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 ‘Family Law as legalized RICO operation

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].

leave a comment »

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp”  This is a SHORT post!)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal

I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next.  FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text.  I think it makes enough points for now.


Nov. 24, 2018 note:  See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.

 

NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES

This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms


Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept.  Do you really know what it represents?

This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda.   In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it.  Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.

We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it.  That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!

Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed).  At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”

Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names)  (like “alienators”) for those reporting it!  If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!

That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations.  Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be.  Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone  calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”)  ….

“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used.  People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level.  This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming.   It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.).    Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.

It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future.  Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets.  How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…).  But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.

I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting.  Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered.  Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”

IT’s NOT!  It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.”  This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person.  Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.”  Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too..  JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.  

The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change.  It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field.  Now, which one is better funded and by how much?  I’ve looked — have you?  [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]


(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):

The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity.  The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.

Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.

I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.

(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC?  When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors.  Why give it away indiscriminately?  Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..

The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field.  Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes.  Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.

At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.



WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.


Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents.  (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)

Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation  — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses.

I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image.

It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area.  Northern California was on fire.
Read the rest of this entry »

Operating Systems Analysis for Family Law System — see the RICO Act

with 2 comments

A recent post from a blogger friend of mine focuses — as we are taught to do– on the PSYCHOPATH/SOCIOPATH characters of litigants.

As with “Whacko in Wisconsin” post (subtitle  “No, I’m NOT talking about the litigants…) I propose that it’s less

“The Tactics and Ploys of Psychopath Aggressors in the Family Law System

as written by a reputable “Independent Advocate for Children and Families,” Dr. Charles Pragnell.

than.

The Tactics and Ploys of THE Psychopath Aggressors OF the Family Law System (including those who designed it!)

as proposed by me, an Independent “Devil’s Advocate” for my fellow-blogger, above, and practically anyone selling “solutions” for the crises (plural) in the courts which have any mental-health, jurisprudo-therapeutic-jargon-DSM-centric psycholinguistic talk

ANokYWHERE ON ANY PROPOSED ANALYSIS.

WHILE TRUE THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PLENTY OF PSYCHOPATHS AND SOCIOPATHS WHO LOVE TO DOMINATE OTHERS WITH IMMUNITY — AND ARE SMART ENOUGH TO SET UP AND RUN SYSTEMS TO LEGALIZE THIS ACTIVITY — I HAVE A DIFFERENT ANALSYSIS.

This paradigm is closer to the rock-bottom truth (and will offend almost anyone I’ve been dealing with in these matters in past years), and is not a jest.

  • The analogy of Family Law System as a Giant Squid, while it did ring true for me, and seem a valid paradigm, was obviously my joke, to relieve the pressure (by mocking the danged thing).
  • The Alice in Wonderland analogy (shared — or was it co-opted?) by others is also truthful — normal English words (for example, “Child Support Enforcement!”) take on new and strange applications.  So yeah, for those who know Lewis Carroll’s book (or, an imitation — a recent movie about it) — that might ring true.
  • RICO analogy is no joke.  It’s in earnest, and I think in its rock-bottom quality, that’s what the family law system IS.  One has to look at the interrelationship of parts — not just the ones at the front and public storefront segments of this system.

I do believe this one is closest to its heirarchical structure, extent, and purpose.

SO, today, below, I post link to an explanation of RICO by Mr. Grell — whose qualifications are stunning to explain this concept:  Georgetown University School of Law, magna cum laude, 1990, Assistant Attorney General ,Minnesota (2008-2010), plenty of court practices, he teaches or has taught it as at Univ. of MN, but most telling to me — he has been prosecuting and defending RICO cases quite a bit, and teaching on it as well.  Some say “those who can, do, but those who can’t -teach.”  It obviously doesn’t apply, here.   So check it out…

WHY STUDY RICO TERMINOLOGY?

— the terms are a primer of understanding the interrelationships between the court entitites, the involvement of the US Federal Government’s grants to states, and the BEHIND CLOSED DOORS DEALS made to dupe and extort parents (and taxpayers) in so many matters.

WHY AM I POSTING IT NOW?

Well, I have already begun reporting on these things, and once one begins to “squeal” the best thing is to probably keeping on reporting — and in public — for self-protection, if nothing else.  If people have questions about this “take” on the courts — I think the analysis holds, and without the emotion-based, cognitive-activity-curtailing rhetoric of PAS / anti-PAS (true or false, it’s the heartbeat of the courts, in the bottom line) or gender talk.

What gender, again, is money?

RICO — Check it out!

(if the shoe fits, wear it…)

COURT PRIMER 101:  RICO

“When it was passed in 1970, the RICO act was intended to eliminate the influence of the Mafia in the nation’s economy.”

RICOACT.com LLC JEff GRELL

In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress’ goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation’s economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.

Throughout the 1970’s, RICO’s intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.

In the 1980’s, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys’ fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980’s, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.

RICO’s broad application was the result of Congress’ inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.

The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.

My “Disclosure” — I have no business relationship or in fact, any relationship, with Mr. Grell and have never met or spoke with him.  I search the internet for things that make sense of the family law experience and which I believe will help others.  I just posted the intro text on this site’s home page and exhort — encourage –admonish — highly recommend– suggest — and (no, I do not beg) — that readres who are “baffled” by the courts issue, start to “get” that this is the best parallel of how it works around.

Mr. Grell appears to be an expert in this (check bio / CV) and teaches the concepts well, including glossary, and what the terms mean.

JUST FOR A LITTLE REMINDER:


In Pennsylvania’s Kids for Cash scheme, there were RICO elements, as I recall.

In a much older case from Chicago area, involving a woman (who was murdered, and her body driven into a canal, and the investigation covered up by multiple parties — who later got caught) — the Dianne Masters Case, at least three individuals were prosecuted under RICO.

I have blogged both these.

Attributes of such racketeering activity seem to include fraud, bribes, extortion, and money-laundering (front groups).  I am basically proposing that it seems this is the essence of some operations currently central to the court systems.  People talking about “reform the courts” and “train the judges” either are pretty gullible — or in on this, given the information that’s already out there.

THinking about it, if The Mafia was an extended family, who are the ‘FAMILY” members in FAMILY LAW and why are accusations of child-trafficking, sex abuse ignored, and why such a HUGE proliferation of profitable industries springing up around this system, when an existing set of laws says, anyone with a custody dispute comes under the court’s jurisdiction?

You need to know.  This was my first “hint” and more to come.

THINGS OF NATURE:  The closer you look, the more amazing power and beauty, and detail you see — it’s healing, awesome, and refreshing to look out, or be in.  Even when nature does a Earthquake/Tsunami an “Act of God” (so-called) destruction and population wipe-out.  People sit atop some powerful forces.  But inbetween earthquakes, it’s serene, exciting, sustaining, and in general, does something GOOD for the human psyche (as well as providing food).

THINGS of THIS NATURE:  The closer you look, the more disgusted, shocked, incredulous, and concerned (if not downright traumatized) one becomes, particularly if a close friend is involved, or in its grips.  It becomes hard to continue to find hope to persist — but a transfixed horror with the actual state of affairs.  It’s mesmerizing, soul-stopping, and then the after-response is often renewed righteous indignation and commitment to change it.

(That is, unless one is involved and sustained by the system, in which case the sentiment might be — what are those nutty parents complaining about ?  We are helping, rescuing, saving them from themselves!  We are child-rescuers…. Societal cleansers, “Therapeutic Jurists,” etc…)

[[yeah?  well the word Iatrogenic comes to mind also…  The cure is worse than the {alleged} sickness….]]

In short they are opposites.  The psyche’s response to the system, or examining it, is a huge clue as to what the source is.

So read up on RICO, and understand that the “psychology” is the rhetoric (and/or describing the EFFECTS) of the system.

NOTE:  One reason I post this now — after two weeks on and around the SFWEEKLY article (last post or so), I’m in a bit of shellshock (when not amused, or participating) at how tough a sell it is that the organization of the courts actually has an organization — beyond feuding viewpoints and people.  It’s as if most people simply cannot and will not move beyond their emotion (generally anger) and into reason/research other than research used to justify the anger, and then hurled into the “ranks” of the opposing gender.  It gets tiring.

The model is RICO — not “Psycho.”    READ THAT SITE!

%d bloggers like this: