Posts Tagged ‘990finder registers DAIP as MPDI (Minnesota Progr Devpt Inc) its old name’
If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages? [Published Dec. 17, 2017]
The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:
This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.
It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)
Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages. But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.” All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the higher the bills, the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies to change the outcome.
But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts. The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.
That’s why I say the game is “rigged.” It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it. Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.
Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.
We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a. Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:
QUESTION: What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….
LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners
…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.
Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.
…why is the same basic routine under “family-friendly policy,” and when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse — somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?
Another Sequence of Three (or Four) Posts on Similar Topics
For now, I’m publishing this without the tags, 8/9/2016.
This post (<=that’s a shortlink) comes from “CVE | BAMF | GIRDS | Hayak and reading Form 990s too? C’mon, Let’s Get Honest, Whaddaya Want?”
From the bowels of this one, the Show and Tell on how yes, I do expect a certain public learning curve among us commoners, even if it means some CHANGE and a short vocabulary list with even some drills on usage, I felt it helpful to better explore the UN-related word “NGO,” how we’re supposed to classify such organizations, and how (to the contrary, and why) I look at them. Called: “What’s an NGO? What’s a UNESCO-affiliate NGO at Rutgers? In fact, What’s Rutgers (A look at the State of NJ CAFR)” The NGO topic is introduced, briefly, here but a closer look at the CAFR really does communicate the range, power and types of holdings any State might hold. I look at component units, assets, investments and parts of that financial statement which simply tells about the operating structures (Authorities, Public Universities, etc.) any state might be operating. NJ’s position makes it real interesting — consider “the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey” (Address: 4 World Trade Center, NYC)
Why: The example of NGO came up with the recently posted “Institute for International Peace at Rutgers” which simultaneously (and right after formation somewhere in 2011) became a “UNESCO-affiliated” Institute, with partners, even. I am still curious how a state-supported university in the US allows an international organization to simply set up shop and label it part of “UNESCO” with its clear UN affiliation. I went looking for traces of the IIP as a fiscal event — or fund — or ANYthing referenced in the very large entity that comprises Rutgers.
PREVIEW – LINKS
DATABASE and ORG.WEBSITES
If or when most people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the financial dots between federal/state relationships well enough to make sound judgments about the same (about key organizations being funded, and from there, about key social policies being enacted), what about when the NGOs: <> span different continents; <> are not even run from the USA; and (but still) <> involve the US Department of Justice – – – THEN what?
Post Title:
If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?
Below this next section: Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”…. look for two sections labeled:
Databases referenced in this this post. Call these “The Tools.”
AND, FOLLOWING SOME DISCUSSION AND EXHIBITS, THEN:
WEBSITES referenced on this post (the main ones). Call these “The Topics.”
That was how I first organized this post. As about to be published today, 8/9/2016, I could drill-down deeper on the data (as put into this Show and Tell). I already have, personally, but at this point, am leaving it up as the tools and the databases. An intelligent persistent person could discover the same material, with time. Some of the deeper level I noticed this time was on the “Participation with BWJP” page of NCDBW (National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women) and the history page of the same, which (at date about 2006) relates how they were asked to participate in the HHS grants series (Family Violence Prevention and Service Act) around 1993, which by association connects this NCDBW to the Pennsylvania “PCADV” (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence) with which Barbara Hart has been associated or was, for years. PCADV is also a “Special Issue Resource Center” grantee.
So when the Minnesota-based DAIP calls grants to NCBDW (and a few others) its “Battered Women’s Justice Project” and its tax returns show this to be, up to a certain point, THE main focus of Minnesota-based DAIP, at which point (including after founder Ellen Pence died, true, in 2012), the BWJP with similar personnel in charge (Denise Gamache, whose name was on those million-dollar DAIP grants from HHS over the years) suddenly shows up — or rather, a normal IRS Form 990 does NOT show up, but in three years since its formation, a single Form 990EZ (has less information) and two postcards (Form 990-Ns saying, we didn’t receive any funds over $50,000), I have to ask whether the federal bucket ran dry, or whether BWJP (new spin-off organization, new street address, similar personnel) doesn’t want to openly show its operations. FYI, the BWJP is also involved in “FCEP” (Family Court Enhancement Project”) One pilot site chosen, “coincidentally” was Hennepin County, MN, as Technical Consultant or Trainer. The term “BWJP” has been used for eyars in AFCC presentations, when in fact that was not the name of the organization. Hmm…
If you refuse, however, to “drill down, and note the details” at ALL on these topics, and only listen to the rhetoric, you could be properly classified as “clueless” though since this has been up and continued being posted on-line at LEAST since I started doing it, that doesn’t mean with a solid alibi for the cluelessness, unless conditioning or being brainwashed counts.
And that’s a LOT of the population right now, from what I can see on the blogging protesting treatment of DV victims in the family courts. Many of them simply do not want, I guess, to grow up and look it up. Oh well…..
This next section is for clarification of why my focus on NGOs differs from the standard focus. Again, it’s called;
Regarding My use of “NGO” vs. not “Nonprofit” or “501©3”
[This topic introduced here, but discussed more in a subsequent post which references the Institute for International Peace at Rutgers, and “CANVAS” (an “international non-government, nonprofit network”) claimed as that IIP’s partner, and then takes us looking for ANY fiscal or accounting mention of this institute, first through a State of New Jersey CAFR, and briefly also through Rutgers’ own CAFR (which as a public university, one of 11 in the state, and a Land Grant College dating back to Colonial times, is a “Component Unit” of “The State of New Jersey”)
Regarding the term “NGO” — I don’t normally use it, preferring to say “nonprofit” or (if it applies, and of course this is a reference to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and so applies exclusively (??) to the United States of America, the term “501©3 (or “4” or “6” etc.) referring to parts of that code defining who does NOT pay “income tax.” Or, I’ll refer to tax-exempt entity // foundation etc. My focus, while looking at categories of causes certain tax-exempt entities are taking up, or how they operate collectively on certain favored causes across-state (or country) jurisdictions, is typically on the Revenues to Expenses (and public vs. private sources of the revenues), Assets to Liabilities (and where assets are being invested or held), related organizations (and what type of entity).
That focus requires me to be more specific on individual groups or organizations than the label “NGO.” My overall concern is for balance of power between individual citizens — of the USA — and governments — of the USA or the states and territories which comprise this country.
At the bottom of the last post which itself came as a show-and-tell example on looking up domestic nonprofits, the post “CVE | BAMF | “Whaddaya Want, Let’s Get Honest?” {{just published 8/9/2016 evening}}
This concern comes from both person experience as a battered wife and mother and in the family court system, wrongly assuming I would be allowed to leave the violent relationship without having to pay all but the ultimate sacrifices upon the altar of “this is America, I thought we had due process; this is the 21st century: women can both vote, and work, and raise children and are there are criminal laws against domestic violence causing serious injury, stalking, child-stealing, child-abandonment, and other protections in place actually available to women, EVEN IF they are also mothers….”
Eventually I found out there were federal incentives grants, and professional nonprofit trade associations driving this court system, profiting the professionals and harming half or more of the people. So on hearing of this money, following its course from federal to state, through subgrantees, of course was a major concern, and taking all the talk at face value any longer, not so much….
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 