In my personal situation, currently, I have been fighting two full years to get ahold of a certain paper trail and suffered significantly for even daring to ask. I lost permanent rental housing and have been threatened with a lawsuit after (and I believe in retaliation for) reporting rat infestation, substandard structural condition, and in general, a slumlord. I was unable even to obtain rental receipts. [This para. Must be 2017 re: events which took place AFTER this post was first published//LGH 1 Feb. 2023].
ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and if it comes to court (an expense I least of all could afford to bear, being elderly and with an already compromised work history — see family court litigation, child-stealing, child support arrears (for what it was worth — about $15,000 at the time, but significant to what we had available) retroactively reduced in a deceptive manner, repeatedly being forced onto food stamps needlessly, and having no more viable contact with ANY family member) I would become homeless.
Meanwhile I’d been forced to watch one of my children not make it into college surrounding all this, the other one go through college (and now I hear into graduate school even), but at the cost of any viable relationship with her own mother (me) and instead being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda by then had been shown as over time, “taking out” this mother, i.e., me. Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright (one of the couple was my sibling, but both profited from control of (if not direct possession to spend at will as their own) my portion of inheritance. NO legal process declaring me somehow incompetent to manage my own affairs was involved; such a process likely would’ve failed if our life histories, work histories, college track records etc. had been compared.
If anyone thinks this is (in the macro) appropriate behavior for those controlling others’ assets in a position of TRUST (as government is supposed to be doing with, in particular, the Social Security Trust fund and ALL its assets and holdings) then they’re such a person may be masochistically “into” a slave/master relationship. In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began — with indentured servants and slaves — and that’s how it will continue until the ability to demand and understand accounts** becomes, like basic literacy and at least SOME comprehension of history timelines, common property.
**Awareness of in what ways governments are supposed to ACCOUNT for that which they’ve extracted from or we have given them (via taxation and fees for services, for starters). Not just basic numeric sense, but a concept of “how things work” and “how things are reported” financially.
Also, all people ought to be able to handle some truly difficult subject matter — the position of religious institutions within the economy, and as tax-exempt (private, ability to conceal assets, transactions) and extremely privileged compared to others, because of this historic status. For example, the US. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is now pouring millions of dollars directly into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron).
[This paragraph added only April, 2023, may (or may not..) clarify my points of reference above:]
I have seen it and have reported periodically on it: See “Welfare Reform” (Social Security Act revisions 1996 forward) to promote “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” as a national priority under “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and (essentially, as though RELIGIOUS institutions needed more of this…) getting uninvolved or “in-arrears” (on child support) fathers, aka men, more involved with their children (that’s a reference to Access-Visitation grants handled, administered, through the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and authorized under “Title IV-D” of the revised Social Security Act.
All people — everyone individually whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith — should become willing and competent to address some [of this] difficult subject matter and acknowledge they ought to understand some basic economics and government funding… We must not just balance our own household or family budgets, but (conceptually) also realize what goes into a financial statements and think about which ones we read (of local, state, and federal government entities, or of non-profits they deal directly with, or which deal with topics of interest in concern) mean. [Paragraph copyedited some, 4/2023].
I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy. Looking at the economy involves looking at tax returns that intersect with government, where they even exist. This IS an organizing principle that could be generated easily, locally, among individuals, however, as to religious influence, religious people’s non-work time is often already being organized for them around home-based fellowships, and serving as marketeers (unpaid) for internet-marketed books by pastors and others, and volunteering This marketing scheme as religious service parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been promoting as social service through HHS around the “family values” issue, and some overlap of materials, too.
Collective interest in doing a little homework on this topic remains LOW. Change probably requires a detox from certain types of social media and personal awareness of (attention to) what we are (individually) feeding into the human CPU, i.e., our own thought-life. It requires self-discipline up to a point where the motivation (the more you see, the more you understand) can keep that drive going…
[It seems this did not happen in Connecticut, at a wide enough scale, on these topics… That’s why all the exhortation above. //LGH 4/11/2023]
MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CONNECTICUT (back on topic of post title…)
I just now [2016?] looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obviously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I hadn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this below..
After the publication I’m quoting below (and posting on again in 2016), ca. 2012, this organization quietly phased itself out of existence — or at least of filing tax returns. Don’t let the relatively modest “Total Assets” fool you — in the most recent year shown, “Total Receipts” — nearly all of it (Page I, Part I, Line 8, “Contributions and grants” — were $1.5 Million. Of those, $1.4M were “Government grants.”
WHERE DID ALL THIS MONEY GO? Passing it On as grants to other individuals or organizations? Direct help to families? Well, not really. They claimed 13 board members, and 52 employees and most of the money went to employees. For what services, exactly, apparently whoever filled out the tax return couldn’t be bothered to describe in detail. Take a look:
(Code ) (Expenses $ 1,240,533 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $. )
Case management services, family preservation and reunification services, Male Involvement Network, community based fitness services
“Community based fitness services?”
Search Again
WE ARE TALKING, THIS TIME, in CONNECTICUT, as a reminder, it’s right near NYC.
Older map of Connecticut show it right opposite Long Island, with Rhode Island to the Right, New York to the left, and New Jersey just a SHORT distance (through NY) away:
Taxation[edit]
Before 1991, Connecticut had an investment-only income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%, the highest rate in the U.S., with no deductions allowed for costs of producing the investment income, such as interest on borrowing.
In 1991, under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, the system was changed to one in which the taxes on employment income and investment income were equalized at a maximum rate of 4%. The new tax policy drew investment firms to Connecticut; as of 2014, Fairfield County was home to the headquarters for 14 of the 200 largest hedge funds in the world.[137]
Connecticut’s per capita personal income in 2013 was estimated at $60,847, the highest of any state.[132]There is, however, a great disparity in incomes throughout the state; after New York, Connecticut had the second largest gap nationwide between the average incomes of the top 1 percent and the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent.[133] According to a 2013 study by Phoenix Marketing International, Connecticut had the third-largest number of millionaires per capita in the United States, with a ratio of 7.32 percent.[134] New Canaan is the wealthiest town in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $85,459. Darien, Greenwich, Weston, Westport and Wilton also have per capita incomes over $65,000. Hartford is the poorest municipality in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 in 2000.[135]{how is a 2000 estimate in reference to a 2013 finding relevant? No one studied Hartford per capita income since then?).
HARTFORD COUNTY also, incidentally, and per Wikipedia, is home to, religiously speaking the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (of Hartford — over two other Dioceses, it says) AND the largest Protestant Church in New England, referring I believe to a building. Wiki previously explained that the state (per a self-reported survey) is 60% Christian, if you combine Catholic and Protestant. MIGHT this have anything to do with its views on the roles of women, children, divorce, marriage, and how to handle reports of child molestation by fathers (or priests)?
Recent immigration has brought other non-Christian religions to the state, but the numbers of adherents of other religions are still low. Connecticut is also home to New England’s largest Protestant Church: The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Connecticut located in Hartford County. Hartford is seat to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford, which is sovereign over the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Diocese of Norwich.
FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.
Originally known as The 1st Baptist Church in Hartford, Connecticut,[1] The First Cathedral is the fifteenth oldest historically black church founded in the city of Hartford, Connecticut; and the third congregation to be known as The First Baptist Church of Hartford, Connecticut.[2] The phrase The First Cathedral is used colloquially to refer to the Christian ministry based in Bloomfield, Connecticut as well as the edifice in which the ministry is held.
The pastor is Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr.
These updates to my own older posts are starting to become a frequent addition to some of my older posts which, despite their lack of technical blogging skills, I believe still “nail” (as in “hit the nail on the head” in identifying) strategic and organizational conflicts of interests in the courts, affecting the courts, and through them, affecting the public’s wisdom in even assuming that our public institutions are any more free from privatization and through privatization (with its accompanying complexity of networked interests), the potential for bribery and/or corruption THROUGHOUT the system, and ENTRENCHED WITHIN the system as essential, basic practice.
Three years later, I am now more specific in identifying specific elements, by proper categories, as major sources of undue influence on the courts: whether center within private universities (whose funding cannot be properly tracked), nonprofits (whose funding COULD be tracked by the public, but generally won’t be, case in point, as I’m complaining about here), public agency funding (and public ignorance on how to read governmental financial reports). The line between public and private is well-blurred, and when that happens, the massive coordinated wealth — and this wealth is indeed coordinated when it comes to private tax-exempt foundations of the huge size (Ford Foundation, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, and plenty of others) working through increasingly massive COMMUNITY Foundations (referring to regional, metro areas typically) and availing themselves of sources of federal funding that the public remains unaware of. Apparently there are resources to spare if all these organizations — instead of the public at large — continue to get them year after year after year). LGH/2016.
June 7, 2016: This June 3, 2013 13,000-word post as cleaned up some as to format (especially the table comparing two kinds of reporting on family court custody fiascoes, or problems within judicial decision-making in those courts).
Despite how long and involved this post is, and despite it having focused on then-current publicity regarding a specific judge (Maureen Murphy), specific published articles exposing AFCC activity at the judicial and within public offices while failing to properly register (etc.) below those two tables* there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of detailed information, with links, to state-level committees, decision-making bodies, financial reports — and fatherhood initiatives — for Connecticut. I also made a note of collaborations between: Yale, a Community Foundation, a local nonprofit (New Haven Family Alliance) and public money to establish “MIN” a “Male Information Network.”
*(I took footnotes to a separate table),
Separately, June 7, 2016 (or soon) I am posting something I found simply searching “Male Information Network” — it’s posted as HHS Public ACCESS and as printed in a publication titled simply “FATHERING.” I found it uploaded to. Did you yet realize that among the public welfare purposes of your income taxes are supporting a “clinical management model” for addressing the:
physical, emotional, mental, economic and spiritual health needs
and through addressing all these needs in this manner:
Through a relational approach and social modeling it includes skill development in education, economic stability, family/child support, and mental and physical health. Implications for testing this approach are suggested.
Supposedly helping this demographic sector
a model for outreaching, connecting, and serving low-income, ethnically diverse, non-custodial fathers. Men are engaged “where they are” by building their strengths and addressing their needs
to become:
positive and healthy role models by increasing their attachment to their children and families
While this was published originally in 2012 (literally 16 years post-welfare-reform, which was 1996) they are still suggesting someone figure out how to test this CLINICAL MANAGEMENT MODEL of SUPPORTING MEN’s PHYSICAL,. EMOTIONAL. MENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH NEEDS by SOCIAL MODELING INVOLVING SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION, ECONOMIC STABILITY, FAMILY/CHILD SUPPORT
Check who is NCBI separately, and tell me how this got involved in that section of National Institutes of Health!
Get the initial description:
Fathering. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2014 May 9.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC4015970
NIHMSID: NIHMS565788
Increasing Outreach, Connection, and Services to Low-Income Non-Custodial Fathers: How Did We Get Here and What Do We Know
Derrick M. Gordon, Ph.D.,
Bronwyn Hunter, MA,
LaKeesha N. Woods, Ph.D.,
Barbara Tinney, MSW,
Blannie Bostic,
Sherman Malone, MSW,
Germano Kimbro, BA,
Dolores Greenlee, MPH,
Sarah Fabish, BA,
Kenneth Harris, and
Amos Smith, MSW
See other articles in PMC that
cite the published article.
“WE, WHO!” would seem to be the question. Since when is the rest of the world to do a complete social support system for low-income, noncustodial fathers — in addition to (as the opening paragraphs admit) already doing it (through welfare reform) to middle-class noncustodial fathers, which “sure helped” reduce poverty nationwide? [The process:] Cut the [child support? ] amounts back, put a cap on limits, incentivize UNINVOLVED noncustodial fathers (and pay them, too, in the form of free legal support) to start custody battles — make sure not to inform mothers simultaneously of WHO is funding the opposing side, overall and through “Collaboration” etc.
“MALE INFORMATION NETWORK” is not a network, it’s a collaboration. You’ll NEVER track the money unless you track the money to all participants. At the bottom of this post, apparently having looked at it back in 2013, I named several of them. UNFORTUNATELY, the participation of nonprofits doesn’t enable accurate, or “connect-the-dots” tracking of donations to THROUGH the nonprofits TO a network. The administrative burden of monitoring such networks is prohibitive to the average person whose tax dollars support them.
This type of talk isn’t openly circulated where it might be exposed for the tripe (and population control tactics) and offense to reason and common sense it is. This language asks mothers and children as it has always asked mothers and children, to go back to domesticating men so the “powers that be” won’t have to deal with unattached, unburdened, and potentially likely to organize (or cause civil riots surrounding ongoing injustices, including economic in justices and all other kinds).
Some men are not prone to domestication by women and children alone. If the state after all these years can’t “reform” people by their chosen methods,
Why should we mothers be forced to attempt it while working at lower wages, and downstream from this kind of rhetoric about how we should NOT be heading our own households, providing positive NONviolent role models for our own offspring, ]not be allowed to] work without ongoing sabotage by the courts or anyone else, and to CORRECTLY demonstrate to little ones that there is NO excuse for battering, coercion, terroristic threats, physical assaults and injuries, OR sexual boundary violations of children by adults?
How does this practice promote any respect for women and mothers by their own children?
The state solutions have already proven they cannot – or will not — protect children even while IN a supervised visitation situation (August, 2013, a father and son died by gunshot — by all accounts, the father was the murderer, but I don’t see an eyewitness named yet — in Manchester, NH, AFTER he’d been separate for threatening to kill self and/or others. This has been going on as far back as 1992 (and an organization in CONNECTICUT closely connected to AFCC and NACC circles references it). That’s literally for 20 years. And in 2012, they continue to promote this philosophy of defining fatherhood and denigrating motherhood which doesn’t fit that model?
! ! !
Reader Alert — I Just Tossed the Attempt to Tame this Post… [6/3/2013]
I have continued to find such disturbing information (particularly in the Connecticut Judiciary), which connects, very deeply, to long-term trends (economic trends that is), that I have been unable to complete the post without (in astonishment, sort of), digging up more evidence of private takeover of public (so-called) institutions.
I’ve got to take a break here for a while; as the information is going IN My understanding (which happens once you catch onto patterns) at about five times the ability to get it out — certainly on this technology. I have never put a “Donate” button on this blog,** know the information on it (if compressed, and organized) is extremely valuable — but most needed by people who probably are already economically distressed through the courts. I don’t feel like forming another “noble” nonprofit to raise money for the poor people who are snared in the courts.
One reason is, I consider the for-profit/not for profit business to be itself unethical (though it’s been in process for decades in the US). It’s based on two sides of a tax code: Workers, versus Corporations. Add to this, the “legal corporations versus illegal corporations” and all of it being stuck to the workers (whether “low-income” or “middle-class” it’s those who play the game to the max for its loopholes, that profit the most — and are socially most respected [[not for their morality, but because we are so conditioned.]].
{{** Obviously by 2016 — DNR when first it went up — a Donate Button has been added to the sidebar in a few different places. Feel free! (but, I’ m not a nonprofit, so doubt it’s tax-deductible}}.
So I’m publishing here not because the post is ready to be published, but because I simply want it off my chest. The major part is towards the bottom, but dig in anywhere (if you want to). Three others are on the sideline; all have some merit, but I don’t have the time. Plus I’m pissed off at what have been seeing and learning, and need a time out. (note: Probably you would be too; it involves public funding for private polemics).
(Part 1 kept sprouting off sidewise into “show and tell lectures;” this one is going to review how to look for “Funds” on a state Budgetary/Legal Annual report and see, when payment records are obtained, if the notations on the record correspond to any legitimate fund, and if so — what $$ are being held in that fund.
By looking for these funds on the government’s own financial statements (from the comptroller’s office), we are also exposed to what kind of activities the state DOES fund, in much more detail, and the relative balances and monies coming and going. It literally tells us what business it is in, and a scope of that business — much more accurately than any politician or MSM can or will (with qualifications usually noted up front).
Financial Statements are a window into W-T-F?! (do I need to translate “wtf”? Hopefully not. Maybe it’s in Urban slang dictionary) is a state government doing, anyhow? For most, it’s a stunning eyeopener at just how many types of funds there are, and for what. This is rarely discussed (as a whole) in public. Beyond the budget itself (this post) are also the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) which report on the accumulated assets of government, a major scope of “clout” that is out of sight, out of mind, for taxpayers, and basically ignored by the mainstream media, although I have been told, copies of such CAFR are sent to the major outlets. It’s time we understood clearly, that the existence and scope of this funding is NOT “out of sight, out of mind” for certain types of public officials (judges, Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].
with 4 comments
2017 January Update (just blog navigation, not to post contents at all):
Sticky (top) blog on post contains links to 3 different years of “Table of Contents” with links; hopefully most of them are accurate).
Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) <==Post title with WordPress-generated (and case-sensitive) shortlink added 1/9/2017, when I noticed the Table of Contents post had wrong short-link here. When/if that happens, use “Archives” to search the post’s same date.). I have since developed the habit of copying the post name, complete with shortlink, to the top of each post and — if it’s one of several in a sequence or on a theme, including those, too. I have also transferred TOC 2016 for easier viewing to a word-processing, then “pdf” format, and am currently working on the older table of contents (2012-2014, much longer) to clean it up and present in similar format. Thanks for your patience (and any donations!!) //LGH.
Title w/ shortlink & date published (Feb. 1, 2023 update). I see this post is nearly 16,000 words long; some of this is quotations.
“Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].” (Shortlink ends “-1I4” where the middle character is an an upper case “I” as in “Idaho”).
The dark-blue background, small print section (box) below is an update.
In it I quote from a recent find which was referenced at the bottom of this post as to Connecticut’s Fatherhood Initiative, “Male Information Network” and involved nonprofit, “New Haven Family Alliance.” I don’t even remember from three years ago how this one related to the post’s topic focused more on AFCC filings and dealings, at the time.
I was, I know, attempting to get people to pay more attention to those on the Fatherhood Collaborations as “just perhaps” relating to why mothers, painfully in some high-profile cases, continued to lose ground, often at the hands of other women in power in the court system, to fathers who had been accused of molestation or other abuse. See post title.
I still don’t see any sensible follow-up plan on the original expose, nor is the expose anywhere close to finished. I’m approaching burn-out age (if the public doesn’t care about this, I don’t care about the public, let’s each protect our own behinds and screw public interest and responsible citizenhood as characterized by taking a serious interest in learning how to follow public money as it is funneled into and blended with private partnerships. Let’s all continue behaving like children, as we have been coached to, instead of like adults, let alone like business-owners who demand from those they have hired to work for them an account of their FINANCIAL activities. As well as CHECKS AND BALANCES to ensure ACCOUNTING is REASONABLE…IF the relationship of citizen to government is anywhere close to government is still allegedly the servant and service-provider.)
In my personal situation, currently, I have been fighting two full years to get ahold of a certain paper trail and suffered significantly for even daring to ask. I lost permanent rental housing and have been threatened with a lawsuit after (and I believe in retaliation for) reporting rat infestation, substandard structural condition, and in general, a slumlord. I was unable even to obtain rental receipts. [This para. Must be 2017 re: events which took place AFTER this post was first published//LGH 1 Feb. 2023].
ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and if it comes to court (an expense I least of all could afford to bear, being elderly and with an already compromised work history — see family court litigation, child-stealing, child support arrears (for what it was worth — about $15,000 at the time, but significant to what we had available) retroactively reduced in a deceptive manner, repeatedly being forced onto food stamps needlessly, and having no more viable contact with ANY family member) I would become homeless.
Meanwhile I’d been forced to watch one of my children not make it into college surrounding all this, the other one go through college (and now I hear into graduate school even), but at the cost of any viable relationship with her own mother (me) and instead being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda by then had been shown as over time, “taking out” this mother, i.e., me. Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright (one of the couple was my sibling, but both profited from control of (if not direct possession to spend at will as their own) my portion of inheritance. NO legal process declaring me somehow incompetent to manage my own affairs was involved; such a process likely would’ve failed if our life histories, work histories, college track records etc. had been compared.
If anyone thinks this is (in the macro) appropriate behavior for those controlling others’ assets in a position of TRUST (as government is supposed to be doing with, in particular, the Social Security Trust fund and ALL its assets and holdings) then
they’resuch a person may be masochistically “into” a slave/master relationship. In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began — with indentured servants and slaves — and that’s how it will continue until the ability to demand and understand accounts** becomes, like basic literacy and at least SOME comprehension of history timelines, common property.**Awareness of in what ways governments are supposed to ACCOUNT for that which they’ve extracted from or we have given them (via taxation and fees for services, for starters). Not just basic numeric sense, but a concept of “how things work” and “how things are reported” financially.
Also, all people ought to be able to handle some truly difficult subject matter — the position of religious institutions within the economy, and as tax-exempt (private, ability to conceal assets, transactions) and extremely privileged compared to others, because of this historic status. For example, the US. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is now pouring millions of dollars directly into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron).
[This paragraph added only April, 2023, may (or may not..) clarify my points of reference above:]
I have seen it and have reported periodically on it: See “Welfare Reform” (Social Security Act revisions 1996 forward) to promote “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” as a national priority under “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and (essentially, as though RELIGIOUS institutions needed more of this…) getting uninvolved or “in-arrears” (on child support) fathers, aka men, more involved with their children (that’s a reference to Access-Visitation grants handled, administered, through the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and authorized under “Title IV-D” of the revised Social Security Act.
All people — everyone individually whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith — should become willing and competent to address some [of this] difficult subject matter and acknowledge they ought to understand some basic economics and government funding… We must not just balance our own household or family budgets, but (conceptually) also realize what goes into a financial statements and think about which ones we read (of local, state, and federal government entities, or of non-profits they deal directly with, or which deal with topics of interest in concern) mean. [Paragraph copyedited some, 4/2023].
I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy. Looking at the economy involves looking at tax returns that intersect with government, where they even exist. This IS an organizing principle that could be generated easily, locally, among individuals, however, as to religious influence, religious people’s non-work time is often already being organized for them around home-based fellowships, and serving as marketeers (unpaid) for internet-marketed books by pastors and others, and volunteering This marketing scheme as religious service parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been promoting as social service through HHS around the “family values” issue, and some overlap of materials, too.
Collective interest in doing a little homework on this topic remains LOW. Change probably requires a detox from certain types of social media and personal awareness of (attention to) what we are (individually) feeding into the human CPU, i.e., our own thought-life. It requires self-discipline up to a point where the motivation (the more you see, the more you understand) can keep that drive going…
[It seems this did not happen in Connecticut, at a wide enough scale, on these topics… That’s why all the exhortation above. //LGH 4/11/2023]
MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CONNECTICUT (back on topic of post title…)
I just now [2016?] looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obviously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I hadn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this below..
After the publication I’m quoting below (and posting on again in 2016), ca. 2012, this organization quietly phased itself out of existence — or at least of filing tax returns. Don’t let the relatively modest “Total Assets” fool you — in the most recent year shown, “Total Receipts” — nearly all of it (Page I, Part I, Line 8, “Contributions and grants” — were $1.5 Million. Of those, $1.4M were “Government grants.”
WHERE DID ALL THIS MONEY GO? Passing it On as grants to other individuals or organizations? Direct help to families? Well, not really. They claimed 13 board members, and 52 employees and most of the money went to employees. For what services, exactly, apparently whoever filled out the tax return couldn’t be bothered to describe in detail. Take a look:
“Community based fitness services?”
Search Again
Unbelievable….
WE ARE TALKING, THIS TIME, in CONNECTICUT, as a reminder, it’s right near NYC.
Older map of Connecticut show it right opposite Long Island, with Rhode Island to the Right, New York to the left, and New Jersey just a SHORT distance (through NY) away:
This map is from Wikipedia on “Connecticut” (an interesting read, particularly the section on “ECONOMY:”
Taxation[edit]
Before 1991, Connecticut had an investment-only income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%, the highest rate in the U.S., with no deductions allowed for costs of producing the investment income, such as interest on borrowing.
In 1991, under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, the system was changed to one in which the taxes on employment income and investment income were equalized at a maximum rate of 4%. The new tax policy drew investment firms to Connecticut; as of 2014, Fairfield County was home to the headquarters for 14 of the 200 largest hedge funds in the world.[137]
Connecticut’s per capita personal income in 2013 was estimated at $60,847, the highest of any state.[132]There is, however, a great disparity in incomes throughout the state; after New York, Connecticut had the second largest gap nationwide between the average incomes of the top 1 percent and the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent.[133] According to a 2013 study by Phoenix Marketing International, Connecticut had the third-largest number of millionaires per capita in the United States, with a ratio of 7.32 percent.[134] New Canaan is the wealthiest town in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $85,459. Darien, Greenwich, Weston, Westport and Wilton also have per capita incomes over $65,000. Hartford is the poorest municipality in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 in 2000.[135]{how is a 2000 estimate in reference to a 2013 finding relevant? No one studied Hartford per capita income since then?).
HARTFORD COUNTY also, incidentally, and per Wikipedia, is home to, religiously speaking the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (of Hartford — over two other Dioceses, it says) AND the largest Protestant Church in New England, referring I believe to a building. Wiki previously explained that the state (per a self-reported survey) is 60% Christian, if you combine Catholic and Protestant. MIGHT this have anything to do with its views on the roles of women, children, divorce, marriage, and how to handle reports of child molestation by fathers (or priests)?
FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.
These updates to my own older posts are starting to become a frequent addition to some of my older posts which, despite their lack of technical blogging skills, I believe still “nail” (as in “hit the nail on the head” in identifying) strategic and organizational conflicts of interests in the courts, affecting the courts, and through them, affecting the public’s wisdom in even assuming that our public institutions are any more free from privatization and through privatization (with its accompanying complexity of networked interests), the potential for bribery and/or corruption THROUGHOUT the system, and ENTRENCHED WITHIN the system as essential, basic practice.
Three years later, I am now more specific in identifying specific elements, by proper categories, as major sources of undue influence on the courts: whether center within private universities (whose funding cannot be properly tracked), nonprofits (whose funding COULD be tracked by the public, but generally won’t be, case in point, as I’m complaining about here), public agency funding (and public ignorance on how to read governmental financial reports). The line between public and private is well-blurred, and when that happens, the massive coordinated wealth — and this wealth is indeed coordinated when it comes to private tax-exempt foundations of the huge size (Ford Foundation, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, and plenty of others) working through increasingly massive COMMUNITY Foundations (referring to regional, metro areas typically) and availing themselves of sources of federal funding that the public remains unaware of. Apparently there are resources to spare if all these organizations — instead of the public at large — continue to get them year after year after year). LGH/2016.
June 7, 2016: This June 3, 2013 13,000-word post as cleaned up some as to format (especially the table comparing two kinds of reporting on family court custody fiascoes, or problems within judicial decision-making in those courts).
Despite how long and involved this post is, and despite it having focused on then-current publicity regarding a specific judge (Maureen Murphy), specific published articles exposing AFCC activity at the judicial and within public offices while failing to properly register (etc.) below those two tables* there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of detailed information, with links, to state-level committees, decision-making bodies, financial reports — and fatherhood initiatives — for Connecticut. I also made a note of collaborations between: Yale, a Community Foundation, a local nonprofit (New Haven Family Alliance) and public money to establish “MIN” a “Male Information Network.”
*(I took footnotes to a separate table),
Separately, June 7, 2016 (or soon) I am posting something I found simply searching “Male Information Network” — it’s posted as HHS Public ACCESS and as printed in a publication titled simply “FATHERING.” I found it uploaded to. Did you yet realize that among the public welfare purposes of your income taxes are supporting a “clinical management model” for addressing the:
and through addressing all these needs in this manner:
Supposedly helping this demographic sector
to become:
While this was published originally in 2012 (literally 16 years post-welfare-reform, which was 1996) they are still suggesting someone figure out how to test this CLINICAL MANAGEMENT MODEL of SUPPORTING MEN’s PHYSICAL,. EMOTIONAL. MENTAL, ECONOMIC AND SPIRITUAL HEALTH NEEDS by SOCIAL MODELING INVOLVING SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION, ECONOMIC STABILITY, FAMILY/CHILD SUPPORT
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015970/
Check who is NCBI separately, and tell me how this got involved in that section of National Institutes of Health!
Get the initial description:
“WE, WHO!” would seem to be the question. Since when is the rest of the world to do a complete social support system for low-income, noncustodial fathers — in addition to (as the opening paragraphs admit) already doing it (through welfare reform) to middle-class noncustodial fathers, which “sure helped” reduce poverty nationwide? [The process:] Cut the [child support? ] amounts back, put a cap on limits, incentivize UNINVOLVED noncustodial fathers (and pay them, too, in the form of free legal support) to start custody battles — make sure not to inform mothers simultaneously of WHO is funding the opposing side, overall and through “Collaboration” etc.
“MALE INFORMATION NETWORK” is not a network, it’s a collaboration. You’ll NEVER track the money unless you track the money to all participants. At the bottom of this post, apparently having looked at it back in 2013, I named several of them. UNFORTUNATELY, the participation of nonprofits doesn’t enable accurate, or “connect-the-dots” tracking of donations to THROUGH the nonprofits TO a network. The administrative burden of monitoring such networks is prohibitive to the average person whose tax dollars support them.
This type of talk isn’t openly circulated where it might be exposed for the tripe (and population control tactics) and offense to reason and common sense it is. This language asks mothers and children as it has always asked mothers and children, to go back to domesticating men so the “powers that be” won’t have to deal with unattached, unburdened, and potentially likely to organize (or cause civil riots surrounding ongoing injustices, including economic in justices and all other kinds).
Some men are not prone to domestication by women and children alone. If the state after all these years can’t “reform” people by their chosen methods,
Why should we mothers be forced to attempt it while working at lower wages, and downstream from this kind of rhetoric about how we should NOT be heading our own households, providing positive NONviolent role models for our own offspring, ]not be allowed to] work without ongoing sabotage by the courts or anyone else, and to CORRECTLY demonstrate to little ones that there is NO excuse for battering, coercion, terroristic threats, physical assaults and injuries, OR sexual boundary violations of children by adults?
How does this practice promote any respect for women and mothers by their own children?
The state solutions have already proven they cannot – or will not — protect children even while IN a supervised visitation situation (August, 2013, a father and son died by gunshot — by all accounts, the father was the murderer, but I don’t see an eyewitness named yet — in Manchester, NH, AFTER he’d been separate for threatening to kill self and/or others. This has been going on as far back as 1992 (and an organization in CONNECTICUT closely connected to AFCC and NACC circles references it). That’s literally for 20 years. And in 2012, they continue to promote this philosophy of defining fatherhood and denigrating motherhood which doesn’t fit that model?
! ! !
Reader Alert — I Just Tossed the Attempt to Tame this Post… [6/3/2013]
I have continued to find such disturbing information (particularly in the Connecticut Judiciary), which connects, very deeply, to long-term trends (economic trends that is), that I have been unable to complete the post without (in astonishment, sort of), digging up more evidence of private takeover of public (so-called) institutions.
I’ve got to take a break here for a while; as the information is going IN My understanding (which happens once you catch onto patterns) at about five times the ability to get it out — certainly on this technology. I have never put a “Donate” button on this blog,** know the information on it (if compressed, and organized) is extremely valuable — but most needed by people who probably are already economically distressed through the courts. I don’t feel like forming another “noble” nonprofit to raise money for the poor people who are snared in the courts.
One reason is, I consider the for-profit/not for profit business to be itself unethical (though it’s been in process for decades in the US). It’s based on two sides of a tax code: Workers, versus Corporations. Add to this, the “legal corporations versus illegal corporations” and all of it being stuck to the workers (whether “low-income” or “middle-class” it’s those who play the game to the max for its loopholes, that profit the most — and are socially most respected [[not for their morality, but because we are so conditioned.]].
{{** Obviously by 2016 — DNR when first it went up — a Donate Button has been added to the sidebar in a few different places. Feel free! (but, I’ m not a nonprofit, so doubt it’s tax-deductible}}.
So I’m publishing here not because the post is ready to be published, but because I simply want it off my chest. The major part is towards the bottom, but dig in anywhere (if you want to). Three others are on the sideline; all have some merit, but I don’t have the time. Plus I’m pissed off at what have been seeing and learning, and need a time out. (note: Probably you would be too; it involves public funding for private polemics).
(Part 1 kept sprouting off sidewise into “show and tell lectures;” this one is going to review how to look for “Funds” on a state Budgetary/Legal Annual report and see, when payment records are obtained, if the notations on the record correspond to any legitimate fund, and if so — what $$ are being held in that fund.
By looking for these funds on the government’s own financial statements (from the comptroller’s office), we are also exposed to what kind of activities the state DOES fund, in much more detail, and the relative balances and monies coming and going. It literally tells us what business it is in, and a scope of that business — much more accurately than any politician or MSM can or will (with qualifications usually noted up front).
Financial Statements are a window into W-T-F?! (do I need to translate “wtf”? Hopefully not. Maybe it’s in Urban slang dictionary) is a state government doing, anyhow? For most, it’s a stunning eyeopener at just how many types of funds there are, and for what. This is rarely discussed (as a whole) in public. Beyond the budget itself (this post) are also the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) which report on the accumulated assets of government, a major scope of “clout” that is out of sight, out of mind, for taxpayers, and basically ignored by the mainstream media, although I have been told, copies of such CAFR are sent to the major outlets. It’s time we understood clearly, that the existence and scope of this funding is NOT “out of sight, out of mind” for certain types of public officials (judges, Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 3, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with " State employees are accused of using their position to promote a judicial branch vendor]]" CT 5-20-2013 article, ""Conference shines the light on the plight of battered mothers seeking custody" 5-10-2013 Washington Post article promoting BMCC, "Follow the Money-Find the Billings and Vendors" vs. "Tell Our Stories-Hold a Vigil" approach, "New Haven Family Alliance" listed as FFCA Affiliate. Wake up!, and commissions! (CT Judicial), Arizona Fathers and Families Coalition (dba Fathers and Families Coalition of America) Jeffrey Leving + CJH Services (=HHS grantee too), AX FFCA has divided US into 5 regions (conferences to obtain Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) HHS funding, Barry Goldstein "Time's Up!" Blog squelching comments on money trail, Barry Goldstein promoting "Dr. Daniel Saunders" USDOJ Study, BMCC, California Budgetary/Legal Basis reports linked (for an example to track actual fund#s in CT), Conflict of Interest, Connecticut Committe on Judicial Ethics, HHS 10 Federal Regions listed, http://www.osc.ct.gov/public.htm (Connecticut Comptroller's Public Resources Page), Judge Maureen M. Murphy (CT former GAL), Male Involvement Network & New Haven Family Alliance, task forces, The Merry Month of May 2013 in WaPo and Washingtion Times (UnificationChurch-related) re Family Court advocacy, Two Diff't Angles of Approach to Family Court Advocacy, Watch the committees