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

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

Posts Tagged ‘A PROJECT =/= a PARTNER

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)

leave a comment »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark ().  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”


In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Chasing Down Corporate and Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors). Part 1. [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018].

leave a comment »

This is a “makeover” of a previous post, which reflects how early in my blog (if not two years earlier, ca. 2009) I was focused on and sounding the alarm to emphasize “looking it up” meaning, at a minimum corporate registrations.

This post’s title and shortlink:

Chasing Down Corporate & Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors) Part 1. [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018]. [with case-sensitive shortlink ending: “-7Ia”] [where the middle digit is a capital “i” not number “1” or lower-case “L”].  Currently about 13,000 words (and there is a “Part 2”).

[The above paragraphs are repeated below for the wider blogging context, though in a different order].


Did you catch my new, short “Page”  published Jan. 2, 2018?  It was written in part to explain some of the detail unearthed in this post, regarding Child Abuse Prevention gone National… Title and link to it further down on this post (yellow-background), and it will be on the Vital Links/Alpha Chrono blog sidebar menu (right side).  In addition to outlining the basics, I posted ALL the images of a single year’s Schedule I grantees of the National Children’s Alliance at the bottom in image gallery format.

I find it odd that two completely different nonprofits organized to stop child abuse and provide intervention, treatment, and of course public education and advocacy, both developed in the 1970s (although one incorporated only in 1992) and both took it national, with chapters of all sorts.

The new page despite its title mentioning only one of these two, deals with both (National Children’s Alliance and Prevent Child Abuse America).  You may not realize how deeply entrenched both are in local (county, state) government operations.

Anyhow, when (specifically, in late Sept. 2017) a “parental alienation prevention and treatment” nonprofit called “Kid’s Turn” — founded by AFCC- and Family Court professionals (a lawyer and a judge) in 1989 and taking court-ordered business, for the (Greater Bay Area) San Francisco Area — submerged itself into a chapter of the sponsored-by-National-Children’s-Alliance – “SFCAPC” (“SF Child Abuse Prevention Center”) which recently changed its name to “Safe & Sound” it got rather “interesting.”

Meanwhile, the San Diego version of Kid’s Turn remains separate and under its own identity.

So, those two national child abuse prevention nonprofits are:

Total results: 3Search Again. EIN# 631044781  Formed only in 1992 (per IRS forms) or 1988 (per its website).

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
National Childrens Alliance DC 2016 990 77 $5,583,437.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2015 990 82 $5,790,038.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2014 990 154 $4,712,656.00 63-1044781

and

Total results: 3Search Again.   Prevent Child Abuse America, EIN# 237235671, formed 1972, Domicile IL, Fiscal Year = Calendar Year. Website:  “preventchildabuse.org”

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2016 990 39 $6,243,040.00 23-7235671
Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2015 990 38 $5,039,476.00 23-7235671
Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2014 990 39 $4,656,308.00 23-7235671

Followers of this blog and people familiar with a situation in Connecticut about six years ago (involving the confirmation of a Judge Maureen Murphy over the protests of testimony — including from Harvard-based Dr. Eli Newberger citing to medical evidence of child sexual abuse of a young boy — and its coverup.  Hon. Murphy was then the involved GAL. I’d posted (a number of times, but also) June 6, 2013 on “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut — the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse.” A link to the related story and financial drill-down at the bottom of that post (it was in Washington Times communities” has expired, but it’s now posted elsewhere (by title search) at — get this — “CGA.ct.gov”:

Immunity for GAL Destroys Connecticut Family (read the closing paragraphs).

(See nearby link from “Cta.CT.gov” Immunity for GAL destroys Connecticut Family)

I mention this because, as to the Max Liberti (9 yr old boy) case, Newberger had testified in his case. This journalism was unique in that it told the story in large part, from the point of view of billings and invoices by the involved professionals. Not shown there,* but FYI, Newberger was an early President of a “Prevent Child Abuse” local nonprofit in Massachusetts. *I show this on my new (related) page.

A passing reference to Newberger’s involvement was published in the Connecticut Mirror, 2/22/2012, “A judicial confirmation goes off-script.” I blogged along these lines at the time, knew (electronically or by phone) some of the involved protesters), and remember reading his testimony.  It may be on this blog. Note: The parent whose relationship with a young son was being destroyed, this time, “happened to be” (sic) the mother. Warning: it is graphic reading.


And I found this (reported back in 2011) announcement that Kid’s Turn Curriculum will be run by some UK charities, and an admission that our system is based on the British system anyhow.  Guess that’s the beauty of having “government by and for the 501©3s” in America:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:

Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.


{Commentary stemming from the “Relate” and “Family Mediation” references above added post-publication.  I don’t look further into either of those nonprofits within this post, however…
Read the rest of this entry »

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017]

leave a comment »

 Notice the Last Revised, Published and “As-Is” dates added to this post title!

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7zh”).

I just, mid-September, added a new page, and a post introducing the new page, not particularly focused on this topic, but instead on Collaborative Justice Courts, or how California at least worked over some decades to turn the courts into “problem-solving” justice system, and who (such as the Center for Court Innovation in New York, the National Center for State Courts, and as it turns out when considering “Government:  The Final Frontier” and whether the courts are better off like universities, as “loosely-coupled organizations” (a 2013 publication) with the help of Harvard Kennedy School of Government) has been helping this happen.

Returning now, later, to posts in the pipeline (i.e., in draft), I see this one I last worked on 9/11/2017 has major show and tell elements already in place and uploaded.  I remember working hard on it, and with some incredulity as the inter-relationships developed from such a simple, basic website as “EVERYCRS.com.”

So I rate this one “pretty damn good,” if not fully complete (fully complete would continue exploring the relationship with the Global Fund found by looking up a little (?) LLC grantee hiding (sic) in a field of other ones which just happens to have been run by one of the extended Kennedy clan. One of the earlier, colorfully annotated images gets right into this.  I also could’ve done more image uploads, or further pursued some of the many names which surfaced just looking at that single website.

My purpose is stated within the posts. We need to examine the “windowframes” of on-line information better, and do some of the drill-downs.  This will reveal relationships, and often leads to things you may not have had a clue about before, or other insights into ones you did.  I’m not likely to continue researching the exact topics and organizations here in the near future and so am publishing “as is.”  I again hope more people will take a closer look as well (CRS reports are good reads on the topic) on the matter of “Reorganization Authority,” the first topic below, while realizing that Presidential Reorganization Authority is not the only way of re-arranging government and in the process centralizing power, DE-centralizing the financial trail beyond tracking, and letting the largest currents in the river, and some of the oldest ones (I’m talking about consolidated family wealth held in tax-exempt places…) run the show by default.

“WINDOWFRAME” example which prompted me to write this post:

You may not think, judging by this blog, I watch the current news — but I do, and doing so, I know what I’m saying here is important.  You CANNOT judge a leader by the cause; look at the carrier and the means as well.  Navigating who’s who in any given situation, that is, on-line promotion, website, or named initiative, is an art and a skill.  It’s necessary, and I don’t believe people who just won’t develop it are the best defenders of liberty, justice, rights, or fair play. Start understanding what type of information is being withheld by whom (financial reports on great global causes) and start publicizing the withholding of this information.

Don’t fall into the Democrat/Republican Verbal Ping-Pong Tournaments as the ping-pong balls!  Develop some peripheral (and depth) vision.  There may be other ways, but this is how I’ve been doing it.   Comments fields remain open…. I moved the “Read more of this post” marker further down the page than usual to get to the part containing some annotated images and my statement of purpose for this post.

The tags may be added properly later, but meanwhile, here they are in image format:

(This odd presentation of “tags” for a post substitutes for the real thing, or shorthand for a preview, temporarily)

9/22/2017 update:  Tags have been added, basically the same format, plus a few more. From now on, for tags which represent principles, questions, or exhortations (“Keep Your Eyes on the Assets” etc.) I will start applying quotes (except ones already in place without the quotes) so these will display, ideally, separately from the others.  This isn’t reflected on the above image because the alphabetizing only occurs with a “Save” function; I took the above image as a precaution when there was a glitch in that process.  . . . . Also know that tags are not applied (I do not apply tags) to all posts so the Search function may be best option if all posts on specific topics are wanted.  One reason why — due to a quirk of the blog domain, too many tags makes the blog administrative section, which I use frequently during writing to connect various posts & pages, unwieldy (causes them to display only one or two per page).

If your purpose is to browse the blog in general (although my Sticky Posts do summarize it)  one way to do so is through the table of contents, so far as they go, right sidebar section labeled most recent posts, or on the right sidebar to the blog (scroll down considerably below some “Text” widgets in different background colors), look through those “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” menu which has been compiled over several years; I made some recent additions, but typically don’t add to it regularly.  

Overall, there should be something in here for almost anyone, assuming basic GED literacy and some interest in numbers.  Otherwise, I doubt anyone would last long even looking at this blog…..I’m no graphic artist, and have none on payroll (there IS no payroll here….)..


Below this line was written 9/11/2017 or earlier, except for one section on a fund-raiser for New Venture Fund I’d previously studied (Citizen Engagement Laboratory, a 501©4 + its related 501©3 CEL Education Fund) in Northern California).  

Post currently was just under 10,000 words.; with added “CEL” section it is now pushing 12,000 (9/23/2017)


Where this started, this round – I found a third source of CRS reports on the “Reorganization Authority” at EveryCRSReport.com (This one is from 2001, author redacted by practice of those running the website). It’s labeled “Received through CRS Web.”  CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, which is under the Library of Congress.  Link and images will be repeated lower in post also.

While I’m quoting FYI up front several paragraphs (see this background-color) from this 2001 CRS Review on the Reorganization Authority (It’s relevant — I have also two side-bar links on related U.S. history involving this, (Abolishing Representative Government || the Social Scienc-i-fication of America) and referenced the Reorganization Authority several times in 2016 on this blog also), this post less about that content than about the “window-frame” in which (and by whom) it’s presented.

We are missing so much vital information by ignoring follow-up, even basic, “routine” check-it-out searches, on the delivering framework, i.e., the edges of these websites.

Content is one matter.  The conduct of the organizations sponsoring any content is another, and it’s even more important matter when so many are also operating nonprofit and operating in ways designed to affect the direction of both state and federal governments, which is to say, affecting the legislative process and programming.  A closer look beyond their websites at the financials and filings of the sponsoring organizations reveals a lot in a short time about their character, and handling of an important commodity for all of us — money:  Funds.  Numbers. Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities, and compliance with instructions on an IRS form showing whether it matters to the organizations, or, perhaps not…   

The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis  March 8, 2001. [Order Code RL30876]

Summary

Among the initiatives being promoted** with the beginning of the Administration of President George W. Bush

**Writer shows tact (?) in omitting “by whom,” including whether especially by the new President…

is that of renewing the President’s lapsed authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provide additional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote “economy and efficiency” as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route for considering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganization authority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit the President to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with “fast track” procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal’s proponents as a necessary reform for good government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptions behind  the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process for executive reorganization proposals.

This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President’s reorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President’s reorganization authority in 1984,[FN1] and (3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch.

[FootNote 1] It is worth noting that the Reorganization Act of 1977, as amended, remains “on the books,” but is not presently operative for execution as it expired on December 31, 1984. See Appendix for Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, 98 Stat. 3192; and Appendix 2 for Executive Reorganization, chapter 9 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.

AND:

With the 1983 Chadha decision (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha; 462 U.S. 919) striking down the legislative veto, the utility and desirability of the Reorganization Act, compared to following the regular legislative process, came in to question. Whereas “fast track” options within the larger legislative process retain their appeal under certain circumstances (and reorganization of the executive branch may indeed be one of those circumstances), no President since 1984 has requested the renewal of the reorganization authority.

[I’m posting that quote on 9/11/2017, remembering that this request was made months before the same historic date in 2001].  Paragraph referencing HOOVER, Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933..

…The co-managership concept has been criticized by proponents of the theory of the dominant President that has enjoy ascendency (beginning with the Progressive Movement), throughout most of the last century. While Secretary of Commerce, President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) had been a proponent of the idea that Congress should delegate to the President authority to propose reorganizations of the executive branch subject to some form of congressional disapproval.3 Near the end of his term, Hoover was successful in persuading Congress, when passing the Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933, to include a provision assigning the President reorganization authority.4 [footnotes omitted from here on, in my quotes]

This short CRS summary is a good read and especially with follow-up on its footnotes will lead, probably for most people except those already IN government or studying it, to a better understanding of the balance of powers (Congress vs. White House) if not in some parts of U.S. history and the various agencies we now seem to take for granted as immutable and apparently believe that if they weren’t seemingly ever-present and effectively running things (including things they have no real jurisdiction over, such as the courts) with the help of the public/private partnership collaborations, “the sky just might fall.”**

Paragraph on President FDR right before WW II:

Although President Franklin Roosevelt had some interest in executive reorganization during the New Deal years, he was more focused toward creating new agencies and programs than in consolidation and retrenchment. The Reorganization Act was rarely used and allowed to lapse in 1935. As America faced heightened international pressures, however, Roosevelt indicated renewed interest in executive reorganization as a tool for increasing presidential authority and for preparing America to meet its wartime responsibilities.8 One product of this changed political climate was passage of the Reorganization Act of 1939.9 This Act provided that for two years the President could submit reorganization plans that would go into effect unless Congress disapproved by a concurrent resolution of disapproval. As far as Congress was concerned, the objective was for the President to use the authority “to reduce expenditures to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of [page break] Government.” President Roosevelt, never persuaded that the principal purpose of reorganizing was saving of money, took the opportunity to successfully propose in Reorganization Plan No. 1 the establishment of an Executive Office of the President.10 During World War II, the President was given authority under Title I of the War Powers Act to make temporary, emergency wartime reorganizations for the duration of the war plus six months.11 (etc.)

(**It feels a little odd saying “the sky might fall” in the recent context of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, where the sky, or at least wind and rain is aggressive and the waters have been rising, power outages, gas shortages, mass-evacuations in Florida, ….but …. I think the comparison with disaster scenario if business as usual (within the federal executive branch of government) were significantly disrupted, reduced, or scaled back.

But this post came from a closer look at who is behind “EveryCRS.com,” that is, the basic windowframe of the on-line service and resource, more than the content.


What’s in the “windowframe” on any website, or uploaded material to a website, typically advertising or publicizing a project, or goods or services?  The intended main message is presented in the main section, but the fine print at the top, or at the bottom, or (with varying degrees, and plenty of exceptions) in part on the “financials” page or any page where such financials are presented. Or, if not presented, that’s part of the “frame” as well.

The purpose of this post isn’t just to expose or explain a single project’s backers, but again for an example of ways to distinguish a project (characterized often by domain name and on website) from the actual backers of the same project.  From here on out on this post, I’m looking at the entities, their tax returns, and their self-declarations of how they’re related to each other.  There are many images and as usual those Form 990 tables.

Because these particular organizations involve some famous family lines, and predictably some “Harvard / Yale/ Georgetown / Columbia” graduates and connections to billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations such as the Nature’s Conservancy // Secretary of the Interior (Clinton Admin). Also involving two young men on one project, one (David Segal) a former Rhode Island House member (Green Party) and I see also a Non-Residential Fellow at Stanford’s Center for the Internet, and the other (David Moon) a current Maryland Democrat. (Self-described Progressive Democrat for MD).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 21, 2017 at 7:57 pm

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?

leave a comment »

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….

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: