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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘AFCC/BWJP/DAIP(=”MPDI”) blurred and changing identities

Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. [Draft, Oct. 26, 2021, Publ. May 18, 2022: at 27K words…].

leave a comment »

ABOUT THIS LONG and LONG-DELAYED POST (You may want to read first!):
 
“WTF?”What’s going on here?


This is what’s going on: I’m in housing transition: I’ll be out of this place within the next 24 hours, literally, and still not exactly sure how to reach the next (safe place) destination about one state away. I know it will represent a blogging pause, so I went through my most recent drafts, looked for some which were most helpful, and least embarrassing in format. Three or four qualified, but I chose this one. The most embarrassing aspect is its obnoxious length. On the other hand, within the contents is plenty of useful information; people who may follow my writing will understand better. It’s focused on a key concept and I think illustrates it at length (literally…). It was drafted eight months ago — that’s a long time, but this is still a worthwhile post for the patient readers, or those who understand it may work better read in installments (some today, some tomorrow…).


Parts of it apply to different situations:  for example, (not its main focus, but) I see on scrolling through it today (5/18/2022), I’d shown the tax returns of what’s now called “Evident Change” but was then “National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” (inc. 1907 and I’d said, may just have been the model AFCC was following, only with family courts, not juvenile…)  NCCD began with associations of probation officers, definitely a focus on the juvenile (age group), which I’d just Tweeted on yesterday.  NCCD’s California Registry of Charitable Trusts “RRF” filings also show which governments — this usually shows which USA governments or government agencies — it was taking grants from. I still remember the shock of discovering, it was taking grants from a whole selection of governments OUTside the USA.  From yesterday’s Tweet, I recall (possibly post http://wp.me/psBXH-2KW, but check Twitter) I’d written in 2014 but (another long blogging pause, that time for family court aftermath litigation) only posted in 2017.  These delays happen at times, especially when your out put doesn’t keep up with your own research, which never stops…  NCCD (Evident Change) has an office not far from AFCC’s office in Madison, Wisconsin (by “not far” I mean, when I last looked, a very short WALK away, around the block).  I would say that’s an entity to watch although it’s not much in the news.  Learn who it’s been and what it wants to do:  this link will redirect:  https://NCCDGlobal.org


I may never get around to splitting or further developing the material on this post. I can’t see that far into my own future, but I hope its serious topic resonates with gut instinct that there HAS to be a better way to categorize and keep track of advocacy groups, and governments. Before 2022, VAWA Reauthorization and other media “events” and campaigns, this was where my blog was going: to revisit and re-emphasize the concept of “Entity.” (Without the entity you can’t track the money…Looking for them is its own set of lessons). Another example: I see I had a link to the California Secretary of State Business Entities Search site. This will redirect — the appearance and function of that state has since migrated into a whole new format; at some levels it has more functions, but in display, in many ways less, making communications on findings among (normal people) harder… Government (and private) databases migrating platforms and undergoing format changes will happen, but still important to notice as it happens.  “ENJOY…” //LGH May 18, 2022.


From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.

Post Title and Shortlink:

Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!

Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.”  Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t.  This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.

Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.

That means, relevance to accountability.  And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.


It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.

The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].

Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?  


Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search.  Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear.  The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country.  A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats).  Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.

On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted.  These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site.  Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access. 

But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.


For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General. 

The “Office of Attorney General/Registry of Charitable Trusts” (which will include search results with California entity numbers) web address is hard to remember/not intuitive, but If you can remember https://oag.ca.gov/charities, scroll down to “Resources & Tools” on right sidebar and click on “Registry Verification Search” This page and search results use the term “organization” not “entity” even when referencing the Corporate/Entity number (a searchable field) as you can see. I keep a link on my Twitter profile (@LetUsGetHonest).

Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.

To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:

…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.[h]

Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”

When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year.  This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities.  There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines.  Example:  The Tennessee Valley Authority.


The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website  TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).

It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.

Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.  

And that’s a shell game!

Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction.  The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is.  Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!

Read the rest of this entry »

Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly. (First posted Jan. 24, 2014)

with 3 comments

Post title with shortlink: Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly. (First posted Jan. 24, 2014) Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-2hg.”  Just under 13,000 words.  This title with shortlink added during blog update Jan. 2018.

– – –

The “CAFR” topic is a governmental accounting and reporting practice which affects all people (and particularly in this situation, all US Citizens) because of its impact on the economy and our understanding of the size and scope of government operations. It is an over-arching and underlying issue, but it has been a hidden issue.

For example, as Carl Herman (Harvard Economics grad) put this in 2012, a very good question in my opinion.  Once certain evidence IS posted, it requires an review of reasoning built on “the big picture” (not including that evidence), and that “big picture” includes the hot topic of “DEFICIT.”

This is a “README” article! // Let’s Get Honest

CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?(Posted on June 18, 2012 by Carl Herman in ‘Washington’s Blog”),

. . . Governor Brown is silent about the $600 billion in surplus cash and investments, claiming the $16 billion budget deficit can only be addressed by austerity – massive funding cuts to our essential infrastructure. A 2.8% divestment of the fund would cover the $16 billion deficit.
Read the rest of this entry »

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]

with 3 comments

Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.

(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]  [WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog:  “-K7”].  As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019


On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see just died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.

Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.”                                                          [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]


I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph.  And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.


Understandably, this torrent of text with missing paragraph breaks can be very irritating to read.  But for those who do read, or skim, I believe I have made the point that AFCC members flock together, consult together, and set policy together.  Generally speaking any policy that comes out will  somehow, somewhere, contain the words “Parental Alienation” “High-Conflict” and  usually to go with it, “treatment” or “solutions” etc.

The solution is generally going to require counseling or the services of a psychologist, counselor, mediator, psychiatrist, therapist or other mental health expert.

  • First, positioning member (this is long done, and ongoing) high in government, particularly in the court system.
  • Programs are pretty much pushed from the Top Down while proclaiming they are actually grassroots demand . . . .
  • Running conferences — all over the place, but noticeably in real nice places that most of the people they are talking about (in the conferences, i.e., parents) have little chance of reaching (or affording hotel & airfare for)– such as Honolulu, with an after-trip to Cuba, or other cool places.  As well as the Contiguous US conference circuit, ongoing.
  • Pushing the services of psychologists and psychiatrists, including Ph.D.s in the same to remedy the majority of life’s problems.
  • This of course is easier to push when you also have judges in the mix willing to sign a few court orders forcing treatment.
PsyD Ph.D.+ JD = AFCC tactical lobbying unit.  
  • Taking advantage of Federal Grants and teaching membership how to do the same, whether from HHS or DOJ.
  • Strategically forming nonprofit corporations to contract, or subcontract with whatever the grants are for.
  • Skillful involvement of Child Support Service (OCSE) weaponry** to target participants in certain programs, like parental education, in particular.
  • Co-opting the Battered Women’s Movement and diluting it through “collaboration.”  (HHS grants system helps motivate this behavior).  For example, when Battered Women’s Justice Project combines with Association of Family & Conciliation Courts to study the problems with Custody.
(I have to pause to post this one, just for the sheer joy of the language and the confidence it inspires in me, personally, to know that it’s a Canadian sociologist ethnographer who is going to be heavily involved in a projected funded by US Taxpayers about significant problems they have encountered with criminal behavior (battering) and the failure of the LEGAL system to address this.  When in doubt, call in a sociologist, right?):

CUSTODY PROJECT

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.

Read that one aloud nonstop, three times (one quick breath only per time) and try to deduce the meaning.   Separate and examine each phrase and try to locate in time & space, and clearly label what they are referring to.

BWJP and Praxis staff  have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and theAssociation of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).  In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates.  The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents. 

The goal of this analysis, which draws heavily from the Praxis Audit Process of institutional ethnography, is to develop concrete recommendations for producing safer, healthier outcomes for children and their battered and battering parents.**

Commentary:

Yes — rather than, say, accountability, let’s go for making sure the battering parents as well as the parents and children battered are safe.   This is equally important, right?, to protecting both perpetrators and their victims, whether the other parent, or children.

Since when did the safety of a person who beats on or abuses another person rise in equality to the safety of the person attacked?  Does this happen throughout the criminal law system as well?  Is battering no longer a criminal matter, but a “family” matter?  After all, the name of BWJP is “Battered Womens Justice Project.”

Any project to “produce an outcome” should be most concerned about the processes involved to get there — which is where the “Justice” part supposedly enters in!

TO figure out how to do this, assemble experts from BWJP — a group that has so far not reported (at all) on the AFCC– and the AFCC, and another family court oriented group, NCJFCJ.

AFCC judicial members and others are notorious for switching custody to batterers on the basis of parental alienation, a theory derivative of some incest-friendly psychologists (Gardner et al.) and promoted by an organization founded by them.  This sad/bad custody-switching habit spawned by AFCC (it wasn’t battering; it was parental alienation, and your mind needs adjustment, Mom; GREAT idea. . . .) has itself spawned another set of nonprofit groups who like to complain about it (but not address AFCC’s role or the fatherhood grants system’s role, or for that matter, the role of the child support system in funding the operation).

There already IS a framework — and these organizations are IT!  So the same organizations are going to “frame” (or rather REframe) the problems they have helped create?  — AFCC, as a primary agent, and BWJP at this point, I’ll have to call a decoy.   Who, really is being “framed” here?

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: