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 ‘Losing the “Publications” and increasing the “Events” and “Trade Show” markets (and revenues)

Freedom of the Press IS on the Auction Block (Rupert Murdoch, Walter Annenberg empires: Consolidate, New Markets, Buy&Sell, handle the Scandals, go public, go private, keep on trucking…) [Publ. April 21, 2017]

with one comment

Consciousness-raising on this ongoing Auction Block reality is always timely.

THIS POST IS: Freedom of the Press IS on the Auction Block  (Rupert Murdoch, Walter Annenberg empires: Consolidate, New Markets, Buy&Sell, handle the Scandals, go public, go private, keep on trucking…) and its case-sensitive short-link ends “-6BH.” [excluding the “.”]

Attempting to differentiate what I do here, and my purpose in doing it, from journalistic, personal anecdotal, or high-profile (poster child) case anecdotal reporting, and cause-based rhetoric on many of the same topics on which those journalistic, anecdotal types of reporting have been dominant:  family courts, domestic violence, marriage/fatherhood, child support, divorce-custody and so forth, has been an ongoing theme in my blogging.  We should recognize that, and I call attention to this situation, information on these topics that is publicized on-line may comes from both secondary, pro-bono (volunteer) social media reblogging, and primary sponsorship — which primary (organization) sponsorship may be itself several levels deep as to seeding one rhetoric or another (and with this recommended solutions).

Beyond how many levels deep is sponsorship of the reporting websites/organizations (that others like to quote, repost, and reblog) is the question of sponsorship of the technology platforms on which the rhetoric is itself disseminated, decade by decade, 1900s – 2000s.  This brings us into the question of high-technology media corporations, conferences, and just how profitable the sector is — although when it’s NOT profitable, someone’s company or subsidiary IS going to get sold off sooner or later.  At the bottom of this post, I take a single corporation’s history on a timeline and show some of the trends — all of which relates to the on-line news, other media, and print (where they still exist) publications, and who owns whose at any point in time.

Yet another factor comes up when professional journals (such as the Family Court Review with its affiliations) about which the average person NOT into the professional fields involved, whether academic or “created” fields (domestic violence advocates, fatherhood researchers or practitioners, etc. may not even know, and to which therefore they cannot respond properly, or timely, which is to say, effectively.  This is no accident!

Institutions (such as universities) have their own additional blogs and websites to further promote ideologies which the public, in general, may be completely unaware of, between comparing the mainstream news media (ABC, NBC, CBS — PBS — or now, Fox) with their favorite right-wing or progressive news outlets, a choice of “pro or con” a limited series of issues which BOTH sides profit from debating in public.

Up next (as part of demonstrating this situation), I have an example of law-school sponsored journalism hooking up with another private nonprofit-university published journal seeking, deliberately over time, to transform the systems of:  family courts, juvenile justice, school truancy law, and of course behavioral health/social science-related services.  I remember exactly what search phrase led me to become aware of this center, but unless you happened to be on the lawschool website and curious about one of its many “Centers” and take that curiosity some steps further, you might not have known.  (Next images show first, the lawschool banner, then that banner with the “Centers” dropdown — in fine print):

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page showing drop-down menu for “Centers” in very fine print) Click for full-sized.

LAW UBALT EDU Centers, annotated + showing the CFCC (Screen Shot 2017-04-21 at 4.04PM)

UCBaltimore SOLaw Home page; having clicked on “CFCC” option, the donors name in such large letters, important parts of the page aren’t even visible on the top half (scroll down to see now more overt connections between CFCC founder and AFCC-affiliated (co-published) Family Court Review, of which this Associate Professor is now Editor in Chief. And, newsletters, and recommendations for a new post-JD certificate in family law, etc.

And the trend is to Unify under themes controlled, again, by private interests — but in the case of UBaltimore School of Law, that university is part of the Maryland State System.  And I have already posted on the influence of this particular center WITHIN the law school having had a role of pushing through the setup of family court divisions when it COULD NOT and WAS NOT being passed legislatively.  It was done administratively through a well-known presiding judge at the time (Chief Administrative Judge Bell) with a well-known and clearly well-earned civil rights record.  I am not going to hunt up all my specific links, but believe they will be found on the TOC page under late 2013 as I recall. For example:  Dec 22, 2013, my “Eavesdropping into an Indoctrination Center; Hindsight from a Pilot Project Outpost” specifically references this CFCC and one of its founders, Barbara Babb.  Next to images are screenshots from that part of the post, including one link to an article cited on turning the tide, and endorsing this “unified family court” concept for “families and children,” which is to say, most people!

No apologies for the sarcastic tone, either!

#1 of 3 from my Dec 22, 2013 post referencing UBaltimore School of Law CFCC in re creation of the family law division (late 1990s) in Maryland — through an administrative judicial ruling

#2 of 3 from my 12/22/2013 blog

Title and publication/issue# referenced in Image 2 of 3 from my 12/22/2013 post

Here’s another example I discovered not too long ago from a UBaltimore School of Law CFCC website which I sarcastically (but I still say, accurately) referred to as an “AFCC Outpost” in late 2014.  Predictably, they are recommending more training of judges and in fact, a post-J.D. certification regarding family law issues.

This theme refers to the private, professional journals which, when read, reveal intent to affect public institutions.

However that is not the major emphasis of this post.  Below this illustrated section, I will talk more about the sale of Triangle Publications (and with it, TV Guide) in ONE large section involving (at least) TWO major actors (see post title for which one).

 

AND, below that, in a different (more gray) background-color, a section on  high-technology specialty corporations buying and selling each other over time, using for an example the 1971-formed CMP Publications.  I think it’s interesting, and sale of THAT media wealth (ca. 1999) helped set up yet another privately controlled family foundation which went — where else? — into education reform, this time, the “progressive” way.


I would like to have here provided access with active links to this Spring (April 2017) Full Court Press issue (3 annotated images below) to readers, however none were provided (the links were basically NOT active) on my received email and I see from the website (Scroll down further, it’s on the left sidebar) where this “Full Court Press” might normally show up (and a Summer 2016 version of “The Unified Court Connection, 17th issue” (and the Spring 2017 one is called the 18th issue) is supplied, it may not be yet available on their main website.  Odd, that!  But, you can learn there its stated goals:

CFCC primary goals are to:

  • Deliver cutting-edge family law education by engaging law students in real-life learning opportunities   [[i.e., mentoring fresh generations of law students in the “RIght Way” to think about family courts]]
  • Promote the development of unified family courts to provide children and families with a single court system with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction
  • Improve the delivery of legal, social, judicial, administrative and other services within the family justice system, including evaluating family court systems
  • Develop training programs and tools for judges, court staff and attorneys to build their understanding of the complex issues underlying family law proceedings
  • Support school success for children by bringing together judges, attorneys, law students and other members of the legal community to improve school attendance, reform school discipline practices and protect legal rights for children in school

We invite you to learn more about what we arewhat we do, and how you can get involved with our work.

This CFCC (now named after alumni donors, a married couple) is innately intertwined with private nonprofit associations and has been since is 2000 co-founding. There is a clear intent to protect the proprietary “Train the judges, protect AND EXPAND our turf” visible, with the emphasis on therapeutic jurisdiction, a “holistic approach” and all this said throughout to be in the public’s best interest, and families’.  Now it’s not enough to combine the unified family court jurisdictions, they also want to help steer entire communities, thus pretty much revealing the true colors behind the movement, from the start.

Image 1 of 3 (UBaltimore School of Law S&M Meyerhoff CFCC Spring 2017 Full Court Press) email alert

Image 2 of 3 (see caption for image 1). Note reference to Diane Nunn. Diane Nunn also has a long history  as an AFCC-affiliated person with the California Judicial Council (TOP ruling body of the Calif. courts)  AOC/CFCC, which CFCC historically has seemed to coordinate policies with CFCC here in Maryland.  Her AFCC affiliation is not mentioned here but (see image 3 of 3) this CFCC’s is now more “out in the open.”

Image 3 of 3 (annotated, Click HERE to read my comments on the AFCC affiliations .Note reference to Barbara Babb (co-founder of this) now being Editor in Chief of the (AFCC-Hofstra Univ. -produced) “Family Court Review.” Notice also reference to yet more certifications and trainings being recommended (for both judges and lawyers) and continued promotion of “Unified Family Courts”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a place and importance to telling one’s story, but when it comes to advocacy, analysis and exposure of the problems in the above areas, who is using the story for what purpose has to be determined, and those in the least advantaged position at any point in the time, should be most concerned to determine, through following the financial and corporate funding trails (profit and nonprofit) WHO is behind the message they’re repeating, for free presumably, to the world in seeking:  justice, court reform, protection, (etc.) from any government entity.

It takes at least two sides to play ping-pong, tetherball, or Good Cop/Bad Cop with a single theme.

I have continued to say, that vocabulary has to be business and accounting related, and to be wide enough in scope, it must incorporate the financial relationships with government.  And I have continued to demonstrate what you can find once you start looking into that.

People do not seem to realize (in my experience) that once you become entrenched in a subject matter side to the point of NOT perceiving the operational foundations of those propagating it, you lose objectivity and credibility, period. Credibility becomes limited to those who happen to side with you already, or who may help further a journalistic career writing up the problems for their publications, whether as employee or freelance.

People eager for change and reform [again, I’m referring experientially to people in the family courts, domestic violence, marriage/fatherhood, child support, divorce-custody and related fields] also often don’t seek to distinguish between what is anecdotal (even if true) to others not personally eyewitnesses of the events, and what can be at least verified by others from afar as true statements, and from those true statements (qualified, of course, as to the credibility of their sources), compiling a reasonably comprehensive, fair, logical and set in a historic context, account for the present situation.


I would not expect 100% agreement “across the board” ever, but if these discussions cannot move out of the realms of religion or quasi-religious assertions, it should not be a viable discussion for public policy in the USA until consent is made to suspend the Constitution and formally declare instead a “theocracy.” That wouldn’t pass (I hope!), so instead, the trend has been to slip elements of major religious beliefs (again, either pro- or con- monotheism and male-dominance) in the back door –which is to say, functionally, administratively, and INdirectly.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: