Posts Tagged ‘From BrokenFamilyCourts/FlawedPractices to SafeKids IN the Family Courts? (Get real!!)’
Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022 from Draft Post Feb. 6]
THIS POST
Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? | How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022]** short-link ends “”-e4t”
** began as a major section on my Feb. 6, 2022 and STILL in draft (March 30, 2022) post called:
NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Post begun Feb. 6, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”)
(Evicted from that post not for its content but for weight limits on any one post. The part highlit yellow is now this post.
From time to time, I sense the need to mention a few self-contradicting, ongoing legislative realities.
Funding realities go with the legislative and at times are perhaps the drivers (have you visited the US DOJ or the US HHS recently? can YOU track that funding?) but here I’m referencing specific Acts of Congress.
Sections in this post:
- USA allegedly LOVES and CARES ABOUT women because..
- USA (more covertly) HATES women because …
- Meanwhile, in Family Courts… the bottom line…
I’ve bifurcated the “LOVE” and “HATE” evidences (federal funding programs) which, taken together, weigh the balance, I say, in “hate” through absence of honesty and forthrightness within the former about the latter. (Passive/aggressve, much?) I think the net effect is, Hates more than Loves women — but then again, I am one. Maybe I’m biased in favor of my lack of a Y chromosome… and because having children and being a mother — even with an abuser — was still a fantastic experience I wouldn’t trade in for anything.
The message here: any policy can be heralded as great so long as it’s known by “stakeholders” (i.e., those who get the laws passed) that the back doors, the exit strategies to actually making any policy matter are retained.
Family courts, a still-recent phenomenon in the USA, happen to be one of the major back doors, the “safety valve” from actually stopping domestic violence, violence and criminal behavior against women because they are women. Through their existence many people (correctly) perceive, they can and will continue to get away with it, from chronic and debilitating (but legally still low-level up through felony levels leading predictably, or sometimes not so predictably, to murder. The same goes with child abuse. It’s simply a matter of changing venues (referrals, diversions) and in the new venues, old behaviors get “new words” to describe them. Felonies are no longer felonies — but new categorizes of felonies can be created to replace. The basic “transfer” process.
Meanwhile, privatization of government services continues, all conflict is GOOD conflict if you’re in the business of resolving family (or any other kind) of conflict for pay, or in the coaching industry (pay to play trainings, certified facilitators, and divorce coaching of desperate? parents by formerly desperate — until they signed on for the divorce-coaching field and quit fighting it — parents) and oh so many people are really into that business. Pay for and sit through the trainings, get screened MAYBE by provider, set up the most basic website under some creative name, and link to the trainer’s website for more trainings. In case you think that’s a reference to “One Mom’s Battle” business model (not that it’s anywhere close to the first of this type), it was.
It’s late in the day, I want a post out (and the other post shorter; it has a heavier payload). For what it’s worth, this post is just basic statement — something to think about.
Below the next horizontal line is “as-written” (for me, spontaneously) nearly two months ago, except that I quickly added several tags. If clicked they’d lead to more in-depth summaries on the blog of either VAWA, CAPTA, FVPSA or The Greenbook Initiative (its timeline matters), etc. The tags here don’t mean I’ve handled all those issues in this short post, but those are related issues…//LGH 30 March 2022.
“…USA’s “We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds” refers to two contradictory policies, both federally funded, starting in different decades.
Neither side of the equation (love women, but men and fathers are worth more when you get right down to it) cares enough about the public to ensure that people accessing services on the “women” side are properly informed about the funding on the men’s side to defeat or bypass the impact of the funds indicating the country cares about the welfare of even half its own population.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half]
(Revised/minor updates in early February, tags added Feb. 4).
This post is, literally, the second (bottom) half of the one I published yesterday, which was about 10,600 words, mostly text not images. Let’s call this half — well, I just did:
“NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half]. case-sensitive short-link ends “-dvu”
The one I published yesterday:
“National Nonprofit: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal domiciled Entities? […publ.Jan.30, 2022] case-sensitive short-link ends “-dgS”
PREVIEW (about 3,000 words). I have some points to make!
Reading CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, compiled by governments) at any level help a person comprehend the concept of what is and is not an “entity” and governments’ usage of the word “entity.”
Many nonprofit entities use the word “national” as part of their business name. That name doesn’t make it magically “national” in any sense of the word. So many things called “National” are intended to mislead domestic and foreign (i.e., not USA) populations, when such things are even “entities.”
The label “national” is also applied across a number of websites or campaigns masquerading (by implication if not direct claim) as “entities” but which aren’t. These will also have the word “national” in their names– that is, there will be initial caps followed by a few more adjectives and, if you’re lucky, a noun of some indefinite sort: center, initiative, coalition, campaign, or almost anything else.
There’s a difference between categories of existence as some entity (government or non-government, i.e., private) and assigned or registered names of entities.
(Quick post-publication update from the world of Twitter:)
Within just two days of publishing this post (and the one before it) on this topic, I saw another website featuring “protective mothers” groups claiming an international coalition along with this one: “NationalSafeParents.org” At least two of the sponsors, judging by the logos, I know as organizations (for many years now); another promoting it is (so far as I can tell) another NONentity at a university center, another is a survivor Mom selling High-Conflict and (in general) AFCC policies, so is a second one (which I’d previously looked at, seeing its activity onTwitter).
Others seem to represent the names (and some, a nonprofit or campaign associated with) murdered young children — great for curb appeal (a little late for the children…) — but that doesn’t make the “*.org” national, any of the associated nonprofits or for-profit businesses associated national, or representative of all mothers in this condition. It’s a sales pitch, typical for that particular group of individuals (some organizations have been around longer than others), and I noticed the website is also TELLING us what to do — sample Tweets, what laws to promote — after all, it’s about dire situations, the words “National” “Coalition” have implications, and who could be against “safe parents” although, in the context, it seems that safe CHILDREN is more the focus.
Not posted here, but I did click on every logo listed (some, not for the first time) for the overview…IF you make a practice of looking up entities and finding (USA) what legal domicile (subsidiary to this country) each one IS or as it may be (and was for one of these) WAS registered in, per the IRS, this gives a point of comparison with the surface claims to be national, a true coalition, representing as many parents as it says it is, and, possibly why such an agenda. NationalSafeParents.org was being promoted (on Twitter), which doesn’t surprise me at all, by the non-entity (so far as I can tell), “National Family Violence Law Center,” which (click Donate to follow through) is in fact, George Washington University in Washington, D.C., ℅ Joan Meier. For now, it’s a non-entity.
This new (2022) website and the collection (“coalition”) of logos on it so far (two more were just added) deserves a separate post. I already Tweeted out a quick Buyer Beware, however.
Though I’ve been saying these things for years, it seems my posts are timely, and I’m glad to have them to point to, and classic examples of exactly what I’m protesting. How timely! (“More later…”) I tweeted out an alert. //LGH Feb. 2, 2022.
Unfortunately, many government websites facing the consumers (i.e., us) within the USA don’t mention that our country doesn’t do “national” nonprofits or corporations. Many government websites also inconsistently “mix-and-match” terminology discouraging public identification of what types of organizations (or non-entities, i.e., projects perhaps of some other organization) are meant.
This post leads you to and guides through** how a recent U.S. Treasury CAFR report defines “entity.” (and, much more…). That section is in the bottom part of this post (below a clear separator):
**by specifying which parts, linking and quoting or summarizing the U.S. Treasury’s explanation of, at this point, the difference in usage between “entity” and “agency” in context (“entity” is a broader term) and listing so many of them by example as to get the concept. There are “entities” within “entities” in this case.
Something similar (but not identical) can happen within the nonprofit sphere; for example one Schedule attached to some IRS Forms 990 (for tax-exempt organizations which must file), is Schedule R — Related Organizations and Unrelated Businesses” and asking for these to be identified by categories:”Disregarded, Tax-exempt, Taxable as a partnership, or Taxable as a corporation or trust (Click and scroll down (or go straight to the bottom and scroll up, probably faster) through after Parts I-XII of any tax return (except abbreviated Forms 990EZ), through its “Schedules” to Schedule R and read the sub-headings given. This example came up (BiPartisan Policy Center, Inc, FY2019 Tax Return; it’s mentioned below the section on CAFRs on this post).
(“What’s a CAFR?” Still unsure what that refers to?) Investopedia summarizes, but I disagree (extremely) based on having read enough CAFRs, with one of its summary statements — governments aren’t into hoarding assets. Oh, really? I certainly agree with this (second paragraph) — “shouldn’t we be making sure they’re making good use of our money?” and other parts explaining who files CAFRs, and that their MD&A section (and notes) are “important analysis tools.”
“Navigating Government and Nonprofit Financials,” by Jonas Elmerajji, Updated July 27, 2021, Reviewed by Andy Smith).
Governments and nonprofits take our tax and contribution money to provide valuable services—shouldn’t we be making sure that they’re making good use of our money?
…Governmental Reporting
Each year, every governmental organization in the U.S. and Canada puts out a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). While the formats and contents can vary, these reports present the financial statements of the governmental entity, as well as important analysis tools like the management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) and the notes to the financial statements. CAFRs are done according to GAAP and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regulations. (See also: What You Need To Know About Financial Statements and Footnotes: Start Reading The Fine Print.)
Too bad one sentence refers to governmental “organizations” and the next, “governmental entity.” I think the phrase should be “government entity.” It’s either government, or it’s not. If it’s “government” that’s not “governmental” — “sort of” government. Investopedia articles are intended for a general understanding..
CAFRs often present financial information for individual funds (or at least significant funds) as well as governmentwide financial statements that show the position of the government as a whole…. The MD&A is a very useful portion of the CAFR that gives quite a bit of insight into the decisions made by your government’s decision makers. Typically, the MD&A has quite a bit more content than the managerial discussions found in the annual reports of business organizations.
Besides entities called “National” , there are also many “Centers, Initiatives, (etc.)” within registered entities (within governments and, often, universities, or at times, within some other non-profit entity) which aren’t “entities” (‘things,” or distinctly separate from where they are “housed”) at all, but those behind them and involved want the rest of us to think they are. Many times I’ll find out simply looking for the entity and finding there was (or is) none — the name or label refers instead to some project of another organization (or, government unit).
In the United States, such labeling — “National [ABC] for/on [Cause XYZ]” isn’t illegal, just mis-leading and deceptive. It ought to be a ‘red flag’ every single time you see it, unless referring to the federal government itself. It’s a ruse… It’s mimicry — it’s evidence of (someone’s) posing like something it is not. This word “National” serves to help undeserving entities or non-entities (small or large, powerfully connected or not at all powerfully connected) encroach on other turf, like an invasive species, until the original ones are crowded out, or suppressed JUST enough to keep feeding the parasites. The “turf” it’s encroaching on is representative government as designated by not just local state constitutions (as to the USA), but under the national one also. It’s an attempt at nationalizing things which belong under state, NOT national, control.
Because it’s so easy and now commonplace to replicate, ‘clone” or just set up nonprofits, it’s become logistically impossible to track all of them without extreme specialization. However, they do tend to organize around the “host” functions of governments and can be seen mimicking and feeding off such government sources.
This post begins listing some of my prior published posts naming a series of non-profit entities (mostly) which call themselves National and how they collaborate to form the background, kind of “shadow” government while maintaining private tax-exempt status making their (collective) influence/s harder to discern, and the money much harder to follow.
Some of these are so confident about themselves they self-selected into “The Big Seven“: Wikipedia lists them but says little about them.
I blogged them in July, 2017, (a major deep-dive drill-down on several). That post is a good background for this one; background information includes display of many images — both the entities’ self-descriptions, and annotated/captioned screenshots of tax returns. That my blog was so close to top of the Google search results on this phrase might tell you it’s not discussed often enough.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 