website.  The Berkeley organization’s Donate page, oddly, says they’ll take checks (no on-line means put forward).  Berkeley-based organization “About us”includes:

HRA is a human rights organization based in Berkeley, California. We are dedicated to promoting and protecting international human rights in the United States and abroad.

HRA participates actively in the work of various United Nations human rights bodies, using its status as a fully accredited Non-Governmental Organization. We are most involved at the United Nations Council on Human Rights, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Commission on Sustainable Development, and several treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. We also participate in UN Conferences, including the women’s conference in Beijing, China; the racism conference in Durban, South Africa; and the Conference on the rights of the child in New York, NY.

HRA addresses the panoply of human rights issues, including minority and bodies on the human rights aspects of such issues as: minority and peoples’ rights; the rights of the child; juvenile criminal sentencing; trafficking in women and children; migrant worker rights; the right to housing; the right to food; affirmative action; corporate accountability; and human rights and the environment.

Huh.  I see they are keeping a low profile (while run by a law professor out of an international center at the university) too as far as the IRS is considered. A search on the PO Box provided a Guide-star admission (you won’t find this on the website) of its EIN# under U.S. IRC.  It’s been filing Forms 990-N postcards (which declares minimal revenues and reduces declarations of the sort which would otherwise show on full-sized Forms 990. (This is IRS Exempt Organization Select Check, Search results for Forms 990-N filed under this EIN#.  The links (org. name) are still clickable and will lead to details for that year’s post-card filed return).

1-10 of 10 results Results Per Page


« Prev | 1-10 | Next »
EINSorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As)Sorted Ascending CitySorted Ascending StateSorted Ascending ZIP/Postal CodeSorted Ascending CountrySorted Ascending Tax YearSorted Ascending
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2007
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2008
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2009
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2010
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2011
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2012
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2013
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2014
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2015
94-2737438 HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES INC Berkeley CA 94705 United States 2016

I see from the California OAG Registry of Charitable Trusts what this entity is doing.  Fuzzy founding documents from 1981 show three women, including Constance de la Vega, still on it (as Treasurer) and one man in the SF Bay Area, mostly Berkeley, and no Form 1023 declarations — as I looked at, see bottom of recent “Introducing New Page” post regarding the California Collaborative Justice Courts Foundation which I was looking at) — they are carefully (most years — 2008 and another year excepted) reporting revenues UNDER $25K, while steadily accruing assets up to (currently) a still-small $226K — however keeping revenues down avoids the responsibility of reporting much to the IRS while exercising their UN NGO status, and while accepting donations by check only, apparently…i.e., if you don’t have access to the PO Box, you have no electronic trail.  Smart.  This means that their footprint over at the OAG doesn’t show a single, not one, Full-sized Form 990!  Also shown is that they didn’t file RRFs for several years in a row, but started catching up in 2008 (minor detail). Here’s the latest (hand-scrawled) filing, the summary page, and some of the details imaged I was talking about just above:

The corporate number seems wrong; it looks more like an application #, but being old, perhaps it’s valid. I’ll go see…(It’s accurate, just lacking the initial “C” and with a few extra “000s” at the end.  Entity is still active….

This OAG registration now reveals the EIN# (the same search results page didn’t used to).

Human Rights Advocates, EIN#94-2737438: No Tax returns shown because All Forms 990-N (electronic postcards). Normally this section would have more pdfs labeled “990” linking to tax returns. Also, the Founding Doc’ts don’t contain any “Form 1023” registration, I wonder if that has to do with the early (1981) year.

Human Rights Advocates, EIN#94-2737438, section of “Charitable Details” from Calif. OAG’s Registry of Charitable Trusts (“RCT”) website, showing a series of “N” answers to “Complete 990 Attached” as well as lower revenues but steadily increasing Gross Assets.

Human Rights Advocates, EIN#94-2737438, section of “Charitable Details” from Calif. OAG’s Registry of Charitable Trusts (“RCT”) website, showing a series of “N” answers to “Complete 990 Attached” as well as lower revenues but steadily increasing Gross Assets.

To repeat, I know all that’s still a distraction from the Minnesota-based entity; I included above FYI and to point out, one never knows how many nonprofits are hanging out at law schools or elsewhere until you perhaps run across them.  When they do come up, for example, in a news article of interest — look ’em up!!  (And for my own recall if it comes up later).

Here are some of  the MN website images with “Advocates for Human Rights”:


“I will defend DACA & TPS”.. (“theAdvocatesForHumanRights.org” website, a MN entity)

(EIN#36-3292374 in MN, “theAdvocatesForHumanRights.org”) Changing the World for Good.

[[This concludes the “Erlinder” section which I included because it’s so interesting.  And one can easily see how such an activist attorney might inspire a “Molly Olson,” although where this fits into his passion for “family law reform” is still unknown when he was at the time more involved in international and war crime issues… As credited in 2004 “Opinion,” the student newsletter.  Moving on also from “CPR-MN.org” closer to original post topics….]]

Still in Minnesota, but a Different Project and set of Personalities:

Alongside Professor Jeffrey Edleson when in MN was also the UMN-based IDVAAC (Institute for Domestic Violence in the African American Community) apparently when I was blogging it years earlier, a non-entity (as a center at one of the largest research universities in the United States)  with connections to the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) as a technical advisor on certain grants, and with well-known (male) leadership, including at least one  (Johnny Rice II) who for years worked with responsible fatherhood grant-making in the state of Maryland, and another Oliver J. Williams (link to UMN CEHD (College of Educ. & Human Development) profile shows hasn’t published since 2003, and only publication shown without co-authors deal with ethnically sensitive treatment of men who batter, and social learning that causes battering.  Although I posted it earlier, there are no references to his co-authored works with Jeffrey Edleson, Ph.D., who worked for decades leading the School of Social Work in MN.

(Annotated pdf of the same, I raise more questions than I’d noticed before (this is my first awareness that IDVAAC is now “closed.”)

Oliver Williams | Schl of SocialWk CEHD UMN (Educ, Bio, Selected Public up to 2003) 2pp viewed Sep1 2017 (p3 is footer info only)  (“CEHD” stands for “College of Education and Human Development”).  See next two images, which were taken from the pdf also:

I see now (hadn’t blogged it in a while) that the IDVAAC (although it appears to have never been a fiscally separate entity in Minnesota, which I discovered looking diligently for any evidence of it) closed down in 2016 with statements that the website will remain up for 10 more years and that the organization (sic) moves forwards as “Umija, Inc.” (no legal domicile/state referenced).

In looking online (Google.com) for “Umija, Inc.” I found also “Nerlow Afriki” where he is Founding Board with three others, one woman and two men, including an imam. That website is half-finished although bears a 2014 date at the  bottom and labeled “The African Initiative for Positive Change,” and Mission:

Help For African Women And Girls

Nerlow Afriki also promotes socio-economic empowerment as tool of prevention of domestic violence. Nerlow Afriki addresses female genital circumcision not only as Human Rights Issue but also as Women Health Issue. Nerlow Afriki assists, enhances and develops holistic programs for survivors of abuse and trauma.

The “Read More” button leads to no more info.  Archives dropdown shows one 2012 and one 2015…


NERLOW AFRIKI (in NY? Since 2014?) does reference 4 founding directors incl. Dr. Oliver Wms formerly of IDVAAC, which website doesn’t reference this entity.

From IDVAAC.org, one of several slideshow photos describing projects or steering committees, on home page. Viewed 9-1-2017

Project Ujima Inc. (in OH?) sponsored by one tax-exempt thru a community (Miami) Fdtn as Fiscal Agent [that info barely visible]— 3 images).

Project Ujima Inc. (in OH?) sponsored by one tax-exempt thru a community (Miami) Fdtn as Fiscal Agent [that info barely visible]— 3 images).

Project Ujima Inc. (in OH?) sponsored by one tax-exempt thru a community (Miami) Fdtn as Fiscal Agent [that info barely visible]— 3 images).

Ujima Inc. DE at a HUD Portal, drywall constr etc. since 1994, registered here 2016

Sadly, this information wasn’t offered at the IDVAAC website or the (still up) UMN School of Social Work (within the) College of Educ & Human Development referencing Dr. Williams.  I did find an EIN# and see an IL (so far) entity, and other evidence of projects by same name stated in 2011 (in more than one state) with sponsorship to a community foundation by another major tax-exempt foundation; only further look-ups would show which relate to the IDVAAC leadership (other than references to “10 American Cities” in the AADP (African American Domestic Peace) movement makes it probable). I found at named “Ujima” entities in several states (TX, IL, possibly OH, DE registered as drywall, painting, etc. as a HUD business), started in different years, some run by mostly women.  The one in TX (three short years displayed) showed lack of comprehension (or willingness) to fill out the tax return right and referenced coordinating social services in three low-income housing projects (numbers internally inconsistent, the term “program service revenues” vs. “contributions” under income, and “membership benefits” vs. “grants” vs. “Salaries,” not consistent in the expense category.   Finally I simply searched the word at 990finder to realize how very many applications it may have, and since when (one entity since 1987).

I’m sure that whoever left an indefinite reference to “will be continued at Ujima, Inc.” knew well enough that there were other organizations by this name and determining which one was meant without more identifiers would be laborious

Total results: 4Search Again.

UJIMA INC IL 2014 990 22 $0.00 36-4397881
UJIMA INC IL 2013 990 22 $0.00 36-4397881
UJIMA-Chicago IL 2012 990 29 $26,377.00 36-4397881
UJIMA-Chicago IL 2012 990R 5 $26,377.00 36-4397881

Total results: 3Search Again.

UJIMA TX 2008 990EZ 4 $0.00 76-0485354
UJIMA TX 2007 990EO 3 $0.00 76-0485354
UJIMA TX 2006 990EO 3 $0.00 76-0485354

The only one which would seem more directly connected by subject matter to the IDVAAC was a single displayed page on a website, “UJIMACommunity.org” with not one link and a “coming soon” message (in addition to no geographic reference):

NERLOW AFRIKI is found alongside IDVAAC as affiliations of the presenters in a April 2016 conference in Texas, alongside IDVAAC.  The occasion was the “3rd Annual Cultural Inclusiveness Institute:  Relating Cultural Inclusiveness to Social Determinants of Health,” at UT Health Sciences Center SA (San Antonio) under the “School of Nursing.”  This was the spring of same year IDVAAC was officially closed in December.  http://nursing.uthscsa.edu/cic/agenda.asp


In other words, they##  were promoting male dominance on one hand, an issue which overstated affects violence towards women, and on the other hand saying essentially, men need to be coached or indoctrinated into not beating their wives or children, but financially, socially, psychologically and legally helped by all (system-wide) in stepping up to assert control in the marriage, relationship, or at least over raising their children.  Simultaneously, single mothers and particularly self-sufficient, independent ones, were an “outcast” demographic to be alternately patronized/pitied or scapegoated for society’s ills.  [[##With all the additions to this page, I DNK that the specific reference was to either IDVAAC, or the Greenbook Initiative, or the general concept of diversionary-justice as it pertains to DV.  I do know that the paragraph summarizes the two conflicting rhetorics and rationales, both run at the same time through the federal agency called HHS and involving (heavily) the OJP (Office of Justice Programs), as I recall, under the USDOJ also.]]

Before April, 2016, there was a conference in the US Northwest, for which the fine print shows again Oliver Williams and founder of “Nerlow Afriki” who is described in its fine print as working for IDVAAC (wonder how the paychecks read, as that’s not an entity, apparently, and would have a hard time opening a bank account without a business or government entity EIN#.  If it’s using the UMN (CEHD or otherwise) or a related supporting foundation as a “fiscal agent,” then why over the years didn’t the IDVAAC website say this?

Either way, the individual sounds like a courageous and inspired woman; I just question how a non-entity could be financially supporting and taking credit in Texas, or (if here, possibly Washington) States while not self-reporting in its home state, Minnesota:

from “Northwest Regional Conference on African Immigrants

Fatima Porgho [In a speakers’ list, fine print, page or slide “14”] Fatima Porgho studied International Affairs and Contemporary Diplomacy in Burkina Faso (Africa) and Malta (Europe) and got her Master in International Affairs. Having achieved many goals in her career in Governmental Services (in Burkina Faso) and Multilateral Diplomacy (at the United Nations), she expanded her professional interest in new challenges in the area of Community Organizing, Protection of Women Rights and Victims of Abuse. Fatima was a victim of domestic violence for more than 14 years.. To flee her abusive environment, she was helped by the InterAfrican Union of Human Rights. Since her escape, she has dedicated her time to preventing abuses against women. Fatima now works for the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, coordinating trainings for service providers assisting African women victims of domestic violence, advocating for battered African women at the State and Federal level. Fatima assists community based-organizations, groups and grassroots associations in New York City and nationwide with strategies to self-empowerment, a key component to preventing Domestic Violence. In 2011, she founded Nerlow Afriki Inc., a community based organization in New York City addressing the issue of domestic violence in the African immigrant and refugee community.

Below are more of my attempts to discover some fiscal documents connected with the mysterious “Nerlow Afriki” which (frustratingly) isn’t showing proof of existence as a nonprofit anywhere outside NY (with a NJ residence), the IRS seems to think it’s in Maryland, but the State of Maryland DAT (Dept. of Assessment and Taxation) has no such business entity, nor does the State of New Jersey. No Form 990-Ns have been filed saying “we’re a nonprofit making under $50K/year (in fact, almost nothing)” (which conceivably could be true) with the IRS (table below).  Meanwhile, IDVAAC, which also doesn’t appear to “exist” in the traditional sense, is paying Fatima Porgho, and she was (according to this “IDVAAC.org” page just found by searching the person — not the organization name — on the web) consulting with IDVAAC for years, and represented the African Council of Imams in NY on DV issues (which being a “church” doesn’t have to file), etc.  The image will be too small; I provided the (undated) link above.

New York State Business Entities Search (basically, “DOS.NY.Gov”) shows a NJ address, no Registered Agent, and that it was formed May 29, 2014 — not in 2011.

CharitiesNYS.com (Advanced Search) Scroll down some to see input fields.  I was able to find a related EIN# — and this entity wasn’t found registered as a charity in NY by EIN# or by name, or fragment of name (“Nerlow”) whether “Contains” or “Begins with” (as of mid-September 2017).

EIN# 471039477 searched at “EOS” (IRS Exempt Org. Select Check) showed no results for:  Filed Form 990-N or “Revoked” (makes sense as it only incorporated in 2014 in NY), but DID show Nerlow Afriki as an entity in “Bel Air, MD.”  Unfortunately, there is no Business Entity by that name showing as registered in the state, by which time I’m a little disgruntled about locating any documentation for it.

1-1 of 1 results Results Per Page  25 « Prev | 1-1 | Next »
EINSorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As)Sorted Ascending CitySorted Ascending StateSorted Ascending CountrySorted Ascending Deductibility StatusSorted Ascending
47-1039477 Nerlow Afriki Inc. Bel Air MD United States PC

[2016 pdf summarizing speaker profiles from UTHSCSA presentation]

I’m having trouble re-locating the link to the “3rd annual cultural inclusivity institute” at UT School of Nursing (Health Sciences) above — the 4th one is now being featured.  Interesting that a LinkedIn website for “Sherece McGoon” featuring this also showed Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation (key to Big Tobacco Litigation, see this blog recent posts) leadership was a keynote speaker:

Search “Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation” on this blog, you’ll find plenty, recently!!

Here is a Call for Abstracts for the 2016 one:


This “Greenbook” 1999 publication was then “jumped on” by the NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges) as opportunity for another seven- or eight-year initiativeto further consolidate power and ensure that criminal matters are treated with as much “diversion into treatment” as possible, and domestic violence reframed properly as an opportunity for behavioral modification interventions, which, naturally “yours truly” and other (HHS-funded) primary nonprofits (such as Minnesota’s DAIP, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and just a few primary others — plus, of course the statewide “CADV” coalitions) were only to happy to technically advise and train the trainers for.

Throughout, the emphasis on “community service and referrals” consists of referrals OUTSIDE the court system where rights exist, and funds could, theoretically, actually be traced, to private sector where doing so consistently is a “Herculean” task — by which reference to Task #5, the Augean Stables, cleaning the crap out of the thousands of cattle (cows, bulls), goat, sheep and horses’ stalls in a single day reference was intended, as well as “Herculean” meaning, daunting and requiring the efforts of a hero to accomplish.  Note, he arranged to be paid a percentage (10%) of the animals in return for accomplishing the feat, and did not use the traditional tools (!)

The Twelve Labors (links to summaries punctuated with art and archeological illustrations), click other image to access..

Click image to read the story. If you don’t like the simplification, complain to Tufts University, where I found it posted. Notice this begins with blaming a goddess for Hercules’ temporary insantiy resulting in familicide (murder of his wife and children), and his forced labor as punishment.


“…Now King Augeas owned more cattle than anyone in Greece. Some say that he was a son of one of the great gods, and others that he was a son of a mortal; whosever son he was, Augeas was very rich, and he had many herds of cows, bulls, goats, sheep and horses. …Every night the cowherds, goatherds and shepherds drove the thousands of animals to the stables. ...Hercules went to King Augeas, and without telling anything about Eurystheus, said that he would clean out the stables in one day, if Augeas would give him a tenth of his fine cattle.

“Augeas couldn’t believe his ears, but promised. Hercules brought Augeas’s son along to watch. First the hero tore a big opening in the wall of the cattle-yard where the stables were. Then he made another opening in the wall on the opposite side of the yard.

“Next, he dug wide trenches to two rivers which flowed nearby. He turned the course of the rivers into the yard. The rivers rushed through the stables, flushing them out, and all the mess flowed out the hole in the wall on other side of the yard…(etc.)

(The above section was a quote from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/stables.html).


Here’s another publication labeled simply “California_Story” which references, but doesn’t explain, the “CFCC” I spoke of before (beige-background-color / post overlap section).  Notice it’s © 2005 to the California Judicial Council (link shows, image does not) and only nonprofit institutions are supposed to distribute, with credits (individuals who wish to know how their public funds are being expended and to discuss this in public with each other apart from nonprofit-institution-mediated rhetoric are excluded from that permission), but the authorship is with the powerful “Center for Court Innovation” in NYC, representing a joint project between Fund for the City of New York and the NYS Unified Court System (looks like California wasn’t the only state to undergo “unification…”

Take a look at “page 36 of 38” of this document…

“california-story-c2a9-2005-calif-cjc-sole-author-credited-to-nys-center-for-court-innovatn-p36-of-38-admits-promoting-its-kind-of-courtssuch-as-dv-courts-in-england-and-wales-image” (Click image to enlarge if needed)

The “Center for Court Innovation” was described as though it were possibly a free-standing, registered entity, but as a “Center” is located somewhere BETWEEN the public NYS Unified Court System (large enough for you?) and the Ford-Foundation-Initiated (or at least initially-startup-funded) “Fund for the City of New York,” i.e., another tax-exempt foundation…  Which (look it up!) ought to also be “large enough” ….

As described above in a document © 2005 California Judicial Council, it “functions as the court’s independent research and development arm…” except that the Court doesn’t own or control it, nor is it fully independent when it’s so financially inter-twined with “the Court” (in fact the state court system, not just “Court,” singular). While some consider this a great solution, I consider it a significant problem — and accountability and transparency problem, in part because the “Center” is described in terms of its function, not of its existence.  When examined as to “existence” as our system requires commerce, or governments, to be defined, it actually does NOT exist (!).  Both its partners do, but unless that Center has a bank account, EIN#, or registration using this name (or unless it’s a dba of one some other entity — which in such a major operation, would be just W.R.O.N.G… — and which I have no evidence of… — it actually does not exist.  Using the word “CENTER” each and every time clouds the reality that private influence of a major tax-exempt foundation is being permitted on public institution, in fact, a STATEWIDE Court System (!!).

ANYHOW (and moving on…)

This California Story document narrates, in story form with year footers on each page, the ongoing project of transforming California’s Judiciary into “problem-solving” mode through collaborative justice, problem-solving courts — whether drug, juvenile, domestic violence / family court (in the civil) or mental health.  What this version of the story –and the version of the tobacco litigation history also — fails to incorporate is awareness of the nonprofits involved AS nonprofits, and/or attention to their Forms 990 and financial statements.

When it comes to the California AOC, by this time, the entity AFCC had several long-standing members in position on AOC/CFCC staff, some even monitoring the federal grants streams designated to affect custody outcomes (!) through in effect, privatization — referrals to services in the private sector, often but not always run by people concurrently or recently working as court officials with authority to affect individual cases.  I’m talking family court judges, presiding judges over unified superior court systems, family lawyers, members of private associations created to work parallel to the changing system (including but not limited to AFCC, or SVN (Supervised Visitation Network), fatherhood groups, batterers intervention groups, you name it).

2005 pdf FOREWORD, w my annotations + superimposed images pointing out Four Key Group (influences), only ONE of them (and that one referenced missing the key part of its designation) IN California, neither of the other two defined at all, and exhibiting a not-so-subtle vocabulary-shift FROM “Problem-solving courts” (by then which were drawing, I believe rightly so, some negative attention) for the broader, and (if that’s even possible starting with such a vague label) MORE vague term “Collaborative Justice” — showing in part how the decision to institutionalize this nationally bypassed normal legislative and locally represented channels…

As I’m saying above, consolidation, coordination, privatization, and failure to properly identify whether the influential names cited for institutionalizing a style of justice nationwide are public or private organizations, and where they are located (legal domicile).

If there were more space on the image, I’d say more on the two Conferences (the Conference of State Court Justices & the Conference of State Court Administrators, blue ovals in above image call attention to them) referenced in the Foreword, which although they are not under the “Big Seven Associations” (self-identified, and I posted on it recently – July 6), are given high priority on the NCSC (National Center on State Courts, a self-described private, nonprofit entity which added an international unit in 1990 (it’s actually a related entity):

From clearinghouse to full-service solution provider

The National Center for State Courts is an independent, nonprofit court improvement organization founded at the urging of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren E. Burger. {{What a great place to include a founding year “in 19___” but it instead was omitted.}} He envisioned NCSC as a clearinghouse for research information and comparative data to support improvement in judicial administration in state courts.

Over twenty years ago, the Institute for Court Management merged with NCSC, adding an educational curriculum especially designed for court managers.  In the early 1990s, an international division was formed to offer a similar array of research, consulting, education, and information services to strengthen the rules of law in countries around the world.

…when it comes to the two “Conferences” (of Chief Justices and of State Court Administrators) referenced in the Foreword to California’s Collaborative Justice Courts (2005, above), they are also the first two referenced in the “Associations and Partners” link at NCSC; this does not reflect an apha list.

The NCSC also in 1983 functioned, apparently briefly only, as a Secretariat” for the AFCC.

While NCSC’s relationship/sponsorship with AFCC isn’t immediately obvious from its main page links, a simple on-NCSC-site search for the “AFCC” name brings up many results, and continuing use of previous AFCC-organized “models” (such as Parenting Coordination) cited as justification, along with (of course) more “Task Forces,” to apply the model to other scenarios — such as (I found, top search result today) — a 2014 effort by ACR (“Association of Conflict Resolution”) to copy the parenting coordination model for application to “high-conflict eldercare” situations involving guardians / probate, etc.

With enough networked associations whose membership involves civil servants in positions of authority over courts, families who appear in the courts, or able to affect state and/or federal grants funding streams, apparently the sky is the limit for transformation of key public institutions without having to deal with “the little folk” whose best interests — allegedly — are always foremost in these interlaced, mutual-referencing, privately conferencing and often also privately sponsored “thought leaders‘ ” (as they seem to call themselves so often) motivation.

On the Board of the NCSC, for example (2016-2017) besides judges and state court administrators and others not identified by type (and not obviously law firm partners) are the legal counsel for Eli Lilly, and an individual representing Exxon (!!)  But the NCSC does NOT post its financial statements or tax returns, or even post the EIN#, state that whether it’s a 501©3, ©4, ©6 or otherwise help the public examine potential conflicts of interest. Failure to reference its own financials minimizes there relevance when in fact they are completely relevant!

Total results: 3Search Again.

National Center for State Courts VA 2015 990 51 $35,964,672.00 52-0914250
National Center for State Courts VA 2014 990 48 $37,879,774.00 52-0914250
National Center for State Courts VA 2013 990 43 $37,694,953.00 52-0914250

What they don’t tell you in this type of reporting (for the below example, using PC as a model for elder-care “dispute resolution,”) is how many parents sued parent coordinators, how the state of Pennsylvania, having instituted it by administrative rule (this century), as suddenly revoked it by the same means (catching several off-guard).  Also not identified in the promotional documents is just how much overlap between member organizations on task forces would, if disclosed, reveal just how many have AFCC membership, and how much AFCC membership tends to involve activist judges, family lawyers, directors of family court services, and so forth….


Search results (for size, starting with #2 result) at NCSC for “AFCC” — to read any results, repeat the search on main website)

Sample find at NCSC under “AFCC” search (top search results) 2014 by ACR re: Eldercare Dispute Resolution GuidelinesClick here for whole doc’t. or image to enlarge (in 2 images)

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

September 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: