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 ‘AFCC

Yes, Broken Courts, Flawed Practices, and the Parade of Fools: (Pt.1(a) Intro, Context) [Last post of 2014, publ. June 29, 2014].

with 19 comments

From this post as first published:

This post is about advocacy group supporters and followers failing to set standards and keep their own leaders ethical. In a larger sense, the same goes for all of us as citizens, supporting by personal energy and labor (i.e., government revenues) — how can we keep leaders honest or ethical if we don’t have a grasp of what they are doing, what they are paid to do, and how the system is organized?  ….

It is a natural continuation of the recent (and from May 2012) “Parades, Charades and Facades,” and my posting this is keeping a personal promise (to myself) for the year 2014, to expose what’s underneath the rhetoric.

I had no way of knowing at the time, but this became my last post of 2014, and I didn’t post anything for the entirety of 2015, for another round in the court system and while handling (yet) another round of family-generated problems putting my housing at risk through previous rounds which destroyed a sustainable profession (through the family courts) which was then used, apparently behind my back, to take control of an inheritance, and all but “dare” me to challenge the current status quo.I tend to challenge any current status quo which forces competent individuals onto food stamps needlessly, and continues to harass and interfere, cyclically, as I am noticed to be engaging in obtaining replacement work. This was coming to a head in summer 2014, which also may have prompted my desire here to lay out the elements clearly, naming names, as to which organizations occupied what status on the family court reform (and associated “domestic violence prevention” food chains, and how I came to understand where they were on that food chain.

In late 2019 I am coming back to review this post along with a few others which engaged in the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative” (i.e., the Cummings Foundations, legal domicile Nevada, field of operations it seems, they’d chosen for some reason nearby Arizona.

I noticed it lacked my usual “Title & Shortlink” format, so came here to add one, to add the date published to the title itself, and these comments. It’s clear I considered this even in 2014 an important point to make by the next update section.//LGH Dec. 7, 2019.  Here’s that Title now:

Yes, Broken Courts, Flawed Practices, and the Parade of Fools: (Pt.1(a) Intro, Context) [Last post of 2014, publ. June 29, 2014].

(short-link ends “-2ug”).  Having also now noticed this post is an obnoxious 25.4K words long, I’ll see if/when I might get to an abbreviation and/or re-posting of key parts. That’s not a promise, just a recognition of the need!   NOTE: This post has comments (some dialogue with readers) and more helpful links.  Most posts don’t have comments; these are worth reading (and found at the bottom) as are I still believe its extensive list of tags.


 [Published June 29, 2014; Post in edit mode late July-Aug. 2014;  expanded to almost double the size,nearly 24,000 words; with background info….In most posts, a lot of the length is simply quotes,  my style is not just tell, but  “show and tell.”]

February 2016 Personal Update:

Without changing the contents here (except one paragraph or so,  cleaning up some formatting and adding tags), I’ll mention that the MAJOR break in posting anything between June 29, 2014 and early 2016 came because my personal situation heated up so much after I went public on fiduciary abuse by an older sister — who’d played a crucial role in supporting/enabling (if not inciting) our original “custody war,” after playing a negligible, passive, codependent, domestic-violence-enabling role the previous decade, after learning that I was a battered wife and mother and seeking intervention.

From summer 2014 – early 2015, the situation went into probate court — lasting in total, nearly a year, to finish transition.  Throughout 2015 I was working with and renegotiating standards with personnel in control of my resources, and continuing to withhold access to evidence of the paper trail….From summer 2014 – 2016, I was still writing things up, investigating, communicating privately with some individuals — but also had to spend major time, that’s writing time, and to lawyer, sister, starting with unearthing a written commitment on her part, yes/no — are you resigning or not? Then, requesting to settle out of court (which is possible under California code and the individual trust), which (of course) was rejected, stringing the process out, adding more professionals (not that I had some for protection on this end).

In 2015, a major transition dealing with new people — major negotiation time, and now as the year 2015 closed out  and so far in 2016– I find myself again fighting for housing, and to obtain financial records, which certain people don’t want found. Both my (so to speak — father no longer involved, and I was prevented from continued involvement years earlier) young adult children now being out of the state, I had hoped to move on with life, and promptly move out of present housing.  I found — “not so” from certain personnel, and that “not so” is in one of the most effective forms of messing with other human beings — litigation absent the supporting facts (and here, even proof of standing) as a form of extortion, which like some of the other things this blog talks about (child-stealing, wife-beating, stalking, terroristic threats on individuals, statements under penalty of perjury which are, well, known to be falsehoods by those speaking, these are criminal issues.

In these conditions, struggling with wordpress HTML and getting out a post, wasn’t going to happen. I’ve been working at a different format to start uploading what did, still, continue learning during the non-posting time. We shall see…. Anyhow, that’s why no follow-up parts to this post occurred, much as I would’ve liked to complete them.  There are plenty in draft, and I am posting again.   There are still plenty of survival-level challenges, which means that about the only relief  or “down-time” still involves this kind of blogging anyhow —

and in continuing to blog I am still thinking about the next generation, particularly of those who may have been trafficked, traded and repeatedly disrupted (UNLESS they come into an abusive home, it seems — then the “don’t disrupt” theme seems to prevail) like commodities between and among parent/non-parent caretakers — all rationalized and presided over in the institutions run by privately-networked in organizations & with those in government positions  people (judges, experts, and social science research & demo projects building their resumes and journaling their findings) “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” and in the name of “NON-ADVERSARIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS,” “REDUCING CONFLICT” and of course Treating and Healing the scourges of wife-battering and child abuse [“SUPERVISED VISITATION / BATTERERS INTERVENTION”], for “Futures without Violence” “Safe Horizons” “Justice” (a common label on oh so many organizations), FAMILY reunification, preservation, (…. Responsible Fatherhood, Healthy Marriages, Access and Visitation — all such good, wonderful, noble things…) and my favorite term when applied to what allegedly MUST happen between perps and those perpetrated-upon: “CONCILIATION.” Unless parental alienation was perpetrated upon someone in a high-conflict relationship, in which case cold-turkey quarantining of the offender with de-programming for the alienated minor children.

Maybe we should call these courts something more appropriate to what takes place in them — like virtual auction blocks, or stock markets in human lives, with some able to profit so well in the field, they can as majority shareholders, demand changes in management, streamlined efficiency and increased return to shareholders, futures, options, the whole deal, on the profits of churning individual human beings’ relationships under the banner of helping society — and of course anyone “low-income” adjust to business as usual.

// Thanks for Readers’ Patience,  including with some of the formatting in reading through existing posts, or if you were expecting new ones that didn’t come timely…., LGH (“Let’s Get Honest) 2/6/2016.

 Between “Pts.1” [1a and 1b] and “Pt.2” I expect to post more material on the Family Court Enhancement Project (“FCEP”), which I understand is all the talk about town (i.e., on the internet in these circles (use your search function to find some of it…).   So the title of this blog refers to a series.  It is a natural continuation of the recent (and from May 2012) “Parades, Charades and Facades,” and my posting this is keeping a personal promise (to myself) for the year 2014, to expose what’s underneath the rhetoric.

These parades, charades, and facades have become a problem for the people who match the profile of what they claim to represent, “Protective Parents” and/or “Battered Mothers,” specifically. I am among that class and a witness of the practices, tactics, and censorships of dialogues involved. I believe collectively the groups involved comprise a cult, and exhibit all primary cult practices.

Before a few mental circuits of distressed parents disconnect, or melt from the heat of their own righteous indignation, (“But my children were abused; I am an incest survivor” etc.), this post is not about whether or not incest or abuse took place in those cases, or children are being placed in the care of batterers or dangerous parents. I’m a survivor, and I know that plenty of times, abuse, sometimes incest did take place and children ARE being placed in the care of batterers.  Mine were….

This post is about what kind of parents are taking a road trip (real, or virtually) with ANY advocacy organizations whose articles of incorporation (if any) boards of directors on their tax returns and patterns of incorporation, charitable filings they have not yet even identified (let alone read and understood), and what’s worse to a destination they have not evaluated as sensible, based on analyses of those organizations in the larger context.

It’s about the dangers of tunnel vision.  Focus is one thing, but tunnel vision, an entirely different thing. it’s about how even spending days, weeks and months on a combination of social media, group -emails, individual emails, and even supplemented by various published articles on a certain topic can still be like eating white bread and peanut butter only, and wondering why you can’t make it through the marathon.

It’s so easy to get a sense of TIME (date of origin of a group), PLACE (where did it originally incorporated, and if it’s one of those state-skipping chameleon corporations, make a note of it, and find out where it’s been before), SIZE (for that, see the financials), and POSITIONING (who else is it interlocking agenda with; and — this is important — is it talking from a religious-exempt institution, or from a law school, or center/institute (etc.) at a university, or individually.  Universities, hospitals, government represent considerable clout, prestige and authority, and lesser accountability for said “Center” or Institute” when it comes to tracking the funding = tracking the influence.  Is it a regular HHS grantee? On which federal funding streams?

How much does anyone involved really know, as an abuse survivor or simply as a taxpayer, about the USDOJ/OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) funding streams proceeding from passage and subsequent re-authorizations of the Violence Against Women Act (1994ff) and who’s on them, who’s advising them?  What about the people who have been directors of that Office? (Two — Bea Hanson and the Hon. Susan B. Carbon — in this post).  What are their affiliations, where did they come from policy-wise and professionally?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 29, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Checking Out a Nonprofit (HowTo), Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), Train-the-Trainers Technical Assistance Grantees, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Comment Submitted To:” (Supervised Visitation, Interlocking Nonprofits, in Minnesota)

leave a comment »

I submitted today to:
Carver County (MN) Corruption // AFCC chart page


Conceptual Thinking (understanding systems) is Essential to Freedom.
Networking for mutual self-support groups is wonderful, but failure by support groups to scout why one needed them to start with, is suicidal, in the long run. Support groups simply go form their silos of information and shun information which doesn’t fit with the status quo.

This is a great way to overspecialize and become an extinct species. We HAVE to be able to speak a language that incorporates understanding of the systems that structure our lives. We aren’t. There are crackups, domestic violence, gang violence, and various kinds of “roadkill,” to which people have conveniently (for those who DO understand systems, and own them) self-separated into their groups by label: Protective Mothers, Battered Mothers, Fathers’ Rights, Family Values vs. Pro Choice, etc.

Have you ever seen skilled sheepdogs in action? Consider what they do — they face off with the sheep; one dog can control a sizeable clump. Now — who does the sheepdog answer to and who feeds and trains him?

Now, who pays the man (or woman, I suppose) who trains, feeds, and runs the sheepdogs?

The real question is, who owns the ranch. And that’s what family court reform groups (male or female) simply forget to specialize in, and train each other to respond to signals from, that is, to respond as the owner of the ranch might — not as the sheep might.

I don’t know if you can get a visual on this — but picture sheepdog trials, and a batch is let out at time, and the canine “middle mangement” of this operation called a ranch, who do a lot of the running around, but appear to be innately designed for this — they LOVE running the sheep — are running one clumped together focused on the sheepdog (not the farm owners) and facing it, either face-off and freeze, or running. Eventually they ARE going to be run into the pen, where after a long (Or short) and domesticated life, during which they will be sheared and produce more lambs — eventually they will be possibly eaten. Such a life!

Divide, shepherd, shear, and eventually eat. Control reproduction. Sort for desired qualities.
That’s for sheep, but it’s been applied on people. And the sheepdogs bark and posture. The sheep don’t even have a language to talk back with that means anything other than what sounds they are making on the way back into the fold (pen).

As human beings, if we want freedom, we need to speak more than one language, and understand which language one is hearing at a given point of time. We also had better get a lid on understanding systems, AND becoming a better judge of character.

I read tax returns and look up corporations not because it’s profitable, or inherently more interesting than other things I could do with an immediate (though very transient, in my situation) profit. I read tax returns and look up corporations (and ask others to) because it tells me about who is doing what in the commercial landscape. I think the basics are clear, and a lot of the continued lookups I may (and am) still doing, are part for personal insight — but moreso for demonstrating to others.

This kind of data (even as poorly sourced as the free databases are, and as unwieldy as they are to produce any kind of report from) — givesi us a headsup on which way the economy has been going, is going and on WHY certain groups and talk like they do. It is one way of standing a little aprt from the clump of sheep to consider the patterns of frantic running around.

As a domestic violence survivor, I have also believed that the middle of pack of sheep frozen in certain language patterns and dashing around the internet to bond with their own kind, producing more of the same kind of (outdated though still valid in parts) information is producing inbreeding –and doesn’t increase the defensive or safety position one iota.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the Beginning, in Hindsight (more on early AFCC newsletters, SVN/CRC, and could we have prevented this?)

with one comment

Just grabbed this section off a recent post “Why Supervised Visitation Sucks” after posting it. I’m a woman and I get to redecorate at will.

I’m trying to consider whether anyone could’ve then (and could, now) headed off at the pass the multi-state shape-shifting nonprofits involving public officials (such as AFCC, SVN and CRC, mentioned herein).

There’s no question they are networked, and fast moving; like a maurading invasive species. Such is the nature of how danged easy it is to incorporate anywhere, anything (A few bucks and a statement on a piece of paper), and how we, the public, still don’t know how to track down how our own public officials are being funded.

It seems to me quite intentional that the purpose was to bypass representative legislation through forming multi-state and international nonprofits up front, attracting funding, and holding conferencs where the sun don’t shine (actually meaning, out of state for the target jurisdictions; they have been known to prefer sunny climates for conference locations. Like, Hawaii, or Bermuda, or in Southern California…).

I wanted to reference the AFCC talking about starting up this field (or at least the SVN), and decided to add an inset on the infamous Viola Stroud… I wonder in retrospect, how things might have gone if more of the public knew how vital it is to follow the money, and watch the conference circuits of groups like AFCC and CRC, not to mention SVN, and then connect this to the federal funding. Instead of go with the social scientist crowd, and (while making a fine living off grants to evaluate these programs) quipping, well, it’s OK…. so long as they are well-trained and recognize a batterer or abuser when they see one? Let us see how we can fix that….

AFCC Startup Literature, and Viola Stroud/CRC (inset)

AFCC Newsletter Fall 1992 (Vol. 11 No. 4) leads off with announcement of the formation (previous May) of the Supervised Visitation Network in New York, and presenter Tim Ballew (see also below) explains how it was funded and run. This is in Indianapolis.. So now, I have three states (so far) in which SVN was incorporated: New York, Tennessee and Florida… Above all keep in mind it is a NONPROFIT CORPORATION (to the extent that SVN has been operating legally, which as it turns out, is hardly all the time) whose board members tend to run NONPROFITS that take FEDERAL GRANT SUBSIDIES for this field, which was heavily promoted for application to divorce, not just kids in placement (dependency, that is). Why stop a “great” idea when it’s started??

Perhaps records don’t go back to 1992, however only a 2005 incorporated NEW YORK CHAPTER of the SVN actually shows up as a nonprofit. Search HERE, check status type ALL and search option “Contains” to view. A search of “Charities.NYS.gov” on “Supervised Visitation” pulls up only the “Little Angels” one (infamous for having involved a woman later convicted of robbing the estates of elders; with this corporation involved, aka Viola Stroud. Who was involved in the famous (to some of us) Genia Shockome case as a supervised visitation provider….).

Read the rest of this entry »

CDRC and Friends: Ever Wonder How All that MANDATORY Mediation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, etc. got passed? [May 15, 2013]

with one comment

Fall, 2014 update: This 12,000-word post is “sticky” (stuck to the top of the blog) because it illustrates how any special interest group already involving certain sectors of civil servants or other positions of influence (for example, at law schools) can lobby state legislatures and US Congress year after year through nonprofit associations. I have written an update and expect to publish it as a separate post, soon.  In this post also see:

This gets “more than” interesting when I looked up the incorporator — just one person, Joel A. Shawn, Esq. of “Friedman, Shawn, Sloan & Ross.” (1981) filing.  Because the California OAG site doesn’t display previous to 2000 or so (and nothing previous to about 2004 is even showing on this nonprofit), I see no mention of Dr. [Joan B.] Kelly – although I’m sure the paperwork is on file.


(in San Rafael, just north of San Francisco) was registered as a corporation by ONE lawyer, Joel A. Shawn, of  FRIEDMAN, SLOAN, SHAWN & ROSS

Read the rest of this entry »

So, Who wrote the PBI-published Guide to Pennsylvania’s “New Child Custody Act”?

leave a comment »

Continued from my last post on, well, the publishing arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and several topics. Part of being (who I am) is the tendency to Look Things Up. So, I started looking up those attorneys who helped explain the new custody law in Pennsylvania.

This 7,000 word post has a very detailed chart at the bottom (hard to produce, as to html) and has soaked up too much of my time (I am still typing in “html” compose mode, visually). I then probably made it a little worse by introductory prose paragraphs. BUT, I still maintain that it’s valuable information to consider — these points are not raised enough among parents. Feedback solicited (comments). One way to understand the post may be to FIRST scroll down to some of the charts (for a visual) then go back and read the explanations.

On the other hand, I don’t owe anyone anything on this matter. I did my own lookups, networking, collaboration, and beyond that — whatever gets posted is public service announcement. It’s not addressed to people who are comfortable with groupthink (on the courts), uninvolved or unconcerned about the significance of dysfunctional (etc.) courts on the country, or the presence about money-laundering possibilites that each such setup presents, or the undermining of representative government in favor of the therapeutic, over-diagnosing, medicating, institutionalizing, iatrogenic “Nanny State,” and not a very nice nanny, either.

Iatrogenic (from “Wikipedia” definition):

The term iatrogenesis means brought forth by a healer from the Greek ἰατρός (iatros, “healer”) and γένεσις (genesis, “origin”); as such, in its earlier forms, it could refer to good or bad effects. . . .The transfer of pathogens from the autopsy room to maternity patients, leading to shocking historical mortality rates of puerperal fever (a k a “childbed fever”) at maternity institutions in the 19th century, was a major iatrogenic catastrophe of that time. The infection mechanism was first identified by Ignaz Semmelweis.[2]


So, yes, Pennsylvania had a Custody Law Revamp passed in 2011


Jan. 2011 article (fairly substantial) in the Legal Intelligencer on the new custody law.
(more on how it happened, at bottom of this post). This post looks at a PBI release with many attorney authors (plus a single Judge, and some AFCC Psychologists, i.e., Arnold & Kasey Shienvold, Ph.D.’s) on the impact of the new custody law. See article for some issues it raises.

In fact, at the bottom of this post — something you probably won’t find anywhere else on the Internet — is a chart of the authors, with columns for “how AFCC ARE they?” and basic descriptors. While AFCC is hardly “The Skull & Bones” of Yale, it still is an association which many more judges and attorneys have adopted the mindset of, or may even be members of, without saying so on their website. In other words, its influences are felt – they are real — but not always mentioned directly.

While I did (or started) this for Pennsylvania — it really could and should be done for EVERY state as an ignorance-reducing movement for people who like to complain about judges, the courts, evaluators, GALs, etc. It has not been done (yet) for the primary reasons, as far as I can tell, is limited resources (i.e., you’re looking at a volunteer blogger, and family court veteran, which generally means, SOMETHING was stripped violently and suddenly (but in a process that still somehow manages to last for YEARS) out of one’s life — whether children, or assets // income, social support networks, or all of the above. So the people that are most motivated to report (or should be), are often least financially positioned to. (I’m working on it!).

And those who have funding, as nonprofits themselves, associating with other nonprofits for clout (just like AFCC does) and press, and a “day in the sun” — are less than motivated to examine the function of Nonprofits (per se) as a topic relevant to the family courts AT ALL. They too, would rather form coalitions and self-selecting groupings to run conferences, publish, attract followers, and proclaim theories.

RELEVANCE of answering the “How AFCC ARE they?“: Membership in AFCC, or agreement with and repeated references to its standards are throughout the family law system — yet the organization has been at many levels functioning as a monopoly (while private in association, conferencing, funding, etc.) trade association among my PUBLIC employees. It has a definite mindset towards matters which tend to bring custody cases to the courts to start with — domestic violence and child abuse, in particular. Or, co-parenting when there has been DV or CA. And yet the organization — for all its own self-promotion, dramatic conferences with flashy brochures — is under-reported in the MSM press, and is scarcely mentioned !!! by advocates involved in the stopping domestic violence and child abuse industry.

As such, few people have even ruffled their feathers, or disturbed the seas on which they operate, let alone questioned the practices AS an organization. VERY few, although definitely some have. And yet this organization — and the others that work under, or with it (much of my blog names and describes them, specifically) — is able to operate with more influence and less accountability by virtue of it being “under the radar” of people who need to know MOST about it — which is 1. parents, and 2. all taxpayers.
Read the rest of this entry »

AFCC — A Users’ Manual (Intro).. and (for now), some of “Arizona”

with 4 comments

Speaking of Engaging in Lookups:

Just a reminder — I’m not an attorney, and if you need one, go get one. However, at this point in time I don’t personally advise going to get any family law attorney before ascertaining membership or non-membership in this organization, and finding out whether the local Presiding Judge is also a member. Also, are you in a family court (are there actually some left?) or one that has been declared “Conciliation” and comes under a different section of the state code, by jurisdiction. Like they did in California….

That membership information would also be good to get on opposing attorneys, judges, GALs, and others not just currently in any case (heck, people can drop in and out of a case on a dime these days) — but also in the courthouses. In other words, most courts operate as fiefdoms, so who’s (singular, but more likely plural, a group of people) lord of the current one?

Above and beyond that, given how frequent radical jurisdiction switches (between states, I’m talking) can be, I believe it’s wise to get a systemic view of these family courts. As the AFCC is personally taking credit for their primary substance, one great way to do so is to take a good look at two things.

~ ~ How AFCC characterizes itself in its own publications, the public face.

~ ~ The “back office” viewpoint– which is the incorporation records (including withdrawals, suspensions, name changes, state changes, etc., the tax returns, and when-and-where public officials are (as from the beginning) running private associations out of the local courthouse.

~ ~ [added 12/2013. I forgot to mention, who’s paying the piper, apart from the obvious: Us, the public, through salaries and other means. See corporation newsletters and the mother ship’s site, for some clues; not all of them. ]

When ensconced in a position of power and control, which is where the organization’s leadership gravitates strategically to, and FYI it’s not just the courthouse (it’s also the law school and other places close to HHS funding) — and, when there, what they do. I mean, this is not rocket science, it just takes a little sustained attention to pick up on the basic patterns — including language patterns.

Power is multiplied when it’s unified, and when it’s system-wide. So, what’s the system?

Please notice below at which “URL” the May, 2013 “50th Anniversary Conference” has been advertised: It’s at a website that ends “*.gov,” at the “national responsible fatherhood clearinghouse.” It is funded through the repeated extensions of what was originally “TANF” (1996) welfare, but is variously the Deficit Reduction Act (2005), or the Claims Resolution Act (2010), and this is through the OFA (Office of Family Assistance).

Active link. Notice the domain name ends *.gov:

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ 50th Anniversary Conference, “Riding the Wave of the Future: Global Voices, Expanding Choices” will be held in Los Angeles, CA. Since 1963, AFCC members have spearheaded major reforms in the family law community, including no-fault divorce, joint custody, mediation, collaborative law, unified family courts, parenting coordination, differentiated case management, parent education and myriad hybrid dispute resolution processes. Even with these advances, professionals face growing changes and challenges. What does the future hold? How will the AFCC community influence the constantly
evolving family law system? Join us in Los Angeles, the birthplace of AFCC, as we begin to chart the course for the next 50 years.

Moreover, among its own, AFCC also celebrated and narrated its accomplishments 50th anniversary (1963-2013) and was planning the next 50 years. This was designed for professional consumption, not really the public. It was published in California Conciliation Quarterly and on-line access to the same, starting January 2013. In other words, building momentum for the cause. “Modestly” (and inaccurately) described as:


(This title is also a link to the publication, see its first page by Peter Salem).

Here, they take credit for developing fields of practice. In that part, it’s honest. I’ve been talking about this as well (i.e., parenting coordination) and highlighting it’s time to stop letting this group create professional niches for themselves at our (the public’s) expense and on the taxpayer dollar. Also, the organization networks with other nonprofit organizations (big ones — ABA, APA — and other well-connected nationwide ones (National Center on State Courts, etc.) which underneath themselves also have other nonprofits of public officials. While obviously there needs to be planning and coordination when MAJOR technological innovations (such as the development of the internet!) are in place, it still remains a nationwide nonprofit suggested in 1978 by a US Supreme Court Judge. As of 1983 AFCC newsletter, marketing all kinds of trainings, the statement was made that AFCC (whoever that was in that year) had decided to have this NCSC be their “secretariat.” Typewritten blurb mentions:

AFCC Publications: All publications are payable in US Currency payable to AFCC c/o National Center for the State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23185– unless another address & payee is shown


Truly that is an informative publication; for example how individuals from Los Angeles and Connecticut helped get a NJ Governor to sign legislation to form a unified family court for juvenile and other matters. The conference schedule (for 1984) is also very informative — but only if one notices names, plades, and subject matter. For example, the heading of the newspaper has a different version of the group’s name than the logo on the banner. (Look carefully, you’ll see it’s a single-word difference). For example that at this point in time, what they’re primarily pushing is mediation as a profession (one thing at a time!); however the “unified family court” theme is lurking in the background, c/o Toronto’s “Unified Family Court.”

In case you’re thinking this is starting to resemble an Amway MLM marketing scheme, only with civil servants, I’d have to say, you’re probably right. (cf. the DeVos family). From a “Boycott Amway (for other reasons)” site:

Read the rest of this entry »

National Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts continue trying to Dumb Down Moms

with 8 comments

This has been a long time coming.

I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.

This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.

Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.

[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]
Read the rest of this entry »

Without a Prayer For Relief: Investigative Reporter Betsy Combier (ParentAdvocates.org) connects the Dots at Madison Avenue Presby

with 2 comments

This gripping narrative of events in New York which began ca. 1998 is a little more complex to read than Marv Bryer’s 1997 interview “Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery” of events occurring in Southern California which I just posted, “sticky” status (=stays near the top of the blog’s home page.). Bryer’s critical description (1997 interview) of his investigation involved getting copies of bank records (fronts and back of checks) and looking up corporate records.

However both of them entail collusion of judges and lawyers, potential money laundering (including how it’s done — through nonprofits that sound like, but are not, government agencies in his case, and through cooperation of a major NY landmark church with a major NY and DC realty investment corporation — plus of course judges and attorneys — in hers). Both of them seem to be aiming for others property, whether real estate, or simply money, and pulling a fast one on the public in general.

This author did similar things. Both did it for apparently similar reasons — after some very disturbing damages and utterly strange, abusive, behavior by institutions we typically should expect to be more honest — they didn’t just complain, or tell their story — they examined the evidence — and then told their story, with the evidence. In this case, the writer had to also overcome a retroactive, lack of jurisdiction, not a party Injunction to not tell her story in 2005.

Short background on who’s telling the tale: As I cannot personally verify this much information, here’s the author’s bio-blurb on “OpEdNews”


http://www.opednews.com/author/author13587.html. The “E-Accountability Foundation, INC. (mentioned up top) shows a NYC address, date of incorporation 2012? EIN# 16-1642397. I am finding pieces of the various lawsuits on-line, as you also could. Here’s a 1996 letter of her under EcoMedia International, Inc., sticking up for a particular (fired) janitor and testifying to verbal harassment and intimidation by a maintenance supervisor at the church who (unlike the janitors) were not union members. EcoMedia International, Ltd. was dissolved in 1990 (per NYState). E-Accountability.com, Inc. was formed 2002, dissolved 2005 (while she was going through these trials, apparently)….

A NYT 1984 Wedding Announcement shows the family background/influence: Her father P. Hodges Combier was Assistant Attorney general of NYS, her grandfather, Samuel Strauss, bought, consolidated, and sold Des Moines newspapers, and from 1910-1916 was Treasure of the New York Times, which should give a general idea.

She also shows on the (Advisory) Board of a National Judicial Conduct and Disability Project, Inc. (Indiana/Incorp. in 2005). This addresses the problem with prosecuting federal judges under a Title 28 law that allows one to, namely, judicial collusion! (hover cursor or click through). I.e., basically judges have immunity from prosecution for what they do ON the bench (the Luzerne County Kids for Cash judges got convicted, I believe, for what they did OFF it, in re: RICO (or whatever it was). I remember learning with dismay at the time about this immunity from prosecution. However, apparently a section of Federal Law was passed to help in certain cases. But the question still comes up — who would convict? Are judges generally going to want to expose their colleagues — and maybe later, possibly themselves — to accountability for abuse of power by the judiciary? (!!!). They write about the control via threatening or disbarring attorneys and judges willing to actually address judicial corruption, under “Coups D’Etat.” … and on a 2009 Supreme Court Decision, “The Official End of Judicial Accountability….Ashcroft v. Iqbal” The founder (or, a founder) of this nonprofit NJCDP, was disbarred in Indiana, it says, for making “false allegations” against a judge, and in federal district? for failing to pay a $6,000 costs of disciplinary hearing. Interesting, though not strictly on-topic…..

So, this narrative involves not only a major NYC landmark Church, but members of the NYS Unified Court System, including its current chief (Jonathan Lippman), its former Chief (Judith Kaye) and many issues. The events here started ca. 1998…



Betsy Combier and her family were long-time members of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church (“MAPC”): 921 Madison Avenue, NYC. She has a twin sister, and a mother who volunteered (had her office) full-time for this church. In the course of attempting to get her own inheritance, she discovered:

~ Probably embezzlement on its maintenance — i.e. invoice for plumbing repair $90K; Church paid $169k, so where is the missing about $80K? How often does this happen?
~ In looking up that, that New York actually owns the church; it is government property?
~ That MAPC (the church) doesn’t have a separate EIN# for the IRS, but uses the one of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
~ That somehow MAPC Connections to a REIT, and commercial real estate owner “Vornado Realty Trust” (This 2009 article on the aggressive REIT (“the Vornado Tornado,” Steve Roth says it all. Namely they buy up distressed assets, almost — among largest landlords in NYC and D.C., ruthless, etc.)? to finance a co-op based on church property? Browse articles for a scope of influence (i.e., buying up Kennedy real estate, acquiring a West-Side YMCA, etc.). Selling a West Village loft @ 4 times purchase price(which was ca. $1 million)2010; Battle of the Skyscrapers: planning a skyscraper to challenge the Empire State Building (15 Penn Plaza), etc.

~ A determination by those associated with the church to get Ms. Combier’s property, incl.? an Upper East Side Manhattan Apartment — apparently a RICO situation (also hover cursor there):

All in all it raises and addresses so many issues, I felt it relevant to put on this blog.

EXCERPT from PARENTADVOCATES.ORG and related pages on this matter:

The City of New York seems to be the “owner” of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church. Most of the congregation of “MAPC” does not know what is going on.

District Attorney Robert Morganthau, a friend of my dad, so far has expressed no interest in this RICO claim. I called Mr. Daniel Castleman, (212-335-9817) Chief of the Investigation Division, in October, and he set up a meeting with his “best” investigator, Ms. Judy Weinstock, soon after. In January, 2006, Ms. Weinstock sent me back every one of my documents, saying, “We are not looking into this because you did not give us a receipt for the two toilets’ that were repaired in May, 2004 for $169,224.”

[[Material on who is the Presbytery of New York, originally published on this post, removed; it’s background info I like to know FYI (and for future reference), not the actual narrative. That’s also one reason my posts get so long, and illegible!]]

I sent Mr. Castleman a letter in January, and he never responded. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s Charities Bureau told me they never investigate churches, because churches are not charities. Spitzer’s criminal division’s Mr. Bill Jorgenson told me in November, 2006, that the information I had showed “a clear-cut case of embezzlement”, but only someone at the legislature level could submit it to the Attorney General for consideration, “sorry”. He advised me not to call the Attorney General’s office about this matter ever again.

CHURCHES ARE NOT CHARITIES: It’s True, and It’s Significant! See NYState Charities Search which says this twice:

Charities Bureau Registry Search (for New York State)

{{search for “Presbyterian Senior Services” {{found, registered with the state as a CORP in 1962, but as a CHARITY (dual-purpose) in 1986) and “Presbytery of New York City” (NOT found) here…. Yet the by-laws of the Presbytery of New York City clearly state that the latter is a “corporation” and we can see that it was “incorporated” in 1899…)

Welcome to the Charities Bureau Registry Search. To search for specific charitable organizations, use the search fields below. Please note, in order to use the Registry Search, one of the following search terms must be entered – Name, Charities Bureau ID #, or federal employer identification number (EIN). Some organizations, like religious organizations, are exempt from registering with the Charities Bureau and may not appear in the Registry.



Essentially, these business entities (it takes money to be a church — real estate, wages, housing, collections, financial staff, secretarial staff sometimes; settlements for lawsuits against sexual abuse (or embezzlement) by leadership….they also charge rent for nonreligious use of their facilities; a lot of assets and income changes hands in the operations, MOREOVER, federal and other level public monies (grants, contracts) goes to many religious groups, directly! (see HHS) — millions, that is…. So where does anyone keep a list of who they are, and where they are run from? ???

Ms. Combier, Cont’d.:

I tried to find out. I called the accountant who did the budget,** Sandy Davies of O’Connor Davies, and was told that Mr. Davies never saw any receipts for any job. Then I called the Presbytery of New York City, and spoke with the financial officer, Simon Lai, who is supposed to look at money donated to and spent by presbyterian churches in New York City. He told me that he has never seen any financial information from MAPC in the 7 years he has worked at the Presbytery. As MAPC uses the tax exempt IRS number for the Presbyterian Church, USA General Assembly, I called over there to find out if any records of MAPC were available. There are none. Thus, MAPC is an entity doing business in New York City without any oversight by anyone.


A very large budget — see church site, and there’s a link to the 2003-2004 one in the story.
Read the rest of this entry »

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery (1997 Interview)

with 11 comments

While We’re There — the Northern California Mediation Center . . . and ITS corporate records, history, people, etc. (publ. 9/22/2012)

with 4 comments

While We’re There — the Northern California Mediation Center . . . and ITS corporate records, history, people, etc. (publ. 9/22/2012) <==Full Post Title + shortlink.

[ca. 8,000 words.    Significant additions after publishing.NCMC   introduced as to corporate filings, some personnel. Post concludes  showing how “parental alienation” indoctrination happens,is self-perpetuating, and is hostile towards mothers, generally, and is definitely a marketable scheme [yes, scheme] as well. See “train-the-trainers” @ public cost mentality.In midstream, I’m taking (to another post) a basic explanation of what “Corporation” means, FYI]

We might as well talk about the Northern California Mediation Center alongside  The Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition, and right alongside respective corporate and nonprofit filings, fundings, tax returns affiliations and actions.{{The introduction is a little passionate, but it’s about a dozen paragraphs.  Scroll down if you want to skip them!  I added numbers to make it easier!}}
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: