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 ‘Buying and Selling Major media

So Many Web Addresses End “.org,” Even This One. But Notice Which Entity, If Any, Is Behind Each, How Transparent, Who’s Backing It. RE: ‘EJUSA.org’ and ‘TheAppeal.org’: One of Those Makes You Work Much Harder Than The Other to Find Its Owners/Backers. [Draft: Feb. 24, Published April 13, 2020].

leave a comment »

LGH Update from about Feb. 24 (this post drafted) to mid-April, 2020 (this post soon to be published):

I have been without any functional laptop for about one and a half months, and so am picking up where I left off.  Meanwhile, global and individual restrictions upon travel, movement outside the home, between homes for people who may have more than one, doing business, assembling peaceably in even small groups, and even shopping for what some may NOT call necessities, have been restricted in the name of global health and safety due to the scare-word “coronoavirus.”  Compressing my take on large topics and events between the start and completion of this post into a small space involves some long sentences (that’s how I think) in the interest of speed of output.  Further compression = takes more time. Meanwhile, as all we all know a global COVID-19 / Coronavirus pandemic has been announced, governments and (US) Governors are issuing executive orders about shut-downs like it’s going out of style, and the economy is in an obvious “re-boot” situation.  While I’ve already, for years now, had to socially isolate for personal safety (for all but the most meaningful connections) as a (female) domestic violence and family court survivor and recent California emigrant (to another state), the public-place, business restrictions further directly cross-cut my planned work activities, i.e., most promising lines of work, most of which involve personal, face-to-face interaction with clients. Moreover, normal casual interactions in public with other human beings has been a sought-out commodity in this estranged from the mainstream lifestyle I’ve found myself in.

However, in the extra thought- and reading, news-media consuming time made available by having public places (libraries, gyms, wifit hotspots (often small retail places), not to mention houses of worship) shut down suddenly, I found my prior drill-downs on the major expansion of HHS (NIH, etc.) funding and the vast loopholes in its database accountability, as well as the population control and “RCTs”** habitually run upon the US public to be good at least psychological and mental preparation for this, although like many, I will have to re-boot my own life and resources plans for both short- and long-term future accordingly.  (**”RCTs” – Randomized Clinical Trials: first for drugs, later for almost any behavioral modification tactics, i.e., socio-economic pilot tests of proposed initiatives all geared to better control the populace). At least one starting point I now have is a functional computer which survives the “reboot process” intact and even works afterwards.  I also chose a wider screen.  

Directly addressing my point of view on the pandemic situation may not happen on this blog, but I’m considering starting another, as I’ll bet it’s no more the common, mainstream view than this blog is of the family court matters or domestic violence.

The groundwork I did (at the time, out of basic curiosity about the ways of public/private partnerships of intruding on private lives via public policy) tracking so many HHS grants, including to the HIV/AIDS, the anti-tobacco (cancer prevention), “HiAP” (Health In All Policies, based on WHO), and continual attempts to reframe domestic violence under social science pathology for treatment through behavioral modification courses for batterers and battered women, as well as (2016-2017 approximately) a series of drill-downs on attempts to transform the US Public Education system through — naturally — big-philanthropy & Ivy League University-sponsored nonprofits, also helped me NOT be too surprised by the current shutdowns and delegation of decision-making authority to alleged health risks.

For now (one day after “Easter,” (USA), that is April 13, 2020, I’m so relieved to have a full-screen laptop with clear, in-focus visuals and not being restricted to a small cell-phone for ALL electronic communications/sociomedia, I plan to clear (by publishing) some of my existing post and page pipelines, typically several of each at any point in time. Posts are best published while the information inspiring them is fresh on my mind, which in this case, it’s not.  The basic summary points, yes, but the full drill-down (images and links) may take a while to re-cover and reconstruct.  

FYI, replacement laptop (the first in ten years) was costly and my PayPal buttons still work — but donations are not tax-deductible because I am (and this blog is) not associated with a nonprofit. I track nonprofits, I don’t set them up. Any amounts appreciated.

Stay Safe, don’t believe everything you read and regarding the military-industrial complex transformed into a medical/health/military-industrial-economic global infrastructure controlled from the top-down and outside in with the APPEARANCE of informed consent by the public through the APPEARANCE of still-relevant representative government in some parts of the world (including in the USA), …. “I told you so!”  

Below here marks where the original post began.  Thanks//LGH April 13, 2020.


[This post specifically addresses websites ending “*.org”, not websites ending *.edu or *.gov which are more commonly understood.  That governments hire others to run “*.org” websites [1],[2] may be less obvious without follow-up.]

[1] Like this one, which also cites private foundation backers starting with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, but is or has since become a poorly developed site, as its “companion site” featuring the curricula and a short-list called “our panel of marriage experts“. A website (even one called a “resource center”) is not an person or corporation, so using the word “Ourinstead of identifying what entity, by its full legal business name, is basically dishonest.  This type of dishonesty seems to come with two related purposes: stealth & sales.  

Each website has its intended audience to capture, even if the sales is of public policy justifying public expenditures which private entities may take advantage of, sometimes continuously.  The intended audience’s ATTENTION is to be captured before that attention may stray to the more relevant data:  what entity/types of entitiy is speaking here? Beyond that, in times where coordination and consolidation of philanthropic AND government resources is now commonplace, the underlying substance (networked interests) of any simple “*.org” website isn’t usually made plain on its surface.

Maybe get out a notepad or notecards or any device which could capture, help you remember, and take down a few names; I already recognize most of them and have blogged several, done drill-downs, talked about the curricula.

From the same basic domain name ending “*.org,” here’s a more coherent summary (<~URL indicates Dec. 2017) which I found through Google. It’s an easy (though a bit odd and incomplete) 14-page pdf I found just swimming through Internet Search Results, and a good starter for whoever may still NOT be familiar with the concept of Welfare Reform by Presidential Administration, amounts of grants, etc. It’d be hard to find even that partial summary starting at the main domain name “healthymarriageinfo.org“). See “[2]” inset just below.

[2] I moved my extemporaneous comments on this website to a [still in draft] page called, at first  Like SHORT summaries? Still in Denial that US Government HAS BEEN Funding Both Sides of a Gender War (Unequally?) for Over 20 Years, and That DV and Family Court Reform Organizations (and Their Local/Vocal Professionals Active on Social Media) KNOW This But Hope YOU Don’t? [Feb. 25. 2020].

Too informal to be also listed on blog sidebar, but I also plan to tweet it. As just now (late 4/13/2020 as it says) published:

This will not appear on the “Most recent Posts” widget because it’s not a post… I expect that title’s almost as long as the page; just wanted to publicize some helpful “indicators” this is taking place.

It gives some backgrounds (using that 14-page guide and quoting from it) on how the “Healthy Marriage Initiative” (not that distinguishable, really from “Responsible Fatherhood” promotion, although this website implies it is) emanated from Welfare Reform years in former President Clinton’s Administration — but in response to a Republican-controlled Congress’s Budget Blockade and under the advice of former Republican campaign strategist (called in to rescue Clinton, a fellow Rhodes Scholar) Dick Morris.

It also gives several references to major economic events of the 1980s — other than too many people divorcing — which might ALSO factor into the levels of people depending upon welfare or living in poverty.  But which it seemed advantageous for those in power to ignore in favor of a more popular, and sexist, policy.

To break that Budget blockade, both then-President Clinton and his (for a time) secret weapon, Dick Morris (and the US Congress) essentially “threw mothers under the bus” and pulled a fast one on the taxpaying public, by perpetuating both the violence prevention policies AND the misogynistic “Marriage-Promotion/Family Values/Father-engagement Policies” which — in the end, IF they were equally funded, would balance each other out and simply divert funding to the consultants, nonprofits (which could then, as they still do, habitually misplace, or form endless extra “related entities” or spinoff entities — nonprofit of course — to NOT account for their expenditures of public monies…  EVER…  As it happened (and as I’ve blogged before:  look for a post on the CADV system in Ohio) these were NOT equally funded by gender, so in the long run, single mothers remain the target (even though plenty of women separate from abusers and DO re-marry)., thus are not specifically “single.”).

I think the page interesting and informative enough to have published it.  Feel free to take a look at the above link… And know that the rest of THIS post isn’t dwelling on that topic.  I found the two other websites and related drill-downs (EJUSA.org and TheAPPEAL.org) fine illustrations of a very basic point:  DO THE DRILLDOWNS when the website sounds like it’s imitating an entity and happens to end “*.org.”  IS IT an entity or not?

If I publish further drill-downs occur on these two urls., based on work I did at the time, I expect it to be in a post sequel: this one is a start.//LGH


Websites are on-line media platforms that can and often do easily can mask who’s sponsoring them.  If you take the content seriously, take the drill-down seriously too.  

Big-bucks philanthropy (ownership) is adept at concealing or advertising its clout at will and often dangles smaller-sounding (looks like but isn’t “grassroots” or representative) bait in front of viewers.

Who’s sponsoring and how transparent any website is (self-identification, financial disclosure) when while selling or publicizing any cause, especially when soliciting funds for that cause or advertising who else important supports it (i.e., crowd-appeal) is always:

  • important to be aware of
  • good to find out in those terms if not already known, and
  • the finding out always shows key character indicators which NOT looking, generally, won’t.

The same goes for narratives telling a story and quoting experts and sometimes an associated “organization” or “group.” This post features another illustration of what can be found when you DO check.  I was checking anyway, so decided to post as well.

I ran across a simple example, and pretty simple to check up on too, the other day, when it was joyfully announced that the WHO ICD-11 would no longer be classifying “parental alienation” as a social (behavioral) disease. Search string on Twitter “WHO, Parental Alienation, ICD-11” brings up plenty, but Here’s the fowarded link I was referring to:  (a French WordPress blog, signed International Network of Activist Mothers; not all links are translated into English):

World Health Organization Removes Parental Alienation from Its Classification Index

[Para 1]: The Italian members of the Facebook group PAS: informazioni e disinformazione were the first to spread the information. [a quote, images., then Paras. 2 and 3]:

This information is an opportunity to review recent events.

In November 2019, William Bernet, President of the Parental Alienation Study Group, one of the most motivated promoters of parental alienation, reported in a newsletter, translated and distributed in France by ACALPA, on the positioning of the WHO’s Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee (MSAC). …  [Para. 4] On October 29, 2019, ….  Indeed, the mere presence of this notion, wherever it is in the Classification, would favour its instrumentalization by its promoters and its use by violent men in family courts, as recalled in the Collective Memo of Concern to: World Health Organization about « Parental Alienation ».

Vocabulary used for story-telling and journalism doesn’t necessarily match up to vocabulary for fact-checking what any referenced group or organization is, where it is, or much else about it. If the use were more consistent, we might overall be better-informed on how to fact-check and be aware which reporters are getting a “scoop” to help the media’s bottom line as opposed to straight public-interest.

REMEMBER (as my post title says): When the website features what looks like an organization name, or abbreviation of it, that may or may not be a business entity.

Without the actual business entity’s name, you don’t know “squat” about the neutrality and can hardly follow the funding behind it.  Start looking and notice how few actually do post, transparently, complete an d current financials with easy range or readers.

Can we agree that, whatever the name, the mere existence of a website and a domain name that may sound like a business name doesn’t tell most of any story about the platform worth hearing. We need to look further, and ought to, regularly.


This is the post I predicted (or threatened?) to write in my next-to-last post Feb. 12, 2020, calling attention to consolidating (buying and selling of, concentrating purposes of for maximum profits) media companies and the importance of paying attention to the context — the window-frames — of whichever one you’re on, and to platform and brand ownership over time.  I’ve been raising this point for years.

On that post (full title & link on next inset), I also raised it after a long “Opening Spiel” summarizing basic family court, welfare reform, domestic violence organization infrastructure issues, with examples and names of key centers, publications, universities and professionals involved.  Generally, fewer (the further one goes back in time) than you might think:

That recent (Feb. 12, 2020) post mentioned but didn’t focus on nonprofits as media platforms. Today’s post, that you’re reading now, focuses more on how to check up whether nonprofits are involved, and if so, on checking them out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.


About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.

Consider:

(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  

and,

[2]

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
Consider:
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?


I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]


Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

Freedom of the Press IS on the Auction Block (Rupert Murdoch, Walter Annenberg empires: Consolidate, New Markets, Buy&Sell, handle the Scandals, go public, go private, keep on trucking…) [Publ. April 21, 2017]

with one comment

Consciousness-raising on this ongoing Auction Block reality is always timely.

THIS POST IS: Freedom of the Press IS on the Auction Block  (Rupert Murdoch, Walter Annenberg empires: Consolidate, New Markets, Buy&Sell, handle the Scandals, go public, go private, keep on trucking…) and its case-sensitive short-link ends “-6BH.” [excluding the “.”]

Attempting to differentiate what I do here, and my purpose in doing it, from journalistic, personal anecdotal, or high-profile (poster child) case anecdotal reporting, and cause-based rhetoric on many of the same topics on which those journalistic, anecdotal types of reporting have been dominant:  family courts, domestic violence, marriage/fatherhood, child support, divorce-custody and so forth, has been an ongoing theme in my blogging.  We should recognize that, and I call attention to this situation, information on these topics that is publicized on-line may comes from both secondary, pro-bono (volunteer) social media reblogging, and primary sponsorship — which primary (organization) sponsorship may be itself several levels deep as to seeding one rhetoric or another (and with this recommended solutions).

Beyond how many levels deep is sponsorship of the reporting websites/organizations (that others like to quote, repost, and reblog) is the question of sponsorship of the technology platforms on which the rhetoric is itself disseminated, decade by decade, 1900s – 2000s.  This brings us into the question of high-technology media corporations, conferences, and just how profitable the sector is — although when it’s NOT profitable, someone’s company or subsidiary IS going to get sold off sooner or later.  At the bottom of this post, I take a single corporation’s history on a timeline and show some of the trends — all of which relates to the on-line news, other media, and print (where they still exist) publications, and who owns whose at any point in time.

Yet another factor comes up when professional journals (such as the Family Court Review with its affiliations) about which the average person NOT into the professional fields involved, whether academic or “created” fields (domestic violence advocates, fatherhood researchers or practitioners, etc. may not even know, and to which therefore they cannot respond properly, or timely, which is to say, effectively.  This is no accident!

Institutions (such as universities) have their own additional blogs and websites to further promote ideologies which the public, in general, may be completely unaware of, between comparing the mainstream news media (ABC, NBC, CBS — PBS — or now, Fox) with their favorite right-wing or progressive news outlets, a choice of “pro or con” a limited series of issues which BOTH sides profit from debating in public.

Up next (as part of demonstrating this situation), I have an example of law-school sponsored journalism hooking up with another private nonprofit-university published journal seeking, deliberately over time, to transform the systems of:  family courts, juvenile justice, school truancy law, and of course behavioral health/social science-related services.  I remember exactly what search phrase led me to become aware of this center, but unless you happened to be on the lawschool website and curious about one of its many “Centers” and take that curiosity some steps further, you might not have known.  (Next images show first, the lawschool banner, then that banner with the “Centers” dropdown — in fine print):

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page showing drop-down menu for “Centers” in very fine print) Click for full-sized.

LAW UBALT EDU Centers, annotated + showing the CFCC (Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 4.04PM)

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page; having clicked on “CFCC” option, the donors name in such large letters, important parts of the page aren’t even visible on the top half (scroll down to see now more overt connections between CFCC founder and AFCC-affiliated (co-published) Family Court Review, of which this Associate Professor is now Editor in Chief. And, newsletters, and recommendations for a new post-JD certificate in family law, etc.

And the trend is to Unify under themes controlled, again, by private interests — but in the case of UBaltimore School of Law, that university is part of the Maryland State System.  And I have already posted on the influence of this particular center WITHIN the law school having had a role of pushing through the setup of family court divisions when it COULD NOT and WAS NOT being passed legislatively.  It was done administratively through a well-known presiding judge at the time (Chief Administrative Judge Bell) with a well-known and clearly well-earned civil rights record.  I am not going to hunt up all my specific links, but believe they will be found on the TOC page under late 2013 as I recall. For example:  Dec 22, 2013, my “Eavesdropping into an Indoctrination Center; Hindsight from a Pilot Project Outpost” specifically references this CFCC and one of its founders, Barbara Babb.  Next to images are screenshots from that part of the post, including one link to an article cited on turning the tide, and endorsing this “unified family court” concept for “families and children,” which is to say, most people!

No apologies for the sarcastic tone, either!

#1 of 3 from my Dec 22, 2013 post referencing UBaltimore School of Law CFCC in re creation of the family law division (late 1990s) in Maryland — through an administrative judicial ruling

#2 of 3 from my 12/22/2013 blog

Title and publication/issue# referenced in Image 2 of 3 from my 12/22/2013 post

Here’s another example I discovered not too long ago from a UBaltimore School of Law CFCC website which I sarcastically (but I still say, accurately) referred to as an “AFCC Outpost” in late 2014.  Predictably, they are recommending more training of judges and in fact, a post-J.D. certification regarding family law issues.

This theme refers to the private, professional journals which, when read, reveal intent to affect public institutions.

However that is not the major emphasis of this post.  Below this illustrated section, I will talk more about the sale of Triangle Publications (and with it, TV Guide) in ONE large section involving (at least) TWO major actors (see post title for which one).

 

AND, below that, in a different (more gray) background-color, a section on  high-technology specialty corporations buying and selling each other over time, using for an example the 1971-formed CMP Publications.  I think it’s interesting, and sale of THAT media wealth (ca. 1999) helped set up yet another privately controlled family foundation which went — where else? — into education reform, this time, the “progressive” way.


I would like to have here provided access with active links to this Spring (April 2017) Full Court Press issue (3 annotated images below) to readers, however none were provided (the links were basically NOT active) on my received email and I see from the website (Scroll down further, it’s on the left sidebar) where this “Full Court Press” might normally show up (and a Summer 2016 version of “The Unified Court Connection, 17th issue” (and the Spring 2017 one is called the 18th issue) is supplied, it may not be yet available on their main website.  Odd, that!  But, you can learn there its stated goals:

CFCC primary goals are to:

  • Deliver cutting-edge family law education by engaging law students in real-life learning opportunities   [[i.e., mentoring fresh generations of law students in the “RIght Way” to think about family courts]]
  • Promote the development of unified family courts to provide children and families with a single court system with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction
  • Improve the delivery of legal, social, judicial, administrative and other services within the family justice system, including evaluating family court systems
  • Develop training programs and tools for judges, court staff and attorneys to build their understanding of the complex issues underlying family law proceedings
  • Support school success for children by bringing together judges, attorneys, law students and other members of the legal community to improve school attendance, reform school discipline practices and protect legal rights for children in school

We invite you to learn more about what we arewhat we do, and how you can get involved with our work.

This CFCC (now named after alumni donors, a married couple) is innately intertwined with private nonprofit associations and has been since is 2000 co-founding. There is a clear intent to protect the proprietary “Train the judges, protect AND EXPAND our turf” visible, with the emphasis on therapeutic jurisdiction, a “holistic approach” and all this said throughout to be in the public’s best interest, and families’.  Now it’s not enough to combine the unified family court jurisdictions, they also want to help steer entire communities, thus pretty much revealing the true colors behind the movement, from the start.

Image 1 of 3 (UBaltimore School of Law S&M Meyerhoff CFCC Spring 2017 Full Court Press) email alert

Image 2 of 3 (see caption for image 1). Note reference to Diane Nunn. Diane Nunn also has a long history  as an AFCC-affiliated person with the California Judicial Council (TOP ruling body of the Calif. courts)  AOC/CFCC, which CFCC historically has seemed to coordinate policies with CFCC here in Maryland.  Her AFCC affiliation is not mentioned here but (see image 3 of 3) this CFCC’s is now more “out in the open.”

Image 3 of 3 (annotated, Click HERE to read my comments on the AFCC affiliations .Note reference to Barbara Babb (co-founder of this) now being Editor in Chief of the (AFCC-Hofstra Univ. -produced) “Family Court Review.” Notice also reference to yet more certifications and trainings being recommended (for both judges and lawyers) and continued promotion of “Unified Family Courts”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a place and importance to telling one’s story, but when it comes to advocacy, analysis and exposure of the problems in the above areas, who is using the story for what purpose has to be determined, and those in the least advantaged position at any point in the time, should be most concerned to determine, through following the financial and corporate funding trails (profit and nonprofit) WHO is behind the message they’re repeating, for free presumably, to the world in seeking:  justice, court reform, protection, (etc.) from any government entity.

It takes at least two sides to play ping-pong, tetherball, or Good Cop/Bad Cop with a single theme.

I have continued to say, that vocabulary has to be business and accounting related, and to be wide enough in scope, it must incorporate the financial relationships with government.  And I have continued to demonstrate what you can find once you start looking into that.

People do not seem to realize (in my experience) that once you become entrenched in a subject matter side to the point of NOT perceiving the operational foundations of those propagating it, you lose objectivity and credibility, period. Credibility becomes limited to those who happen to side with you already, or who may help further a journalistic career writing up the problems for their publications, whether as employee or freelance.

People eager for change and reform [again, I’m referring experientially to people in the family courts, domestic violence, marriage/fatherhood, child support, divorce-custody and related fields] also often don’t seek to distinguish between what is anecdotal (even if true) to others not personally eyewitnesses of the events, and what can be at least verified by others from afar as true statements, and from those true statements (qualified, of course, as to the credibility of their sources), compiling a reasonably comprehensive, fair, logical and set in a historic context, account for the present situation.


I would not expect 100% agreement “across the board” ever, but if these discussions cannot move out of the realms of religion or quasi-religious assertions, it should not be a viable discussion for public policy in the USA until consent is made to suspend the Constitution and formally declare instead a “theocracy.” That wouldn’t pass (I hope!), so instead, the trend has been to slip elements of major religious beliefs (again, either pro- or con- monotheism and male-dominance) in the back door –which is to say, functionally, administratively, and INdirectly.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: