Posts Tagged ‘Cognitive Dissonance in Family Law’
@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022].
This post saves information and a few links from my Twitter account’s Pinned Tweet, so I can unpin it without losing that quick summary. It’s a short thread, not just one tweet, pinned since {5:33 PM* Jun 25, 2021} (*PST). It lists some basic principles I follow and basic facts (patterns) to be aware of when investigating and evaluating any website, cause, campaign, or advocacy nonprofit associated with the same. My unpinned thread has a few images (screenshots I uploaded at the time, some of them annotated) to illustrate one or another statement on the corresponding Tweet.
This Post’s Title and short-link:
@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”). As revised 3/19/2022, about 7,100 words..
This post underwent some wax and wane after publishing, mostly of material I was exposed to and was processing mentally and emotionally while writing it. I first expanded (built onto) then moved most of the expansion (dismantled it here) to a new post I am about to publish it today (March 19, 2022). More details and development of the preview ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence (“ABA-CDSV”) section (in this color scheme, fine print with one large image) is now at the new location.
The other expanded sections were my exhortation to mothers to take back ownership of their stories, and some dignity with it, (if that shoe fits) from those who are, currently, exploiting it for a private agenda, but talking “We, Us, Our” as if all were on the same page.
I exhort us all (but especially embattled mothers who’ve already stood up to domestic violence, or stood up for their children in ways the family courts refused to) to start understanding the consequences of a centrally coordinated “DVRN” representing millions of dollars to nonprofits, strategically omitting the family courts — leaving that field open for (should the public catch on too fast) the “protective parents” groups to team up with existing “domestic violence prevention” coalitions, etc., in combination with lawyers, psychologists, and law and psych professors (i.e, mentors) — “Let’s All Fix This Problem Together and Cry Out to (inter)nationalize “Our” Concept of where the problem lies”).
Where people miss it is understanding just how that the thought-leaders’ functional meaning of the word “our” is not the common usage. In-practice isn’t what you may assume (and we’re supposed to assume) it represent … as if protective mothers with custody cases and the spokes-persons featuring their publicity (headlines) to promote a certain agenda, were indeed all on the same page… The “Exhibit A” women are not — from the inner circle cluster of speakers, conferencers, and court- OR university (law school)-connected professionals — being given, up front (judging by what the public is fed year after year from the same sources) the full range of choices to analyze problems. Built-in unproved assumptions are routine; denial and derailment of other interpretations is standard.
How to tell the difference? Understand who’s been speaking and is speaking, where available to identify, by entity, by category and by what’s NOT being said (year after year) regarding the exact same situations, and ask “why isn’t it?”
More at the next post: its title should be self-explanatory. I will publish this by day-end March 19:
Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)
Next section: about where, +/- March 7, 2022, I needed to take another time-out because of this content and more, further down on the same website. I had already been looking into and at the ABA Centers (ABA Center on Children and the Law, here, a different ABA Center). These “Centers” the ABA calls “entities” however, they aren’t quite that in normal usage. they are ABA “groups.”
ABA here means “American Bar Association.”
I just found the “ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence “ABA-CDSV”) website link for “seek Technical Assistance” making sure to screen out “Victims/Survivors” by reminding them — that’s NOT what the ABA does —
Commission Members and Staff include national experts in many areas of domestic and sexual violence and the law. The American Bar Association sponsors a number of programs to improve the justice system, but is not able to help people with specific legal problems or cases. The Association is not able to refer you to an attorney. (in bright red):
PLEASE DO NOT SEND REQUESTS FOR LEGAL HELP TO US.
and providing at least a few categories of places to go seek help…in a small box and as if these were actual links.
I posted the ABA CDSV image below March 7-19, but just now moved that image and surrounding sections (my comments on it) to a new post (to be published March 19, 2022, today). The more narrative/expressive sections of this post were more appropriate to a new one. In moving I of course added some related entity drill-downs for more background information… //LGH.
Survivors seeking information may wish to consult the following:
National Domestic Violence Hotline
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (that’s an organization: RAINN)
ABA Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help
LawHelp.org
Womenslaw.org
State Bar Associations
State Domestic Violence Coalitions
State Sexual Assault Coalitions
This same ABA COMMISSION on DOMESTIC & Sexual Violence didn’t have the decency to even provide a few active links to ANY of those above resources for non-lawyers or those wanting anything other than technical help.
But at the bottom of its page, a big banner advertises Evidence-based, relationship Conflict Prevention, linking to “StrengthAtHome.org” (more curricula provided by a clinical psychologist (B.A., 1994) Casey Taft, Ph.D., clearly working in the military (i.e., Veteran PTSD), Cognitive-Behavioral Health, and Trauma-Informed fields. His 46-page resume** is filled with grants credits, presentations, and (well over a dozen) PhD students he’s mentored — presumably some of these helping write the dozens of articles or book chapters (he has just one book to date), and apart from some ‘societies’ I’m aware of, he’s at the UN Consultation Level, on FIVE journals, a peer-reviewer for grants (that must be handy) and I even saw at least one reference to the IVAT I just blogged (again) last week.
(**downloaded as a document, not a pdf, so some pagination issues might account for the length — but not that many…)
Trauma-Informed is BIG government business; I guess ongoing wars help make it necessary and an endless supply of subject matter for “randomized controlled trials” (on people), for “aggression intervention”
“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” except maybe a Crowdfunder?
Another category of websites aren’t those representing (or saying they represent) a specific advocacy group, i.e., business (tax-exempt or not) but personal blogs with posts and “resources” or featuring posts by (family court reform, in this context) references. That type of blogging is also a powerful tool, even blogs on free domains — a tool for truth, a tool for expression, an appeal regarding personal stories; and a tool for echoing messages others may have processed, but the bloggers (apparently) haven’t.
Free blog domain — that’s how I started. This domain name (FamilyCourtMatters) wasn’t upgraded until 2018 and even now isn’t exactly a sponsored website. I just pay once annually, not much, for the privilege of calling it “familycourtmatters.org” rather than “FamilyCourtMatters.Wordpress.com” and a few perks. I have a “Donate” button (rarely used: if I’d formed a nonprofit, perhaps that might be different. I don’t offer tax-deduction privileges to anyone who contributes…). It’s not a collaborative blog — I am the only author, admin, and moderator — for a reason: to protect the message and avoid compromising it.
“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” How sort through who’s who?
It’s not too hard to see who’s promoting which “Dear Friends/Our Friends” experts and referring to a close-knit cluster of organizations with an agenda which specifically discourages “following the money” or non-collaborative free speech among the ranks.
Through participating on Twitter, or alerts from people I know from:
<>my own awareness of domestic violence organizations as tax-exempt entities who must (and sometimes even DO) file tax returns, secretary of state registrations and/or charitable registrations in some states and
<>personal awareness of group-email, forums or other ways protective mothers communicate without actually going into the business of advocacy.
<>awareness of who clusters around such mothers, or their now-adult children, typically, where these seemingly open conversations are more guided than they may seem. It’s a form of bonding but not always the best form of prioritizing approaches. I’ve been both exposed to it and had to later report it as a subtle form of coercion/driving an agenda and deterring constructive criticism for the sake of “unity.”
More informal blogs relating a personal, or a relative/friend’s family court disaster (with media uploads if covered in the news) often promoting other websites or advocates — and the array of choices on those blogs usually shows how the the blogger’s response to their own courtroom drama unfurled.
Informal blogs often relate specific case histories; some are named after a child and requesting (another) law be passed named after that child (unfortunately, still far too many!) patterns of points of reference will surface over time. Sometimes the blogger is also active on other media. Right now the only other platform I’m active on is Twitter; that is often where I may here of some new, unfamiliar blog or nonprofit.
When I encounter new ones, as happens, I am going to notice, even where I may not know that state’s family court culture or judges, or that person, who they are deferring to and giving free referrals to: certain movements were set in place decades ago and aren’t too hard to differentiate IF you have some sound basis (criteria) of comparison. It really doesn’t take me long to see.
See my next post if you don’t yet. It’s taken this long to decide how much to say, and to digest what I was reading (new information) as it relates to things already known.
My next post begins by addressing the ABA-CDSV brush-off above, noticing where that ABA Commission does direct its viewers (more “behavioral health” experts running IPV Cognitive Processing Therapy through Boston VA (Veterans Affairs) Healthcare. Basically, the American Bar Association deferring to the American Psychological Association, with all kinds of subsidiary societies developed (this strand, deciding Freud/psychoanalysis wasn’t the answer — but maybe Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, and other propagators of their “randomized clinical trials” practices — on animals, infants, and/or humans — is the answer to aggression, PTSD, and “stopping violence against women” I suppose, also…. Career curves (and Dr. Casey Taft, above, is still a young-ish man, just got his first Ph.D. in 2001, and has been throughout his career supported by government grants, at public universities, and for this “StrengthAtHome.org” curricula)..
Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)
Following through on these basic principles often helps me decide what to support (or not) regarding the family courts and what to seek to do (or not) about them, and — the most practical part, combined with my gut instinct — when to engage or dis-engage in some conversation on what to do about them.
Sometimes my “gut instinct” is just a minor, unanswered question or stone I’d left unturned and felt I should take a look what was under it in a given interaction. My decision-making isn’t all “brainiac” or some mechanical automaton response. It is a discipline I choose, which I’m conscious of. I have made it a practice to look certain places before I get too far (or too intense) into any on-line interactions. Curiosity also plays a major role. I stay curious because I still think “activist” on these matters. No plans to shut up or go away on them.
There are many — countless — interactions for anyone who stays active on-line with a view to changing the status quo and connecting with others who also want to. Maximizing good use of time, emotional and mental energy, and making (every day!) as many decisions as possible sound decisions helps. It helps with confidence and seems to increase stamina. Sometimes it is the one area where we have some choice and some say: what to do with our own minds, and (where there is any time available) where to invest our time and our thoughts.
We who’ve been through these courts hoping to exit abuse, to get to freedom, but who found the gates closed time and again — or open to us but “without your kids” — always have urgency. SOME clock is always ticking. I like to reach out to people crossing those bridges after me. I like to engage, but I do not like to waste my time.
Wasting our time by withholding information and substituting information of far less relevance,** as so many advocacy groups have become expert at doing (see below), only delays real change, real help and kicks the can down the road another generation — where it will be even more damaged. As time goes on, these (corrupt) systems absorb more and more people — creating those invested in protecting them — to fix things and to supervise the fixers, train the trainers, and disseminate the curricula.
**So many posts on this (see the phrase) are scattered across the last five years (minimum) of this blog, I’m not even going to list the last few here. The issue comes up repeatedly. I may dedicate a post, or address it in parts of another post on some different topic.
Reduce time waste by vetting organizations and getting information outside that shown on the websites and in select circles. My Twitter thread began showing a guide to reading a tax return! Reading tax returns is a basic skill transferable to any cause, and to life; it’s not psychobabble, and hypothesis: it’s a vocabulary and concepts to go with it. For the United States, IRS Tax Returns are mandatory unless some entity is exempt from filing (many are, such as churches, synagogues).
When required for tax-exempt organizations they are also required annually and if not filed three years in a row for tax-exempt organizations can be automatically revoked. So if the website is still up and soliciting, others are still endorsing and promoting a certain nonprofit — but the IRS shows (and call their 800# to verify after checking their lists) which has been revoked and not reinstated, or is so small it only files Forms 990-N (revenues under $50,000), you know that a discrepancy between a website and the reality exists.
How many tax returns have I posted on this blog, over the years?…. Some are continuing organizations active all over the fields I blog and we deal with nationally, every day — because families, households, lives, and laws are affected. Differentiating between large and small and many more qualities, matters.
Each one tells something about an organization and many tell about who else that entity is dealing with, or granting to, or that somethings not shown on the website, is seriously amiss on the filings. That should and does lead to more questions — and seeking the answers is a great way to learn.
[BLOG REVISIONs: Several paragraphs here when published March 7 have been moved to the bottom my next post, due for publication today, March 19, 2022. Now IT is about 8,000 words, instead of this one…]
My blog and my Tweeting emphasizes setting a basic groundwork (which this pinned Tweet points to) as a common ground, rather than being herded into competing cults, flocks or market niches by eager mentors and overseers.
In the long term, I’ve found that the sooner in any encounter (on-line) I do certain basic checks — even if it’s pretty evident from a website or an individual’s comments, where they’re coming from — the better and that the longer I wait to do them, generally, the more I regretted wasting my time, afterwards.
I know the top image of a “Guide to IRS Form 990” with its table of contents was hardly a sexy, engaging image, but I put it there to make a point, including what parts of our brain we should engage in this field. (link: https://t.co/uoDYOKiAVS) Of course I also hoped people would click and read if the form is unfamiliar, but I wasn’t holding my breath to see who would.
This Post Re-allocates my “Formerly-Pinned Tweet.” in both link and text forms.
The short thread is a good, basic reminder, but I just got tired of looking at it. I want it out of the way for now, but not to lose its statement entirely. I’ve delivered it in two forms: first, text only, and second, as-is (embedded link to the thread). I may include (if I can find them!) separate uploads of some of the images with the text version.
That thread still remains on Twitter — just not pinned to my account profile near the top. It’d be hard to find unpinned, so I’m posting it here and will (try to) add a reference link there.. I add as usual some comments above and below.
This thread is not a radical, earth-shaking set of information: it’s just really basic to what I’m doing on both platforms. It will radically alter^^ anyone’s viewpoints who begins to understand and apply this to the subject matter of “family courts’ domestic/family violence and reforming any of the above.
^^Except perhaps for a (very!) few women** over the years who have already done and written up (you can’t really “get” it without major attempts to write it up) some deep dives on these financials. Most do not continue it this long and with this level of detail, as free-access blogs, and pulling together as many types of information on it. (You know who you are!). To do this, we cannot be hanging continually with people just unwilling to put in the time, or without the emotional strength to stand apart from a perceived crowd going in a different (strategy for reforming those courts) direction.
(**Men of this character and track record may exist outside my social or on-line circles, but I’ve yet to meet a man willing to explore both the fatherhood and the domestic violence grants series; men don’t seem to come with that willingness or neutrality. I should qualify: men or fathers with their own cases (custody, divorce, child support, domestic violence accusations, or being subject to it themselves, i.e., battered men. I have been in touch over the years with several trailing around this movement (journalists, lawyers, and at least one embattled father. Some have since died (old age or illness). None wanted to or that I can see took on how the federal grants USA connect to the nonprofits, or the organization “AFCC” in its economic niche (as networked with grantees).
Beyond this I also blog the university centers to promote worldviews A, B, or C in gender, child abuse, fatherhood, domestic violence (etc.) matters. … early child hood education, you name it. I’ve also looked into who owns the media.
Time was then and still is marching on — I’m getting older!
The years of marital violence, the process of getting legal intervention (pro bono), restraining order, family court (fiascoes), trying to prevent “parental” (father’s) kidnapping — failing to do so for lack of comprehending how these things worked — dealing with the aftermath of all that (destruction of work life and social supports) were bad enough, but the self-proclaimed advocacy groups, “thought-leaders” and protective parents (labeling) “coalitions” around “fixing the family courts” to this day still collude to withhold from the public, and especially their own followers and supporters (whose stories are needed to justify and “legitimize” the campaigns) key elements of WHY this was happening: such as, the federal financial incentives spread from top-down to local grantees, and the private judicial organizations managing “coordinated community responses” to domestic violence, the nature of these specialty courts in the first place).
This is not just a passive withholding “(we just didn’t get around to it, sorry, folks.”) but also active where silencing and “excommunicating” anyone whose “story line” differs (and differs typically from our having understood the impact of federally-paid bribes, the infrastructures that enable loopholes in cashflow accountability, and such things).. They will not link, retweet, talk about, refer, or even argue (as if talking to equals, which we are, as human beings and, in this case, United States citizens) against the contrary point of view.
I have come to understand that my, and other dissident mother “family court gauntlet” and “domestic violence” survivors, whose children were directly or indirectly harmed from having to witness this, and the courts’ “take-down” of their decent, law-biding parent in favor of one who clearly doesn’t respect the law, point of view, while innocent, and legitimate (i.e., we live here, demand financial accountability for federal funds, seek to protect basic government jurisdiction, opposed centralized control of all policies by specific classes and castes of individuals — often already taking government grants directly or indirectly (i.e., through tax-exempt entities, or even within public or private (operating, guess what, also tax-exempt) universities or colleges — must be a real Achilles heel to what I deduce is not a legitimate agenda. ##
If there is another explanation for this “exclusionary” behavior, arrogant and self-important to the max (posing as humble and concerned), often by women, I’d like to read about it.
Do YOU have one? Can YOU dismantle any of the argumentation I’ve posted on this blog across a dozen years, or tell me that what I’ve reported either (1) doesn’t and didn’t exist, or (2) “Maybe” existed, but just didn’t matter?
If this argument can’t be dismantled through logic or proving it to be either false OR irrelevant (or best, both), then why not deal with it other than in cult-like behavior: pretense (in public) it doesn’t exist and hope it won’t dismantle one’s followers and supporters?
So I’ll describe two approaches (again) and why though I could headline with the first, I’ll reference the first, but lead with the second — and believe that if enough others also considered that option, we might have a justice system instead of being led by coalitions of hypocrites constantly feeding only phrases (‘fixing the family courts, safe parents IN the family courts, protecting kids IN the “custody courts” and more trainings for all involved… and more and more behavioral interventions for “bad” parents. “Pass more laws to order more trainings — we’ll do the trainings…” and so forth..
~ ~ ~
## In our case/my experience, post-DV protection order, which was first quickly diluted and then became unrenewable. I needed that renewal to continue supporting my household, with children… After restraining order was expired, and attempts to renew it (twice) failed, I had to deal with the situation as it was — weekly interactions, mid-week interruptions, and at any time, harassment and interference, stalking (and combined with as much “controlling” behavior — ALMOST — as when we lived together — word quickly spread to my clients and rebuilt social support networks (mostly through those clients: I was working in my profession as a classically trained pianist/accompanist/ vocal coach, choir director & private teacher. In other words, not a nine to five job… more flexible for parenting, but it involved working parts of weekends) that I was under attack and on any given weekend might (and likely would) be either recently traumatized, having to go to court and prepare for it, or having just had to call the police for safety, or up to a certain date) get my children back from a court-ordered visitation with their unrepentant about it batterer/abusive father, etc.
After a certain year, through the triumph of child-stealing over law enforcement willingness to stop it (as it was occurring..), it was established to all involved (him, me, officers, judges, and friends, clients at the time, and bystanders, and my own family line, who had (it turned out later) a close financial interest in that custody-switch and dscrediting me as a person, and of course a mother AND TO OUR CHILDREN), that in no way would those counties (whether district attorney, family courts, or law officers — or the variety of nonprofits) do anything to prevent or undo (correct):
stalking, harassment, or for the children’s sake, to help my “ex,” just one man, their father, gain (“regain” didn’t apply for how little existed to start with) some respect for the law and for existing court orders, after all he’d just gotten away with or, apparently, enough self-respedt to get serious about finding regular employment. At the time I innocently believed that the child support agency would do its job and that like me, IT too understood the benefit to society (and our kids, and my safety) of having a father working steadily, rather than being free to hauntme while and where I was, in fact working, month in, month out (etc).
All that is long past. It’s a common experience (too common), but understanding from the economic perspective how that very commonality is then used to avoid solving the most basic problems to me was radically life-altering. : low-hanging fruit for involved professionals (courtesy the US Federal government Welfare Reform, etc., and other sources for “violence prevention” (sic), and that I could, as a single human being, investigate the powerful forces at work by just looking up entities and following their financials.
SOME more of course was involved (see this blog for examples!), but for me that was a key turning point from “telling my story” to empathetic ears, to doing my own research and reporting that instead. Unfortunately over many years, I also had to report others supposedly on protective parents (mothers’) and our children’s sides, and acting in their best interests (I’m not talking here, the courts, but a few nonprofits, related professionals who’ve become adept at getting quoted in press soon after any headline — in fact, these not only report, but literally track down, contact, and recruit traumatized mothers to join the cause, offering (basically, false) hope to fix the system.
I am still reporting on the same; my basis for reporting isn’t so much on the morality of these groups, but how following the connections between nonprofits (and of course looking up their financials) puts a clearer light on the “shine-the-light” act. To do ths requires a personal change of priorities. This hasn’t been fun but it has been empowering and has been a powerful antidote to ignorance dressed up as intelligence. (Truth is like that).
So this formerly “pinned” Twitter thread by making an overt, clear reference to an IRS Form 990 (2020 guide to its parts) and (my thread, not the guide) talking about tricks used to deflect and avoid showing where those “independently audited financial statements” may be on a given organization website is still radical. It’s not the whole story, but it’s a pretty good signpost!
Truth Fuels Flight, Lies Ensnare. Don’t Hang With, Serve (or Donate to) Tricksters or Their Targets. It’s a New Year — but there is STILL no excuse for abuse.
Twitter Housekeeping (Working on my Account Profile):
If I had better technical skills (or time to acquire them between investigative blogging — that is investigating, and blogging — and recently getting too absorbed on Twitter, responding to current events (in the Family Court Reform fields of course), I by now might have also filled in the blanks on my home page with an image (that image would contain key words). I think about it daily, though; it’s a matter of lining up what’s required and then choosing my favorite no doubt sarcastic phrases to jerk the consciences awake. Mathematically, I don’t expect that would make enough difference to turn the tide of sponsored inane sales pitches on policy reforms, but it’ll make me happy and maybe help a few souls, ideally younger ones, figure just a few more things out. It would also for me just represent a slightly improved output. Right now you can see that home Twitter page is incomplete without a background image or photo.
On both this blog (well, my WordPress blogs) and Twitter:
The New Year’s BlueJay Gravatar, much as I like the photo on its own and as a personal symbol, needs to go one of these days also… I love its connotations, but something a little stronger for these times, I think… I’d say Wolverine, but that’s a state animal. Maybe a short motto in some badge could be condensed to that little circle.
NEXT: Just the text, slightly expanded:
I expanded some abbreviations made to meet Tweet character limits. I only expanded “FS,” once: it stands for means “financial statements,” and for this blog I mean AUDITED financial statements, whether talking about governments or businesses. Such statements should show balances from the start of the filing entity, should also tell (in Note 1 to any such statements) what the filing entities, plural, are, if they read “consolidated” and more.
A link to the actual Twitter thread (with attached media, some of which are my annotated images) is further below. Horizontal lines separate one Tweet from the next in this text-only version:
~~>>irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i9 Parts (I through XII) & Schedules IRS #Forms990 elements, filing standards, glossary for tax-exempts who must file. Some file #Forms990_PF some do not
ehave to file, some do not or barely, belatedly, comply. My Tweets and [blog] posts often feature charity or private foundation [990PF] filings.
One pattern I’ve noticed repeatedly is that some of the seemingly most-transparent organizations, who do in fact post audited financial statements (the private entity version of gov’t #CAFRs, wh/ we should also become familiar with as citizens), can still: =
/bury them in odd places on a website, like NOT under a menu or link “Financials.”
/post just one year’s worth/mislabel the fiscal year (FYE =/= FY). (Fiscal Year ENDING for Fiscal Year)
/ensure that the Audited F[inancial] S[tatement] links aren’t near the Form 990 links (so easy to put parallel)
/post both AuditedFS & #Forms990, but FS (Note1 should always define) &/or Form990 Schedule R,Part II (“related tax-exempt entities) reveals not all 990s posted.
Verbal clues “Consolidated FS for __” | “__& Affiliates.”
On closer look too much so-called philanthropy =Smoke&Mirrors [this Tweet has images]
Never let elegant,entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags (ex: #keepChildrenSafe) SalesPitches distract from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity & cashflow terms. Those so passionate for system transformation, equity, & latest UN SDGs don’t**
I picked some examples of recent interest, but the same could be said equally of the “faith-based-organization” “familyValues” contingent who believe we should ALL fund specific religious values (new-age or otherwise), AND the war [between] both, via income tax & fees-for-services USA.
[UN SDGs = UN Sustainable Development Goals. The Twitter thread has an image making clear that reference: There are 17. “Justice” is next to last…
** (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?”
All of those entertaining, elegant, things — with Sales Pitches — (I should’ve added “engaging” (interactive websites respond to clicks for more information, or another image in a slideshow — or the images load automatically) combined with sales pitches — are there to distract viewers and readers while the system transformers are busy doing other things, like making more professional connections, running trainings, publishing results, and applying for more government contracts and/or grants (etc.).
These things seem, the overall message seems, aimed at consumers and voters, to reassure us (all) something is being done:
“help is on the way” or, case in point for this subject matter, “Reform — your saviors — are on the way / The Calvary is coming/wait for your Knights In Shining Armor to punch a few holes in the “Bad guys/bad theories/ignorant- untrained judges” (The Heroes: multi-disciplinary professionals with expertise in the family courts, child abuse, domestic violence, and handling abusive men (etc.).
(continued below on Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!”
Because I have more to say on it…
~ ~ ~Meanwhile, keep going about your business, reproducing, and producing those tax receipts (main source of government revenues) but don’t ask too many questions about how to find out where they are going, or where you might find out such things…
(I know, I know — that sarcasm keeps coming out. I still say it’s appropriate to the circumstances!)
[SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS, including re: WINGSforJustice.com and its Lundy Bancroft connections, just removed. It’s what was on my mind above, but needs to be its own post. There is no lack of background information on this situation; after leaving it up about two weeks here, I decided to take it off and present it more systematically next time…//LGH March 19, 2022]
Here’s my (soon-to-be) formerly pinned post. Click to see the thread, text content below the images. Several images also have media attachments which are part of the message here. This thread was probably composed to be pinned (not written and then chosen to pin), as you can see, in June, 2021 — not that long ago (as of today)…
Besides locating (AND actually reading: practice helps) Forms990 or 990PF for entities who must file these, orgs wh/ must ALSO complete ->audited financial statemts<- annually should be sought & read.
I DNK audited FS exemptn standards,but we shld demand these from change-agents pic.twitter.com/LOWkrYBlJF
— SheLooksItUp: AbsolutelyUncommonAnalysis DV FamCts (@LetUsGetHonest) June 25, 2021
One of the “2 replies” is me — and it’s got four posts with media attached. Just a short statement of exhortation and observation.
“Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!” (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?….
And their long-suffering, traumatized but consistently telling their stories “protective mothers” “protective parents” and “aged-out” (turned adult) “courageous kids” (<~~that part definitely applies!):
Thanks for your being our Message’s passionate underscore — for your supporting role as Survivors Exhibits (at conferences, live or virtual, nationwide (we, the USA collaborating experts, will handle reporting to other countries), without asking too many question, or developing relations with any of those not-so-forthcoming, not so malleable dissident Moms who disagree with our (collectivist) strategy
of charging windmills, attacking paper tigers [1], dramatically (while you’re watching) boxing the air (<~atheist alert: that’s a Bible quote, 1 Corinthians 9:6-7, and the apostle Paul saying that’s what he did NOT do, run “uncertainly” or fight as one boxing air), with volumes of media and academic journal articles and perpetual references to them …
15 Logical Fallacies to Know from “BestSchools.org” for my March 7, 2022 post (short-link ends -dNX) (removing Pinned Tweet to a post)
[1] I’ve probably used the term “paper tigers” wrongly there. I meant concealing the real operators involved. For reference, here’s a website listing 15 common logical fallacies. Typing from recall, in this context I see I meant the “Strawman argument.” A paper tiger is weaker than it seems. A strawman is just plain off-target: if you win, “so what?” See nearby image listing them.
Context: Coaching and supporting (women) who charge after “parental alienation theory” and support professionals who love to debate that, while ignoring the infrastructure, are being USED to fuel this Strawman debate.##
Such people are not throwing their OWN kids under their bus, or own careers, or own access to federal grants (USA, Canada, UK) to study this topic (ad nauseam) and crow about each new acknowledgement of being “heard” on it for their tireless (publications…)… (as if no pay were involved in the same)…
On further review of “15 Logical Fallacies to Know” — most fallacies seem common use, among the toolboxes of FamilyCourtReformists. It’s frustrating to see how (apparently) successful they are their handling of many logical fallacies in quick succession in almost any format.
## I say Strawman “debate” not “argument” because the arguments I keep reading aren’t even logical. They rely on excessive, inbred citations and piling up media references, mixed liberally with words such as “evidence-based” “empirical” “forensic” or even “clinical” where possible to slip that one in (for behavioral health or psychological fields), but take it apart, as stated, and look for a real argument — and you’ll find, mostly, assumptions. UNproved ones, UNsubstantiated ones, and behind that more of the same, but over time, stated a little less academically.. and people around the internet (mothers, especially) can be found perpetuating — literally, quoting — the earlier versions. ICYMI, I’m referencing especially “58,000 children a year” stated with intense and indignant conviction, passion or even sometimes tears — but determination.
I’ll take the rest of THAT paragraph a footnote to this footnote: “## Footnote “Debate, not Argument” (58,000 Children A Year” — STILL!) immediately below this one.
The idea isn’t to actual proving any sound, and logical argument (the idea isn’t actual argument, but to be seen AS if arguing). The idea is to pushthrough legislation to expand and perpetuate the cycle of trainings — but allow certain individuals to get their hands on more of the resources (and continue building their own reputations) of doing good works by having achieved / accessed to this. Without ever proving that lack of training or “what judges (etc.) believe” is even the problem.
And to do it with apparent “consent of the people” through ongoing logical fallacies amplified and multiplied over time. I’ve seen it in action for years. The best I can do is point it out, in action, and point to tools I have used to cut through the layers of propaganda and (hopefully) deflate some of the hot air involved.
The aligned professionals — basically across two major fields: law (includes most jduges and justices’ backgrounds) — and the mental/behavioral health fields whose labels begin with “psych-” (about three come to mind immediately) + I should add, the “social science” fields must be laughing, booking hotels and writing off their deductible-expenses ways to becoming the next principal-investigators on (or subcontractors for) the next NIJ or DOJ/OVW or VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) federal grantsto expound upon their or their aligned colleagues (pick a side of parental alienation: Pro? or Con?)own (leaky, fault-ridden) foundations of impressive verbiage and impressive people who quote (or, debate — which also lends credibility to status) it… such a lifestyle it is…
My problem is, I’m just not impressed. Sound arguments, honesty (ethics) and argument does impress me, as well as people who expect women to respond to that — not just warm shoulders and an empathetic ear, while being given dumbed-down versions of the truth appropriate for somewhere below adolescent level (but vocabulary sounding as though it were more mature)…
With the heavy loads we’ve been lifting all these years
and being hauled through different courts and institutions just for saying NO to abuse
we deserve better. We should demand that “better” of ANYone, any website or any individual, that wants our stories
And we should demand it of each other too. No short-cuts getting to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
It’s OK to be wrong, and to have been found believing what’s simply not true, or supportable.
But it’s not OK to stay hang out there and fail to confront the lies and liars, having been found in that condition.
We who’ve been through severe abuse personally, involving our own bodies and/or our children’s ought to “stick together” but we do not owe ANYONE to stick with those who’ve left truth by the wayside, who respect “experts” more than their own common sense and innate intelligence which kept them alive (apparently) so far. I don’t hang with that (except to point it out — then GET out — any more than I now attend any traditional church being desperate for fellowship and what may look like companionship and social support. … Not that I was raised in the church, but my marriage involved a Christian (so-called) man who was “OK” with assault and battery (and what is now called “coercive control” but is really just classic domestic violence in all its manifestations). So no, I do NOT have to “collaborate” with that.
That’s one of the strategic “lies” perpetuated from the start of a decision to form a “Mother’s Movement,” which has been documented in writing in several places, and I will get to (soon) as a deliberate distraction from the money trail and providing traumatized mothers (or those who want to help them) with basic tools to evaluate and follow a money trail, in this country (USA) or any other.
But I’m referring especially to the USA. //LGH
~ ~ ~
I’ve added several tags not directly discussed above, but which (if clicked on) lead to posts which discuss principles it refers to. (all except the first few have some version of the “family” or the letters “Fam” in them.
~ ~ ~ To go back to the top, click on this Title:
@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”).
~ ~ ~ To go to my next post (assuming I have now published it):*
Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)
*(Some tags here may now apply more to there)..
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC (Publ. Dec. 1, 2009, format Fixes May 7, 2023).
POST TITLE::
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC (Publ. Dec. 1, 2009, format Fixes May 7, 2023). About 3,000 words.
(Case-sensitive short-link ends “-lD”. First character is lower case “l,” not capital “I” or number “1”.=)
The purpose of my post is to expose how a certain organization, called “AFCC,” which has openly stated it seeks transformative language (from “old” definitions of criminal to newer ones with a sociological flavor) is — as we speak — attempting to co-opt a phrase addressing the danger (to citizens of the state of California) a spousal batterer presents, for its own use.
The law — and we have an elected legislature, right? — is already clear on this. I’d have to affirm, the shoe fits this definition:
[[The LexisNexis Link had expired; I replaced it 2023 with one from eScholarship, which at least give proper citation format, and a few pages of intro. See also (from that link) a nearby 1991 by the same author.
ACTUALLY, I found a link to ones by author Shiela Koehler, not “Donna Wills” (from basic search on the title, including the year and issue number). So link replacement isn’t exactly on target.]]
From 1997, Women’s Law Journal:
Copyright (c) 1997 Regents of the University of California
UCLA Women’s Law Journal
FORUM: MANDATORY PROSECUTION IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: THE CASE FOR AGGRESSIVE PROSECUTION
Spring / Summer, 1997 // 7 UCLA Women’s L.J. 173
Author: Donna Wills *
I. Introduction
Prosecutors throughout the country, and especially in the State of California, have begun taking a more aggressive stance towards domestic violence prosecutions by instituting a “no drop” or “no dismissal” policy. 1 Based on my experience as a veteran prosecutor who specializes in these cases, I firmly believe that this policy is the enlightened approach to domestic violence prosecutions. Fundamentally, a “no drop” policy takes the decision of whether or not to prosecute the batterer off the victim’s shoulders and puts it where it belongs: in the discretion of the prosecutors whose job it is to enforce society’s criminal laws and hold offenders accountable for their crimes. The prosecutor’s client is the State, not the victim. 2 Accordingly, prosecutorial agencies that have opted for aggressive prosecution have concluded that their client’s interest in protecting the safety and well-being of all of its citizens overrides the individual victim’s desire to dictate whether and when criminal charges are filed.
Aggressive prosecution is the appropriate response to domestic violence cases for several reasons. First, domestic violence affects more than just the individual victim; it is a public safety issue that affects all of society. Second, prosecutors cannot rely upon domestic violence victims to appropriately vindicate the State’s interests in holding batterers responsible for the crimes they commit because victims often decline to press charges. Third, prosecutors must intervene to protect victims and their children and to prevent batterers from further intimidating their victims and manipulating the justice system.
Timeframe: 1994 — VAWA (and National Fatherhood Initiative) started, and 1998-1999, Congress getting ready to pass more fatherhood resolutions, nationally. This is, again 1997.
Here (already blogged by me) is a section from the Giles Amicus (I believe), describing SOME of the clear dangers domestic violence poses to its targets. Judge for yourself if some of these effects represent danger or not:
[[2023 note: This section is quoting later versions of state law (2004, 2005, therefore is probably from that Giles Amicus. Unfortunately I didn’t fully documented (either a link, now broken, or adequately as to place, date, year and where I found it) this time. Over the years, I got better at citations. So this next would NOT be a quote from the above 1997 UCLA Law Journal. Impossible to reconstruct such old posts 100%, I guess.. An Amicus would be in support of another case; it was apparently well-known at the time, but at the moment I cannot recall even its topic…. That doesn’t change the main point of this post, which was showing that AFCC has different definitions of “Clear and Present Danger” than does the law. Or even what looks (below on this post) an Encyclopedia…//LGH]]
Furthermore, the California Legislature has defined domestic violence to include violent and various non-violent acts, supporting the proposition that victims may reasonably fear many forms of reprisal. Specifically, the California Evidence Code states that domestic violence is “physical or sexual abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment that results in physical harm, pain, or mental suffering, the deprivation of care by a caregiver, or other deprivation by a custodian or provider of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.” See Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005)” \c 2 (following the meaning of domestic violence set forth in TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)“ \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)” \c 2 Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005) TA \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)” ). Additionally, the California Family Code defines abuse as causing bodily injury, sexually abusing a person, or placing a person in “reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm to that person or to another” and, further, it provides that a victim may obtain a restraining order to protect against the batterer’s non-violent reprisals, such as “stalking, threatening,…harassing, telephoning,…[or] destroying personal property.” Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6203, 6320 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Fam. Code § 6203 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6203, 6320 (West 2005)” \c 2.
[[2023 interjection: Notice that while describing the PENAL Code Section 13700, it also admits to there being a California Family Code (two completely different sections of the California Code) are entitled, above.]]
Most commonly, a victim reasonably anticipates a physical assault, including sexual assault or even death, if the victim attempts to end a battering relationship and assist in the batterer’s prosecution. In fact, victims are at the highest risk of severe abuse or death when they challenge the batterer’s control in their attempts to leave. Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 837 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” ; see also Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature of Private Violence 59, 79 (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994) TA \l “Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature of Private Violence (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994)” \s “Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature Of Private Violence 59, 79 (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994)” \c 3 (describing the phenomenon of “separation assault” in domestic violence relationships and finding that the majority of domestic violence homicides occur upon separation).
Victims may also reasonably fear serious, non-violent reprisals. For example, a victim may fear that the batterer will abduct or injure the couple’s children. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2800-2802 (2005) TA \l “See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 125 S. Ct. 2796 (2005)” \s “See TownCity of Castle Rock v. Gonzalesz, 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2800-2802 (2005)” \c 1 (describing incident in which batterer violated his wife’s restraining order against him, abducted his three children, and murdered them.); see also Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 13, 13-21 (1999) TA \l “Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 13 (1999)” \s “Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv.enile &and Family Ct. Journal 13, 13-21 (1999)” \c 3 (citing research that establishes a definitive link between parental child abduction and domestic violence). In fact, twenty-five percent of batterers directly threaten to kidnap the couple’s children if the victim pursues legal action. Buzawa & Buzawa, supra, at 183.
Additionally, because many victims depend upon the batterer for financial support, they may reasonably fear financial ruin or homelessness if they assist the prosecution. A batterer’s control of the victim’s access to money and employment is common in domestic violence situations. Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107, 109 (1990) TA \l “Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107 (1990)” \s “Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107, 109 (1990)” \c 3 . A victim may reasonably fear that, without the batterer’s financial support, she and her children are at risk of becoming homeless. U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (2004) TA \l “U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (2004)“ \s “U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (, December 2004)” \c 3 (citing domestic violence as the primary cause of homelessness in forty-four percent of the cities surveyed).
What do you say? Well, here’s the law (as quoted on my blog earlier)– you can google it yourself:
CAL. PEN. CODE § 273.8 : California Code – Section 273.8
The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California. The Legislature further finds that the concept of vertical prosecution, in which a specially trained deputy district attorney, deputy city attorney, or prosecution unit is assigned to a case after arraignment and continuing to its completion, is a proven way of demonstrably increasing the likelihood of convicting spousal abusers and ensuring appropriate sentences for those offenders. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature intends to support increased efforts by district attorneys’ and city attorneys’ offices to prosecute spousal abusers through organizational and operational techniques that have already proven their effectiveness in selected cities and counties in this and other states.
[Emphases changed, 2023. Notice this is in the California PENAL Code, not civil and not family codes…
(Blogger Opinion based on experience and deduced definition over time (It was my opinion in 2009, this qualifier only added 2023. I believe it’s understood in my (somewhat sarcastic tone) at the time that this was my opinion):
In order to understand family law venue, you MUST understand that part of its primary purpose is that these offenders NOT be convicted or prosecuted. One great way to shut up a parent or a child from reporting is to simply switch custody (or force repeated contact with) an abuser. In war, this is understood as a form of coercion and torture. Yet in our Golden State here, it’s business as usual. How can this be?
“It’s not abuse, or domestic violence, it’s a “high-conflict” relationship. let us “explicate” — at your expense…” (Give me a break…)
How can you explain away a law passed by a legislature?
Easy — a language shift. Co-opt the phrase and apply it to something different, and train — first, your cronies — to adopt the new usage. When said Cronies are practically RUNNING the courts, it’s kind of hard to override them. . . . . But here you are (and I’m almost out of time here. Figure out the rest yourself….).
——————-
AFCC’s explication of “Clear and Present Danger” is running out of money for them. I can certainly understand why these professionals are much more concerned about the COURTS running out of money than the parents litigating in the courts, or — as the US Governors have already stated, domestic violence being a significant cause of homelessness, evidently it includes economic abuse somewhere in there. . . . .
As you may infer, I’m upset about this. With good cause, too. I have uncollectable child support, and the guy STILL isn’t out of my life, although thanks to this system, my own kids are….Like many women, I lost a livelihood fighting this uphill battle, until someone spoke some common sense to me. Well, we are still not done exposing the money trail here. Anyhow, til later . . . .
According to AFCC, the “clear and present danger” is any cessation of the everflowing (cesspool?) of federal funds to the family courts to bastardize the legal process. That’s MY version of it, of course. It kind of does remind one of a toilet that won’t stop running, however….. The water being, public, tax-funded funds with inadequate oversight….
As I showed in a previous post, the brochure even says so:
<!—more—>
Here is the advertisement for this Feb 2010 conference:
California Annual Conference
The Crisis of Under-Funding Family
Court Resources: A Clear and Present
Danger to Our Children
Sheraton Delfina Hotel
Santa Monica, California
February 12-14, 2010
For more information
Here is the graphic, once you click on “for more information.”
Note: co-sponsored by the L.A. County Superior Court. Huh??
Finally, below here, I simply googled the phrase, and pasted a reference and discussion on this phrase. No, I have not thoroughly explored it, but at least this is a discussion of the history of the phrase.
You’d think the assortment of legal professionals in AFCC (there are judges and attorneys) might be interested in more precise language — but they are also hanging out with sociologists, psychologists, and whatnot, and surely the waters are somewhat muddier than they are in the clear law, and the cold hard facts showing up in the newspapers, weekly, daily, and year after year. . . .
Below this, I pasted a “lethality assessment” (Barbara J. Hart, Esq. Google it, it’s well-known. Why can’t we bring this stuff up in a family law case? )
Clear and Present Danger Test (Encyclopedia.com)
[2023 note. This is a very long quote and paragraphing it seems was removed. I quickly added some back in, probably not in the same places. I’m also formatting it for quote, although that’ll make the vertical much longer…//LGH 5-7-2023]
The words “clear and present danger,” first used as a casual phrase by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, became an important test for determining whether speech is protected by the First Amendment. Holmes introduced this phrase in Schenck v. United States, a 1919 opinion for a unanimous Court upholding against First Amendment challenges the convictions of socialists who had distributed antiwar circulars to men accepted for military service in World War I.
In explaining why the defendants could constitutionally be punished for violating the prohibition in the 1917 Espionage Act against obstruction of recruitment, Holmes wrote, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent” (p. 52). Relying on the prevailing bad tendency test he himself had applied in previous cases involving speech, Holmes reasoned that in the circumstances of war these circulars had a tendency to obstruct recruitment.
In Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States, two companion unanimous decisions that also invoked the bad tendency of antiwar speech in affirming convictions under the Espionage Act, Holmes did not mention clear and present danger. Even though Holmes used the phrase “clear and present danger” only in Schenck and relied on the bad tendency test in all three opinions, Zechariah Chafee, Jr., then a young professor at Harvard Law School, soon wrote a law review article claiming that Holmes intended the clear and present danger test to make “the punishment of words for their bad tendency impossible.”
As Justices Holmes and Louis Brandeis rapidly became more sensitive to the value of free speech during the “Red Scare” following the war, they found it useful to rely on Chafee’s misconstruction of clear and present danger in Schenck to express their developing views without repudiating their prior decisions. From the dissent by Holmes in Abrams v. United States (1919) through the concurrence by Brandeis in Whitney v. California (1927), Holmes and Brandeis elaborated the meaning of clear and present danger in ways that transformed it into a First Amendment test providing substantial protection for dissident speech. Most significantly, they infused an immediacy requirement into the clear and present danger test that precluded punishment of speech unless it imminently threatened an illegal act. Brandeis’s concurrence in Whitney, moreover, belatedly responded to the majority’s assertion in Gitlow v. New York (1925) that both the bad tendency test and the clear and present danger variant apply only “in those cases where the statute merely prohibits certain acts involving the danger of substantive evil, without any reference to language itself” (p. 670).
A statute that itself defines speech as criminal, Brandeis insisted in Whitney, is also subject to judicial review under the clear and present danger test. The Supreme Court majority continued throughout the 1920s to apply the traditional bad tendency test and did not refer to clear and present danger when it first overturned convictions on First Amendment grounds in the early 1930s. From the late 1930s to the early 1950s, many majority decisions did rely on the clear and present danger test previously developed by Holmes and Brandeis to protect speech in a wide variety of contexts, and the Court never referred to clear and present danger in decisions that denied First Amendment claims.
Yet at the height of Cold War fear about a communist conspiracy, the Court in Dennis v. United States (1951) removed the immediacy requirement and accepted Judge Learned Hand’s reformulation of the clear and present danger test: “whether the gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger” (p. 510). Applying this new standard, the Court upheld the convictions of eleven Communist party leaders for conspiring to advocate the violent overthrow of government (see Communism and Cold War).
Since the Dennis decision, the Supreme Court has largely ignored but has not entirely abandoned the clear and present danger test while developing different doctrines to analyze a proliferating range of First Amendment issues. The clear and present danger test may have resurfaced in the Court’s 1969 per curiam opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader under a state statute prohibiting the advocacy of criminal syndicalism.
In an abrupt holding accompanied by scant and unconvincing analysis of prior decisions, the Court declared that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (p. 447). Several scholars have interpreted this passage, although it does not contain the phrase “clear and present danger,” as combining the immediacy requirement derived from the Holmes‐Brandeis opinions with a further requirement that speech constitute an incitement to illegal action.
The Court has not subsequently elaborated its analysis in Brandenberg and has applied it only infrequently, leaving its meaning uncertain, particularly in contexts other than subversive advocacy. See also Speech and the Press. Bibliography David M. Rabban , The Emergence of Modern First Amendment Doctrine. University of Chicago Law Review 50 (Fall 1983): 1205–1355. David M. Rabban
(I believe this is also part of the same quote, but am not sure.//LGH 5-7-2023).
[[I realize the link to AFCC usage (2010 conference) is broken, which is the point for my post, but fortunately nearby posts (i.e., also from Dec. 2009) have posted much of the brochure’s contents (listed at the time as “Upcoming 2010” with their Speaker bios. Use Calendar Widget to browse Dec. 2009 posts by date.]]
LETHALITY ASSESSMENT SHOWS THESE CLEAR AND PRESENT INDICATORS OF DANGER:
Predictors of Lethality Include:
- Threats of suicide or homicide including killing himself, the victim, children or relatives.
- Fantasies of homicide or suicide in the guise of fantasizing “who, how, when and/or where to kill.”
- Weapons owned by the perpetrator who has threatened to used them or has used them in the past (the use of guns is a strong predictor of homicide).
- Feelings of “ownership” of the victim.
- “Centrality” to the victim (idolizing and extreme dependence).
- Separation from the victim (this is an extremely dangerous time when perpetrators make the decision to kill).
- Dangerous behavior increases in degree with little regard for legal or social consequences.
- Hostage-taking
- Depression
- Repeated calls to the police.
Lethality assessments are more an art than a science and cannot be considered precise by any means. They are not a tool for certain prediction, but rather one for risk assessment and safety planning or intervention. Social service providers should error on the side of caution and inform their clients that any abuser can potentially be lethal.
Blogger note. I might put (a little) more time into reformatting this and nearby posts, but after several tries, with detailed html code revisions, I find they are not being saved when I hit “Save” so, for now putting extra time into that project is “counter-indicated” until I find out why, or use a different input device (my full-size laptop is down for a month or so recently).
POST TITLE (To go back to the top of this post, click on it);
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC (Publ. Dec. 1, 2009, format Fixes May 7, 2023). About 3,000 words. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-lD”. First character is lower case “l,” not capital “I” or number “1”.=)
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America
leave a comment »
Bifurcating Parenthood (Georgetown), 2-Pronged Fatherhood (Progressive Policythink), Ridiculous Rulings (in Kansas) and Who Rules America (UC sociologist)
Today’s post (extended and updated from yesterdays, which I published in short form) has 4 (FOUR) parts:
1,
2,
3,
4.
As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle. So we have:
1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)
2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)
3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)
4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).
As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.
4 was simply me mentioning the theme of “income v. wealth” that I know by now is critical in the social engine called these courts. It’s basically workforce development, and US/Them paradigm. There are several links and quotes. I could’ve chosen any. But it will hold together, I trust. At the top, I’m going to post a QUOTE from a Professor Dumoff, a sociologist at UC Santa Cruz. It’s from his site “WHO RULES AMERICA?” which is a good question. More below, at the banner.
In my last year of research and reflection (including on my own experience) of who’s doing WHAT in the courts an WHY those dang nonprofits have been useless, basically, I had to get to foundations, who support the nonprofits doing nothing. Then I began to understand the forces that are driving America into materialistic chaos, to sustain a global economy based on permanent debt. I feel this ain’t too bad work, considering what have also been through in the “decade of the courts” in my adult life.
I suggest we read this site THROUGH.
I am burnt out on reporting on outrageous family law cases, also beseeching noncustodial parents I know to take a little more critical look at organizations — not just good/cop bad/cop individuals. I have . . . . . I also have repeatedly encouraged people to take a very illuminating glance at some of the IRS 990s on some of the “helkping” organizations who continue to pay CEOs over $100,000 year to report on the carnage or insults to personhood.
Losers in the family law situation who don’t end up physically and emotionally dysfunctional might definitely end up homeless may definitely end up homeless, male or female. Yet there’s a real reluctance among litigants to not just look at the role of the child support system (federal) as a planned move to socialism for most of us based on policies set by the foundations hiring the nonprofits selecting what will (and will not) get talked about in the arena. They may blog or acknowledge it briefly, then go back to collaborating with the closest nonprofit that makes a big noise.
Battered women who’ve gone into the family law court after leaving the relationship are in a UNIQUE position to understand and speak to the power structure from underneath, analytically and as to attitude.
Once I began looking at organizational structures (it helps to have a model of a virtual “gang” in one’s own family for reference) I never stopped looking. Here’s a diagram for the more visually organized:
This is how such an inane policy as “fatherhood” could actually go through Congress, and get enacted. It’s a form of psychological warfare, basically, to frame the conversation nationally, yet fail to inform have the litigants in court that the conversation is taking place.
ANYHOW, this represents my post for today, and welcome to it. Do your own homework!
Here’s from Part 4, to think about in 1, 2, and 3:
1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)
2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)
I decided to post two pieces (first — long / second – short) that talk openly about the social agenda in the family court/ family law arena. That SOCIAL AGENDA is what most offends me about the Family Law Process. Not its equally destructive consequences. What’s most offensive is how the process eradicates precious civil rights, that are encased in the documents foundational to our country. An elitist attitude and practice, that disdains these, needs to be dismantled. Instead, they have become increasingly blatant and oppressive (similar case, CA 2000/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).
(1) BIFURCATION
3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)
(2) COMPLETION
4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).
MOST people can find out the difference between wealth and income, or understand it (I believe) if someone engages in a discussion of it. The policymakers and the child support enforcement system are here to make sure that discussion never happens in any significant way. Here are a few links:
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 23, 2010 at 8:32 PM
Posted in History of Family Court
Tagged with Brave Young Adults, Claudine Dombrowski, Cognitive Dissonance in Family Law, custody, custody-switch, Dawn Axsom case, Due process, DV, Evan Bayh, family annihilation, family law, fatherhood, IACHR, Intimate partner violence, Judge Debenham, Motherhood, murder-suicides, obfuscation, Progressive Policy Institute, Promoting Fatherhood, retaliation for reporting, RightsforMothers, Scott MacKenzie, social commentary, StopFamilyViolence, supervised visitation to punish Moms, trauma, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..