Posts Tagged ‘A PROJECT =/= a PARTNER’
Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco Wastes Your Time, and Mine [Publ. July 14, 2022].
You are reading:
Standard Journalism on Each New Family Court Fiasco Wastes Your Time, and Mine [Publ. July 14, 2022]. (short-link here ends “-eRJ”)
As revised Nov. 13, 2022 to clarify #EndTheAcronym “CAFR” (a term I used 20 times below; it’s been a theme in this blog for a decade) about 12,000 – 13,000 words, in clearly marked sections). You will detect my sense of irritation and feeling both a bit besieged and betrayed in that opening section, which is narrative and not detailed documentation; but detailed documentation describes What I Do; when I summarize, I’m speaking from that awareness and years of investigations, not free-lance, not on any sponsored fellowship, or for employment. I’ve done it because it needs doing, and because I’ve yet to see anyone PAID for doing this who’s willing to expose the public/private enterprises or the philanthropic sector as a whole, which my studies have led consistently to over the years, as an issue of its own. I’ve also done it for future generations, and as a mother: even though my children are now fully adult, not even that young; I still care about what they may face down the road.
I want a record preserved of what I have seen, and what I have also talked a bout year after year, “to the contrary” of typical advocacy, typical journalism and which reflects at the highest levels on policy-making; on what this country is doing to its citizens WITH their resources, and where that’s going.
More to the point (of why I want to call attention to it, again), this post lists titles of seven planned posts around this theme, talking about themes I believe deserve higher priority, and in this list also featuring the nature and major players of the family courts, by name and (as to Denver, Colorado, USA specifically and also naming specific entities or agencies, Commonwealth Countries Canada, the UK, and of course Australia) and “time for a re-cap” of what, exactly, is the AFCC.
If you read nothing else below, read those titles (probably the bottom half of the post) and what’s immediately before the listing, with comments in between. Know that of that list ONLY this one has been published so far (so no links shown there except to this one will be active as of Nov. 2022)..
Nov. 13, 2022, update sections (plural, next) aren’t a separate post only because I have other posts and obligations (life tasks) higher in priority. These sections are probably a third of the total length.
It’ will sound and it feels awkward to go back and update posts written months (or, sometimes, years ago) but I am not in a position to do several re-writes. This fix, an extended “update” typed directly onto an already-published post, is a compromise. In different conditions, I would have started a new post with better-written updates and just link back to this one.
These updates are more informal, summary and rushed than anything below it, which information and expression I still stand by, enough to be re-posting it (probably with images) on Twitter, even a platform now owned by Elon Musk and with an uncertain future. Sometimes I feel speaking out NOW pre-empts speaking out PERFECTLY (as to expression, not as to subject matter or basic content which I say is decent and fair). Of course it contains some of my feelings and sentiment about dealing, long-term, with the same dilemma and with coalitions of people of indeterminate number, influence (but seeking major influence) getting press coverage, but whom I know as beyond unethical in the reporting and approach. They are not “the good guys” in the situation, even when possibly talking about even worse guys.
Rather than talk ABOUT the problem issues, these (FamilyCourtReformists and their favorite journalists and/or cheerleaders from outside the USA when talking about things inside it) pick “substitute” issues and talk them up instead, get published somewhere — several “wheres” in fact, and relentlessly refer to each other each time.
Quantity over quality prevails throughout.
These operate like cults and I say because of that, are corrupt, obstruct justice and because impervious to reason (while publishing and social-media promoting as though exercising it), also dangerous to sound government (while proclaiming it’s what they really want). If RICO (a single, overall, “Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization”) were the best and most accurate answer to this question: “what are the family courts and their peripheral operations as an enterprise?” this crowd would be LEAST likely to expose it, and are probably (therefore) IN on it, as it’s obvious they don’t want anyone else exposing it, either.
References to “cottage industry” (easier to dismiss or contemplate, minimizes) yes. RICO? No. But I’ve made and posted this comparison (Search RICO on the blog, top right sidebar). The key concept behind “RICO” is “CRIMINAL” — organized crime. That’s why when the problems keep showing up, it’s that organization that should be reported (how it’s’ structured — not individual laws or policies). What do we do when government begins to resemble and act like “organized crime?” Which is scarier — an individual abuser in a community, or that situation, which affects all of the communities, plural?
I don’t know exactly how, when, or by whom, these individuals and their respective entities (or, non-entities) were compromised, but that they have been (if they even started from a legitimate perspective or motive) is evident. That this also involves Harvard, University of Chicago, at times Yale, Princeton, etc. graduates, law professors (east coast, west coast) and marriage/family therapists (like Mo Hannah, PhD,**) is no less disturbing, in fact more so. With backing, often, by major tax-exempt foundations, or universities which have the same, in abundance not to mention institutional funds: large ones..
(** who co-founded the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, operating without incorporating, and featuring, most years, a California nonprofit which has been since FTB/SOS suspended there, barely casts a fiscal shadow but shows up promoted on the “Safe Parents” website, welcomed as among the initial “members” while I’ve been blocked by both it and some of the (original) members, on Twitter).
Meanwhile, the IRS database (http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/) even ProPublica.org admits isn’t current. Beyond it not being current, its search results showing “location” aren’t always showing legal domicile; and entity addresses can change without legal domicile changing. When there are many similar but not identical filings named after specific causes, how search by geography?
I’d love to take on THAT project; it is on my back burner to find out why. A problem arises when the IRS isn’t posting the latest delivered tax returns; an entity may change its name before they do so. Other data comes from those IRS returns. I’ve read that, and some entities clearly understand (because their returns say so in a Schedule O (Supplementary info to a Form 990) they aren’t subject to questioning for tax returns older than three years. If the postings are already two years behind, how is that supposed to help with open and transparent government?
<>Preview and Sound-Off, WHY I’m feeling a need to reference this post again:
(Nov. 13, 2022. Yes, I voted!).
Although I never got to publish any of those seven posts, my describing them here with lengthy titles and some previews did announce aloud that this theme, in my voice, my words and with my (known) perspective was coming.
However small my followers are here or on Twitter (note: there can be more readers who don’t “follow”), once published here, July, 2022, that word was out. Between now and then I was again put homeless and am struggling not just for housing but also to not completely stop commenting and writing. I never stopped reading or researching these topics for long, no matter what else is on my personal plate, but life issues can and do impact quantity of output, especially with what (format, copy editing, clarity) quality standards I don’t feel I can compromise, knowing it’s already not Chicago or APA style, or even fully copy edited/proof read most times. Other causes of delay may involved input devices (technology obstacles). I have been negotiating hotel living a few (typically three to five) days at a time for over five months now, and keeping as close track on finances as possible. Each hotel reservation, most of them, grab excess funds up front and then release them on check-out; up to 25 or 30%. Although (more expensive) hotels exists with full kitchens, I didn’t feel I could afford these and so have been without a kitchen sink, stovetop, or even a half-sized refrigerator since last June. In exchange for not having these, I mostly stayed at one place which I felt was physically secure, know was clean, and where my car (I do have a car) could be seen from the hotel room. It was not halfway across some large parking lot.
There has been another round of litigation in my name, out of state, which I had to let slide and did not participate in, although it affects my future deeply.
If you are noticing since July, 2022, some “news” on specific court professionals or programs from Colorado and specifically, Denver, (like “bad custody evaluators” being outed, or reunification camps) on-line SINCE I posted here, know that while most protective mothers groups involved in the DVCoalitions and being (used by, and volunteering for it apparently) the FamilyCourtReformists power players, have long been aware of this blog and of exactly where I stand on covering up financials needlessly, failing to talk about the networked nonprofits direct the public to investigate public-access information that they have every right to and ought to know exists and which information can and should be studied and talked about (such as the Family Values, Marriage/Fatherhood and Faith-based Initiatives movement; what these are and how they works, the role welfare reform played in sponsoring this at public expense, AND that CAFRs (excuse me “ACFRs” now) show that governments aren’t as broke as they talk at any level.
The so-called “protective mothers” nonprofits and group email/on-line forums at a minimum from California and those involved long-term in the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (2003f) and those they worked alongside for now about two decades (including but not limited to those featured now in the website NationalSafeParents.org and at least (as to leadership) Joan Meier of the so-called “National Family Violence Law Center,” previously of “DVLEAP.org” (see my recent post)) are reasonably aware (not naive about) what I blog.
Based on my early email communications, on-line commentary, some phone calls with the same, at least their founders and main spokesman, and my friendships with people loyally devoted to and hoping in this movement (formerly battered mothers, at least one then homeless, in-state and out of state) are (beyond those I specifically communicated with) aware of me as a person, and if not, of this blog. I have communications dating back to 2009, but my domestic violence-family court case just preceded these times earlier in California. Beyond these groups, I also know by acquaintance from having, first, sought help from (remember those lists of 800 referral numbers and websites handed out, women?) and later researched the filings of “resources” for women in this situation. It has always seemed strange to me how groups in California would ignore parents in California while crossing state lines (whether in person or on-line) to recruit and solicit stories of broken parents and children about broken family courts, from across the nation, and work with equally SMALL (if the tax returns are to be believed) groups whose legal domicile often didn’t match their entity addresses, who weren’t even large enough to be required to file full-sized Forms 990 and who (of course) habitually (like “AFCC”) opted to NOT post those financials on their own websites.
WHAT made it necessary to favor nonprofits groups who don’t, don’t have to [i.e., university-sponsored “centers” or “institutes” whose funds and backers would be hard to track in detail) or barely file (even if something is shown on their websites), while the press often, uncritically, continues to cite their affiliations by name, as if a source of credibility? That’s what the Protective Mothers (and “Safe Parents” “Family Court Reformists” overall) have featured throughout to either seem financially and numbers-wise larger (and more grassroots) than they are — or at times to seem smaller and more representative of the “underdogs” in these situations?
(For more general take, see my June, 2014 post, “parades, charades and facades”)…
A decade or so ago I also worked for a few years in informal conjunction with Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) of Annandale, Virginia, who also knew these individuals and was reporting on what, basically, they wouldn’t. Basically, I developed this blog realizing she had chosen not to focus on developing her website further. We split paths many years ago but before then, reviewing some of these earlier emails the other day (while looking for one I’d mistakenly archived), I was again reminded that she’d reportedly (based on how I was handled, I have no reason go disbelieve) frozen out long ago of mainstream DV and protective parents circles. She was that early inquiring about what Joan Meier reasonably did or didn’t know, and (like me) corruption among DV advocates. We later split, in part, after I found my email being shared without privacy among a very large group email which was a safety issue at the time. I later heard that she called me names and cited another reason for my breaking off communications. (Another one, although I understand the mannerisms and value someone with her “cut to the chase” aggressive phone manner, I got tired of being handled in this way.
Such groups if they even glances at my blog, realize I’m saying the financial trail and networked nonprofits should be handled before their favorite series of themes: unsound psychological theories and flawed practices in broken family courts with “lack of oversight” and “inadequate training” and not enough federal — to be echoed at the state level (USA) legislation to demand more trainings (Kayden’s Law, Jennifer’s law in Connecticut) which — ultimately — this crowd OR their friends and backers who developed the “it’s NOT about the money, it’s about unsound psychological theory, especially Parental Alienation and Coercive Control and clever abusers outsmarting judges, or innocent judges fooled by mean custody evaluators (and so forth), will be involved in: after all, it was their idea to report on it, right?
The “murdered children” theme featuring Center for Judicial Excellence (<~~Link to its latest IRS Form 990EZ, that’s FY2019, EIN#204892221, total receipts only $157K, no paid directors, yet its purpose is to, according to Part III:
To improve the judiciary’s public accountability and strengthen and maintain the integrity of the courts)
… wasn’t there from the start, but seems to have come seeking more dramatic impact and after several mothers noted that prior agenda was talking as though women (NOT just children) were in fact, being “murdered.” I call this sometimes “roadkill” of the family court system, and am lucky (or, “by the grace of God”) none of my immediate family was killed by my ex, batterer, husband, and father of our children, either during or after I filed for and got a (CIVIL) “restraining order with kickout” as these are called in California. I had been living in a war zone; a real waking nightmare, for the duration of the marriage. NO witnesses referred me to any legal help; I had to find it and go figure it out then this “help” neglected to mention welfare reform (or, naturally, AFCC) and what was predictably coming up next: custody challenge, and custody switch, if we all were still alive after a few years.
When it comes to press releases and helping journalists continue to build their resumes, then talking about murdered children is OK. When mothers who’ve known this for YEARS (I am NOT the only one; I may be one of the more vocal ones, but certainly not the only one) kept pointing out that we are dropping like flies —and it’s NOT only 58,000 children a year (a theme which has been resurrected again, I see) and probably never was — being switched to the custody of known abusers or getting “unsupervised visitation” with them — that doesn’t merit our attention: What political clout do we have that FamilyCourtReformists want? They need fresh blood, new victims, aged-out children and parents (mother or fathers) who don’t look too closely at the financial incentives, and show others where to look such things up.
And, from time to time, one must switch away from the theme of incest (another prime issue — I doubt there’s relief for the victims) if it begins to lose its shock effect.
On Twitter and certain FamilyCourtReformists backing specific (sponsored by tax-exempt foundation through non-profit media, or other media) I have noticed more articles surfacing recently featuring Colorado. There is a sense of my posts saying “what’s up with Denver?” (And calling attention to what’s been there for years, specifically named) having been seen, but not acknowledged, as it’s preferable (for the FamilyCourtReformists) as to be seen as “leaders” and the first on any topic, and with that, of course, the most concerned about the human beings impacted by the disastrous erosion of justice in the family court system USA.
(From the post below, it shows there also):
Media awareness should also incorporate for-profit vs. tax-exempt awareness. Always look for the entity names and figure out which type it is or was. Media is often owned (and sponsored) by the powerful and well-connected. Access to or control of platforms as well as brands and entities are bought and sold, or rented (licensed). They may also be privately controlled, i.e. not public-traded. They are rarely neutral.
That goes for universities too, though most are tax-exempt (private) or tax-exempt (because public); which is which also matters.
(2) Why Denver and the University of Denver? IAALS.DU.edu (2006ff: AFCC IAALS leaders want to import/embed Australian FamilyCourt models despite their own failed pilot 2013-2017). What Other Family-Court-Facing Entities Call Denver ‘Home’? [Begun June 18, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-eGa”)
(The above quote, above the title, is my voice. Although this post isn’t published yet, I quoted enough from it for anyone who’s aware of what I was GOING to be talking about, such as the AFCC connection to IAALS.DU.edu, and the “Healthy Marriages/ResponsibleFatherhood dynamic duo (or, trio if you include Galena Rhoades) at the same DU’s “Center for Marital and Family Studies” (Scott Stanley, Howard J. Marksman, et al.) — not to mention the presence for FOUR decades now of the nonprofit “Center for Policy Research” run, in part, by Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Also now active in FRPN.org, which I keep bringing up, as attempting to establish state-wide Fatherhood Commissions nationwide, and while the website references Temple University in Pennsylvania, the HHS grants in this project (and, FRPN is a project, not an entity) goes to the University, not CPR, which in turn subcontracts with that university.
“Family Court Fiasco” reporting could come from any state. Such cases exist in many states: pick one, you’ll find several. That Denver and Colorado seem to be current and VERY recent focuses seems a bit extra “coincidental.” Whether or not it is, DV advocates and family court people, as well as family lawyers and of course judges should be and no doubt are well aware what entities in Colorado play significant roles in addressing domestic violence and child abuse in courts nationwide.
(Still Nov. 2022 update; I expect I’ll have embarrassed myself enough here to have to move it to its own place soon, anyway. But I still need to find housing, so …. Can’t predict when this may happen.
<>UPDATE Nov. 13, 2022 because this post references CAFRs.
Since then the acronym has changed, but the reporting requirements continue. Pertains to government entity financial reports — audited and showing the cumulative operations, not just a yearly budget).
I have since learned that the government (vs. private entity (see my revised motto: Identify the entities, find the funding, talk sense) comprehensive audited financial report, acronym “CAFR” is now supposed to be called “ACFR” for political sensitivity reasons relating to how it sounds when spoken aloud. I used “CAFR” 20 times in this post alone. I posted this on discovering it (see nearby image/s).
-
- Image #1 of 4 (the others unlabeled) Proper Referencing of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report — an Inclusivity Concern” (Per GFOA, and for my 9/27/2022 post, after a decade of promoting “CAFR” instead of AFRs. I found ℅ searching the term “CAFR” (written out) and ℅ Washington State’s posted “AFRs”..//LGH
-
- 2 of 4 (9-27-2022)
-
- 3 of 4 (9-27-2022)
-
- 4 of 4 (9-27-2022) for my post with short-link ending “-fhq”//LGH. (short-link final letter corrected 9/28/2022 — it’s a “q” not a “g.”
Whatever you call them, at least recognize they exist and start looking up reading (at least the tables of contents and introductory pages ,and at a minimum “Note 1” to the financial statements.
Example: “Connecticut Audited Comprehensive Financial Report, 2021” and you might get a link to that, or the previous year’s. //End Update Nov. 13, 2022.
Most media covering family court fiascoes doesn’t give much relevant context of the family courts or of the media platforms. Concerned people will have to get it, to educate themselves. To do this is to become aware of the practice of censorship and dissemination of confusion in a coordinated attempt to manipulate public opinion and policy. Certain options have historically been kept off the table, without any reasonable explanations why, and without discrediting those options.
By options, I mean the option in selecting what to report from among all possible and plausible explanations of why these courts function as they do.
It seems that where we can’t be persuaded or manipulated to campaign for that which isn’t in our best interests, we may be left in an ignorant or confused enough state to just not oppose those who’ve already decided what’s in our best interests, i.e., we might just be conditioned to remain passive and consenting through silence, to just “let it go with the flow” for the FamilyCourtReformists et al.
The family court arena is critical to the nation’s future; those seeking to profit from it long-term know this well and from everything I’ve seen over the years wish to restrict its control to a few, inter-related private parties catering to those already in power. Overall, this is literally an coordinated attempt to undermine due process and basic separation and balance of powers within the United States. An appeal to what other countries are doing as a better model, mostly because more behavioral health services are involved, ordered, and/or mandated, is incorporated, whether in the administration of the family courts, or as regards domestic violence and child abuse issues.
As I write, the continued coverage (not on Fox News, however!!) of an alleged attempted coup/riot at the White House, our nation’s capital, January 6, 2021, is constantly in the news and being processed, with much indignation. As serious as that is, what about the family courts?
The family court arena deserves a serious, sustained and close look and exposure from other than — from outside — standardized journalism, and from outside the coordinated collaboration of experts and stakeholders often quoted in such journalism, who have identifiable interests in keeping confusion and obfuscation going: it’s called, their career curves, reputations, and typically salaries.
This is my second run at a preview of my post series written between May 30 and mid-July, 2022. The first run at that preview (written about halfway through it) I’ve now placed seventh, so it’s a “Re/View” although in fact it brings up some more general topics. (See bottom of this post). It’s called:
These seven draft posts have substantial content and are almost publication-ready, so I decided to list them here and describe what to expect, especially for the first three. Their seven titles and links are marked clearly at the bottom in the format you see above (except titles there are bold). That section is also clearly marked as:
THE (so far) SEVEN POSTS IN THIS SERIES (Named, Numbered, and Described)*
*Not having a separate staff or editors, or even “interns,” I usually re-read the published post the day after, and make alterations (copy-editing or otherwise clarifying). This version is July 15, 2022, “the day after.” Any serious writer (I’m serious about this blog and this subject matter) knows that composing and editing are different processes, usually best done NOT by the author. I don’t have that luxury here, so focus on the writing (although revising and self-critique is always part of it, and often delays publication) until I publish; once that burden is lifted, I then (try to, most times) go back and polish it some more. Even mainstream news articles get updates; some of them even have typos, so some updates here for clarity (and I mis-spelled one proper noun a few times) should be no big deal.
Their titles still show dates begun, not dates published: No link to any post now in draft becomes both active and accurate until I publish it, and these are all still in draft. My protocol in starting any post these days is to include a “Drafted” or “Begun” date because it takes me weeks, or sometimes months, to get them posted. Yesterday (July 14) I forgot to update the title, but corrected it today.
(NB: I am not funded or salaried for these; writing still has to be worked around other life events and logistics, which have recently become more complicated, and there are ongoing technical and platform issues I’m still working on).
About half this post discusses the family court fiasco journalism contrasting it with an alternative rarely seen (I haven’t seen it yet…): exposing the underlying backbone and skeleton of the family courts and domestic violence (and responsible fatherhood) fields. This series takes that discussion forward, documenting existing, older networks I’d previously called out, and connecting interests I’d felt existed but hadn’t yet verified. I look forward to finishing the series especially on the entities centered in the Denver, Colorado area (see series list, below), although Posts (4) and (5) below will be excellent resources — and they are significant “call-outs” to the public and affected parents to wake up! about what is taking place under their noses.
Also, since I use the term “INFRASTRUCTURE” to indicate what’s absent from standard journalism on these topics — the INFRASTRUCTURE of the family courts — I wrote a section on it into this preview, with some images, links to others definitions, and examples of its common usage. My use is a little more generic, but the basic meaning of the underlying, sustaining structure of the operation(s) applies. The “INFRA” in “Infrastructure” refers to that which is underneath, upholds, and sustains.
If the family courts are indeed producing fiascoes and disasters, it’s time to look at the foundations, the infrastructure on which they are built — and not just continually look at what bubbles up to the surface, or look only at programs run THROUGH them. it’s the difference between the plumbing, sewer and irrigation systems and what flows through them. Sure, they interact, but there is always some engineer or designer and (as I say so often here) “blueprints” involved.
Can you imagine a structural engineer who doesn’t understand the physical properties of a building, or the importance of understanding geology, bedrock etc.? (Perhaps take a look at San Francisco’s sinking Millennium Towers if this seems irrelevant, searchable on this blog). Well, I need a term which can refer to the subterranean issues of the family courts and their foundations: that is the level we should be discussing openly and in public; so should those reporting on them, or training lawyers in family law, domestic violence, etc.
INFRASTRUCTURE is a repeat topic for this blog, and a key concept for understanding how systems work. While it’s usually and typically referring specifically to physical attributes of some systems (like highways, roads, bridges, courthouses, school facilities, tunnels, etc.) I’m using it figuratively to refer to the economic systems and conduits by which both information and resources (funding) circulates between the employed public and government, and between governments and private companies involved in these specific, developed fields.
INFRASTRUCTURE Section Preview.
In this section, I quote Cambridge English Dictionary, Investopedia (of course), refer to Bentley Systems 500, and either show, quote, or link to earlier posts I’ve written (for example, in 2019, on an Australia-originated model for a new asset class; it’s called “The Macquarie Model” and understanding that this is occurring may (should) help more of us comprehend that as physical critical infrastructure is being sold off for leasing and investor returns (complex enterprise arrangements), so too the family courts are primed for referral to outside contractors, who may be in fact more “insiders” than is obvious.
Add to this the categories of tax-exempt and not-tax-exempt as sectors, we have a complex, but still understandable, system in place to keep both customers, mandated services (referrals) and proliferation of practices supported by tax-exempt organizations + (see “university centers” also) to keep systems going, and these systems are also in a process of change (i.e., “systems-change mechanisms” are built in).
For illustration of one principle, distinguishing operations and programs or projects of entities as opposed to the Entities themselves — this applies to the family courts — I began with the example of “School Districts” (the entities) versus Schools (which are their operations and projecst) and — it’s headline news now — Uvalde School District in Texas. However I’m just doing this for illustration of the concept and to show that neither coverage nor the school district’s own website, is exactly forthcoming on its financials (but, I did find them).
Think about it (Robb Elementary School, May, 2022). There was a school massacre of children in Texas. Is this a “gun control’ or “mental health” or “communications” problem?
The family courts also seem to get children murdered, just not so dramatically all in one place at one time. Both in hindsight could’ve been if not avoided totally, handled better, with fewer deaths. There are indeed parallels between the systems. Sometimes looking at a similar (but not identical) situation helps comprehend, for comparison, the one at hand — which here is those family courts.
My focus is on how essential it is to use sensible and functional vocabulary among ourselves (and I do NOT include “FamilyCourtReformists” in this group, but especially women and mothers who’ve experienced seen the results of this system). We ought to by now understand and accept that we’re NOT likely to find this in: standard journalism; even on many public OR private entity websites, although that (accounting, entity-speak, economics, and finances) is the language spoken among these entities, in public/private partnerships, by investors, and for those who either do, or seek to, dominate any field and control enough assets (revenue-producing wealth, often warehoused cleverly to avoid taxation across enterprises) to drive, manage, and plan the futures of society as it pleases them and their colleagues.
The masses are not necessarily to be educated on how that works; it makes (us) less manageable. Confusion, distraction, entertainment, shock-treatment (repeated, applied and avoidable social traumas, such as school shootings), without connections that the public can independently verify, are routine.
Is there hope? Is time left in which to make a difference?
I don’t know, but I do know there is still wide opportunity (for those with Internet access and who can or will make the time) to self-educate on these matters, and to become aware of and alert to patterns of communication which, again, strategically omit references to the system infrastructure of any problem being addressed, although details, anecdotes (a key feature for the journalism and story line “hook”), and sampling (cherry-picking, in fact) expert commentary on the same.
Talking about problem outcomes as though no infrastructure for the venues (Merriam-Webster: place where the thing takes place, whether a music concert, an art exhibition, or a trial) in which they occur even exists encourages readers to grasp at straws, to speculate, form ungrounded and unsound theories — or become more gullible to believe others theories stated or, more often, insinuated and implied, in such reporting.
(Etymonline.com):
Family courts are government operations with venues (rooms in courthouses, or their own buildings). They are not corporate or government entities, but part of some other government entity; they have no “personhood.” They are budgetary items on a number of financial statements. As government operations, they also have legal domiciles for that government (apart from its financing) and that too is going to vary by country. It seems to me that Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom (as least in England and Wales) and Canada differentiate between public and private law, with family courts being considered “private” but child protection and criminal issues, public.
This also impacts who gets some defense counsel when accused, and who doesn’t.
The term seems to have as many uses as the word “church” but one thing family courts are NOT are their own entities. Therefore, they will show up accounted for (to the extent they’re legitimately run, and their supporting entities are behaving properly to report their accounts) on some other entity’s financials — as well as planning documents, etc.
There should be a paper trail, and the finances should be documented and visible to the public. Yet that seems THE main thing the public is discouraged from getting to, getting at, and thinking about.
This series was prompted by such an article I discovered with a built-in IMPLIED explanation for why women reporting domestic violence so often lose custody of their children. Who does “implying” help? (Post 1 in the series addresses this).
I have been saying (for years) start with what you know or can know that’s NOT majority hearsay and the rest speculation; work from the (definable) lowest common denominator known as to government structure, look at how it portrays its own operations, and get some working definitions of how resources flow from taxes through government entities, and in doing this you’ll have to also consider the private ones. You’ll need to comprehend the concept of “entity” to start with, and “non-entity” and other terms with associated concepts, most of which will never make it into a news article about a family court fiasco (“fiasco” at least from the mother’s point of view after reporting abuse of herself or her children). I sometimes publicize phrases that call attention to such terms and concepts:
- A PROJECT IS NOT A PERSON (corporate or government entity).
- A BUDGET =/= A BALANCE SHEET
For Example: public schools are projects, operations, of school districts, which are category a special government entities. As such, they must cough up some financials and we ought to read them!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)
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….
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“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].
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: 3. Search 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: 3. Search 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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
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]
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).
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 