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 ‘Foundation Center Inc (990finder database) Entity Name Royal Screwups (cont’d.)

In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2]

leave a comment »

In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2] (short-link ends “-ac4”).

**Post title originally: “In About 1,000 Words…” I had to adjust the title several times but quit, cold-turkey, before 3,000 words.

Then I <>added two image galleries with captions and connecting text and three or four more individual images ….<>expanded one of the early “**” references while copyediting for grammar, then footnoted it… <> added to the very bottom a bio blurb from one of the added image captions for a Mark Rodgers, of The Clapham Group (Charlottesville, Virginia), on the Alliance for Early Success‘s (“AES” in Kansas but legal domicile Nebraska) Board of Directors, which information is fascinating, I’m currently writing on because its a classic example of why we all need better language and to establish the habit of identifying, digging up the financials, and comparing them to the public relations material, even when it shows up at Harvard University (https://developingchild.harvard.edu), or backed by people (with heirs) listed in Forbes if not THE richest in a state, others in the same class.

Please see after this, Footnote “Clarification at the bottom of this post, (Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3″| published the same day).

Here, it does and there are already major discrepancies surfacing. It’s also interesting in its own right.

I have to bite my tongue even now to not add to that information, knowing as much as I’ve just discovered within the past week (but had made mental notes of as far back as September 2016)…

There is there a declared, shared agenda, and there’s an identifiable means to achieve it.  This one,  I’m concerned about both, and the larger the agenda and the entities behind it, the more prone I am to doing drill-downs on the propaganda to see whose interests are being promoted when those at the top universally proclaim they are really concerned about those at the bottom and demonstrate that if consent isn’t just handed over, it can and will be obtained by a combination of Wealth & Stealth — that is, by funding to entities where the details are hard to find, reluctantly admitted to, and even when shown (in this case) don’t measure up to basic, ethical reporting.  This tendency to buy influence in academia and the symbiotic tendency to solicit and accept being “bought” (career curve expansion/fame through backing) is I believe a corrupting, not a healing or healthy, influence, nationwide.  How can we have continuing representative government in this fashion?

It did only take about 2,500 words to state my case.  The rest is “for example” and some examples, details behind the declaration.

Details matter. They reveal who’s involved in which roles in any mass social transformation targeting public institutions (i.e., source of ongoing revenues). Discernible practices discourage fair and open debate before any side has enough backing on questionable methods, or even purposes.

Privately networked, cross-jurisdictional collaborations and layered tax-exempt entities obscure full awareness of how few are at the top. Like any pyramid (marketing) scheme: highly networked, compartmentalized by cause at the lower levels.

… Still under 6,000 words (or so) …


Why I still bother to blog:  Not just for fun!

I write to communicate what I see in fields whose established leadership do see, but have chosen not to say — including in fields developed essentially within the last two decades or so.

I write for those who like me, should’ve had better validation over two decades ago of things which just didn’t smell right in and around the family courts, on-line complaints and media exposes of the family courts.  Those things that weren’t and still aren’t right, if you, like me, have smelled but (unlike me) haven’t yet found the source, know that the “what’s not right” can be seen and identified in objective terms — but not the cause-based rhetoric we are all being fed, constantly.  So there’s a matter of functional vocabulary leading to expression in forms of what is seen — and from there, what to do about it, and only from there, how.

It starts with understanding there’s an existing taxonomy, the scaffolding of any operational support for ANY cause, to be considered.  IS IT PUBLIC or IS IT PRIVATE — IS IT AN ENTITY or IS IT A PROGRAM POSING AS AN ENTITY shows WHERE IT TIES INTO THE ECONOMY.  For collaborations and coordinated programming or any cause, the whole still has parts, and these parts still should be identified.

I also write to show how suppression of functional vocabulary is commonplace, cannot be accidental, it’s nearly universal, and the intent is subjugation of an entire population (and engaging them in keeping others down). In this language and vocabulary are a technology… key tools… leverage.  The antidote is self-education.  It takes some time and practice, but it’s achievable.  One challenge will be time when people’s time is spent fighting to survive economically.

Basic literacy on how we are governed must be in economic terms, and must deal with concepts on submission to taxation in exchange for accountability for use of those tax receipts.  Not just trust in leadership, and not just rebellion without understanding how to govern ourselves.  (The intended level of dissonance with reality seems to parallel with a historic intent for South Africa:  “Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water”).  That’s not the ideal society or a “just and sustainable world” when applied globally.


I write so women (mothers, in particular) might have a choice not just between forms of exploitation or abusing others (& becoming an abuser because it seems safer) or having been driven out of one field, need to make “family court reform” the new one — but walking in without a perspective on the usual guides to “family court reform.”

If what I’m saying is: untrue — challenge it;  true, but irrelevant — show me how*;  If it’s true and relevant — deal with it, which will require making hard choices.

I know that challenging, or proving irrelevance, or dealing with this material would be itself challenging — because you’d have to consider enough of the material to debate it, and then figure out ways to dismiss it.

It seems to me that too many “thought-leaders” have not accepted that the easy route — dismissal, silence, censoring the discussion, encouraging dependency of followers; let them run interference  — won’t work forever.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018].

leave a comment »

Post title:  The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018]. It has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and, for a change, is short.

Well (after another day’s work…), not including its own “footnotes.”  Total as published now is actually 8,515 words.  It’ll be short again if I split it in half later.  Main extensions — commentary on two billion-dollar trusts outside the USA, one in London, the other in Kuwait, with annotated images from them.  The Wellcome Trust (London) and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait).  The “Wellcome Trust” for decades (1955 – 1993) had as part of its pharmaceutical enterprise, Burroughs Wellcome Fund (at Research Triangle Park, NC) and obviously intricately connected to US biomedical and other research, and NIH sponsorship to go with it, as well as with board members on some of the largest tax-exempt entities (which I search in this blog, sorting by “Total Assets”) IN the USA as well.  So, I think those last-day additions are worthwhile…

https://wellcome.ac.uk (“We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas thrive.”)  ArabFund.org is a regional financial institution and “embodiment of joint Arab action” (agreement established 1968).

…Achieving Arab integration and consolidating cooperation among the Member countries is the main objective of the Arab Fund. Priority is therefore given to financing joint Arab projects of particular importance and specifically to those projects that increase the interdependence of Arab countries. Hence the emphasis on contributing to projects involving the interconnection of electrical power, transportation and communications. The Arab Fund also pays close attention to social development and reducing poverty by financing projects covering health care, education, drinking water, rural development, and social welfare.


The Arab Fund, being an Arab institution, is focused on Arab issues and concerns. In this regard it pays special attention to the least developed Arab countries such as providing support to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories through financing a program of projects in different sectors. It provides grants to support educational institutions, universities and professional and social associations. The Arab Fund has also supported a number of Arab countries in countering the effects of natural disasters and wars…

Click to enlarge or visit website. For example, “History of Wellcome” with key terms relating to drug development in the USA, and various suffixes (Ltd, Foundation, Trust, plc) associated with it over time. Also visit their Board of Governors

Click to enlarge, or visit website. See also nearby quote (FamilyCourtMatters, published June 6, 2018)

This post goes with a certain Page which matches the top post on this blog dealing with the topic of historic censorship of major issues affecting family courts — censorship specifically by organizations, professionals, and self-described initiatives or movements to fix or reform them.

Next image just shows where on the originating page it came from. As you can see I switched the parts of the title (placing “Footnotes to…” after “The Availability and Reliability of…”).

[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of.. | Footnotes” post fits in..]

I feel I should further qualify the use of “censorship” in the underlying Page’s title.  There’s a difference between leaders and followers… but followers in the current scenario can’t afford to be passive on their own learning curve and should “look before they leap,” including before going public with their stories in association with specific groups with a specific agenda they may not know about.  … In other words, followers, rebloggers, re-tweeters, free-sociomedia activists who are also litigants with shocking or devastating custody cases, don’t be exploited for the drama by others. Know where you stand in the mix, and that your testimony, your experiences should not be publicized as part of a package deal which may or may not be the best “deal” (reform agenda) available.

IT SEEMS (“FYI”) Most (self-appointed) family court reform leaders, whether individual professionals, or leaders of organizations featuring individual professionals active within the family courts, are not, in fact, members of the classes they advocate for.  Because that’s obvious, this leadership needs to maintain a “stable” of mothers, fathers, and/or aged-out kids to tell moving personal narratives, around which each organization’s particular agenda and sound-bytes for system change can be promoted.

The emotionally moving, tragic or disturbing anecdotal, individual-case stories (true or not) are the “hook.” Those telling on them already have been hooked and in effect function as bait — worms wriggling to catch larger fish (systems change for faster-flowing funding streams).

The “protective-parent” “arguing against parental alienation” tactics (a subset of the larger whole) family-court-reform leaders (especially as associated with nonprofits, conferences, or some, even law school clinics) tend to be publicists, practicing (expert witness or other) psychologists, or lawyers, or even ex-judges sometimes involved professionally in the field.   Individual mothers, especially, with custody-fiasco stories should resist being exploited by anyone for press coverage status and hoping that enough of it will produce effective improvements.

The family courts and family law (and/or “fixing” or reforming it) IS a field which MUST be better understood than it has been portrayed in “the press.”  (Whether on-line or print media).  There are economic considerations.  There are court-connected-corporation considerations too, which the average court-reform leadership on a nonprofit board is generally not too eager to encourage investigation into…  Such investigations (even simple “drill-downs” like I’ve been doing year after year) tend to uncover sponsors, backers, and alliances which sometimes reveal conflicts of interest and shed an entirely different light on the agenda (ultimate purposes).  Investigations also may reveal how very small (size of nonprofit) some of the most vocal promoters are, that is, assuming the tax returns are telling the truth.

Individual parents involved in the courts who remain unaware of these issue because no one raised them, and their on-line or other searches haven’t caused a “stumbling across them” yet, cannot be said to have engaged in censorship.  Then again, individuals’ “take-it-on-faith” and “accept-our-interpretation” without considering alternatives (the religious mindset, in a sense) is just unwise.  Following leaders without basic background-checks of AT LEAST (where a nonprofit is involved) the leaders’ nonprofit’s  self-descriptions as given to the IRS and any required Secretary of State (etc.) filings is minimum responsible behavior, even if one is oppressed and distressed by the present ongoing crises or emergencies a typical family law case may involve.

It’s also appropriate to look (I do this!) at friends-of-friends nonprofits speaking the same language.

The originating Page for this Post is:

My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.

When you see the above page title and sentence again, that’s where this post started.  Before then, I talk about the relevance of this topic, with some examples.

From common on-line discussions among concerned parents and in conversing with people concerned about justice and the family courts, or domestic violence, child abuse involving themselves and their children, over the years I’ve sensed, with just a few exceptions, little consciousness or awareness of the nonprofit sector AS a sector, or its mutual collaborations and governmental collaborations to direct our lives.  Names of individual entities will show up discussed along with their “causes” but few bring up objective discussions about the tax-exempt sector by definition affecting government.

This lack of sunlight facilitates private, unregulated and unmonitored development of alliances throughout the system or the presentation of “warring factions” when in fact the major divide seems to be less political persuasion, than functional niche on the public/private partnerships food chain.

I.e., in a quest for justice, if substantial cash flow is simply uncategorized and unseen, you can “forget it!” Justice, that is. That’s why I include more reminders here that as a whole, the “tax-exempt” sector is a historic and significantly powerful business sector, not just a few organizations with their respective causes.

I ran a printout of FY2015 Forms 990 and sorted them by assets (most billions to about 8.5 billion “Total Assets”).  Top results (Image #1 of 4 taken) included:  Harvard ($73B, billion dollars), Stanford and Yale and Princeton (in that order) and two “Bill and Melinda Gates” entities which, if combined, would’ve been the top of the list.  However, Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. (or so labeled) at $14B also shows up…  Second image:  MIT, Columbia, and so forth (Two thumbnail images shown here; larger ones and the other two, below, with captions).

Notice which types of entities are the largest shown (of those search results displayed). They fall into certain categories which tend to either include institutional endowments of universities, health corporations (benefit, i.e., pension, administrators), insurance companies (people pay up front), credit unions, and probably one donor-advised foundation (I think).  I was surprised that at $12 billion assets, even Ford Foundation wasn’t the largest. This tells us by TYPE of 990 or 990PF, 990-O filer, and generally speaking, where some of the largest (nonprofit only that is) assets are held — excluding of course ALL government entities, which by definition are not even on this database. Government entities are “on” there in the background — supporting scholarships to the universities, distributions for healthcare, federal grants to medical research institutions (etc.) as a sponsor (source of revenue TO nonprofits) and (did you know this?) also as ongoing direct recipients from nonprofits also. But because it’s a directory of charitable trusts (private-sector) naturally no names of government entities will show up as themselves. If you want to see one place they’re both shown together, look for “Bentley 500” (top assets infrastructure owners of the world.  But, that’s only “hard assets.”  I’ve posted it on this blog several times..)

The Forms 990 show this — direct grants to various government agencies to promote, pilot, or evaluate chosen projects. “How the heck” would these ever be consistently tracked?
Read the rest of this entry »

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017]

leave a comment »

 Notice the Last Revised, Published and “As-Is” dates added to this post title!

EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7zh”).

I just, mid-September, added a new page, and a post introducing the new page, not particularly focused on this topic, but instead on Collaborative Justice Courts, or how California at least worked over some decades to turn the courts into “problem-solving” justice system, and who (such as the Center for Court Innovation in New York, the National Center for State Courts, and as it turns out when considering “Government:  The Final Frontier” and whether the courts are better off like universities, as “loosely-coupled organizations” (a 2013 publication) with the help of Harvard Kennedy School of Government) has been helping this happen.

Returning now, later, to posts in the pipeline (i.e., in draft), I see this one I last worked on 9/11/2017 has major show and tell elements already in place and uploaded.  I remember working hard on it, and with some incredulity as the inter-relationships developed from such a simple, basic website as “EVERYCRS.com.”

So I rate this one “pretty damn good,” if not fully complete (fully complete would continue exploring the relationship with the Global Fund found by looking up a little (?) LLC grantee hiding (sic) in a field of other ones which just happens to have been run by one of the extended Kennedy clan. One of the earlier, colorfully annotated images gets right into this.  I also could’ve done more image uploads, or further pursued some of the many names which surfaced just looking at that single website.

My purpose is stated within the posts. We need to examine the “windowframes” of on-line information better, and do some of the drill-downs.  This will reveal relationships, and often leads to things you may not have had a clue about before, or other insights into ones you did.  I’m not likely to continue researching the exact topics and organizations here in the near future and so am publishing “as is.”  I again hope more people will take a closer look as well (CRS reports are good reads on the topic) on the matter of “Reorganization Authority,” the first topic below, while realizing that Presidential Reorganization Authority is not the only way of re-arranging government and in the process centralizing power, DE-centralizing the financial trail beyond tracking, and letting the largest currents in the river, and some of the oldest ones (I’m talking about consolidated family wealth held in tax-exempt places…) run the show by default.

“WINDOWFRAME” example which prompted me to write this post:

You may not think, judging by this blog, I watch the current news — but I do, and doing so, I know what I’m saying here is important.  You CANNOT judge a leader by the cause; look at the carrier and the means as well.  Navigating who’s who in any given situation, that is, on-line promotion, website, or named initiative, is an art and a skill.  It’s necessary, and I don’t believe people who just won’t develop it are the best defenders of liberty, justice, rights, or fair play. Start understanding what type of information is being withheld by whom (financial reports on great global causes) and start publicizing the withholding of this information.

Don’t fall into the Democrat/Republican Verbal Ping-Pong Tournaments as the ping-pong balls!  Develop some peripheral (and depth) vision.  There may be other ways, but this is how I’ve been doing it.   Comments fields remain open…. I moved the “Read more of this post” marker further down the page than usual to get to the part containing some annotated images and my statement of purpose for this post.

The tags may be added properly later, but meanwhile, here they are in image format:

(This odd presentation of “tags” for a post substitutes for the real thing, or shorthand for a preview, temporarily)

9/22/2017 update:  Tags have been added, basically the same format, plus a few more. From now on, for tags which represent principles, questions, or exhortations (“Keep Your Eyes on the Assets” etc.) I will start applying quotes (except ones already in place without the quotes) so these will display, ideally, separately from the others.  This isn’t reflected on the above image because the alphabetizing only occurs with a “Save” function; I took the above image as a precaution when there was a glitch in that process.  . . . . Also know that tags are not applied (I do not apply tags) to all posts so the Search function may be best option if all posts on specific topics are wanted.  One reason why — due to a quirk of the blog domain, too many tags makes the blog administrative section, which I use frequently during writing to connect various posts & pages, unwieldy (causes them to display only one or two per page).

If your purpose is to browse the blog in general (although my Sticky Posts do summarize it)  one way to do so is through the table of contents, so far as they go, right sidebar section labeled most recent posts, or on the right sidebar to the blog (scroll down considerably below some “Text” widgets in different background colors), look through those “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” menu which has been compiled over several years; I made some recent additions, but typically don’t add to it regularly.  

Overall, there should be something in here for almost anyone, assuming basic GED literacy and some interest in numbers.  Otherwise, I doubt anyone would last long even looking at this blog…..I’m no graphic artist, and have none on payroll (there IS no payroll here….)..


Below this line was written 9/11/2017 or earlier, except for one section on a fund-raiser for New Venture Fund I’d previously studied (Citizen Engagement Laboratory, a 501©4 + its related 501©3 CEL Education Fund) in Northern California).  

Post currently was just under 10,000 words.; with added “CEL” section it is now pushing 12,000 (9/23/2017)


Where this started, this round – I found a third source of CRS reports on the “Reorganization Authority” at EveryCRSReport.com (This one is from 2001, author redacted by practice of those running the website). It’s labeled “Received through CRS Web.”  CRS stands for Congressional Research Service, which is under the Library of Congress.  Link and images will be repeated lower in post also.

While I’m quoting FYI up front several paragraphs (see this background-color) from this 2001 CRS Review on the Reorganization Authority (It’s relevant — I have also two side-bar links on related U.S. history involving this, (Abolishing Representative Government || the Social Scienc-i-fication of America) and referenced the Reorganization Authority several times in 2016 on this blog also), this post less about that content than about the “window-frame” in which (and by whom) it’s presented.

We are missing so much vital information by ignoring follow-up, even basic, “routine” check-it-out searches, on the delivering framework, i.e., the edges of these websites.

Content is one matter.  The conduct of the organizations sponsoring any content is another, and it’s even more important matter when so many are also operating nonprofit and operating in ways designed to affect the direction of both state and federal governments, which is to say, affecting the legislative process and programming.  A closer look beyond their websites at the financials and filings of the sponsoring organizations reveals a lot in a short time about their character, and handling of an important commodity for all of us — money:  Funds.  Numbers. Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities, and compliance with instructions on an IRS form showing whether it matters to the organizations, or, perhaps not…   

The President’s Reorganization Authority: Review and Analysis  March 8, 2001. [Order Code RL30876]

Summary

Among the initiatives being promoted** with the beginning of the Administration of President George W. Bush

**Writer shows tact (?) in omitting “by whom,” including whether especially by the new President…

is that of renewing the President’s lapsed authority to submit reorganization plans to Congress. The general rationale offered for renewing this authority is that it would provide additional flexibility and discretion to the President in organizing the executive branch to promote “economy and efficiency” as well as his political priorities. The regular legislative route for considering presidential proposals involving organizational changes is deemed by reorganization authority supporters as being unduly slow and cumbersome. Thus, the proposal to permit the President to submit reorganization plans subject to mandatory congressional consideration with “fast track” procedures is viewed by the reorganization proposal’s proponents as a necessary reform for good government. Critics of the reorganization plan authority reject the arguments and assumptions behind  the proposal and defend the efficacy and legitimacy of the regular legislative process for executive reorganization proposals.

This report addresses three specific issues: (1) the historical basis and use of the President’s reorganization authority; (2) the factors contributing to the lapse of the President’s reorganization authority in 1984,[FN1] and (3) thoughts on the future of reorganization in the executive branch.

[FootNote 1] It is worth noting that the Reorganization Act of 1977, as amended, remains “on the books,” but is not presently operative for execution as it expired on December 31, 1984. See Appendix for Reorganization Act Amendments of 1984, 98 Stat. 3192; and Appendix 2 for Executive Reorganization, chapter 9 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code.

AND:

With the 1983 Chadha decision (Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha; 462 U.S. 919) striking down the legislative veto, the utility and desirability of the Reorganization Act, compared to following the regular legislative process, came in to question. Whereas “fast track” options within the larger legislative process retain their appeal under certain circumstances (and reorganization of the executive branch may indeed be one of those circumstances), no President since 1984 has requested the renewal of the reorganization authority.

[I’m posting that quote on 9/11/2017, remembering that this request was made months before the same historic date in 2001].  Paragraph referencing HOOVER, Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933..

…The co-managership concept has been criticized by proponents of the theory of the dominant President that has enjoy ascendency (beginning with the Progressive Movement), throughout most of the last century. While Secretary of Commerce, President Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) had been a proponent of the idea that Congress should delegate to the President authority to propose reorganizations of the executive branch subject to some form of congressional disapproval.3 Near the end of his term, Hoover was successful in persuading Congress, when passing the Economy Acts of 1932 and 1933, to include a provision assigning the President reorganization authority.4 [footnotes omitted from here on, in my quotes]

This short CRS summary is a good read and especially with follow-up on its footnotes will lead, probably for most people except those already IN government or studying it, to a better understanding of the balance of powers (Congress vs. White House) if not in some parts of U.S. history and the various agencies we now seem to take for granted as immutable and apparently believe that if they weren’t seemingly ever-present and effectively running things (including things they have no real jurisdiction over, such as the courts) with the help of the public/private partnership collaborations, “the sky just might fall.”**

Paragraph on President FDR right before WW II:

Although President Franklin Roosevelt had some interest in executive reorganization during the New Deal years, he was more focused toward creating new agencies and programs than in consolidation and retrenchment. The Reorganization Act was rarely used and allowed to lapse in 1935. As America faced heightened international pressures, however, Roosevelt indicated renewed interest in executive reorganization as a tool for increasing presidential authority and for preparing America to meet its wartime responsibilities.8 One product of this changed political climate was passage of the Reorganization Act of 1939.9 This Act provided that for two years the President could submit reorganization plans that would go into effect unless Congress disapproved by a concurrent resolution of disapproval. As far as Congress was concerned, the objective was for the President to use the authority “to reduce expenditures to the fullest extent consistent with the efficient operation of [page break] Government.” President Roosevelt, never persuaded that the principal purpose of reorganizing was saving of money, took the opportunity to successfully propose in Reorganization Plan No. 1 the establishment of an Executive Office of the President.10 During World War II, the President was given authority under Title I of the War Powers Act to make temporary, emergency wartime reorganizations for the duration of the war plus six months.11 (etc.)

(**It feels a little odd saying “the sky might fall” in the recent context of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, where the sky, or at least wind and rain is aggressive and the waters have been rising, power outages, gas shortages, mass-evacuations in Florida, ….but …. I think the comparison with disaster scenario if business as usual (within the federal executive branch of government) were significantly disrupted, reduced, or scaled back.

But this post came from a closer look at who is behind “EveryCRS.com,” that is, the basic windowframe of the on-line service and resource, more than the content.


What’s in the “windowframe” on any website, or uploaded material to a website, typically advertising or publicizing a project, or goods or services?  The intended main message is presented in the main section, but the fine print at the top, or at the bottom, or (with varying degrees, and plenty of exceptions) in part on the “financials” page or any page where such financials are presented. Or, if not presented, that’s part of the “frame” as well.

The purpose of this post isn’t just to expose or explain a single project’s backers, but again for an example of ways to distinguish a project (characterized often by domain name and on website) from the actual backers of the same project.  From here on out on this post, I’m looking at the entities, their tax returns, and their self-declarations of how they’re related to each other.  There are many images and as usual those Form 990 tables.

Because these particular organizations involve some famous family lines, and predictably some “Harvard / Yale/ Georgetown / Columbia” graduates and connections to billion-dollar tax-exempt foundations such as the Nature’s Conservancy // Secretary of the Interior (Clinton Admin). Also involving two young men on one project, one (David Segal) a former Rhode Island House member (Green Party) and I see also a Non-Residential Fellow at Stanford’s Center for the Internet, and the other (David Moon) a current Maryland Democrat. (Self-described Progressive Democrat for MD).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 21, 2017 at 7:57 pm

%d bloggers like this: