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 ‘Bill of Rights Institute (quoted re: ABA history)

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) [Publ. July 12, 2017]

with one comment

Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update) case-sensitive short-link ending “-7bR”

I(Oct 2014 updated July 2017, Pt. 3B, i.e., taken from “Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order.”

WITHIN that post, I extracted a section about conversations we need to have:  To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]  (case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”).  That brief post ends with a shortlink to this one (although without the fancy title).

That (short) post reminded readers of my Five Related Posts  from the Vital Links menu whose themes continue to prove relevant year after year, no matter which topic I seem to be researching or reporting on.  It also reminded and showed readers an interesting (and so far, typical) response to the relevance of the CAFR (Consolidated Annual Financial Reports) Mass Media Coverups when it’s brought to light.

THIS ONE was first started for technical (length, easier revision) purposes 7-7-2017.  All paragraph breaks had been wiped out…

There were also at least two length issues here.  One is me running my mouth in quasi-PTSD mode back in 2014 (a time of major household stress and transition as I had just outed relative probate/fiduciary abuse in the context of same relative’s prior involvement in undoing my work life via post-domestic violence separation’s family court litigation — on the opposing side, etc.)  Another length issue was technical blogging ability — at the time I hadn’t discovered how to use (smaller) screenprints, instead of quotes, and or begun using condensed fonts inside quotes, or lines to set them off from basic text inside boxes.  I hope to correct both without negating or erasing important content.  But some post “surgery” may be required here….

BUT, I WILL STILL CONVEY THE PRIMARY MESSAGES:


CAFRs as a system of reporting for government entities regulated by a tax-exempt nonprofit set up by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) only began, at least as regulated by this tax-exempt nonprofit, in the 1970s, by which time post World War II government surpluses were really starting to accumulate (as well as personal fortunes made in wartime).

Key to CAFR coverup is accounting practices which separate “BUDGET” from many other funds, handle “General Fund” as though it was the main source of government receipts (it most certainly isn’t at the federal, state, and most other levels).  Being blissfully (??) ignorant of how to assess, see, or conceptualize just how many assets and in what forms, and under what funds, all levels of (USA – federal) (States — all 50 and territories) governments, plural, exist and where they are pooled, or where held separately, “the people” are easily fooled into accepting the constant talk of DEFICIT without regard to NET ASSETS or even GROSS ASSETS (and taking a look at how liabilities are accounted for).

The problem with showing this information is the “snooze” factor.  It’s not colorful, juicy, doesn’t have major photography involved; it requires actual dealing with numeric and categorization concepts (somewhat abstract) even though they really do apply to concrete situations — like how to make a city go bankrupt needlessly by changing accounting rules.

It also isn’t typically grasped with just 15 minutes of exposure, or maybe even a few days. Constant absorption of current events and news does NOT typically equip or condition a person to absorbing this type of information if one doesn’t already know how to.  Its impact is also so significant, there is a natural desire to go back to the “pristine” innocent belief that the problem wasn’t so fundamental.


The post “To Identify and UNDERstand is to know Why (and How) to WITHstand. (Public’s Assigned Place on the Tax Continuum Pecking Order, [from “Do You Know Your ABA, APA…?” Oct. 2014 Post Update]“(case-sensitive shortlink this time ends “-7dX”,) talks about conversations we (the public) should be having as part of normal basic, understanding of life in this country.  These conversations ideally should be with each other in places where we can view the same visuals, charts, and discuss them ideally face to face and ongoing, and with our own families or partners, or friends.  BUT, we have been conditioned NOT to talk about these things, and become focused and engrossed on other things instead.

Business owners who operated in this manner would go under, or get taken over because they are not paying attention to their bottom lines, or the current marketplace and climate — or finding and listening to others who can tell the truth about it.

This information IS “the bottom line” for people living here and subject to taxation, policies, conditions created by various entities, and propaganda, where it may be propaganda, about the where IS that bottom line, really — as a basis for setting future policy.

These more people should be having with each other are talks about money which take into account how the government sector interacts with the public (through taxation and tax-exemption), what’s done with tax receipts (how it’s shown in reports versus portrayed on the media), and how government entities differ from business entities organized under the same governments (guess which one is really on top?).  These conversations cannot occur without at least some basic vocabulary and a bit of “practice.”  That “practice” has to include some financial statements and tax return reading.

I have some very smart, articulate, well-educated friends, who I continue to respect.  Some may say they are no good with numbers, their minds don’t work that way.  How much of this is nature or nurture (or lack of nurture when it come to basic math) isn’t my business.

I realize some people are visual learners, but I refuse to believe there are not more people who are capable of thinking conceptually AND capable of comprehending consequences of having had significant information about how our own governments operate using their financial statements being withheld from the average person, and from open, and frequent discussion on-line and in social media.

Carl Herman, “Nonpartisan examiner” 7/3/2011, leading quotes (after link to a video) in “Debt-damned economics: Learn monetary reform or kiss your assets goodbye (Pt. 1 of 2)”. Accessible also from his article on the $600B fund that can’t fund $27B pension obligations, (below).

I wonder what is the psychological block to facing some of these facts, or understanding that they refer to things which often make headlines in the major media anyhow — for example, constant talk of underfunded pensions, pension liabilities making or breaking some major metropolitan city.  Again — Carl Herman (cited enough on this blog, probably on the post leading to this one) said it clearly enough and he’s not alone.  I just think he expressed it well — why hold over $600B assets (speaking of I believe CalPERS) when it doesn’t adequately fund pension contributions anyhow?  Here’s a paragraph from my lead-in post (with a little extra color for emphasis):

For an antidote, go read some Walter Burien (May 10, 2010, “Is our Government Bankrupt?…. Analogies are Fun to Use: Is the Columbian Cartel short of cocaine?“, Clint Richardson (July 20, 2013, “Detroit: The Latest Bankruptcy Lie” (hover-cursor for abstract, and read the top part, too)), or Carl Herman, who asks such questions as, “CAFR summary: if $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B budget deficit, why have it?? (from his 2012 article) and, like the others, can also walk people through it, and has:

  • Interview: Game-changing CAFR trillions explained (Feb. 14, 2014)….These astounding funds are disclosed in official Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs). Government and media “leaders” claiming no options but austerity while failing to honestly communicate surplus trillions is OBVIOUS criminal financial fraud . .

So, this post starts with a slight overlap (naming the five posts and reminding us to go check out the FMS Treasury.gov website (and/or its redirect) to view some reports.

Expanding on that commentary from Burien (2010) above, he gives an analogy (other than the rhetorical response — “Is the Columbian cartel short of cocaine?” which seems a good analogy for the situation! I added a screenprint, then a quote:
Read the rest of this entry »

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O or Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around existing suffrage for “men of color” long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 updated + Publ. July 10, 2017, Pt. 3A)

leave a comment »

Elongated post title reflects content after a three-way split of a previously unpublished (because I mistakenly thought it had been published!) post from late October, 2014, a situation I am now correcting in late June 2017 after trying to cite to this post to better explain the recurring topic of networked nonprofits named after public agencies. AND to increase public awareness of major professional associations in the tax-exempt sector collaborating together for population control, behavioral modification, etc., all allegedly for the public interest.

This is “Part 3.” Blog followers may have heard that explained twice before, but newcomers may have not. This post is a blend of updated information and previous insights + narrative; the updates include more visuals (especially excerpts of tax returns).


 Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3A) (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-76j” generated by WordPress)

The APA and ABA

They are the American Psychological Association (since 1892, incorporated 1925, last “Gross receipts” from the tax return posted on their website, $160 million, assets $236 million) [@ tax latest return posted Oct. 2014; update below shows $200M gross receipts but total assets $230M], and the American Bar Association (since 1878, incorporated ____,** last “gross receipts” posted tax return, $152.6 million and the assets $329 million) [*@ Oct. 2014; updates below].   **This info left blank because:  the last 3 tax (FY2012, -13 and -14; 2016 not posted yet on “Form990finder”) returns left it blank; before that, some said 1905, before that, 1878.  Before 2008, the IRS Form didn’t ask legal domicile and year founded as part of the header info.  I went to Illinois Cyberdrive Search to look up the corporate registration (which comes with plenty of disclaimers), and it currently says, in the details page, only 1992- – which cannot be right.  I went to D.C. business entities search (a site I’m familiar with) — the web page and URL had been changed and my username (free registration) no longer recognized — at which point, I figure, leave it blank!]


Both the ABA and APA organizations have related entities -a specific term which relates to and affects their tax returns and financial reports; the term means related if one controls the others, or with common leadership but with separate EIN#s and legal names.  For example, from an independently audited financial statement FY2012 for the American Bar Association references some, but not ALL its related entities.  But this wouldn’t be known at first reading — the tax returns reference others  (See first image. Screenprints from the APA’s recent financial statements, including its “Note 1” describing APA’s related entities reflected in the statements, are shown further below on this post.)

ABA statement regarding which entities are in its Consolidated Audited FS for those years (2012, 2013) show only three, however there are more ABA-related entities shown on tax returns…

And, as you realize if you think about it, both the ABA and the APA also have affiliates or chapters at the state and county level, although these are not registered as “related entities” on the main organizations’ (APA + ABA’s) tax returns or audited financial statements. However these may be organized or named as fiscally separate business entities, these also are linked together and networked by both purpose and long association (meaning, within each major discipline, i.e., whether law or psychology).

For example, some recent Form 990 search results (FY2015 only, ABA only) of such state-level associations and within two of our larger states (NY, CA). You will be able to see which column they are sorted by (next link, and three images with gray-and-white striped tables with blue header rows). Some major states (California, Texas, Florida) Bar Associations didn’t even show up in the search results which raises another question:  How many of us would know nationally, off-hand, about how many state and county-level (a) bar and (b) psychological associations exist, and where to find their exact names in a list, from which their tax returns could be looked up, for size, leadership, or activities? Would the ABA and APA main websites tell this? (I checked ABA for “Member list” and was asked to join, and warned that the list was proprietary– but that may be for individual ABA members).  State level bar associations don’t appear to be required to follow an exact name format, probably, and even if they did, would the capacities and/or quirks of the standard charitable databases that might be searched reveal all of them? (990finder.foundationcenter.org despite its convenience, often has search results whose organization names do not match the underlying tax returns, which I’ve known for a while now).

  • Actually, here’s the ABA interactive map of the US for search of “State and Local Bar Associations“). Under California (of course — where I live!), the State Bar of California, is described as an arm of the Judicial Council, and “Unified.” It’s listed among the 38 pages (for the state).  It would then take several other steps to locate their respective tax returns for a generic idea of the assets maintained, or operations.   State Bar of California website says it processes $30M of grants to legal aid organizations throughout the state, that it was organized in 1927, and more.
  • So, to get a national result, I guess one would have to do at least 50 searches and compile results…

I then did two Form990 searches specifically for NY (one of the largest) and for California (and THE state bar association didn’t show up in those results, but it gives a flavor of the diversity of named bar associations, whether by geography (county, city or for some larger cities, parts of a city), or by demography (Asian American, Black, Hispanic, Women, Mexican, etc.) — each one a separate organization, many likely with their own related entities, such as foundations.  The next link is simply an interactive search (entity names links on it are clickable). I had done FY2016 only, but so few results showed, I backed it up one year.

Form 990 Srch Results YR=2015 NAME= State Bar Association Of bring up only 18 (Org Names=Active Links in the pdf) printed July8 2017 (2pp of results)<==Why several major state’s listings aren’t shown, DNK — may be a factor of the database’s labeling, or how they are titled.  But the absence of state bar associations tax returns from MAJOR states in such a search is unusual…Note most are filing Form 990Os).

2015 State Bars sorted by Total Assets 7/8/2017. Click to enlarge (true for most images herein).

Search Results within NY, Year 2015, sorted by $$

Search Results 2015 within CA, sorted by $$


 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Currently, the APA (P for “Psychological”) shows only one related tax-exempt entity, formed in 2001, but a recent (FY 2015) tax return shows it’s focused on promoting the profession across national lines (i.e., states, territories and provinces), by lobbying and organizationally, and as small as it is, relatively speaking, it shares about 50% of its revenues (“expenses”) as for “Payments to Affiliates” — which the fine print shows means the APA itself and possibly another related entity, the APA PAC (political action committee), EIN#000522094 also in D.C.

The same tax return then granted out a portion of is proceeds to others — and a three-page printout of “to whom” reveals minor grants ($15K, $20K range) to a variety of more local psychological associations, most by geography.  While those grantees are not showing as “related entities” to either APA or the APAPO, they are benefitting from its operations…

Grantees from p2 of 3 APA PO entity reflect various state-level psychological assoc’ns (see FY2015 return, or link to Sched I of Grants, all 3 pp, nearby in this post.

the APA PO lists two Related Entities, one of which (red oval) is a PAC, the other is APA proper.

the APA PO decribes what its reason for existence is, notice not limited to US only

The APA PO (EIN# on image) references Two Categories of Members, Practice Constituents and Education Constituents (who pay into a certain trust, not identified readily on the Form 990.

APAPO EIN#522262196 FY2015 (45pp) (Sched I of Grants only Grants were USD 471 268 Other Exps (mostly Paymts back to the APA) USD 3 687 269 (link to entire return provided above in text).


State (Territory,DC+ one Canadian) psychological associat’ns supported by the APA PO entity); click to enlarge.

Below (colorful annotations, thumbnail size) is image of a FY2004 list from the same organization’s Form 990. I am simply reminding readers that these state-level organizations exist and interact with the APA, or rather, its related entity.


Back to the “Related Entities”:

For example, the ABA “Financials” link shows combined financial statements and that two corporations were recently dissolved:  the James O. Broadhead Corporation (“JOB” EIN#521874598) and the ABA Museum of Law.  Not referenced on the “Financials” page for some reason is the National Judicial College (EIN#942427596) in Reno, NV, listed as a Related Entity at least to the dissolving JOB Corporation in 2012.  The NJC in Reno (street address at “Judicial College Building,” formed in 1977)  is of moderate size and gets grants (I just looked at recent Form 990) from the USDOJ, the USDOT (transportation) and the State Justice Institute — about $2M worth (next five images after the three (keep reading) with this-background-color captions from the unrelated-to-the-ABA NCJFCJ, were added 2017 from the ABA Financial Statements page which is one of the images).


Meanwhile, the financially small, but still influential NCJFCJ formed in 1975 (EIN#362486896), a completely separate entity (not ABA-related) on whom I’ve blogged so much, shows a PO Box 8970 in Reno Nevada (and said to be at the University of Nevada-Reno), and per a FY2004 Form 990 it received $12M of government grants.

So, just for comparison — one paragraph, a link, and three annotated images from the NCJFCJ (Nat’l Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Inc), a FY2004 Form 990.*  
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: