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 ‘Center for Court Innovation

Still Caught up in DV/Custody Drama? For 2016, What about Catching up on OVW Discretionary Grants (2013) and these SIX, ah, “Groups”?

leave a comment »

FYI: This post has several sections, and puts the post title in a larger framework, which  means some of those sections have a lot of quotes.  This post is also: conversational (more than “developmentally edited”), informative, and almost 15,800 words (not including this “FYI”), which seemed like a good place to put a lid on it!

Feedback pro/con welcome (Comments available at bottom of post.  Comments with links to other relevant information are particularly welcome. If you are sharing experientially and it’s OK, a geography (at least what state if it’s re: a custody experience) might be helpful to reference.  Feel also free to argue (=/= namecall; bring something to the table to argue with!) — I may argue back (that’s my style, and it’s also a process), but if I’ve got my facts wrong, I do want to be corrected — with links, quotes, or cites on what basis.  Also, feel free to use those “DONATE” buttons on the sidebar — this blog is a one-woman operation!   Thanks…//LGH

“DV” in this context, of course, means simply “domestic violence,” which alternately goes by any other number of names, depending on the speakers and the speakers’ intentions to highlight the violence, or frame it as a relationship disease.

  • My next intended post (split off this one for length!), through multiple quotations, treats the rest of us to collegial discussions on Batterer Typology with a view towards future research on screening instruments to bring low-income, situationally-violent couples into psycho-educational interventions, with of course a heavy sprinkling of impressive (or what ought to impress) terms such as multi-variate, bi-modal, and implications for — of course — “future research.” In at least a few of the speakers’ cases, I have already posted some cheating on tax-returns and falsifying how much federal money actually came their way (OR, HHS falsifed it — but the reports don’t match, so both cannot be concurrently true!)  and seeking “fees for friends” while being employed by the state.  As well as a few more overtly AFCC professionals and professors.

I wrote this post as part of an ongoing, I hope, dialogue about some of the groups which I already know, but bet most blog readers don’t, are serving to standardize and internationally align common practice in the courts whether or not it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or state law, or citizens’ individual rights as residents in a specific state.

  • “Dialogue” — There are always comments fields, and I will be re-posting a feedback form soon. But more important than individual discussing this with just me, I hope this information will continue to inject some startling, but significant truths into other discussions already taking places about distressing realities, or outrageous injustice when it comes to handling of parents and children in the courts.

Rather than violent, revolutionary overthrow (of government), around the time of the World Wars and particularly World War II, a progression of paradigm switches, systems changes and plans to undermine jurisdictional boundaries, including national sovereignty, was set up to take place incrementally, by stages:  “plan the work, work the plan” for decades (at least) now.  Principles were involved, some of which include regionalization, privatization / functionalism, and within the USA at least the Congressional authorization of “Reorganization Act” special procedures for the President.  (See also two pages I have on this, on sidebar).

In addition, setting up networks among universities, and at times privately funded “centers,” within them.  Such centers are not bad “per se” but as parts of an otherwise coordinated system with the intent to change justice systems — and doing this below the radar for anyone who doesn’t happen to be tracking the universities and their various centers — it’s not exactly open, transparent, and, well, “American.”

Over all of this, a system of taxation which while promising a levelling of the field, in fact does the opposite. This system also tends to “separate the men from the boys,” meaning, those who know accounting –including government accounting — from those who do not, and those who comprehend the scope and operations of government, conceptually — from those who are clueless.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment [Original, March 23, 2014. Reformat + Reminders March 14, 2017][+July2017]

with 6 comments

Post title with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-2qM”:

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment  [Original, March 23, 2014.  Reformat and Reminders March 14, 2017, Three Years Later]. The post is too long.  On the other hand, I take on key entities involved, do some drill-downs, and put timelines and participant names to cover-ups.


Apparently I am not showing solidarity within “the movement,” said a comment below (see “Comments”).  I responded to the assumption that the “movement” (coalitions, groupings of professionals towing traumatized parents around for show-and-tell, and encouraging them to tell their stories as a platform to the reforms wanted by the groupings of professionals [“Let’s get yet more Technical Assistance and Training (domestic violence consultants — aware of the custody issues) in there” — like us and our friends”] was really “the movement” and that those so engaged had battered mothers’ or the public best interests even as a priority.

That they needed such mothers to tell their stories to get an image of legitimacy the desired reforms seems evident, but the accounting and corporate registration records, and what they were NOT saying, I say, better evidences what is the agenda.  [last two paragraphs copyedited for grammar (long sentence was an incomplete sentence) and clarified, 7/9/2017].
In responding below some years ago, I see I’d also asked if anyone could identify the business filing of a certain group which was being promoted among “the movement” in Northern California, training custody evaluators to recognize parental alienation and taking, apparently, fees for ongoing-trainings for the same as approved by the California Judicial Council.  Yet the group calling itself an “Inc.” and a nonprofit, has no filing footprint on either the secretary of state or the registry of charitable trusts level, or with the IRS.  So far, no responses…FYI, that’s a “tell.”  ).

 

Post in Update Process. Recent (Oct. 2014) introductory material will may be reduced shortly. 

I tend to revise published posts as my understanding increases, and often in the process or drafting a related one.  Here, I felt inspired to elaborate some more on the role of the Ford Foundation, Center for Court Innovation, MDRC, and the economic influence on setting in motion systems-change elements (including court changes) at public expense.

This is a recent find when I was explaining and showing the Center for Court Innovation to a person completely unfamiliar with it.  It didn’t take too long for the individual** to “get”once the tax returns and other materials were shown in person.  It probably also helped the understanding process that the individual was familiar with project development and budgets, and hadn’t been indoctrinated NOT to talk  finances or economic systems through any court advocacy group which is more interested in selling books, promoting conferences, and getting in on the “train the trainers, educate the judges” routine…. **Incidentally, said individual was a man, not a woman with a cause, or in trauma or fight-or-flight mode regarding the safety or even location of minor children.  Not a father with either of those two situations.  Just a guy.

It’s not rocket science– it’s just a different kind of attention, and but, yes, it still takes sustained attention and awareness of what kind of information one is focused on absorbing.


 NYC 2014 BUDGET — READ! Center for Court Innov got $400K (Fund for City of NY not mentioned), Man Up, LIFT, Vera — ec (439pages…)  About 61 pages of summary, followed by a few hundred of fine-print detailed tables, “Appendix A”.  <===CLICK THE LINK TO SEE IT ALL.

Qualifiers (added 2017, now that I can do screenprints) — this Report is a Schedule C, dated June 2013, of Adjustments to the FY2014 Budget for the City of New York.

I wish to point out the use of the name “Center for Court Innovation” associated with the EIN# for “Fund for the City of New York,” which this document shows…instead of the EIN# & legal business name “Fund for the City of New York,”

In, fact the Fund (in association with this “Center”) was identified a few times up front (the phrase “Fund for the City of New York” does occur repeatedly throughout the document, the words Center for Court Innovation” just a few times.  However, that “CENTER” is not its own entity, neither government nor business, but (as described on its website) a joint project from the Unified NYS Court System AND the (tax-exempt foundation) Fund for the City of New York.

Here are some screenprints from the front of that budget, and a few showing the use of both the Fund for the City designation (with EIN#) and the “Center for Court Innovation” (without; in fact an “initiative” is actually named CCI).  MY main point is — be aware of this powerful combination, and of the CCI, as its intents (tax returns and related entities do show) are to test programs, then go national (outward from NY) and international with them.  Click any image (in this section on FCNY+CCI) to enlarge; you have the NYC 2014 Budget (Sched C Adjustments) link above.

Among those shown, the light-blue captioned image here, top line of the chart refers to a certain Adolescent Portable Therapy Program under agency DOP (Probably Dept. of Probation)  The second row reads “Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) and was recommended to receive much funding, and the third, “Center for Court Innovation,” $400,000.

Here a “Center for Court Innovation “Initiative” through Agency “CJC” is allocated $400K. Notice also the Adolescent Portable Therapy Program (APTP) by the Vera Institute — this is an “import” from a UK group (Anna Freud Centre), or at least featured by it.

 

I also took a closer look at “Adolescent Portable Therapy” in NYC and who’s referring youth and their families into it.

The light-blue caption (Image referencing “Adolescent Portable Therapy Program”) in association with the CCI initiative under “Criminal Justice Services” (from that Budget Adjustment Schedule C).

Enough was found to move to a separate post, however I’m leaving one of the referring agencies, nicknamed “CASES” and showing its recent increases in Total (Gross) Assets for a joint of reference.

 

Total results: 5.** Search Again.

ORG. NAME [“CASES”] ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2017 990 44 $8,879,354.00 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2016 990 38 $8,330,660.00 13-2668080

(**Above: I added two more years, YE2016 and 2017, of search results during Aug. 2018 (slight) post cleanup).

ORG. NAME [“CASES”] ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2015 990 39 $8,229,096 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2014 990 32 $5,288,689 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2013 990 31 $3,916,408 13-2668080

Read the rest of this entry »

For Scrantonians — To Assert is Fine, but To Prove is Best. Study How Kentucky Got Its 70 Judicial Center Projects, 9 Court Programs (including 11 Divorce Ed. courses so far). You’re Next!

with 8 comments

This post sounds more state-specific than it is.  When pilot programs and model courts are being coordinated with help from outside the state to within any state, there’s little state-specific about the courts taking place these days.  Remember also the influence of federal funding, and the speed of change facilitated by our lovely internet technology (think, approximately 1980s becoming more popularly accessible — but governments (especially military, who of course need great communications and data processing), academia, and lawyers will generally be further ahead than most of the public).

Original Post Published 12/21/2011.  I had occasion to refer to it, and began updating 9/8/2015, in part because the Kentucky State Court had re-arranged its website, creating broken-link-syndrome.   On noticing they, too, unified the court system, and by “Judicial Article” in 1976 created an “AOC” with a Chief Justice (i.e., centralized operations), I immediately remembered the NYS Unified Court System and its “Public/private partnership” with the under-reported “Fund for the City of New York,” (first funded 1968) which was labeled at some point, possibly post-1993, the Center for Court Innovation.

The Center for Court Innovation being often mischaracterized in print, I decided it was time to talk about how the system is set for privatization, and of course, global alignment internationally.  This would be hard to achieve directly and get past most voters — but it’s already been arranged to do it INdirectly, under the lable just improving systems, and helping families, communities, and in the public interest.

Tax-exempt, tax (and privately) funded, and WHERE did your famous legal rights go??  Perhaps a better question to ask is where did the money go, which might help answer the former questions.

I added a substantial section (light-green background) to my 2011 commentary and word-battles (at a few points) with a now-defunct forum in Scranton, PA.  It will become a separate post soon, I hope.  If so, this one will be shortened, with a referral link.  Maybe.  (Catch it while you can…)

🙂


 

Righteous Indignation, Determination to do something, and a Healthy Sarcasm  — admirable, I love it.

Also one has to love anyone who can file enough Right To Knows, get information sufficient to file a CIVIL suit against a FAMILY court racket(eering set of individuals), have (I believe as a result of that and related) suit, the FBI come charging in to haul off evidence (for what purpose, remains to be seen)  and post it for all to see.  And keep posting.  Again, I came here from Kentucky — after I found some dude from this area (Dunmore, PA) getting his product marketed through the Kentucky Family Court System, which has a ridiculous number dof “Divorce Education” programs and one that clearly uses extortion to get Dads in arrears into fatherhood program probably aimed at about 6th grade (maybe tops, 8th) level of intellect.  And that is called a “Court of Justice”!

 Judicial Center Projects **

Since 1998 the Kentucky Court of Justice has completed, authorized or begun construction on 70 new judicial centers.

These new facilities have given Kentucky citizens safe, efficient, cost-effective buildings in which to exercise their legal and constitutional rights

[**Original Post was 12/21/2011; Updates, Link Correction (different background color)  @ 9/8/2015]:

The Courts.ky.gov web pages have changed since this post, and no longer so clearly display the 11 divorce education programs below. More info at.  Notice the AOC was put in place in 1976 by “the Judicial Article.”  Their summary provides no link to that article, or description of who issued it, was there a referendum, did the judges come together in decide, or what.

 Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

The Administrative Office of the Courts is the operational arm of the Judicial Branch. The AOC supports court facilities and programs in all 120 counties, with its main campus in Frankfort.

The AOC was established in 1976 as a result of the Judicial Article. The Judicial Article created Kentucky’s unified court system and made the chief justice head of the state court system, also known as the Kentucky Court of Justice.


Read the rest of this entry »

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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.

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

'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.

%d bloggers like this: