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 ‘Ignorance of Government Accounting =/= Bliss

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)

leave a comment »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark ().  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”


In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Read the rest of this entry »

Re: CFCC and other Public Institution/Private Profit Partnering…The Public has already been Weighed in the Balance and Found (Dumbed-Down)

leave a comment »

I have several posts in the pipeline after a year-plus pause in publishing on this blog. They are lined up and will start coming fast and furious, shortly… Meanwhile, in the process of streamlining the pipeline and revisiting some of the more recent ones, I still find valuable information buried halfway down a 10,000-word post that I’d like positioned closer to the top.

I do keep my “ear to the ground” (actually to the on-line airwaves, and some telephonic) in ongoing developments within the family courts and beyond, and have a sense of what mainstream media is UNlikely to ever report, and too few private bloggers (it would seem) are reporting, in part because it takes more sustained attention to understand. In the light of current events, I decided to still take material from a two-year-old post to speak and teach about what I’m seeing in ever-accelerating, and unobstructed (because it seems largely unnoticed!) action.

[First post was not most recent version.  This one, similar, has a few more paragraphs in the Intro, bring it to just over  4,000 words. Feb. 22, 2pm PST/LGH]

So, this post is just over 4,000 words and lifted (verbatim, below this introduction, I’ll indicate the dividing line between intro and re-post) from about half of my 2/25/2014 post “The Stacked Deck, the Coups d’Etat, and the Fork in the Road,” which combined exhortation with some complex passages and quotes on consolidation of political clout, into business roundtables, about the history of CalPERS (as a major investment platform, as most institutional investment pools are), and more.

Not everyone wants to talk about all that! But we all can and should be able to talk about how public institutions — such as the California Judicial Council, with its Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), its websites, and its linked referrals from that website — are becoming turnstiles to the private-industry (often, nonprofit) outsourcing of government functions, and how this process only encourages the development and expansion of the PRIVATE sector setting up shop in PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, by coordinated agreement that the public, half or more of the time, had little awareness of, and next to no participation in, into force-fed (court-ordered and court-website-advertised) consumption of services.

It is hard not to consent to things about which one is not fully conscious. That’s no secret to those who, starting (I’m learning and becoming increasingly convinced deducing from other evidence) at a minimum 100 years ago, at least by 1913, met privately in specific places and institutions, to plan in advance. Look at the major turning points and changes within US history, and on what did events and by what authorities, Presidential or Congressional, did they seem to hinge? I will be blogging on this in 2016 also…

So long as the public doesn’t figure out the basic power schematics (i.e., blueprints), we will continue being stripped down, outsourced, and at points determined no longer-exploitable, etc.

SPEAKING OF “BLUEPRINTS”: One clue, I should say, is the habit of using the term “Blueprint” or “Models” in talking about externally-planned system changes to government operations. Whatever happened to the concept of grassroots anything? What, exactly, is the relationship of those funding the debt to having any say in what blueprints are applied to their lives, remotely assembled and coordinated?

That’s INCREMENTAL, DELIBERATE, PRIVATIZATION/STANDARDIZATION of government (across jurisdictional lines):

This thinking (devising blueprints, models to apply nationally, etc.) obviously resembles more the corporate world than what we might like to think still exists of individuals having a voice in the institutions affecting their lives, as expressed primarily through state-legistlatures, i.e., the states where those same individuals pay, “through the nose,” DMV fees to drive, State (and other) taxes, Fees to get married, get divorced, file anything in court (unless waived), and in which they have to declare residency, and depending on which state, varying prices for gas, real estate, or potentially even (see “Flint, Michigan” recently) safe drinking water, let alone schools.

In fact, one of my draft posts “in the pipeline” (from early January, 2016), in stunned awareness, I had to introduce almost as a joke: “A Judge, a Lawyer and a Psychotherapist walk into a bar…”.. (for that particular blueprint, those professions were actually involved — but on closer scrutiny, the judge [as I recall] acknowledged the inspiration from a judicial membership association ((and HHS grantee, and key player in (Years 2000-2008) “The Greenbook Initiative”)) based at University of Nevada-Reno. This, so far, is the title:

Miami Child Well-Being Court(tm) Model, with its roots in “NCJFCJ” (also tm), part of the HHS-dedicated DV Cartel”

(My use of the word “DV cartel” is deliberate, based on extensive lookups of nonprofit organizations and how they are networked together, and the behavior of these nonprofits over time.  The word “cartel” has a commonly understood and negative meaning and a dictionary definition, and I am using it in this sense.

People who do not read tax returns, or read ENOUGH on who is conferencing with whom about which policies (over time) may not have a basis for using this term “cartel,” but I certainly do. I am a “DV” (domestic violence) survivor and am NOT using this term in the sense that, for example, some fathers’ (or mens’) rights groups might use it simply to discredit the existence of violence towards women, or the dangers of unchecked domestic violence to society at large.  OK? And the NCJFCJ is indeed involved in said DV cartel as a policymaker, and proud of it, too.

[Link describing the “MCWB Court()” Model, found at “cap.law.harvard.edu” uploaded there looks like on 7-22-2015, but referring to a 2011 publication]<=check out the description, and fine print on who-all was involved. Hint: “RTI” is one BIG entity)(cf. “Research Triangle International” in NC). Details included:

  • Work with the Children’s Bureau T & TA Network to carve out a national learning collaborative to support effective diffusion of the Miami model and related best practices in court, child welfare, and child mental health. The collaborative will foster shared knowledge and strategies related to funding challenges, organizational barriers and solutions, and discipline‐specific leadership.

Carve out ? Effective diffusion? Sounds like a chemical experiment….The proud leadership has already determined it should be nationally diffused, overcoming funding and organizational barriers. “Parent protests” isn’t apparently on the list because the average parent may not know, in advance, what’s coming, in such situations.



MEANWHILE, the PUBLIC has already PRE-FUNDED the PRIVATE MODELS. HOW?


The same USA public, some of which is being forced into consumption of all kinds of services (ESPECIALLY in anything related to families, children, and mental health/relationships/Behavioral modification programming), already through, for example, the long-standing Social Security Act(administered through the US HHS) and other Acts of Congress (such as the VAWA act administered through the USDOJ/OVW) has already pre-funded the establishment, “capacity-building” and maintenance of these services — encouraging a superstructure of professions, and then profession associations to keep it organized nationwide (actually, more often internationally).   The pre-funding comes simply because the public is, by and large, tagged for producing the tax revenues to keep the juices flowing through the federal agencies.

Now, consider that while these are all evolving over time, that HHS only came into being in 1980, the HHS/ACF (Administration on Children and Families) only in 1991, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) only in 1994, and a RADICAL restructuring of the 1934 Social Security Act in 1996, labeled (that version), “PRWORA”.  All that timing, coincidence?  You think?


Now consider who is going to be taking advantage of this “macro market awareness”, and who is going to be taken advantage OF, in any equation where the one, smaller (fewer members) “sector” IS aware of the pre-funding grants streams, and the other (the public at large, generally speaking) IS NOT.  Where one realizes that the public is going to be in more significant distress through their position on the tax spectrum, and the tax-exempt organizations (which typify who business is directed to) can expand operations and public relations simply because they are operating on a different basis when it comes to funding government itself, across the system (all levels)?


Hmm….

The older (February 25, 2014) post, further down, simply says what I want to be talking about:

The Stacked Deck = the Racket/eering= about the FEDERAL BUDGET = about TAXES.  

Because taxes produce revenues. They are taken from some, exempted from others, enabling them to consolidate power and preserve family (private) wealth with which to influence government, and they are simply evaded by yet others —  often characterized on websites as a nonprofit or charitable organization …

and, in referencing California Judicial Council’s “CFCC” site below (main reason I copied this post to a new one), it also summarized a subset of this situation:

So, when I say, again:

For yet others, their assets (or, if they had none, children) are being stripped out simply through the family courts, conciliation courts and/or “Unified Family Courts,” with presiding judges strapped into the “AFCC*/CRC**/NACC/*** “CFCC” etc. system.

Each of those is an element in a system designed to steer and access federal money (grants, or contracts) into programs.  People involved have overlapping (vertical and horizontal) relationships among the whole.  In the above link:  Access/Visitation:  FEDERAL FUNDING (GRANTS CFDA 93.597) Social Security Law, etc.

And, just a reference (but I left most of it in the original post) to the VAST scale of wealth represented by institutional investment platforms.  I live in California and took CalPERS for an example, but quoting Walter Burien on this, as he summarizes the situation in plain terms, which I have yet to see anyone rebut based on the facts.  I have seen (and posted on) attempts to rebut based on “ad-hominem” (personality) attacks, which is perhaps an indication of a weak argument, if indeed there is an argument against the facts he presents which can be rebutted (sp?) by showing they are either (1) false or (2) irrelevant or (3) both.

(My Dec. 2012 EconomicBrain [“Cold,Hard.Fact$”] post combines several articles — I think pretty well — but see “Are You Ready for Real Change,” Jan./2012 therein, and towards the bottom):

Government has built their internal empires by and through selective presentation and utilizing taxpayer revenue systematically separated from the general purpose operating budgets to build power-bases of standing wealth outside of the “general purpose” operating funds. /// A large local government can be crying “Budget Shortfall’ under their selectively presented general purpose operating budget but upon review of the financial wealth power based funds held and “other” income, the same local government upon total and comprehensive review can be clearly in the black by millions if not billions of dollars.


There is nothing complicated here. If an individual or a government has established significant fund balances developed over decades, those funds balances are power-bases by investment that makes or breaks many individual fortunes by where those funds are invested.


If an individual or a local government thinks they can tag someone else to pay for shortfalls in other areas without tapping into their power-bases of funds under domestic and international investment management they will do so.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: