Posts Tagged ‘men’s rights’

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

This post is about 10,000 words. Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does. In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters. One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.

Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published. Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title “While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog. It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s: unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below. The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012. Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

A Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts. Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

…

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d. Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system. Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.” Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind. These are rarely 100% neutral. [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name. It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members. This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them. Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC? I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY: The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show. The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind…

But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office. Then, they combined them. Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts. “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC. AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

May 26, 2016 at 9:43 am

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), "Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of Functionalism", AFCC, AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council, Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, Elements of the Network, fatherhood, Global Pound Conference of the IMI, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), IMI - International Mediation Institute (Dutch/UN Consultative NGO), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Statewide Office of Family Court Services (in Calif in 2000 merged into a "CFCC"), Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.

Children’s Institute, Project Fatherhood(tm), and Fatherhood Nonprofits that make you go “Huh?”

(with respect to the late Dr. Hershel K. Swinger, I cannot respect using TANF and other funds to proselytize, and then cheating the California out of transparency and accountability).

(And I SURE as heck don’t respect anyone using the US Government to try to evangelize ANYone!)

This is a SHAMELESS transmigration from a long (project) I’ve been posting over at Scranton Political Times Kids for Cash thread. ALthough it’s actually in response to Joe Pilchesky having posted a SAVING DAMON case (from Southern Cal / San Diego area, and with full panoply of Protective Mothers Rhetoric and groups) on there. Totally out of character for him, but I then decided to look closer at the situation and open my big mouth.

(Better understood in the larger context) I feel sorry for mothers who are (like I was) led around by the nose to become activist before they activate common sense lookups of who they’re dealing with — both as advocates and as adversaries in the court system. For example — get this — Cindy Dumas had somehow a declaration (on her behalf) on “William Eddy” complaint form, but signed by Erik Fox, Ph.D. (who runs sexual abuser treatment programs all over, and actually recommended “abuse inoculation” treatment for Damon, Mom & Dad. I gather that hasn’t happened yet. [The Rest of This Comment on nonreporting [to California] $40million-budgetChildren’s Institute in Los Angeles, incl. its “Project Fatherhood(sm)”]: I’m trying to find out exactly what it is!

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts wrote:

Things that make you go “Huh?” In that chart below (TAGGS list of “fatherhood” grantees — at least a few of them) notice the one “Children’s Institute, Inc.” of Los Angeles? Grant (for 2010) two different grants — $1,000,000 + $500,000 ??? That’s a hefty amount, right? I looked at this one before, and the pattern is just TO O o o o…. common: One has to usually check at least 3 to 4 sources AFTER seeing the HHS grant:

1. State Incorporation record (SOS),

2. State Charitable Record (if they’re a nonprofit or taking donations),

3. Sample check some IRS forms (I use “Foundationfinder” or “Nccsdataweb.urban.org”) — and actually look at a tax form (it gets easier with practice) . . . . and then

4. what does their website say as well?

Here we go: 1. California Corporation (Sec of State) registration — there are TWO with the exact same street address (which doesn’t match address on HHS grantee, either).

C3365104	03/30/2011	ACTIVE	CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES	MARY EMMONS
C0085636	12/13/1917	ACTIVE	CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE, INC.	MARK ENGEL

For Fiscal 2010 (year cited on Saving Damon fatherhood funds) they got: (“budget yr” = yr of that particular program: 1,2,3 etc.):

Progr Office	Award Number	Award Title	Bud-get Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA #	CFDA Name	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
CB	90CB0159	ABANDONED INFANT ASSISTANCE	2	05/03/2010	93551	Abandoned Infants	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR LUKAS JAEGGI	$ 0
CB	90CB0159	ABANDONED INFANT ASSISTANCE	3	09/13/2010	93551	Abandoned Infants	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR LUKAS JAEGGI	$ 475,000
CMHS	SM058241	CENTRAL LOS ANGELES CHILD TRAUMA COLLABORATIVE	02	10/21/2009	93243	Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	LESLIE A ROSS	$ 0
CMHS	SM058241	CENTRAL LOS ANGELES CHILD TRAUMA COLLABORATIVE	04	06/25/2010	93243	Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LESLIE A ROSS	$ 400,000
HSB	09CH9080	EARLY HEAD START	3	06/04/2010	93600	Head Start	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	KATY KELLEY	$ 2,261
HSB	09CH9080	EARLY HEAD START	4	07/26/2010	93600	Head Start	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATY KELLEY	$ 1,590,930
HSB	09SA9080	EARLY HEAD START ARRA EXPANSION	1	11/18/2009	93709	ARRA – Early Head Start	NEW	KATY KELLEY	$ 1,098,417
HSB	09SA9080	EARLY HEAD START ARRA EXPANSION	2	08/31/2010	93709	ARRA – Early Head Start	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATY KELLEY	$ 1,403,640
HSB	09YC0463	EARLY HEAD START	4	03/26/2010	93600	Head Start	OTHER REVISION	MANUEL CASTELLANOS, JR.	$- 9,269
OFA	90FR0076	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD	5	09/24/2010	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HERSHEL SWINGER	$ 500,000

OFA	90FR0088	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	5	09/27/2010	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HERSHEL SWINGER	$ 1,000,000

(per IRS form) 2009 salaries of key officers (5 highest) were plenty high: Mary Emmons (see corp. registration) — $310K; Nena Revoyr, $136K, Jeff Catania, $161K, Hershel Swinger, $167K, Kendis Heffley, $131K. (plus retirement & other income from this or related orgs.)). These are the US Trademarks still “LIVE” with the word “Fatherhood” in them. I didn’t find the one mentioned in the Children’s Institute descriptions, “Project Fatherhood” But it’s interesting one of them is from a PA corporation. You can see the details, including first use, whose idea it was and see that someone showed real forethought. Keeping in mind that welfare reform and the loosening up of federal aid to states for diversions into fatherhood & marriage promotion, both was anticipated — and happened in 1996.

	Serial Number	Reg. Number	Word Mark	Check Status	Live/Dead
1	77602995	3738768	FATHERHOOD IS SACRED	TARR	LIVE
2	77013538	3474511	NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE	TARR	LIVE
3	75442962	2339732	IN SEARCH OF FATHERHOOD	TARR	LIVE

Quite a few, eh? PROJECT FATHERHOOD // Dr. HERSHEL K. SWINGER was started in 1996:

July 8, 2011

Strengthening relationships between fathers and their at-risk children

Children’s Institute Hosts 4th Annual Fatherhood Solution Conference

(very nice youtube tribute to him at the link…)

“Due to the recent passing of Dr. Hershel K. Swinger, CII Senior Vice President and Founder of Project Fatherhood, the morning plenary was a special tribute to his life’s work and accomplishments. Project Fatherhood is a nationally-recognized program for disadvantaged fathers to become more engaged and effective parents.

“Speakers included Dr. Ken Canfield, president and founder of the<> National Center for Fathering; <> Dr. Thema Bryant-Davis, Director of Pepperdine University’s Culture and Trauma Research Lab, an expert on partner and child abuse and societal trauma due to racism, sexism and poverty; and <> Charles Lee-Johnson, MSW, CEO of the National Family Life and Education Center,…”

In reverse order:

Charles-Lee Johnson’s Nonprofit, that his father incorporated in 1993:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1724782	05/07/1993	ACTIVE	THE NATIONAL FAMILY LIFE & EDUCATION CENTER	JOYCE REECE-KITCHEN

EIN# 95-4423621 ; their charity is marked “CURRENT” however they haven’t filed an IRS with the state since 2007, or an RRF (state report) since 2008. Received a Deliquency warning 6/5/2008:

“WARNING OF IMPENDING TAX ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH YOU MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE ..The Attorney General has not received your organization’s annual report(s) as follows:…IRS Form 990, 990-PF, or 990-EZ report(s) for the year(s) ending: 06/30/03, 06/30/04, 06/30/06, and 06/30/07“

###

[spoiler]

Fiscal Begin:	01-JUL-09
Fiscal End:	30-JUN-10
Total Assets:	$113,732.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$312,375.00
RRF Received:	02-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Hershel K. Swinger dies at 72; founded a program to aid urban fathers

The clinical psychologist who taught at Cal State L.A. created Project Fatherhood, which has provided therapy, support and training for more than 7,000 low-income urban fathers since 1996.

June 12, 2011|By Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times

Swinger, a clinical psychologist, was a senior vice president of Children’s Institute who taught counselor education and directed a state-funded child abuse prevention center at Cal State L.A. for many years.

He was the founder and senior director of Project Fatherhood, a program that has provided therapy, support and training for more than 7,000 low-income urban fathers since its inception 15 years ago. Under Swinger’s leadership, it received a $7.5-million federal grant in 2006 to replicate the program in 50 agencies in Los Angeles County. It was recognized as a model program by the Obama administration last year.

Familiar with studies showing that children with absent fathers are far more likely to be poor, abuse drugs, drop out of school and enter the criminal justice system, Swinger believed that focusing on the fathers was a crucial part of the solution.

No mention of “present mothers” or of the fact that since 1996, one of the most dangerous places to be as a mother is attempting to leave violence with children and having a father contest custody — in other words, the climate towards women because of these programs, has become literally hostile. If indeed those facts ARE so, who is to say or not say that the real cause was “father-absence” or not something else? Is that a universal truth, like gravity — or a social construction? It helps expand a grants program if you are on the advisory council to another foundation: Federal funding allowed Project Fatherhood ^SM to expand in 2006 across Los Angeles County. Now, through a community grants program*, small faith-based and community organizations have been empowered to replicate the Project Fatherhood ^SM model in their own neighborhoods. …*The Project Fatherhood ^SM Community Grants Program is part of the Responsible Fatherhood Initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance.

**National Center for Fathering — another Nonprofit:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
National Center for Fathering	KS	2010	$414,597	990	28	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering	KS	2009	$668,266	990	30	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering	KS	2008	$541,246	990	29	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering	KS	2007	$1,280,008	990	30	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering Inc.	KS	2006	$573,780	990	45	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering Inc.	KS	2005	$1,471,113	990	29	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering Inc.	KS	2004	$719,773	990	23	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering Inc.	KS	2003	$355,475	990	23	48-1083848
National Center for Fathering Inc.	KS	2002	$241,183	990	22	48-1083848

Purpose of this group (KS location):

LIVE SEMINARS ON STRENGTHENING FATHERS. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR FATHERS. PROVIDE LEADERSHIP TRAINING FOR FATHERS. RESEARCH FOR ABOVE SERVICES. SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE OF PROGRAMS.

One employee listed got $62K — that turns out to be severance pay:

“KEN CANFIELD, THE FOUNDER, RECEIVED PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES PROVIDED DURING 2007.

JIM MOORE RECEIVED PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS SEVERANCE AGREEMENT. ($62K)”

The National Center for Fathering seeks to improve the well-being of children by promoting responsible fatherhood and equipping men to be more engaged in the lives of children. Programmingissummarizedinfourareas: Research,Training,ProgramsandResources.

Training (notice how many are trademarked. (from 2007 tax return: of its budget, $914K that year was “government grants.” So this is what our gov’t is sponsoring:

. TheNationalCenterforFatheringconductslivetrainingseminarstoequipmen for their role as fathers using its research-based curricula. Specific curricula developed by the National Center include : The 7 Secrets of Effective FathersTM,[+ Book, $12.99] Connecting With Your KidsTM Quenching the Father ThirstTM,Dads ofDestinyTM and R.E.A.D. to KidsTM The Center ‘s father training courses all include a version of its Personal Fathering Profile TM, a self-scored assessment that allows dads to compare their fathering practices with a national database. The Center also conducts train-the-trainer workshops to equip locally-based father trainers who work independently in their communities through faith-based,social service and other organizations to equip men.

I guess if all those fathers need train-train-trainers, maybe they ain’t nuttin’ but a hound-dog, and never will be, according to HHS!Either that, or there’s another reason for all this obsession.

~~~This group is in the business of SALES: Income from Training: $205K / Honorarium:: $52K (plural); Gross profit from Sales of INVENTORY: $403K, and “MISCELLANEOUS: $17K.”

Five highest paid employees (that year) — doin’ all right: (the 2nd # for each is deferred comp/benefits)

RONALD NICHOLS _ _ _TRAINING DIR.: $91,362. $15 ,043. SCOTT-HUSE ———————— $83 ,650. 11 ,765. STEVE WILSON ___________ DIR. OF FIN: $82 ,267. 13 ,109. AMOS_JOHNSON_______URBAN FATHERING DIR.: $61 ,551. 11 ,254. BROCK GRIFFIN _ _ _ _PUBLICATIONS DIR.: $57 ,088. 11 ,456 Key officers make a (total) of $355K + $40K, split between three men: Carey W. Casey, Peter Spokes & Brian Blomberg.. . I noticed also some borrowing, including a $100K loan for which security was “CD of Peter Spokes” etc. . . . (??) Carey w. Casey and Obama Whitehouse get along just fine:

Carey Casey honored as a “Champion of Change” – Watch Video

JUNE 12, 2012 BY CAREY CASEY 2 COMMENTS

As Father’s Day approaches there are so many reasons to be encouraged here at the Center … One big reason is an opportunity I had to visit the White House. I was one of ten people honored as “Champions of Change” in the field of fatherhood. This is an effort by the White House Office of Public Engagement and Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to promote positive fatherhood, and it’s my privilege to be there and talk about Championship Fathering … “from the White House to the outhouse,” as I always say. I am also humbled. I know that I … [Read More…]

(ET . . .CET. . . eRA). . . . here’s USPTO.gov — wonder how many of those “tm” items really are “tm” ed! Colorado State marketing a booklet ‘Connecting with your Kids” http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Self_Help/CO_Parenting_Time_Book2004.pdf

Connecting With Your Kids

But it thanks Ken Sanders of (the) “Center on Fathering” and a “Colorado Fatherhood Connection”

Notice that in the MIDDLE of “fathers.com” top row of hyperlinks (to other pages) is “STORE” The store page kinda reminds me of the “cooperative parenting institute” store page (Termini & Boyan):

Championship Fathering Wristband 2 Models / Great for Father’s Day Give-Aways!

The 21-Day Dad’s Challengeby Carey Casey & 19 others

Championship Fathering by Carey Casey

52 Things Kids Need from a Dadby Jay Payleitner

52 Things Wives Need from Their Husbands by Jay Payleitner

Some are even on discount!

Monthly Specials For July

Forming a Lifelong Bond: For Dads of Infants by Ken Canfield $5.99 $2.99 Save: 50% off

Leaving a Lasting Legacy: For Grandfathers by Ken Canfield $5.99 $2.99 Save: 50% off

You’re a Stepparent … Now What? by Joseph Cerquone $12.99 $6.50 Save: 50% off

Boys! by William Beausay II $14.99 $7.49 Save: 50% off

Transforming Children Into Spiritual Champions by George Barna $17.99 $9.00 Save: 50% off

The 21-Day Dad’s Challenge – Carey Casey, General Editor $13.99 $11.19 Save: 20% off

Teaching True Love to a Sex-at-13 Generation by Eric&Leslie Ludy $13.99 $7.00 Save: 50% off

My Grandpa Loves Me! Kids’ T-shirts $11.99 $6.00 Save: 50% off

The Way of the Wild Heart by John Eldredge $22.99 $11.50 Save: 50% off

Preparing Your Daughter for** Every Woman’s Battle by S Ethridge $13.99 $7.00 Save: 50% off

The 21-Day Dad’s Challenge – Carey Casey, Gen. Ed. – case of 56 $783.44 $548.41 Save: 30% off

Teaching Our Men, Reaching Our Fathers by Matthew Parker $14.99 $7.50 Save: 50% off

There now — that’s WAY better than actually helping custodial mothers and the children in their house DIRECTLy through, say, child support enforcement — or TANF (food stamps / cash aid) — or else, who knows what might happen? Mom might pick up a pair of extra underwear for her kids, and start feeling more, er independent than is appropriate for faith-based, er, churches… **Re: the woman’s version of abstinence education (for those who don’t know this already) is I guess the counterpart to “every man’s battle” which is aimed at men, and the most obvious of the 10 commandments (in sex realm), thou shalt not commit adultery & I guess thou shalt not covet . . .. http://everymansbattlevideo.com/ While I could care less about the original book, here’s what another Christian commentary says about it, which seems apt: “Psychoheresies”: http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/emb112.html [PAL Vol11N2 Apr-May ’03] “EMB is loaded with unsubstantiated information…There is no reference to research to support what Arterburn says. When important and critical statements like that are made, the reader is entitled to some proof beyond Arterburn’s personal experiences…” “Faulting Fred’s father is repeated and amplified throughout the book. It is sinful to give such details because it violates the commandment to honor one’s father. Such details also give the impression that it wasn’t really Fred’s fault that he sinned in this way. One gets the distinct impression that Fred is painting a picture of personal victimhood.“ “the authors do not just refer to these sinful activities by name; they spell out these sinful activities and explicitly express details of “ogling,” sexual dreaming, “sexualized acts,” and “rampant masturbation,” etc. Such explicit details feed the flesh and work to build camaraderie among those men involved in lust. …“ Author Stephen Arterburn is the founder of the chain of New Life Clinics (p. 3). The clinics are advertised on a number of pages in the book with a full-page ad on page 230. An underlying idea here is that, if the reader just can’t make it on his own with this self-help book, he can find help at one of these clinics. As far as insurance coverage is concerned, New Life Clinics function like other secular psychological and psychiatric clinics that dispense psychotherapy and drugs.

How Much Mileage Can DV Advocates get out of the press on San Francisco’s Ross Mirkarimi/Eliana Lopez case?

with one comment

This has been headline news for how long? It definitely brings up mixed feelings on my part — knowing how many women are receiving far more severe battery, false imprisonment, endangering children and intimidating witnesses throughout the Bay Area, and have been for years — many years. While each time there is some press, someone from one of the organizations gets quoted.

March 31, 2012, last Saturday, Section “C,”* an article laid out at top of the page, full width, and by Columnist C.W. Nevius), reads:

(*Bay Area section of the SF Chronicle)

“Wife’s anger misdirected in Mirkarimi case.”

Eliana Lopez is furious at the way her domestic violence dispute with her husband, suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, has been handled.

Too bad. Because the process worked perfectly.

Was it messy and painful? Absolutely. But it is also important and worthwhile.

This week, Myrna Melgar, a survivor of domestic violence,** wrote a passionate account – with Lopez’s blessing – of her friend’s devastation and anger in how the case was handled. While the opinion piece in the Bay Guardian had some fascinating details, it missed the main point.

Neither Lopez nor Mirkarimi seems able to get beyond the anger toward neighbor Ivory Madison, who called attention to the alleged abuse and then provided the damning video of Lopez crying and pointing to a bruise.

Melgar wrote that the process empowers people “to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes.”

That’s right. It does. And that’s what it should do.

“This is why domestic violence advocates have been seen as evildoers,” said Kathy Black, executive director of La Casa de las Madres. “They say we are breaking up families. The helper becomes the one who is blamed.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quHv5VFi

**not sure this is the same “Myrna Melgar, just included the LinkedIn profile which shows her professional/civic leadership in the area. It probably is)

This is the Bay Guardian article, and it seems well written enough. I’m glad someone filled in a few of these details, including a factor that until 5 Mr. Mirkarimi was raised in a bi-cultural family (Russian Jewish mother/ Iranian Muslim father), and then was separated from his father. There seems to be a sense of father-absence here:

(The bulk of my post is addressing topics raised in this article, particularly a certain reference to a Canadian sociologist for insight into this Californian incident).

Guardian Op-Ed: Domestic violence, a Latina feminist perspective

03.27.12 – 3:01 pm |

(255)

Share1069

By Myrna Melgar

Myrna Melgar is a Latina survivor of childhood domestic violence, a feminist, and the mother of three girls. She is a former legislative aide to Sup. Eric Mar.

Eliana Lopez is my friend. I have asked for her permission to put into words, in English, some observations, thoughts and insights reached during our many conversations these past few weeks about her experience with San Francisco’s response to the allegation of domestic violence by her husband, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi . . . (Please read the article).

. . .According to Eliana, the context of what happened between them on December 31 actually started much earlier. Ross grew up as the only son of a single teenage mother of Russian Jewish descent and an absent Iranian immigrant father. Pressured by the opposition of her family to her relationship with an Iranian Muslim, Ross’s mother divorced his father by the time he was five. Ross was raised on a small, nearly all-white island in New England, with no connection to his father. When he had the opportunity, Ross traveled to Chicago, where his father had remarried and built a new family with two sons. Ross’s father turned him away. In Eliana’s analysis, Ross’s greatest fear is that his painful story with his father will be replayed again with Theo.

I can just see the fathers’ rights groups (which are mens’ rights groups) spinning this one to blame Mr. Mirkarimi’s abuse of his wife on his lack of a father (and not perhaps some of the standards that might have been learned in the first five years of his life, or anything else).

Eliana Lopez came to San Francisco from Venezuela with hope in her head and love in her heart. She decided to leave behind her beautiful city of Caracas, a successful career as an actress, and her family and friends, following the dream of creating a family and a life with a man she had fallen in love with but barely knew, Ross Mirkarimi.

Whirlwind romance, charmer? Another article (reporting on this one) adds:

Friend of Mirkarimi’s wife: family ‘destroyed‘

Heather Knight Thursday, March 29, 2012

Melgar’s piece describes how Lopez came to San Francisco after she and then-Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi became pregnant on one of his visits to her native Venezuela

(He got his girlfriend knocked up in the course of leisure? or business? Not mentioned — were they married at the time?

(Michael Macor/The Chronicle)

Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, speaks to the news media about the three misdemeanor charges against her husband, on Friday Jan. 13, 2012, in San Francisco, Ca

Bay Guardian Op-Ed, cont’d.:

Well-educated, progressive, charismatic, and artistic, she made friends easily. She and Ross seemed like a great match. Both were committed environmentalists, articulate and successful. They had a son, Theo. {{see above…}} As they settled into domestic life, however, problems began to surface. The notoriously workaholic politician did not find his family role an easy fit. A bachelor into his late forties, Ross had trouble with the quiet demands of playing a puzzle on the floor with his toddler or having an agenda-less breakfast with his wife. Ross would not make time for Eliana’s request for marriage counseling, blaming the demands of job and campaign.

Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:

How did it come to be that a system that was intended to empower women has evolved into a system that disempowers them so completely?

I don’t know Ms. Melgar’s life story (or whether she’s currently married — sounds like not). However, there are TWO ways the District Attorney’s Office can disempower women — if this is correct, prosecuting against the woman’s wishes when it’s supposedly a “minor” event. Or (and this was my situation and MANY other women’s) NOT prosecuting them despite severe domestic violence, when prosecuting them might save a life, or save ongoing destruction of life. See

And in this politically charged event — MADE TO ORDER for anyone who didn’t want Mirkarimi’s Progressive Politics disrupting the city (notice — nothing to do with domestic violence in that phrase) — because the events had some validity.

INTERJECTION — information from Purpleberets.org — and the topic is well-covered at the Sonoma County (Northern CA, not too far from SF) “Women’s Justice Center.” This is talking about much, MUCH more severe cases where DA refused to prosecute. (And if you know my blog, the case underlying it — and which eventually led to my blogging habit — was when district attorneys in TWO Counties refused to stop a child-stealing in action, or to prosecute it — ever. The general practice over a number of years (by law enforcement, specifically — I’m talking police in a number of cities, county sheriffs in more than one, and the district attorney’s office. As it turns out later, the person in charge of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (a hybrid creation by DA’s office and others modeled on San Diego’s one which came out of the City Attorneys’ Office — I’ve blogged this plenty elsewhere), Ms. Nadia Lockyer, then went on to win the position of County Supervisor (with help of a $1 million campaign funding and very, very, very well connected spouse 30 years her senior) — had a substance abuse problem, started an affair with someone (closer to her age) she met in rehab — himself getting off ‘meth’ — and had an incident requiring 911 assistance in a Newark (California) motel early a.m. This is the Bay Area leadership . . . . . it’s typically about politics and careers — and NOT about preventing violence against women and services to them. In the larger scope.

So, re: the immense power of the District Attorney’s Office: Written, I believe, around the year 2000:

California Passes Tough New Domestic Violence Laws — by Maria DeSantis, director Women’s Justice Center

In effect since January 1, 2000, a patchwork of new California domestic violence laws is already providing added help for domestic violence victims. The laws, however, still leave untouched some of the biggest obstacles victims face.

. . . .

District Attorney Power Still Unfettered

A critical area for victims of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse that has been left ignored by legislators this year and in years past is the district attorney’s absolute power to refuse to file charges no matter how solid the evidence. Even if a district attorney refuses to file charges on a whole crime category, there is no legal remedy for victims. This unrestricted prosecutorial discretion is particularly dangerous for women in Sonoma County where D.A. Mike Mullins’ rate of conviction on domestic violence is one of the lowest in the state, and where he systematically under-charges cases of violence against women and children.

For example, at this writing, we at Women’s Justice Center have a case of three days of spousal rape, sodomy and beatings which the district attorney has filed only as misdemeanor domestic violence. The detective in the case states there is ample evidence to file multiple felonies.

In another case of a woman beaten to the point of a fractured skull, the D. A. refused to file at all for five months until one day the perpetrator went out and committed another assault with a deadly weapon on another victim. In yet another case of spousal rape, the district attorney and Cloverdale Police have been fighting for six months over who should pay for translating key evidence. Sadly, those are just a few of many examples.

Not only are all women put in direct and great danger by the absence of any legislative check on the district attorney’s denial of justice to women, but the D.A.’s refusal to file proper charges on these cases also suffocates and discourages police efforts. We need to work with our legislators to give them the fortitude to put restrictions on district attorney discretion now.

(For Spanish translation of this and other violence against women information, see the WJC website:www.justicewomen.com )

© Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center

You can copy and distribute this information at will
if you include credit and don’t edit.

Back to Myrna Melgar’s article, minimizing the incident:

Unquestionably, there are women in deeply abusive relationships who need assistance getting out, who may not be able to initiate an escape on their own. Eliana’s relationship with Ross did not even come close to that standard.

It seems Myrna is oblivious to the fact that, through the family court, if Eliana did decide (later) to go to Venezuela without her husband’s assent, he could — in a moment, and don’t think such a person is unaware of this — charge her (or find someone to charge her) with parental kidnapping, put an arrest warrant out for her, and in the meantime get practically ANY family law judge in San Francisco — unless they had a personal grudge or other political reason to not do this — to switch sole custody to him, demand some sort or extradition, and/or have her thrown in jail if she came back to work things out. And don’t think that this isn’t a possibility. Maybe they would’ve worked it out — or maybe not. But one thing’s for sure — I read a LOT of material put out by domestic violence groups, and have networked with hundreds, literally, of mothers over the years, and most of them were completely ambushed by the concept that appealing to domestic violence laws to protect themselves and kids, even if they were IN a battered womens’ shelter — was no shield at all for later transfer of their children to their abusers. This is literally a third line of advocacy, now — “protective parents.” So, while it did not NOW rise to that abusive level, it certainly could’ve later.

Yet in the eyes of Ivory Madison, Phil Bronstein, District Attorney George Gascon, and even the Director of La Casa de las Madres, once her husband had grabbed her arm, Eliana was simply no longer competent and her wishes were irrelevant.

In other words, an action done by a man, over which a woman has no control whatsoever, renders the woman incompetent and irrelevant, and empowers a long list of people — most of whom are male — to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes. No one in the entire chain of people who made decisions on Eliana’s behalf offered her any help — besides prosecuting her husband

How ironic — because it is literally true, and how I WISH someone would’ve intervened in this manner during the abusive years, while our kids were growing up, in a Bay Area County. The most dangerous place for ME to be in that county was in my home, which was one reason I became an excellent networker and made sure to get those children into a variety of activities (“healthy,” they’d be called now) in nonabusive environments and connected with other kids their age and families, too. Police came after incidents more violent than this one (I think — I wasn’t a witness to Eliana’s case) and didn’t arrest — ever. So they left, and the violence continued, until finally I got out, before the “fatherhood”movement was in full swing — although it was definitly operational and almost prevented me from getting a restraining order at the time. I hadn’t been assaulted recently enough (in part, because over time one learns how to avert, avoid, dodge and diffuse situations, i.e., live like a near-fugitive in one’s own home). This man NEVER spent a night in jail on my behalf — but it’s quite likely that if he had, earlier on, he might have woken up and mended his ways. Maybe.

My kids and I will never know, because no officer ever arrested him. And now that he’s been very well informed that there will be NO prosecution beyond the initial restraining order with kickout type of even (apparently the DV organizations’ funding is tied to some sort of head count on “clients served”??) — my and my kids’ lives afterwards — though there was a noticeable improvement — no one could assault me IN my house — there has been stalking, serious, harassment around (times right before and right after) my work, repeated job losses surrounding this, and long-term litigation in the family law system, which utterly drained my resources, and finally stolen, then abandoned by their father, children.

So in light of that, I am in favor of more aggressive early intervention — although it’s not quite cldear to me how to label this high-profile case, except it highlights the hypocrisy of who is, and who is not, prosecuted.

Consider, however, if there’d been a subsequent argument around the same issue after Mirkarimi had been installed as sheriff and was still in that role. How endangered might Eliana be at that time? I have, literally, taken a phone call from a terrified women form a (DV) support group who had just learned that her (police officer) husband had been released. She was headed off to a shelter. Yes, law enforcement can be abusive –and plenty abusive.

From the same article, I want to address these two paragraphs, by Eliana’s friend Ms. Melgar, which make me wonder about her other professional connections in the area:

So here is the challenge to domestic violence advocates and progressive folks who care about women: A more progressive approach to Eliana and Ross’s particular situation, and to domestic violence in general, would be to work on emphasizing early, non-law enforcement intervention and the prevention of violence against women in addition to the necessary work of extricating women from dangerous situations

I.e., she is 100% unaware of one of the largest groups in the nation doing EXACTLY this — and based in San Francisco? (the Family Violence Prevention Fund, formerly) — and yet has this Op-Ed in the Bay Guardian, a well-respected (progressive) publication?

Professor Laureen Snider at Queens University in Ontario has argued that criminalization is a flawed strategy for dealing with violence against women.

So what? if this person argued so? And the one anecdote (ms. Melgar’s own life) which would indicate the re-socialization of men (in particular) to not assault family members actually worked in her case. Perhaps along with the education cited in her case, her father was also aware that criminalization would get them all deported, and that was a factor in his change? Meanwhile, in this particular area alone (and California, even moreso) we have ample evidence that this policy is a failure — women are still being shot, attacked, stabbed, beaten, burned, stalked, and sometimes put homeless — and what’s more, bystanders are now getting increasingly shot in the process too. Seal Beach, California. This has happened, moreover, around the arena of the family law and custody matters, and AFTER separation from violence!!

For the record, we are in the USA, and not Canada, and under a different system of law? Got it? They don’t have the Bill of Rights, to my understanding. They have closer ties (i THINK – am beginning to wonder) to a country with a monarch! And Dr. (Ph.D.) Snider is a sociologist. Why would this writer bring in this viewpoint – are there no adequate viewpoints on this matter of an inbound sheriff violating domestic violence laws in the USA?

Laureen Snider

Department of Sociology, Queen’s University, Canada

Laureen Snider, a Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University, has published numerous studies on corporate crime, regulation and governance including Bad Business: Corporate Crime in Canada (Nelson: 1993) and Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates (University of Toronto Press, 1995, co-edited with Dr. Frank Pearce). Her present research centres on the asymmetries of surveillance, comparing the monitoring of employees versus that of employers (“theft of time”); and the surveillance capabilities of traditional police forces against traditional criminality (“crime in the streets”, versus those of regulatory agencies against corporate criminality (“crime in the suites”). Recent publications include: “But They’re Not Real Criminals”: Downsizing Corporate Crime” (in B. Schissel & C. Brooks, eds., Critical Criminology in Canada . Halifax: Fernwood, 2008: 263-86); “Economic Crimes”, (in J. Minkes and L. Minkes, eds.,Corporate and White-Collar Crime. London: Sage, 2008: 39-60), “Safety Through Punishment?”, (in M. Beare, ed., Honouring Social Justice, Honouring Dianne Martin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) and “Accommodating Power: The “Common Sense” of Regulators”, Social and Legal Studies 18(2), 2008 (forthcoming).

Faculty website: http://www.queensu.ca/sociology/?q=people/faculty/full-time/sniderl

Queens University, Ontario, Canada, is also a known hangout of some serious AFCC propaganda — In looking up Ms. Snider (who may or may not be involved in such things), the same brochure has a large inset designed to honoring Nicholas Bala (search my blog) in association with AFCC. He is a definite supporter of PAS theory — i.e., minimizing child & wife abuse, or reframing it as NOT a criminal, but a “relationship” issue, as much as possible. “Coincidentally” the international organization AFCC has a wide membership among relationship counselors and another psychological sorts, plus a clos connection to the fathers’ rights (= mens’ rights) movement in general, no matter what they “say” about how it’s all about the children…

http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/queensLawReports/lawReports2008.pdf Here he is in this brochure, being honored (photo visible at the link):

Professor Nicholas Bala is introduced as the recipient of the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award by Bill Howe, a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts, at its 45th Annual Conference in Vancouver on May 29, 2008.

BALA RECOGNIZED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAMILY AND DIVORCE LAW

On May 29, 2008, Bala received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts (AFCC) in recognition of his outstanding work in family and divorce law. “I am deeply honoured by this recognition,” Bala said, “particularly in light of noteworthy contributions from previous winners.”

Bala became the first Canadian to win the award from the AFCC, an international organization of professionals involved in the family court system striving to empower families and promote healthier futures for children. Most of the award’s previous recipients were leading American researchers in the mental health field, including such scholars as Sanford Braver, Joan Kelly and Janet Johnston, whose work focused primarily on the effects of divorce on parents and children. . . .

In contradiction to the concept of “no-fault” divorce law…

As one of Canada’s leading family and children’s law scholars, Bala has a distinguished reputation for his innovative and traditional research methods and his diverse range of publications. Scholars in Canada and abroad frequently cite Bala, and Canadian lawyers and judges frequently quote his research. In its recent decision in R. v. D.B., the Supreme Court of Canada cited Bala’s work for the 25th time.

In addition to Bala’s traditional legal scholarship, much of his research draws from a variety of disciplines: he collaborates with psychologists, criminologists and social workers to address the problems children and families encounter within the justice system.

“I have not only been involved in consuming the research of social scientists about the justice system; I’ve helped to produce it,” Bala says. “My collaboration with mental health professionals and social scientists has allowed me to appreciate both the value—and the limitations—of their work for the justice system.”

Besides his interdisciplinary work with the Child Witness Project, Bala has been taking a closer look at how domestic violence is handled in the family-law arena. He has been working with three mental-health professionals {{Want to bet $100 they’re all AFCC members? I could use a little extra cash to upgrade some of the blog….!}}} to produce a series of papers on this issue, and the group recently created a model to address the effects of family violence on the determination of child custody and access. **

**Jargon translation: wife-beating is no reason to restrict a child who witnessed this having access to their biological father. Let us do supervised visitation, etc. — hence (in the US) HHS “Access/Visitation” funding, with help from the (also international) Children’s Rights Council, which developed the term “access” to replace the term “visitation.” This model will be ADMINSTRATIVELY or PRACTICALLY begun (or has been already) and then other highly placed individuals (state by state in the US) will suggest — hey, why not make it a law? (Example: PA: Commission on Justice Initiatives: Changing the Culture of Custody).

The team’s article about their family-violence-assessment model, which was published in the most recent issue of the international journal Family Court Review, {{Co-produced with AFCC & Hofstra Univ. School of Law in NY}} is already being cited in a number of countries.

The Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award (Stanley Cohen being a principal in the development of AFCC) is Bala’s second major award in three years for his valuable research contributions. He won the Queen’s Prize for Excellence in Research in 2006 during an annual university-wide competition. For more information about this award, see “Nicholas Bala Wins Top University Research Prize” on page 2 of the 2007 issue of Queen’s Law Reports at http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/publications/lawReports2007.pdf

Last I heard, United State of America claims to be somewhat of a unique country, based on its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and reputation for freedom, right to trial by jury, protections of due process, etc. — people immigrate here for a better life. We are labeled (or maybe were, not too long ago) the “leadership of the free world.”

So why this urgency to bring all our legal institutions — especially one dealing with families, and raising the next generations of children — into consonance with international standards, including socialist countries, countries such as the UK, which still maintain a Queen, a national religion, and until about 100 years ago, were about as imperialistic, colonizing and enslaving a country as could be found on the globe? HUH?

And why is Ms. Melgar quoting someone who hangs out at a University which is known (at least as to family law) as an “AFCC safe harbor”? Because she’s a feminist? California doesn’t have enough feminists to reference? (The New Transparency group) (the Conversation: Snider blurg:)

My major research interests lie in the intersection between knowledge, punishment and law. I have applied this in several substantive areas, in studies examining the poisoned water disaster in Walkerton, Ontario, the reception of knowledge claims on corporate crime, and the constitution of the punishable woman.

Experience

Professor of Sociology, Queen’s University – present

Education

Toronto University, B.A., M.A., Ph.D

Site “The Conversation” (Obviously I am just looking up Laureen Snider and wondering why she’s quoted in re: prosecution of a SF inbound sheriff):

“OUR CHARTER“

Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.

Not that it may be enforceable at this point, but I happen to live in a country where the underlying concept was NOT an “aristocracy of the experts” to solve social problems, but a government of “We the People” through institutions that limited any resurgence of the tyranny of religion, individual interests (including royalty from other countries), and, to the extent we have taxation, and pass laws, they are to come from our elected representatives, who are accountable to the people living here (i.e. ,citizens) — and are not to be imported laced with concepts NOT innate to the US, and for which it fought a serious “war for independence” — from Great Britain — in the 1770s! ! !! (not a topic to be developed in this post, but there’s a lot more depth I’m learning these days about HOW we became a country of collective debt to an international banking cartel, etc. etc.)

The matter at hand here has to do with an official — appointed Sheriff – a government employee of the USA — not Canada. have the discussion, but the prosecution, leadership and the dialogue around domestic violence advocacy groups here (mostly nonprofits which take some HHS funding, I’m fairly sure) is not an international matter — as pertains to should or should not it have been prosecuted…

CONTINUING. . . . . Bay Guardian article:

Snider argues that feminists and progressives have misidentified social control with police/governmental control. In other words, we are substituting one oppressor for another — and glossing over the fact that in the judicial system, poor people of color fare worse than white middle-class people. We have punted on (forward) the hard work education, and of shaping and reshaping men’s definitions of masculinity and violence, of the social acceptance of the subjugation of women, of violence against children. We have chosen to define success in the fight against domestic violence by women saved from horrible situations and incarceration rates for their abusers — rather than doing the difficult work of community and individual change necessary to prevent violence from happening in the first place

Perhaps Dr. Snider (who operates and was educated in Canada — exclusively — it seems, but shares through internet and other means (I don’t know) an international dialogue on certain issues of interest to her and them) is completely unaware of the heavily subsidized ‘Minnesota Program Development Fund,” the “Duluth Model,” the prevalence of the term “CCR” (COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE) in this country, thanks in great part to Ellen Pence, who, I note was college-educated also in Toronto:

Ellen Pence

Ellen Pence (1948 – January 6, 2012) was a scholar and a social activist. She co-founded the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project^[1], an inter-agency collaboration model used in all 50 states in the U.S. and over 17 countries.^[2] A leader in both the battered women’s movement and the emerging field of institutional ethnography, she was the recipient of numerous awards including the Society for the Study of Social Problems Dorothy E. Smith Scholar Activist Award (2008) for significant contributions in a career of activist research. . .

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She was active in institutional change work for battered womensince 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980.

She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse.^{[citation needed]}

She earned her Ph.D in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and was the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.^{[citation needed]} Ellen pence died [RECENTLY] at the age of 63 , from breast cancer .

PRAXIS means “practices.” Who is practiced upon? (Sorry, this wasn’t brought before our voters — except it went through the US Reps House Appropriations Committee, I guess. . . ..

Not before endorsing and propagating a system of educational institutions — taking public funding — based on social theory, and which have attracted a host of inappropriate misappropriations of public employees times, and which set up a built-in HIERARCHY — the exact OPPOSITE of what women, particularly mothers, leaving abuse need. This hierarchy is a lose/lose situation for any person imagining he/she has enforceable, legal rights in the USA — as an INDIVIDUAL. It sets up the hierarchy of the TEACHERS (for hire // mercenaries) versus the “TAUGHT.”

The social science THEORY that one can educate or train men out of violence is just taht — a theory. It is also contrary to the american (USA) form of government, which is to expect people to keep an identifiable law, and maintain a fair process of assigning punishments for those who choose not to. This means all people can be informed of WHAT their laws are — and leaves no room for speculations on the social impact of father-absence, single-parenthood, or even violence against women — and then millions of $$ which the public (and private interests) fund to tinker with the demonstration projects each time they get it wrong.

Back to the C.W.Nevius article (top of post), which continues:

Witnesses save lives

“Most cases are not this public,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium. “But if anyone made this more difficult, it was Ross Mirkarimi. There was a lot of activity trying to silence the witness, and that doesn’t usually happen. What we know is that witnesses coming forward saves lives.”

Mirkarimi was initially charged with three misdemeanors related to domestic violence and eventually reached an agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment. Mayor Ed Lee also filed charges to permanently remove him from office.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quqyOPjT

FYI, I do not live in San Francisco (some may wonder), but have lived in the area for over two decades, and worked frequently in the city and in surrounding counties — both during and after my “domestic violence” marriage. I notice that whenver there’s a high-profile event, here is this SF DVConsortium and Beverly Upton being consulted for help. I never got any help from them, nor did I get ANY help from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, although, they do throw a great conference, and how validating to know that domestic violence is a health risk (like, I didn’t know that?). It did NOTHING to address the ongoing violence enabled by the family law system to any and all mothers who, after doing the right thing, but having for some reasons, very persistent Exes — are thereafter psychologically, economically, legally and in other ways tortured (if not extorted) — in the custody realm.

This group apparently could care less, so long as they get their funds and keep up the reputation for protecting women from violence – without addressing the land mines ahead of them. SEE MY BLOG! no one gave me a federal fund to publicize this, and apparently the more other groups immunize themselves from DV rhetoric, the better it is for BOTH pro and con grantseekers. So, here — for a quick update — this “Consortium” consorts in getting public grants to continue their agenda. I gather this is a progressive agenda because it’s under the umbrella of the (very large) TIDES Foundation, which also sponsored the nonprofit “Stop Family Violence” — which appears (best I can tell) to consist of a website, and one or two professionals who got to fly around to conferences nationwide (Irene Weiser, i forget who the other person was) and now is perhaps inactive, although the website is still up there.

Members of this agency

aka SFDVC and/or DVC) founded in 1982, is a network of seventeen domestic violence service agencies that come together with the goal of providing high quality, coordinated and comprehensive services to San Francisco’s victims of domestic abuse. {{ABUSE? or VIOLENCE? Make up your mind!!}}

The services of the individual agencies include emergency shelter, transitional housing, crisis lines, counseling, prevention programs, education and legal assistance. Services are available in the many different languages of San Francisco’s diverse populations. One of the main activities of the SFDVC is networking. SFDVC agencies share information, learn about issues that impact their work and coordinate their services and activities with a particular focus on public funding, specifically coordinating grant proposals and conducting advocacy/lobbying of government departments as to the importance of funding domestic violence services.

The SFDVC is a nonprofit organization and a project of the Tides Center. The SFDVC is led by its co-chairs and committees. The SFDVC recognizes that San Francisco is a diverse city and domestic violence is a problem in all communities regardless of ethnicity, race, class, physical ability, religion, age, immigration and economic status, sexual orientation and gender identity.

Obviously this is important work — HOWEVER — notice the collective grants-obtaining clout they have? That must be HOW there has been such coordinated and collective silence on the fathers’ rights grants and movement I report, and so have other UNsponsored INDIVIDUALS. Do they teach women about to file a kickout order about the upcoming Access/Visitation grants (in place, $10 million a year since 1996), how the Federal Incentives to the Child SUpport Enforcement system include running demonstration grants on how to increase noncustodial (father) time with the children, and how if they go on welfare, they are quite likely to be ex-parte consolidated into a divorce action, and thrown to the family court wolves, whose funding is MUCH larger?

NO — not last I heard.

Do they say anything about the organization AFCC, which practically runs the local Family Courts, let alone the Family Court Facilitators’ offices where people NOT as well-off financially (probably) than Ms. Lopez will end up seeking remedies? AFCC publishes most of the brochures available there — and (I checked in recent years) the coverage of domestic violence issues is highly diminished. So, what does that say about women’s right to know and make an INFormeD decision about whether to confront their batterer (sometimes with a civil protective order — not even mentioned in these dialogues), or call the police and hope a criminal one is instated?

LASTLY (and that’s enough for today!), I wanted to also show the Mayor Ed Lee catering to the FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE organization, which currently owns prime real estate (or owns the organization that owns the real estate) in the SF Praesidio. Futures without Violence, indeed. The antidote to tyranny in our country (whether by domestic individuals within their family walls, or outside them by public officials) is a balance of powers between (1) the government and (2) the people, and fair enforcement of crimes against the state which jeopardize the safety of the public — which domestic violence DOES, and there’s plenty of evidence in the form of innocent bystanders shot, businesses disrupted, as well as responding police officers. We live in one of the more violent countries in the world, in many levels, and despite decades of advocacy by DV groups, their inherent demand for public funds to “coordinate services” and educate — the world, essentially — they are not open to criticism from the street level about this agenda.

TOO BAD – it’s here, it’s coming and I’m not going to stop, if I can help, this outrage. I have one-third of my adult life thrown down this rabbit hole ,and the concept of betrayal is absolutely high. MSM is owned, and is never going to tell the whole story. More bloggers are needed — bloggers that cite their sources where possible, and make sure that this situation is no longer covered up, or specially framed when it comes time to renew the funding for the VAWA act and the counterintuitive simultaneous funding of the next round of fatherhood/marriage etc. grants. No wonder this keeps going on, perhaps — our society is so stressed and compartmentalized, and has been already pre-trained to have their income taxes garnished, so garnishing wages for child support is a short step away. No privacy, no safety, and no justice. Just more debt!

My parting shot, I think: The Mayor that wants Mirkarimi out references Futures without Violence. Label this: “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!”

Ed Lee addresses domestic violence conference

Rachel Gordon

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Siana Hristova / The Chronicle

S.F. Mayor Ed Lee delivers the keynote address at a national domestic violence conference
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qux42sTZ

Without mentioning Ross Mirkarimi by name, Mayor Ed Lee on Friday delivered an indirect rebuke of the man he suspended from the sheriff’s job after he pleaded guilty to a domestic-violence-related charge of false imprisonment of his wife.

The mayor made his remarks during a brief keynote address at a national conference on domestic violence under way in San Francisco sponsored by the Futures Without Violence organization.

Seizing on sentence

Mirkarimi was elected sheriff in November after serving seven years on the Board of Supervisors. He was sworn in to his new job on Jan. 8 and was arrested less than two weeks later for allegedly bruising his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument in front of their 2-year-old son. The district attorney charged him with misdemeanor domestic violence battery, dissuading a witness and child endangerment.

The new sheriff pleaded not guilty to those three counts, but on March 12, under a plea-bargain agreement, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, weekly domestic violence intervention classes, and one day in jail with time served for when he showed up at the Hall of Justice for booking; he did not serve time behind bars.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qv2FUQhL

I have yet to find out a news article actually naming who is the provider of the weekly classes! But this whole deal sure does give us a picture of how political the entire field is. NOT TO MENTION — that once they get their mileage and some funds (he has to take those classes, right?) with the case, and the press — these programs that didn’t teach a county supervisor how to behave to his wife — and I’ll bet he probably approved some of the programs too — are going to continue, with MSM coverage while the private tragedies, ongoing, and far larger in scope, danger to the women involved, and near-lethal or lethal — surrounding the insane institution of the family courts — will continue, probably. Talk about rocking the power structure to the center– if THAT story got out, I seriously doubt MSM (mainstream media) would take it!

They are right to suspend the guy. Not that there aren’t others in the area that ought to lose their nonprofit standing for simply not profiting the public — like the huge Futures without Violence!

Full Name:	FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE		FEIN:	943110973
	Type:	Public Benefit		Corporate or Organization Number:	1648791

Registration Number:	077397
Record Type:	Charity	Registration Type:	Charity Registration
Issue Date:	12/31/2005	Renewal Due Date:	5/15/2011
Registration Status:	Current	Date This Status:	5/16/2007
Date of Last Renewal:	9/23/2010

Address Information

Address Line 1:	100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST	Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4:	SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129

Annual Renewal Information

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-01
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-01
Total Assets:	$8,143,898.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$10,345,721.00
RRF Received:	25-MAR-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Fast forward 10 years, some additional Annie E. Casey participation and of course the concept of “Fatherhood” as a tool to prevent domestic violence (see my blog), and an institute (downloadable trainings?) to promote that concept:

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-09
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-09
Total Assets:	$26,157,567.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$11,614,069.00
RRF Received:	12-AUG-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-10
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-10
Total Assets:	$36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$17,118,149.00
RRF Received:	14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:

The extra $10 million in ASSETS between 2009 & 2010 is most likely the acquisition of the real estate at the Praesidio. I dare you to look at their (rejected) tax return to the IRS, and figure out why it was rejected (letter uploaded to the same site). this is the Office of Attorney General’s site, and anyone can search through it, and should:

(STATE CHARITABLE RETURN FOR 2009) FORM RRF-I INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT 14 ART B, LINE 6

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAM 810 7TH STREET NW, 5TH FLOO~ WASHINGTON, DC 20531 NEELAM PATEL, 202-353-4338 — AMOUNT $2.9 million
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 370 L’ENFANTE PROMENADE, 6Tl FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20447 — AMOUNT $1.5 million
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DHUMAN SERVICES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 801 THOMPSON AVENUE ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 — AMOUNT $86K
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENIL! AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES P.O. BOX 8970 RENO, NV 89507 — AMOUNT $91K
OTHER GOVERNMENT GRANTS (whose?) AMOUNT $30K
TOTAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING $ 4,649,368

(that was year 2009)….

the heavy involvement of the US HHS and the NCJFCJ — which is a family court organization (and, the current head of the office of VAW, Susan D. Carbon, used to be president of the NCJFCJ, I heard) — ensures that no real critical analysis of the feminist backlash in the family court system is going to take place — that would be biting the hand that feeds them!

There were (year 2009) TEN (10) paid directors of this NONprofit — and their combined regular compensation was about $1.6 million, with Esta Soler’s being the largest salary ($234K & $71K “other”), and the lowest of any of the others being $112K. If you add “other compensation” for all ten, the total is NEARLY $THREE MILLION ($3 mil).

In addition, campaign /project manager professionals — $428,323….three individuals.

There are (moreover– see that tax returns), TWO real estate LLCs and ONE real estate “C-Corp” (an “Inc.”) with the word Praesidio in them, at the same street address (383 Rhode Island #304, SF) of the then-FVPF. At least one of these is 100% owned by FVPF.

Futures without Violence is international in scope, but heavily supported — year after year (actually decade after decade it seems — I think it began ca. 1989) by US taxpayers, while being itself free from income tax (as a corporation) and investing in real estate. GO FIGURE! They are living “high on the hog” and running the show, while men, women and children around them continue to get molested, have their income, lives and assets SQUANDERED through ongoing litigation in the family law arena, which is funded in good part by similar corporations behind this monster DV agency.

I have heard Esta Soler speak, and she’s impressive. What they have done is impressive. However it doesn’t compensate for the intrinsic disparity of influence between this group — and actual mothers who need protection and help, and to keep their kids away from violent fathers — AND vice versa.

AND — in 2010 — they decided not to report their Schedule B — List of Contributors, including names and addresses (see amounts, above). The notice was sent to the group in August 2011 — and the situation apparently has not yet been corrected. Nor did they send in their annual $225 fee (notice also sent August 2011). Perhaps this group is going to pull up roots, sell its real estate to a foreign-based corporation and simply stop dealing with the American law and order system entirely.

It should be looked into. It’s not too big to look into. Why do we need a multimillion$$ NONprofit to run campaigns and things like “Coaching Boys into Men” — that’s the job of schools and parents. take that money down and make better schools, or almost any situation might be preferable.

Publicize the actual LAWS against such violence on their sites and teach pastors, teachers, and others to report. I reported to plenty of individuals in mandatory reporting positions during my marriage. None of them, for the most part, did much. They must have figured out it was someone else’s job.

Can you imagine running a ‘Batterers Intervention Class” for Ross Mirkarimi? And can we imagine that a politician of this stature couldn’t convince anyone that he’s absorbed and believed the material? There’s a LOT more than meets the eye to this case. I’m glad he got suspended, not that this would have made him an inappropriate county supervisor or other political leader. Just not sheriff!!

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 2, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Alameda County Family Justice Center, Child Support, custody, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Esta Soler, family law, fatherhood, Feminists, Futures Without Violence (FVPF) 2010 return $11mil revenues $36mil assets rejected-Sched B omits names&addresses of contributors, FVPF becomes Futures without Violence, Intimate partner violence, Laureen Snider (Toronto), men's rights, Myrna Melgar, Nicholas Bala (Toronto), Nonprofits investing in Real Estate, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

“Strong Field Project” caters to DV industry’s networks, enabled by ?? “Three Cities that Rule the World”

. . .

The “Strong Field Project” is just another sapling off the DV as industry Tree, and not the main point here (see first link, above). My point is, were it not for centralized wealth — and alongside that wealth, centralized decision-making (taxation without representation) these things would not exist. And so long as our medium of exchange is “fiat money” owned by private bankers, who lend to the U.S. Treasury at interest dumped upon the entire US Population, while talks about “stimulating the economy” “balancing the budget” etc. continue to roil the electorate — they rule that world, and it’s true — they do.

Maybe Jesus was right, in the wilderness -it takes one to know one and maybe whoever wrote the gospels of Matthew and Luke, describing his temptation, were absolutely correct (Mark, probably earlier than either, skims over the time in the wilderness). As it goes in Matthew 4 (KJV), three temptations, which I’ll summarize as: Do Magic Tricks (Stones into bread) to satisfy his empty stomach; Suicide (jump off the temple to test God’s safety net), and finally, Sellout (bow down, and be receive the kingdoms (plural) of the world, with their glory).

1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 4 has it in a different order (suicide last, after getting Jesus’ worship fails), and adds detail on how the devil got the power over the entire world:

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

“Power and Glory are mine,” boasts the devil. “I have the kingdoms of this world.” Well, were kingdoms around when this was written? “And I say who gets them, and who does not get them; I am the boss.”

It seems to hold true today, doesn’t it? Only different terminology is used. For example, the word “GRANT.” A grant is a gift, but with the gift goes a little piece of the recipient’s independence in the form of strings attached — does it serve a particular agenda set by the grantOR? Absolutely! This is basically the buying and selling of kingdoms, power, and etc. Whatever happens within them, that’s the umbrella over them.

Characterizing this as coming from “the devil” (invisible spiritual influence), i.e. bad — well, is this type of influence bad, and is it often exercised in hidden (invisible) ways? I’d say, yes…..

Looking at these “kingdoms of the world” (as opposed to looking at, for example, “Nature” and things that grow, against the zoology, biology, anatomy, astromony,etc. that show more and more amazing details) I have to agree, that the greater the power, the greater the damage. And that the lifeblood/energy is being sucked out of the some sectors of the world, along with money, and being centralized into who says who lives and dies; and who says who gets to keep their earnings and who doesn’t, however paltry they may be – and for what social good? For doing good?

No, not really — only good within limits of “I get to control what’s done with the world,” the song of the tax-exempt foundation run (or funded) by some great philanthropists, whose names are usally put on it too (good for PR), and in accompaniment with the corporations (businesses) that helped make that wealth. The tax-exempt foundation, by being tax-exempt, serves as a drainage ditch to reduce the taxes that would otherwise be paid on the FOR-profit.

Why else do we think so many of them are running around all over (look at the civic works, PBS shows, “Models for Change” programs calculating how to mobilize swift transformation of chosen areas of reform, such as “Juvenile Justice” or other areas. Go review MDRC again (I’ve blogged it) for an example of how inbred US Gov’t and Corporate wealth/tax-exempt foundations really are. Even AFCC is getting some help these days.

RATHER THAN WORK TO ELIMINATE THE VERY TAXATION SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCE THIS LEVEL OF WEALTH TO START WITH (ALONG WITH THE WISDOM TO KNOW HOW TO UTILIZE THAT LEVERAGE), INSTEAD, THE OWNERS OF THIS WEALTH FLY AROUND AND COLLABORATE ON A BETTER JUSTICE SYSTEM THAN THEIR LOWER COUNTERPARTS – WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN POSITIONS LIKE GOVERNORS, OF STATES, JUDGESHIPS, ATTORNEY GENERALS, ETC. — THE TRULY ALTRUISTIC BENEFICIAL COLLABORATION WOULD BE TO UNDO THIS INCOME TAX, SWITCH OFF THE “FIAT CURRENCY” AND DEFANG THE FEDERAL RESERVE. BUT HOW LIKELY IS THAT TO HAPPEN?

We’ve been hooked on it for 100 years next year (1913 – 2013) think about it. What an addiction.

The greatest goods would be protecting unalienable rights is LIFE, and LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and having enough self-respect and self-restraint to allow others to do the same — how many golden yachts does one really need? You can’t take it with you, even if you have a golden voice (like Whitney Houston, recently: global success, gone age 48, leaving one motherless child. Well, young adult. A wealthy one for sure, but one absent her mother).

So, here’s the Biblical worldview, at least in the book of Revelation. Followers are encouraged to keep it in mind that this kingdom is temporal and is going to be judged (by fire) — so choose your allegiances well. Without my interpreting whether that’s smart or not to endorse, here’s the description of that buying and selling of kingdoms, Revelations 18. As before, spiritual agents (angels, this time) are involved and judgment is swift, expressing indignation and vindication:

The kingdom that rules the world is characterized as “Babylon,” which was a kingdom, earlier. And, naturally, as a woman:

REVELATION 18:

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

That is indeed what the traffic is in. It pretty much describes most areas of commerce, including transport of goods:

(Addressed to the CITY): 14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, 16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

So many enterprises were hooked into the sales that took place in “the city;” but (she) was hell on the apostles and prophets, who were typically exiled, or killed in various gruesome ways, etc. ….there message wasn’t good for business. (Quite a contrast from some of today’s “apostles and prophets” –see recent post on the bankruptcy of the Crystal Cathedral (Garden Grove, CA) and its founding family’s squabbles with the board, i.e., Robert Schuller et al. I blogged it over at thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com

. . .

for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It takes a caste of slaves to produce certain levels of wealth, and even the best of major constructions (The Hoover Dam, the Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Station in NY) have been associated with human deaths of workers. What about the pyramids? What about the former practice of burying concubines and wives with the death of a ruler?

The lines have to be drawn and crowds have to be kept within their kind, and within their places. “The great men of the earth” are actually merchants, and there’s no question — is there? — that with slavery and slavehood comes untimely death, too often. So, look around — where are the deaths happening, where is the blood flowing, and then track the trail of money. Religion WILL be associated, and it’s not too hard to locate –except perhaps at the very top levels.

Whoever gave what to whom, and how (Adam, Eve, Israel in the Promised Land, whoever ….) there is no question that there is desire still circulating to rule the world, and that there are layers of collaborators — and the closer to the grants, and wealth (to fly, conference, buy and sell real estate under nonprofit umbrella, even “front groups” to launder the money at times) — the closer to the power, and the deafer the ears become to the cries of those they took the power to (allegedly) help, save, or whatever.

Anyone who’s lived with a certain level of abuse (and knew, by contrast, freedom) knows about this. Many times, supposedly there is some purpose to all the tyranny — but there never is. It’s just enforced because they can get away with doing this, and get off on it. Anything else is pretty much a lie.

WELL, let’s get down to the main show here:

I have been talking, briefly, about the analogy of “The Matrix’ (picked up from someone else who wrote about this) as an artificially created reality which, once you become aware of it, you have to either deal with (mentally, emotionally, psychologically) and determine where to stand regarding it — or take another sedative and go back to sleep.

The Internet is a great, addicting perhaps, but effective way to spread that net; it fishes and sets out bait both. But, it’s here, and must be dealt with, as a whole lotta money is traveling along that net (being tracked as it goes), and this technology, this tool — like many technological advances — is often used for warfare, to kill. The question is just, who.

To be read alongside a page added to the other blog:

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

I’m usually up for concise summaries that make some sense with the reality I’ve been observing.

Regular visitors (there are a few here) know how I feel about the profit/nonprofit caste system — which is a statement on, The Income Tax.

My feelings came in part from watching the nonprofits HHS is funding, from having actually sought help from some of the local ones, and then (later) seen their multi-million funding (their doctrines were a spit in the wind when applied to a single family law judge. If true, they held no sway in that forum, which is where all souls go (for the most part) who have had both DV AND sons or daughters with the same person.

I’m putting this in to remind us about the medium of exchange we call “money” and how fiat money and “bona fide” money cannot exist alongside each other, really — because the owners of the fiat money (private bankers) depend on an addicted population for their business. Free, choice-driven populations and those informed on the situation, would never choose the one that kept their country free over the one that enslaved it, would they?

So lies (deceit, as in ‘Deceived the nations” of Rev. 18) also has to be involved in the “sale” of this solution. I do look forward to the day when this type of deceit, as well as (while we’re here) I hope the extreme deceit of the people I share DNA with, who have for years been selling abusive “solutions” to the problem of my intent to remain free of them, by working, legally, as I CHOOSE to – also comes out in the wash. If the Bible is the word of God, it will. Other than this resurrection and day of judgment thing, I figure it’s a toss-up, but am intending to balance the odds in the favor of the basic truth, while I can.

The book of James also (chapter 5) talks about the behavior of the rich (it’s pretty much throughout the scriptures) and warns the readers about “respect of persons.” In this worldview, a future Judge is definitely coming; be patient and endure, is the mentality: Remember Job: God is just in the long-run.

<< James 5 >>
King James Version

1Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. 2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. 4Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. 5Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. 6Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.7Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. 10Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

I realize i’ve quoted from two books (James, Revelation) not among the earlier ones; apparently James wasn’t quoted til around 225.A.D.

More references for the curious, here (I haven’t reviewed, just put up one or two):http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm and (better narration here) http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html

At the close of the second century ((ca. 300 A.D. in other words)) the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. “It is a matter of necessity,” says Irenaeus, “that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority.” (Heresies, Book 3).

Don’t forget my recent favorite book “A.D. 381

I should pick on Protestants too — at least the link “freethought” brings up the topics. Atheists know this, but perhaps don’t think about it too much. They are surrounded by attending Christians who, if they thought too deeply about the canon of the scriptures, would stop attending, I imagine…. And they vote too, so might as well all of us get some concept of it in operation: The mainstream religions as we see them nowadays are basically spinoffs of empires and workign alongside them. Before a certain piont in time, they were only “sects” and followers, many of who were persecuted. Now adays when we see this type of centralization then called “empire” — we could as easily call it empire, or simply, fascism.

Martin Luther

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority.

And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible. Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: “I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.” In his “Bondage of the Will,” he severely criticises the book.He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible.” (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).He rejected Hebrews: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle.” (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).He rejected the Epistle of James: “St. James’ Epistle is truly an epistle of straw.” (Preface to Edition of 1524). He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture.” (Standing Preface). He rejected Revelation. He says: “I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit.” (Preface to Edition of 1622).

In the gospels, the books Jesus quoted the most were Deuteronomy (the law), Psalms, and Isaiah. On the day of Pentecost, per Acts, Peter quoted two only psalms and one prophet (?), and then got right onto explaining what they’d just seen and witnessed in that context, and exhorting people to “repent.” No “theology’ was apparently involved at the time. It was also prophesied (according to John) that the disciples/apostles would be hauled in front of the authorities to give their answer, and to not pre-meditate what they’d be saying, it would be given to them in their hour.

What then, we might legitimately ask, is going on every Sunday morning (and/or evening, or Wednesday evenings) when people congregate to hear someone’s homily or sermon, or inspired display, of what the scriptures mean, that they couldn’t themselves read, deduce, and act on, assuming they were walking in the same spirit? At least Catholics seem to keep it mass these days short, and give one time to think during the liturgy!!! One’s eardrums aren’t assaulted…

Or, for a more secular viewpoint yet, how about from Infidels.org on the canon, making reference to Thomas Jefferson (who didn’t believe in the miracles of Jesus and produced a skinny version, “The Jefferson Bible”, I gather):

Who says “a mature Christian must ask the question that skeptics ask…” (not a short read, but several good questions and points, for example, about “magic books” and who gets to decide which ones they are:

We’d like to hear directly from God about which books constitute his message. As Paul wrote, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Rom. 3:4) But God has not spoken in this way. Instead, is there some special list, authorized by Jesus, or the original apostles, of books that are specially approved? “God says that these books are the Bible,” we’d like to hear. There is no such list.[4] Who, then, decided what books would be in our Bible?

Back in the fourth century, some bishops took a vote on it. Rather, several church councils voted for conflicting lists, the contradictions of which took centuries more to resolve. These votes came after a long period of sorting and choosing by the churches at large, so that the choice was not haphazard; it was, however, arbitrary in many respects. Because of differences over the Apocrypha, there remains no agreement about which books are in the Christian Old Testament.

It’s kind of a moot point, anyhow, when one can simply dial a preacher or (til the Crystal Cathedral had to change its stripes) pull up to a drive in and watch the show. The more I think about these things, and connect them to lived experience(s), the more I do see the influence of the remains of the Roman empire, working through highly visible buildings and structures in this world. It’s obviously (though more obviously than actual scripture, Old or New, seems to justify) a male-dominated, heirarchical religion — that’s hardly debatable now, is it? (or, are ordained priests marrying with the blessing of the Pope since I last tuned in?)

Here are three photos from an article on “The Three Cities” found on the same forum — what do you think they typify? The female reality, or the male?

Think about it:

Another thing these three city-states have in common are their own obelisks. Obelisks are tall, four-sided shafts of stone which taper at the top in a pyramidal fashion. The obelisk is phallic in its appearance and represents the male penis. It is symbolic of the Egyptian sun god, Ra, and is an ancient symbol of male energy and generation (G) in Freemasonry.

Vatican obelisk: Located in St. Peter’s Square, the Vatican obelisk was moved from Egypt to its current location in 1586. The circle at the base on the obelisk represents the female vagina and thus male/female duality. Also notice the lines extending from the circle, forming a Union Jack as seen on the British flag.

London obelisk (aka Cleopatra’s Needle): Located on the banks of the River Thames, this obelisk was transported to London and erected in 1878 under the reign of Queen Victoria. The obelisk originally stood in the Egyptian city of On, or Heliopolis (the City of the Sun). The Knights Templars’ land extended to this area of the Thames, where the Templars had their own docks. Either side of the obelisk is surrounded by a sphinx, also symbolism dating back to the ancient world.

Washington Obelisk (aka Washington Monument): Standing at 555 feet, the Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world and also the tallest standing structure in Washington DC. The monument’s cornerstone, a 12-ton slab of marble, was donated by the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Like the Vatican obelisk, the Washington monument too is surrounded by a circle denoting the female. The reflecting pool in front of the monument signifies the ancient Masonic/Kabbalistic dictum, as above/so below.

~ ~ ~ back to that prophecy (statement, anyhow) in the Bible:

for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

LONDON — financial empire

VATICAN — religious empire

D.C. — military empire.

(see “pentagon-vatican connection” also).

Revelation 18, above, cursed and looked forward to the fall of the city of Babylon, because of its deception, and its bloodshed involved in the merchandising of all kinds of delicacies, including slaves. I don’t know when this book was written, but it scarcely seems to be coming from the point of view of a triumphant Christian empire, with real estate, monuments, a well-clothed priesthood, etc., nor does James. So modern readers (i.e., agnostics, atheists) are hardly neutral, or fair, to place on its author the same hypocrisy we see everywhere today.

Now, we call this “human trafficking” or “child trafficking,” and my country, this country, the USA, is governmentally involved in two kinds: Over the counter (that’s CPS and pharmaceutical friends whether Texan or Wolverine (Michigan, both pushing Risperdal) and under the radar, possibly deliberately, for which you can go read about the Jaycee Dugard situation; in fact, she has begun to speak out on television now; the settlement she was paid for California law enforcement screwup was, as I remember, around $29 million. WHOSE funds paid that? Because it was “only” around $14 million that Los Angeles was withholding (collected child support, Silva v. Garcetti) from actually reaching intended customers back in the late 1990s.

Texan:

Bush Wants Pharma Trojan Horse Unleashed

The New Freedom Commission was established by executive order on April 29, 2002. At a speech in New Mexico that day, Bush said mental health centers and hospitals, homeless shelters, the justice and school systems have contact with individuals suffering from mental disorders but that too many Americans fall through the cracks of the current system and so he created the Commission to ensure “that the cracks are closed.”

On July 22, 2003 the NFC recommended redesigning the mental health system in all fifty states and said in a press release, “Achieving this goal will require … a greater focus on mental health care in institutions such as schools, child welfare programs, and the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The goal is integrated care that can screen, identify, and respond to problems early.”

Despite a nearly 500% increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed.

Wolverine/Michigan-ian:

Those who fight back — confronting illegal home invasions fraudulently ordered (NOT even legitimately court-ordered) for purposes of kidnapping, for purpose of institutionalizing, for the purpose of then administering dangerous drugs to minor children — can, and will, be treated as felons and stripped of their kids, and months/years of their lives in the fight. That’s the Michigan reference, above. Testimony (at the rally) of those on Risperdal:

Posted on 04/08/2011 by Diane Bukowski

Godboldo faces eight felony charges for standing off police armored vehicles, helicopters, and SWAT team members brandishing assault weapons on March 24. She and her supporters say she was only trying to keep Child Protective Services from forcing a dangerous drug, Risperdal, on her child.

Charges have been dropped, she has her daughter back, but they are considering re-instating. This story deserves follow-up: Voice of Detroit did good investigative reporting. The same CPS worker that did this in 2011 was, in 2010, facing a civil lawsuit for pulling a similar stunt to a related (married) couple, only five (5) children were nabbed and put into three different foster homes for 4o months; the amount of deceit involved is simply stunning. (Brent family, look it up at “justice4maryanne” site).

>“I want my daughter back TODAY,” Godboldo said from the church’s pulpit. “I’m terrified; I don’t know what is happening to her. If we don’t stand up for our children, we have no future. I am so filled with joy and thankful for your support, Detroit. The only reason I came out of my home was not all those guns out there, not the threats they brought against me, but because of YOU!”

Godboldo’s daughter is currently incarcerated at the Hawthorn Family Center at Northville, despite efforts by other family members to have her released to their custody. Attorneys Allison Folmar and Wanda Evans earlier obtained a temporary restraining order preventing doctors there from putting Arianna back on Risperdal.

Despite a large turn-out of supporters at a Wayne County Juvenile Court custody hearing April 6, and evidence that Arianna may have contracted a sexually-transmitted disease while at Hawthorn, Referee Leslie Graves ruled that the child would remain in state custody

The community rallied, and it seems the family was targeted from a number of angles: single mother, intelligent and insisting on choice (not “the program”), she homeschooled, she was also African-American and in (I remember seeing, can’t find link) the community was poor. How dare this community not fork over their kids to the Title IV-driven systems for Rx profits?

One woman [that this mother met in jail for defending her kid] told me what Risperdal did to her. She was kidnapped at 17 and forced into prostitution in Chicago. When she got free and came back home, they put her on that drug. She said she felt dizzy, was hallucinating, and couldn’t function on a day-to-day basis.”

Barbara Ann Polizzi, a critical care nurse from New York, drove 13 hours to the rally with her 17-year-old son Michael to tell a story almost identical to that of Arianna’s. Michael too was forced to take Risperdal. …

“I felt scared and fearful,” he said. “The medicine gave me shortness of breath and made my heart race. I had to get an inhaler and started on heart medication on top of it. I was not Michael anymore.”

He said he was she never never gave up on me.” (It took 6.5 years, she said):

Godboldo’s niece Ambyr Brooks said that the family has been contacted by people from Australia to Canada, many of whom have been similarly subjected to state abductions of their children and forced medications.

Mother (left), Father (middle), Michael and mother (far right)

While people like these have to fight — with whatever they got — to keep their kids, another one DID fall between the cracks, in N. California (I also have a page on this — to right), and at least one post; an alert UC Berkeley campus security guard (mother) was alert, and followed up, leading to the YOUNG mother below’s release, along with the two kids. After 18 years in captivity!

Jaycee Dugard Files Lawsuit Against U.S. Government

PHOTO: After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC's Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed.

After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC’s Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed. (ABC News)

By JESSICA HOPPER Sept. 22, 2011

Jaycee Dugard is suing the federal government because it twice rejected her requests for private mediation over its alleged failure to properly monitor Phillip Garrido, the man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 18 years.

. . .In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyerearlier this year, Dugard recounted how she overcame the horror of her kidnapping in 1991, her nearly two decade imprisonment in which she gave birth to two children fathered by Garrido, and her healing process since being rescued in 2009.

“There’s a switch that I had to shut off,”

. . . .I said, the US Gov’t was trafficking in children under the radar. Here’s one:

Garrido was already a convicted kidnapper when he and his wife, Nancy, abducted 11-year-old Dugard as she walked to school from her family’s Tahoe, Calif., home. He had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison for kidnapping a woman in 1977. He was released in 1988 and placed on federal parole. In 1999, eight years into his kidnapping and torture of Dugard, he was released from federal parole and thanked by an agent for his “cooperation.”

From 1999 to 2009, the state of California was charged with supervising him. At least 60 times, officials from the California Department of Corrections visited the Garrido home and never noticed anything amiss. On at least one visit, an official actually talked to Dugard.

Dugard and her children have already received a settlement from the state of California. Dugard’s attorneys attempted to reach a settlement with the U.S. government through private mediation twice but were denied.

She said:

Of telling her story, Dugard told Sawyer, “Why not look at it? You know, stare it down until it can’t scare you anymore…I didn’t want there to be any more secrets?I hadn’t done anything wrong. It wasn’t something I did that caused this to happen. And I feel that by putting it all out there, it’s very freeing.”

(I’m sorry to see that this foundation has taken up with a PAS specialist, in “Transitioning Families”

Rebecca Bailey, PhD – Psy 18732

Transitioning families encompasses the family and individual counseling practice of Rebecca Bailey, Ph.D. as well as her reunification programs, parenting classes and supervised visitation services. Dr. Bailey incorporated her clinical experience with her long-standing interest in animal therapy and the equine-assisted growth and learning programs

Dr. Bailey received her doctoral degree from The Wright Institute in Berkeley, CA. Since 1995 she has focused on high conflict familial situations and parent coordination from a developmental perspective. She is former director of the Sonoma Police Departments Youth and family services program and was a therapist educator for programs such as Marin County’s DUI Program. She continues to work with a variety of state and national organizations such as The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

She has served as a Special master and expert witness in cases were parental alienation or estrangement is an issue.

I’m sure that Jaycee Dugard and her mother do not know what this represents, links found on the TF site, and that (as a victim of stranger kidnapping and rape), she wouldn’t approve of the use this theory has been put to, to keep children who have been, at times, raped by their relatives/Dads, back in their custody, and how it FAILS to account for abductions of children by such men, from their mothers, or provide any sort of reunification services for them, either. I know too many of these situations. I do not believe that Jaycee and her mother would approve of funding such situations. I speak as a mother to whom this happened, illegally, permanently (to date) and without real remedy (to date). My kids’ still don’t know all the truths of their situation, and they most especially don’t know that the stage was set by the works of groups like AFCC and Warshak (and the federal funding, etc.) to make sure this can and does happen.

Men & Dads that need bribes (carrots and sticks) to do the right thing, won’t do the right thing with the bribes anyhow. They’ll take the bribe (whether it be elimination or reduction of child support arrears, or other rewards, including a sense of control regained over their “ex” // “revenge”) and dump the kids afterwards anyhow — either off with the next wife/woman, or somewhere else. I know woman who grew up, that experienced this. Child is sold or farmed out to foster care anyhow, too many times.

“USEFUL LINKS” (useful for WHAT?)

AFCC AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

Dave Ziegler, Ph.D.Beyond Healing, The path to personal contentment after trauma

Dr. Richard A. WarshakDr. Warshak is a psychologist and author of Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing, now in its 24th printing, and co-author of the critically acclaimed DVD for children and parents…

Parental Alienation Awareness OrganizationBecause most people do not know about PA & HAP until they experience it, the idea of Parental Alienation Awareness Organization was put forth to help raise awareness and provide education about this growing problem of mental and emotional child abuse.

If this person Dr. Bailey wanted to be logical, HONEST & consistent, with her “Transitioning Families” team — she’d treat Mr. Garrido and Nancy Garrido and Jaycee’s daughters (after all, biologically, they were Phil Garrido’s offspring) as the family and get a court order (being a recommending evaluator or parent coordinator and force reunification services on the Garrido/Jaycee’s two daughters — and put Jaycee, the biological and falsely imprisoned, severely abused & sexually assaulted mother on supervised visitation, at her expense until she could learn that “families are forever” meaning, “fathers are forever,” even if they’re temporarily in jail (again) for kidnapping and rape of minors. This especially seems to apply if one’s family was poor, or one’s skin is a little darker, i.e., Title IV.

But that’s not the way the cookie crumbles while there’s still money in the system — any system — to be extracted. Meanwhile, honest people, who helped me during certain years — are paying taxes on the US Debt which is to allegedly provide social services. I wonder where the millions came from to settle this case — there must have been millions sitting around somewhere. Interesting.

I wish someone had been around for me to do “reunification services” after the father abandoned OUR kids, failing to tell me when he did so (after having made sure it was a no-contact situation for a long time), and I attempted to regain contact properly and legally. Instead, I was treated abominably by a local D.A. (though I had written evidence of the abandonment which, like child-stealing, is also a crime) who used sarcasm, ridicule and an attempt to extort more services out of the system — for me. The man was middle-aged, white, and obviously male, and not on tape. I left there (another back-burner project) realizing that NO female should ever walk into a room with an investigator, police officer, or district attorney — at least in this area — without the tape recorder on, to keep him or as it may be, them, in check. I was foolish to walk in with “only” evidence, and without an advocate — but after xxyy years in the system, there sometimes are no advocates!

Dr. Bailey’s site has rules for Supervised Visitations posted — you should read it. RULE #1: “No inappropriate physical contact. Hugging and kissing are okay upon greeting and parting only. This must be acceptable to all parties. No lap sitting.” RULE #2: No discussion of molestation allegations, custody or legal situation with the child. If the child brings it us, the parent may acknowledge the topic, but may not respond to the allegation unless the parent wishes to make amends for said action.

ASIDE on seeing the form for Supervised Visitation in association with the JAYC Foundation!

Reminds me of why Jack Stratton, Ph.D. wrote (1992/1993) is supervised visitation FAIR for children of abusive men? What does it teach the kids? (Click on my gravatar logo to read it). Consider Rule 1 — if the supervised visitation was being applied for the purposes it was sold us under — to prevent molestation ONLY — then that would be one thing. But, if a child HAS been molested, allegedly, to fail to be allowed to (if young and this would otherwise be appropriate) simply see and hug his or her Mama — if SHE is the one on supervision due to having allowed the child to report, or see a mandatory reporter, or even if the child simply bumped into a mandatory reporter at school or elsewhere — (all situations that have indeed led to mothers being supervised at times, in state after state) — then that’s simply wrong. I can understand Rule 2, part 1 — but look at the second part of the topic. This literally means that contact with the non-molesting parent will be closely monitored to make sure a child does NOT report further abuse if it happened. Both the nonmolesting parent AND the child(ren) must be trained — by this “reunification specialist and via supervised visitation) that any further mention of current abuse, or distress from it (i.e., comfort-seeking with a familiar parent) — will be punished. The most logical form of punishment would be (for that nonmolesting parent / mother) to have NO visitation whatsoever.

And, here, the fee is $150 per hour. Remind me to make sure this is no access/visitation subgrantee also …..

They are hurting around this issue over in Scranton, PA. “Kids for Cash” in neighboring Luzerne is already history . . . Remember Viola Stroud case! (Dutchess County, NY) Remember Helen O. Page case (Amador County, California). Now there’s another high-profile case in Connecticut, too; the mother’s parents have put up so far $1 MILLION to help in the case — and are living with THEIR parents, I heard, having mortgaged their own property to help protect their grandson. It does seem to be a pattern.

ANYHOW . . . The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .

And one of the most important things in life is to know when someone else is, habitually, lying, and cease doing any kind of business with them until they stop, and permanently, if they cannot stop broadcasting their own lifes based on own perceptions and intent to dominate another person against his or her will, illegally and by fraud.

This person also posted the article I put on the other post, at link http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.msg648631#msg648631, thread “Empire of the Cities – The Three Cities that Rule The World.” this is the entire post, dated 5/21/2009….

It has some details about “tallies” and “stocks” you may not know. Italics (or other font changes) are mine. I haven’t fact-checked (you can). But does it start to make some sense, yet? I’m talking, income tax, federal reserve, for-profit not-for profit distinction (which only the income tax makes possible, really).

The Moneylenders Take Over England

In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family’s Nathan Rothchild said it well:

“I care not what puppet (sits on) the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British empire, and I (when he ran the Bank of England) control the British money supply.”

{{2012 is an election year. Americans (USA) would do well to keep this in mind also.}}

Centuries early, moneylender power was absent. But after the 1666 Coinage Act, money-issuing authority, once the sole right of kings, was transferred into private hands. “Bankers now had the power to cause inflations and depressions at will by issuing or withholding their gold coins.”

King William III (1672 – 1702), a Dutch aristocrat, financed his war against France by borrowing 1.2 million pounds in gold in a secret transaction with moneylenders, the arrangement being a permanent loan on which debt would be serviced and its principle [“principal”] never repaid. It came with other strings as well:

— lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

— it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

— loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

— lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

{{sound familiar yet?}}

It was a prescription for huge profits and “substantial political leverage. The Bank’s charter gave the force of law to the ‘fractional reserve’ banking scheme that put control of the country’s money” in private hands. It let the Bank of England create money out of nothing and charge interest for loans to the government and others – the same practice central banks now employ.

{{{“TALLIES”}}

For the next century, banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably even though they weren’t a compatible means of exchange. Banker money expanded when “credit expanded and contracted when loans were canceled or ‘called,’ producing cycles of ‘tight’ money and depression alternating with ‘easy’ money and inflation.” In contrast, tallies were permanent, stable, fixed money, making banknotes look bad so they had to go.

For another reason as well – because of King William’s disputed throne and fear if he were deposed, moneylenders again might be banned. They used their influence to legalize banknotes as the money of the realm called “funded” debt with tallies referred to as “unfunded,” what historians see as the beginning of a “Financial Revolution.” In the end, “tallies met the same fate as witches – death by fire.”

{{ACTUALLY– SOUNDS LIKE THE REVERSE WAS TRUE. TALLIES WERE FUNDED, AND THE BANKNOTES, WERE NOT}}

They were money of the people competing with moneylending bankers. After 1834 monetary reform, “tally sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a House of Lords stove.” Ironically, it got out of control and burned down Westminster Palace and both Houses of Parliament, symbolically ending “an equitable era of trade (by transferring power) from the government to the” central bank.

{{simple explanation:on the terms, and this burning: terms “tally” “stocks” “broker” (Stockade) and “Exchequer”, Charles Dickens quoted}}

(MY INSERT — more on TALLY STICKS:

Original Wooden Tally Sticks (2)
[England, Westminster, c. 1250-1275]

hickory wood, the larger end cut diagonally, edges roughly squared off leaving traces of bark, each inscribed along one side with the name of the payer and the upper and lower edges cut with notches (“v”-shaped for pounds, broad grooves for shillings, sharp cuts for pence), each piece then split with a knife by cutting diagonally across the thicker end of the reverse side and pulling away a length which would be retained separately by the payer as proof of payment, written in thirteenth-century charter hands. c. 175-200 mm. long (each).

Rare survival of a medieval form of financial record-keeping, the tally stick provides the origin of many words used in modern money markets: stock, foil, stockholder, bank stock, and check. The vast majority were destroyed in the nineteenth century in the fire of the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

INTERESTING:

Tallies provide the earliest form of bookkeeping. They were used in England by the Royal Exchequer from about the twelfth century onward. Since the notches for the sums were cut right through both pieces and since no stick splits in an even manner, the method was virtually foolproof against forgery. They were used by the sheriff to collect taxes and to remit them to the king. They were also used by private individuals and institutions, to register debts, record fines, collect rents, enter payments for services rendered, and so forth. By the thirteenth century, the financial market for tallies was sufficiently sophisticated that they could be bought, sold, or discounted.

“Tallies were … a sophisticated and practical record of numbers. They were more convenient to keep and store than parchments, less complex to make, and no easier to forge…. Of the millions of medieval tallies made, only a few hundred survive.” (Clanchy, p. 96; see also p. 95, n. 28, pl. VIII). In 1724, treasury officials commanded that tallies no longer be used, but it was not until 1834, with the reform acts and the abolition of the office of the Receipt of the Exchequer, that a huge bonfire of the then-obsolete medieval tally sticks was held. Started in a stove stuffed full of sticks in the House of Lords, the fire quickly got out of control, spreading to the paneling, and burning down both the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

In 1911, Sir Hilary Jenkinson knew of only three Exchequer tally sticks in private hands (pp. 292-3, 330, and 350).

The evolution of money technologies originates with the tally stick. From tally stick comes the modern word “stock,” meaning a financial certificate and deriving from the use of the Middle English for the stick. The piece retained by the bank was called the “foil.” The holder of the stock was said to be the “stockholder” and owned “bank stock.” A written certificate presented for remittance and checked against its security later became a “check.”

According to legend, Wall Street was founded in its present location because of the presence there of an enormous chestnut tree, said to be plentiful enough to supply enough tally sticks for the emerging American stock market.

LITERATURE
Clanchy, M. T. From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Jenkinson, Hilary C. “Exchequer Tallies,” Archaeologia, second series, 12 (1911), pp. 292 ff.

ONLINE RESOURCES
Tallies and Technologies, by Dave Birch, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9811-11.htm

The Origins of Mathematics
http://www.math.tamu.edu~don.allen/history/origins/origins.html

[[The other source cited is the link, above to definitions]]

forum.prisonplanet. . . cont’d….

Henceforth {{1834ff?}}, private bankers kept government in debt, never demanding the return of principle [“principal”], and profiting by extracting interest, a very lucrative system always paying off “like a slot machine” rigged to benefit its operators. It became the basis for modern central banking, lending its “own notes (printed paper money), which the government swaps for bonds (its promises to pay) and circulates as a national currency.”

Government debt is never repaid. It’s continually rolled over and serviced, today with no gold in reserve to back it. Though gone, tallies left their mark. The word “stock” comes from the tally stick. Much of the original Bank of England stock was bought with these sticks. In addition, stock issuance began during the Middle Ages as a way to finance businesses when no interest-bearing loans were allowed.

This is not “archaic” information and irrelevant — it’s VERY current. I am still digesting — but it makes sense. Here’s a Brit (I gather) relating the Monarchy’s relationship to the Corporation of London (which holds the crown — the one you’ve seen on TV perhaps, loaned out for state occasions) and correlating to a May, 2011 meeting with the British Prime Minister Cameron with Eurozone personnel, re: ESM (Hey, it’s new term to me….). I just saw Cameron sitting next to President Obama watching a basketball game, on TV….

He is thinking in terms of the Corporation that holds the (moulah) versus the “State” which is subject to it. It’s a BIG deal!

That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO

( Dec. 2011)

I know that many of you who visit this site have looked deeply into our constitution, and are already aware that our State, the Crown, is not the Monarchy, but the Corporation of London.

The ‘Crown’ is in trust to the Corporation of London, it owns it and has done since Cromwell hocked it in return for unrepayable loans from Dutch Bankers, loans that are still being repaid today, to finance a bankrupt England after the Civil War.
In order that the Crown never left these shores and the transaction remained unknown to a largely starving and extremely volatile population it was to be held in trust in perpetuity by a new body, which eventually became The Corporation of London .

It is this Crown that all State employees swear allegiance to, with the exception of the Royal Navy who give their allegiance to the Queen directly. It is why the Crown is housed in the Tower of London, within the bounds of the City, and only loaned to the Monarch for State occasions.

What these charlies across the Channel are trying to do is the same thing, and largely for the same reasons. The new revised ESM that was suggested on Friday would become thenew State of Europa.

In the same way that the State sits above the British Government, this planned ESM Treaty would be a level of State above the EU and its institutions.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Posted in Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parenting Coordination promotion, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), Vocabulary Lessons, warfare: strategic

Tagged with "Bush 2002 Exec Order -New Freedom Commission", "Strong Field Project", 3 Cities That Rule the World, Brave Young Adults, Child Molestation, CPRADR, CPS Child-stealing, DV, DV industry, England, Evolving Canon of Bible, fatherhood, fighting back, Godboldo case, Handwriting On the Wall from Bible-Read it Now, Humantrafficking, incest, Intimate partner violence, JAYC, Jaycee Dugard, London, mediation, men's rights, Motherhood, obelisk, Parenting Coordination, Pharma, Phil Garrido, Rebecca Bailey PhD, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, State vs Corporation, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Supervised Visitation, the Secular Web, Thomas J Stipanovich, TMAP/PennMAP, Transitioning Families, trauma, Vatican, VOD, WDC, Who Owns America?

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

with 2 comments

Why?

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue. Ditto with CPS. But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest. If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion: these feminist law professors and women, in many respects, have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth. And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her. And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow. That’s My take on it. So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal. And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area). However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us. However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.” It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop. To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is. As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT? Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place. Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now. Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with. But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise. (See this blog. See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re: Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers” Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise! Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know. The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county. That alone should have caught our attention. Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in. It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants. In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow. And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.” As the site says:

We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS? Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what? Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2583174	05/17/2004*	ACTIVE	RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE	DAVID B WEXLER

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above. It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3284403	03/09/2010	ACTIVE	CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN	CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it. However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do. In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too. Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status. Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for ~~jazz~~ The Office of Attorney General.” And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too. If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration. A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
	Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719. Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name	Taxpayer ID#	Zip

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS	17523304719	75225

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..” It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010

751726710

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother

1980

31,455

1,402

990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly… But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill. The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves? Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today? Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA. WHY? I thought. I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts. Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming. )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF). I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:

Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com
rdjustice@monitor.net

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994. By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention areas of goverment. While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse. And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative: even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous. That’s not what they’re there for, apparently. Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent. Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser. The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father. There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept). Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently. It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too. After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right? How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court. Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report. I’d like to see that report. Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged! When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case. The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.” The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad. The ransom process is simply this: the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit. That’s the plan. That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing. (“Computerized or Con-puterized?” Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting. One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held). We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine). Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party. It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down. (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too. Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang. Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept. One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it. The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life. Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out. The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session. Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day. While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours. Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too. This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial” which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit. However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert. Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts. It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know. The ones I don’t, I’ll look up. Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB: I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference. That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general. You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)
Working for whom?*
Define “working” — what’s the goal here? (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer. Act on those answers and you become a fool. A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones. Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant. They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients. Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes. And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running. We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material? Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely? How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser? Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress. It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case. That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children. (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women: Here — serve some cookies, greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister). . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places. Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field. This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub. It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years. No one has done this much to date because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE: “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer: “ExcUUse me? You * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster? relatives?) this week in California. The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

HEMET: Estranged couple die in courthouse murder-suicide

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales: However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage: 2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years. Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference: Him vs. Her — was 17 years. We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable. Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?). Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking. So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave? Who knows? Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what? Where are the children going to live now? Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case. She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father. The county wants its programs funded. If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support. This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation. This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of. Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day? Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase: “Clear and Present Danger.” It has 3 usages.

1. In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.” If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2. In Usage by AFCC, “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3. I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry. It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.” They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either. I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court. That’s crazy thinking. It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more. When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4. Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.? That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released. The woman did everything right — almost. She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.

I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze. THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?

There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later. For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.

Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards? How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated. It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached. Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier. If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?

But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.

Meanwhile: We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.

I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of. It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.

Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.

2012 PRESENTERS Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence. Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles. Not a mother.

Connie Valentine (CPPA)

Karen Anderson (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present. She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her. Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding. She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit? Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa. This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers. They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her. Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?). This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually. She didn’t “Get” it. Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright. Seriously!)

Rita Smith*

(NCADV Leadership. NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding. It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller. I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake. This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces. We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).

Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up. NOTE: That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.

I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are. Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 18 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.

Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.

This blog discusses

“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From: “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010 / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit. The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare, against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty. Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed. That’s the game, folks. Promise protection, then fail to deliver. Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit. What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit. To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems. These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Child Support, custody, Due process, HHS-TAGGS grants database, incest, Intimate partner violence, Kids' Turn, men's rights, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

“PC278.5” Arresting Moms, at least, for Felony Child-Stealing…

with 20 comments

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm

Parental Child Abduction
is Child Abuse

by Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D

Presented to the
United Nations Convention on Child Rights
in Special Session, June 9, 1999,
on behalf of P.A.R.E.N.T.
and victims of parental child abduction.

© Nancy Faulkner 1999-2006

Interesting: The NCJRS

Seems to sort “child-stealing” under two main headings:

Search results for: child-stealing

Results in NCJRS Spotlights
		Family Violence

		Trafficking in Persons

This would be coherent with the recent Click-Hill case, as the girl disappeared after allegations of child abuse. The other reason for child-stealing (see “Garrido,” and others) might be for personal sexual abuse by strangers, or prostituting kids.

Two reasons I can think of might be to protect a child, or to punish the other parent. Authorities ought to get which is which straight… (More on the NCJRS info towards end of this post)

pc 278.5 IS (California) Penal Code 278.5.

I have come to believe this law was written for men, not women, to get their kids back. I would like to hear of any California woman whose children of around that age were actually returned to her under this code.

We already know of women in this and other states who have been incarcerated for much lesser custodial interference (see Oconto, WI blog, and “Lorraine.” Or, Joyce Murphy.

http://custodyscam.blogspot.com/2009/06/joyce-murphy-accused-of-kidnapping-her.html

SO WHEN IS THIS LAW TAKEN SERIOUSLY, AND WHEN NOT?

It reads as follows:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/278.5.html

(a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,
or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a
right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court’s contempt
power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.

Do you see the word “SHALL” in there?

Here’s 287.7, which indicates circumstances — unbelievably, it seems – -in which a parent or someone COULD take, entice, or conceal a child. It is to handle possible abuse or imminent harm to the child. (Child, FYI, is defined as under 18 in this law).

(a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.

(b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
“Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child.

(c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action.

In other words, such a person shall, as an adult, give an account to the authorities of his or her reasons for the devastating action of removing a child from a parent.

NOW HERE WE ARE IN THE CLICK-HILL CASE, and a mother disappears with a daughter (mid-1990s, right when VAWA and NFI had gotten started), having accused the father of child molestation, after which he got (apparently) unsupervised time with the girl, again, then disappears.

Here’s an article by Robert Salonga:

Resurfacing of Walnut Creek girl highlights strains of parental abductions

By Robert Salonga
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 03/05/2010 04:45:10 PM PST

Updated: 03/05/2010 05:35:35 PM PST

WALNUT CREEK — The arrest this week of a woman who took off with her 8-year-old daughter in 1995 during a child custody dispute is being lauded by police and missing child experts as an exceptional event.

In some ways, it wasn’t an exception at all.

Parental and family abductions account for nearly 97 percent of child abduction reports in the state. In Contra Costa County, all 29 abductions reported in 2008 involved family, and just one of the 64 reported in Alameda County that year was committed by a nonrelative.

Click said Friday that he divorced Wendy Hill in the early 1990s, and their relationship became estranged after he was granted primary custody of their daughter. When he went to pick her up from his ex-wife’s Redlands home in the summer of 1995, they had moved out. He never saw Jessica again, he said.

This sounds to me like a custody-switch; another version (below) says he got unsupervised visitation… There were allegations of child molestation, which is every bit as much a crime as child-stealing, but is often not handled as such in family law system.

Here’s another one…

Man waits to reunite with daughter

found 14 years after being abducted

as a 7-year-old by her mother

March 5, 2010 | 4:26 pm

A woman who vanished 14 years ago with her 7-year-old daughter was arrested Tuesday in Monrovia and her daughter was located unharmed, authorities said Friday.

Wendy Hill, 52, was spotted at a local Claim Jumper restaurant and arrested on suspicion of abducting her own daughter.

Jessica Click-Hill, now 22, was contacted by authorities after the arrest. She is believed to be living out of state.

“I’m just so excited that Jessica is found and well and that, physically, she’s fine,” said the girl’s father, Dean Click. “She’s got family who haven’t gotten to be with her, to spend Christmas or Thanksgiving together, so we’re looking forward to reconnecting with each other.”

Click said that since his daughter is an adult, authorities will not release her contact information. “At this point, she will have to come to me,” he said.

The father said he and his ex-wife were in a custody dispute when Hill cleaned out her Redlands apartment in the fall of 1995 and left with the girl.

Click said he lived in Walnut Creek in Northern California at the time and for years had not been able to visit his daughter without a mediator present. [[he probably means supervised visitation. Mediation is something different.]] He said at the time he’d been accused of molesting his daughter, a claim he denied.

He said he ultimately was exonerated and that his rights were restored for full, unsupervised visits. On his first visit, he said he celebrated by bringing his parents along and taking Jessica out to lunch.

On his second visit, he said he arrived at the apartment complex and found that his ex-wife and daughter had left.

Authorities said Hill changed her name to Gail Jackson and moved from state to state. She was sighted outside Tampa, Fla., and at one point lived in Boston, authorities said.

A warrant was issued for her arrest in 1996 out of Contra Costa County, and the FBI issued its own warrant a year later.

Click said he kept in touch with authorities, but leads were few and far between. Then a tip came in several months ago from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the mother’s alias and her location, said Sgt. Tom Cashion of the Walnut Creek Police Department .

Hill flew to Los Angeles, apparently for a business meeting, and was picked up Tuesday at the Monrovia restaurant, Cashion said.

She has since been taken to Northern California, where she was being held on $250,000 bail.

Click said he was asked by prosecutors if he wanted to press charges.

“I said ‘yes’ because she’s been a thief and she’s taken away those years that I did not get to spend with my daughter,” Click said.

— Amina Khan

Here’s another version, from a blog apparently local to the area she was stolen from. March 4, 2010: This isn’t quite current — the mother is now out on bail.

WALNUT CREEK GIRL MISSING SINCE 1995 FOUND HEAR L.A.: MOM ARRESTED FOR ABDUCTION.

[found.jpg]

8-year-old Walnut Creek resident Jessica Click-Hill was allegedly abducted by her mom in 1995, and today, the Walnut Creek Police announced they found the girl, who’s now 22-years-old, and arrested her mom for parental abduction.The following is from the Walnut Creek Police….

Walnut Creek Police Detectives took Wendy D. Hill into custody for the parental abduction of her eight year old daughter Jessica Click-Hill in Los Angeles.

This case started in 1995 when Jessica’s father Dean Click reported to Walnut Creek Police that he believed his wife had abducted their child, Jessica. Detectives worked the case and in 1996, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wendy Hill and an arrest warrant was issued for her PC 278.5.

In 1997, the FBI issued an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant (UFAP warrant). Recently, Walnut Creek Police and the FBI were alerted by NCMEC regarding a possible location for Wendy Hill and Jessica.

WCPD and the FBI followed up on the information and started their search. On March 2, the FBI located Wendy Hill in Monrovia (Los Angeles County) and arrested her on their UFAP warrant.

Walnut Creek Detectives were immediately sent to Los Angeles where they took custody of Wendy Hill.

The FBI has also located and made contact with Jessica.

Early this morning, detectives booked Wendy Hill into the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez and she is being held on $250,000 bail.

(THIS WOMAN HAS SINCE BEEN RELEASED)..

The “California Family Institute” founder boasts (on the site) how he was one of the first to get a substantial reward under this law… Here’s the resume…(portions of it):

MICHAEL KELLY, ESQ. RESUME:

Martindale Hubbell A.V. (VERACITY, Highest Possible Lawyer Rating by Judges and Peers, Preeminent National Lawyer Directory Listing):

California Divorce Attorney, Best interest of Child Advocate, Accomplished Victorious Lawyer:

I. Professional Leadership (42 Years Family Law Experience):

Chairman of American Bar Custody Committee 2003

Chairman of CA State Bar Custody & Visitation Comm., two terms

Chairman of CA Trial Lawyers – Family Law Section Mem. Comm.

Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Law Practice Economics Committee

Chairman of American Bar Interstate Custody Task Force Committee; UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act)

Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Practical Use of Computers Committee

Chairman of California Family Law Institute

Chairman of California Custody Commission

Chairman of Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce – Legal Committee

Chairman of Santa Monica Bar Association – Family Law Committee, Three Terms

Judge Pro Tem in Los Angeles County Superior Family Law Courts 20-years

Family Law Mediator in Santa Monica, Torrance & LA Central District Superior Courts, 24-years

Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Continuing Education Committee

Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Economics of Practice Committee

Secretary of California State Bar – Custody & Visitation Committee, Two Terms

Produced and Moderated a Course on Negotiations – 1988 Joint Meeting of California State Bar, Child Custody, Support and Division of Property Committees

II. Legal Achievements:

First CA attorney to try a Grandparents’ rights suit (January 1970) (Petrikin)

First CA attorney appointed by children to represent them as individuals (June 1984) (Ryan)

First CA attorney to file suit against an abducting parent under Penal Code 278.5, for $2.5 Million (1985)

Largest child abduction award litigated in the United States, $12.4 Million (July 1993) (Wang)

Rewrote and expanded CA Civil Code 4606, “Children’s right to an attorney” (1985), expanding childrens rights to an attorney (Ryan)

III. Teacher:USC Law School, Advanced Family Law & Divorce Litigation classes. All courses have been certified and accredited by the California State Bar Family Law Specialization Committee for attorney certification as family law specialist since 1986 to present.

While I’m at it, let me point out this site was SPECIFICALLY called a site addressed to MEN on an information sheet at a law library near a courthouse in Northern California. Look at the connections this person has, and the functions he has worked, in the family law venue. It is unbelievably interwoven…

This is the same site, where, while women are being told that conflict is bad, and if they have “conflict” with their ex, their heads need to be examined (let us appoint someone official, that we have trained), while apart from this, sites friendly to fathers have pages like this one:

Evil unanswered, is evil supported. You cannot allow evil to exist, and you cannot fight it with evil. Evil resisted by evil means, contaminates the resistor. The end that justifies the means is an imperfect and flawed concept. No end justifies evil, hurtful, injurious and mean behavior to others or against innocence.

The very concept of mediation and supervised visitation, parenting plans, etc., in the family venue is a brainchild of increasing noncustodial parent visitation time, when due process, fact-gathering, and evidence wouldn’t. The Family Law venue IS a violation of due process, and it IS a venue where the end (“required outcome– more noncustodial parent time [[noncustodial parent being, “father,” as far as the intent of such programs]] justifies the means, and as such, might be characterized as “evil.” IF the concept is justice, and due process.

Evil flourishes by creating distraction, misdirection, trust, ease, inattention, enjoyment, false pride, etc. If one were asked, “What do you do?”, the answer could ask “I wage war against evil, in all of its myriad forms and colorations, at all times, places and at all costs.”

You cannot face evil on impulse; it thrives on such action. You cannot defeat evil with anger . . . anger makes evil burn brighter. You can only cut down evil with cold, fierce force driven by the vision of right, honor, truth, and godliness. Evil is so opposed to these forces that anything else simply exacerbates the evil.

Evil is heartless by necessity. Both it and the person possessed by it see circumstances and events with the view of a malignant narcissist. All things that do not agree with their view of the world are immediately labeled “Deadly Opponents” in an opposition to the self-appointed right of the evil person to their sole view of what is right and wrong, what is proper behavior and what is not, what should and should not be said, or done . . . how things should or should not be done.

Question:

SO when is a crime not a crime? Or a law against felony child-stealing not a felony or not applicable?

Answer:

When someone in authority says it’s not. And that’s up to whoever decides to prosecute, or, alternately, decides NOT to prosecute. This is NOT up to the parent, but to the reporting officers, and after that, the D.A.

When it is bounced to family law, and ends up as a check mark on a mediator’s report form.

I just searched the well-known “NCJRS” on “Child-stealing” and got these results. notice — they aren’t exactly “current,” for the most part (note years).

Results in Publications (Abstracts Only)
		Parental Child–Stealing
		NCJ 078760, M W Agopian, 1981, (157 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response
		NCJ 074911, M W Agopian, Canadian Criminology Forum, 3, 1, 1980, 37-43, (7 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Epidemic of Child–Stealing – What Can Be Done?
		NCJ 080631, B W Most, Current, 194, 1977, 40-44, (5 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Problems in the Prosecution of Parental Child Stealing Offenses (From Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979, S 105 – Addendum, P 76-87, 1980 – See NCJ-77752)
		NCJ 077753, M W Agopian, 1980, (12 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Characteristics of Parental Child Stealing (From Crime and the Family, P 111-120, 1985, by Alan J Lincoln and Murray A Straus – See NCJ-98873)
		NCJ 098879, M W Agopian; G L Anderson, 1985, (10 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		CHILD STEALING – A TYPOLOGY OF FEMALE OFFENDERS
		NCJ 036248, P T D’ORBAN, BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY, 16, 3, 1976, 275-281, (7 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Child Stealing by Cesarean Section: A Psychiatric Case Report and Review of the Child Stealing Literature
		NCJ 140929, S H Yutzy; J K Wolfson; P J Resnick, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 1, 1993, 192-196, (5 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

		Parental Child Stealing – Participants and the Victimization Process
		NCJ 085267, M W Agopian, Victimology, 5, 2-4, 1982, 263-273, (11 pages).
		NCJRS Abstract

Here are Miscellaneous Abstracts and characterizations from these ties:

FROM “typology of Female Offenders.” Kinda reminds you of Chesler “Women & Madness…”

Annotation:	CASE STUDIES ARE PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED FOR FOURTEEN ENGLISH CHILD–STEALING OFFENDERS – MOST OF WHOM ARE EITHER PSYCHOTIC, SUB-NORMALLY INTELLIGENT, OR SUFFERING FROM PERSONALITY DISORDERS.
Abstract:	‘CHILD–STEALING‘ IS DEFINED UNDER ENGLISH LAW AS THE UNLAWFUL TAKING AWAY OR ENTICING OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING THE LAWFUL CARE OF THE CHILD, OR WITH INTENT TO STEAL ANY ARTICLE FROM THE CHILD.
Index Term(s):	Case studies; Child abuse; Crimes against children; England; Female offenders; Kidnapping; Mentally ill offenders

(I beg your pardon, but due to internet access time, I’m simply copying and pasting. Better option — check the links yourself).

“Young Caucasian Fathers”

Language: English

Annotation: Analysis of parental child–stealing cases in Los Angeles reveals that this crime occurs after a divorce action and following a period of compliance with court-ordered visitation privileges.

Abstract: Study data came from cases screened for prosecution by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office between July 1977 and June 1978, the first year in which California law made this activity illegal. A total of 91 cases were examined. The crime generally involved young Caucasians, with fathers generally abducting children from mothers awarded custody. The crimes occurred equally throughout the seasons of the year, but took place more often on weekend days than during the week. The parents communicated after the child theft in almost half the cases. The communication usually involved announcing the offender’s intention to keep the child, trying to influence the severed relationship, or justifying the crime. Surprise abductions and use of force were rare. Although just over half the abductions took place within 18 months of the divorce, 37 percent occurred 2 or more years after the divorce. The child stealing reflected the offender’s desire to maintain a full-time relationship with the child and to help reestablish the marital relationship. Additional California and national data suggest that about 1 child theft occurs annually for every 22 divorces. Further research should focus on other jurisdictions and other aspects of child stealing. One note, data tables, and 22 references are supplied.

Index Term(s): California; Child snatching; Crimes against children; Family offenses

IN OTHER WORDS, the young Caucasian fathers didn’t want their women to leave them, so to keep the mother attached, they stole the kids. Nice… It’s not necessarily that they loved the child, or were concerned about his or her welfare.

1980: Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response

. . . Prior to July 1, 1977, California law had provided that the father and mother of a legitimate unmarried minor child were equally entitled to custody, services, and earnings.

What is a “legitimate” unmarried minor child? One whose parents were married?

Because parents had equal rights, neither parent was in violation of the law, civil or criminal, by taking and concealing the child in the absence of a court order giving custody to a particular parent. On July 1, 1977 the California legislature transferred child stealing from the civil to the criminal jurisdication and toughened sanctions and legal procedures dealing with child stealing. This California legislation is a significant effort toward clarifying numerous legal discrepancies and oversights wich have prompted parents to employ child stealing as an extra-legal method of securing their children.

I find it interesting that child-stealing went from CIVIL to CRIMINAL.

Now, depending on the context, and the prosecutors, it appears to me to be going straight back to CIVIL where protective parents (typically but not always mothers) are involved…. This was my case. It was treated like a minor blip on the radar by a “mediator.” I put the word in quotes, because what happened to us wasn’t “mediation” in any sense of the word, but a bypass of the judicial process, which otherwise would have shown missing kids!

When I search adding the word “parental kidnapping,” results differ:

Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature

NCJ 190074, Janet Chiancone, 2000, OJJDP, (13 pages).

Overall, the research on parental abductions indicates that this type of crime can be traumatic for both children and left-behind parents and that the longer the separation continues the more damaging the experience becomes.

THAT would be an understatement!

(some reformatting added 2017Aug ,when I approved a comment that had mistakenly been overlooked. FYI, comments on this blog are few and far between, despite the number of views or followers showing on the front sidebar. I was working hard on current posts (this one now about 7 years old), which takes a lot of focus, and am less active on my own email. I’ll try and remember to check it more recently for submitted comments from now on… //LGH.).

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Posted in After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Split Personality Court Orders, Where's Mom?

Tagged with California Family Institute, Child Molestation, Child stealing, Click-Hill, custody, Due process, mediation, men's rights, Motherhood, NCJRS, Supervised Visitation

While you were sleeping: How Congress got into the Family Law business…

with 3 comments

2016 BLOGGER UPDATE on this December 5, 2009 post:

In an April 3, 2016 post, I searched for documentation on the history of the Access and Visitation grants back in the 1980s, as part of a time-line of the domestic violence industry. These grants are STILL discussed so infrequently, in general, that my own 12/5/2009 “While you were sleeping” post here (as quoted by “Fearless Fathers” 3 days later) was one of the search results.

That post title and the two short links on it posted as far back as December 2009 (within one year of when I began blogging) and found when I didn’t even have access to a normal laptop, almost “says it all.”

I briefly cleaned up formatting in this older (now over five years old) post, added borders and some background color plus lines around quotes (which I didn’t know how to do at the time), and below that will copy, in different background-color, the text on the same subject matter from 2016 post, “Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so-called) Cartel? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.” That was my 15th post of 2016 — see the Table of Contents here.

It took me longer than a few months (a few years) to put together, from the timeline of major domestic violence prevention groups, that most of them probably knew all along about the influence of the HHS-sponsored (at the time, HEW-sponsored, as HHS only came into being 1990, but some key DV groups were formed in 1980 (“Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” in Duluth, MN), 1989 (“Futures without Violence”), or earlier) strategically positioned ACCESS and VISITATION GRANTS of first $4M (1988 dollars) then $10M (1996 dollars)/year and MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD, about 15 times larger annual appropriations than the A/V.

These domestic violence nonprofits at the leadership level did not inform their “clients,” typically battered and abused women with or without children, about the Access and Visitation grants those clients who were MOTHERS would be up against, by virtue of their not being fathers, and by virtue, as it applied, of their having custody of the children and there even being a (male) “Noncustodial” parent. It was social public welfare policy!

This old post stands as a simple testimony that IF certain information is available, other parts of major systems start to make sense, and if it is not, they simply do not. Therefore, in my opinion, one of the larger “crimes” in responding to domestic violence, and evidence itself of an abusive approach to the target population being helped, is to withhold timely information which, if NOT withheld, might lead to a different strategic decision on the part of that individual parent. For example, SOME individual parents may decide whether or not to go up against the largest grant-making federal agency around in seeking to protect their children and do it by way of the family courts.

I found this on-line yesterday [12/4/2009], it appears to date to JUNE 2000.

Congressional Research Service

Report 97-590

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?

Carmen D. Solomon-Fears, Education and Public Welfare Division

Updated June 20, 2000

Found at this link: http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf

Abstract.

From time to time, the issue arises of whether the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE)program should be actively involved in enforcing visitation rights. Both federal and state policymakers agree that denial of visitation rights should not be considered a reason for stopping child support payments.

AVAILABLE HERE — and I’m going to add it to my bloglinks. It’s ONLY 7 pages long, and provides a summary background of HOW the Federal Government got to be “in the family way.” The rationale was TANF/Welfare. That was the chink in the door.

The question arises, in my mind at least — what major institutions and practices in this nation are creating the welfare population to start with? The 2 largest areas of expenditure in the government are two agencies: 1. Health and Human Service, and 2. Education. The others, are smaller. Go to at least usaspending.gov and look at the pie chart, and take a look. Why are the courts and the child support agencies in the business of education, at which the educational system is already failing, clearly?

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf

Recommended reading for the uninitiated, for example:

Is the Federal Government Becoming Too Intrusive in Family Law Policy?

[[Ya-THINK? Just perhaps MAYBE? This shows the rationale…]]

Congress does not have general authority to pass laws dealing with family law issues, unless there is a connection or “nexus” between such legislation and one of the areas in which it is authorized to act. In the case of the CSE program, the federal nexus is the …

H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999, would provide $140 million in grants over four years to public and private entities to achieve three purposes: (1) promote marriage, (2) promote successful parenting, and (3) help noncustodial parent improve their economic status. H.R. 3073 was passed by the House on November 10, 1999, but has not been acted on by the Senate.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, fatherhood, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

Oconomowoc, not Oconto, Wisconsin. Quiz for my readers…

with 2 comments

OK, skim through the articles below — I did. And here are a few questions.

(1) Was this a “family” matter? If so, how many states (and countries) are involved, to date?

(2) The little boy involved was 4 years old (and now his Mom is dead and father in jail, on $2 million bail). He was in a fatherless home. To correct this situation, his father (allegedly) hired someone ELSE to kill her so he could get custody (since the courts weren’t about to fork over the kid), solving the “noncustodial parent” issue, and so forth.

My question is, whose mug shot isn’t up here?

Three arrested in Smith murder

Posted: Nov. 19, 2009

Justin Patrick Welch, suspected of killing Kimberly Smith of Oconomowoc in October, was taken into custody at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday by Mexican authorities as he tried to cross the border into California. Authorities were notified because he was driving a stolen Jeep Patriot.

Also taken into custody yesterday at the Mexican border, at 1:10 p.m., was Jack E. Johnson, 65. He formerly resided in Waukesha and has close ties to Darren Wold, who was also arrested last night at his residence in Texas without incident. Wold is the father of Smith’s 4-year-old son Jackson.

Johnson and Welch are being held in the San Diego County Jail on $2 million bail. Johnson is being held for party to first-degree intentional homicide, Welch for first-degree intentional homicide. Wold is being held in Lubbock, Texas, also on $2 million bail on the charge of party to first-degree intentional homicide.

Police say it appears at this time that Wold conspired with his lifelong friend Johnson to have Smith murdered in an attempt to get custody of their son.

All three are awaiting extradition to Wisconsin.

(1)

3 arrested in Oconomowoc slaying; plot to gain child’s custody alleged By Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel Updated: Nov. 19, 2009 1:31 p.m.

Waukesha — Kimberly Smith was murdered in her Oconomowoc home Oct. 1 as part of a plot for her ex-boyfriend to get custody of their 4-year-old son, authorities said Thursday in announcing the arrests of the ex-boyfriend and two other men on homicide charges. Darren Wold, 41, the ex-boyfriend, is accused of conspiring with a longtime friend, Jack E. Johnson, 65, formerly of Waukesha, to kill Smith, and Justin Patrick Welch, 26, of French Camp, Calif., is accused of traveling to Wisconsin and stabbing her to death, Chief David Beguhn said during a news conference at the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department. Authorities on Oct. 27 had identified Welch as a suspect in the homicide after his DNA was found on a knife and latex/vinyl-type gloves recovered in a sewer drain near Smith’s home in the 300 block of S. Maple St., according to court records. An arrest warrant was issued for Welch that charged him with first-degree intentional homicide. At the time, police said Welch might be driving a Jeep Patriot that was reported stolen in California. Investigators launched a nationwide manhunt for Welch, and through their investigation, connected him to Johnson, of Obrero Rosarito, Mexico, Beguhn said. Authorities placed an alert with U.S. Customs and Border Protection asking that they be notified if Johnson attempted to cross the border. Johnson was taken into custody about 1:10 p.m. Wednesday as he attempted to enter the United States. About 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Welch was arrested by Mexican authorities after a brief vehicle pursuit near Rosarito, Mexico. Police were attempting to stop the Patriot because it was stolen, Beguhn said. Welch was turned over to U.S. authorities. Both Welch and Johnson are being held in the San Diego (Calif.) County Jail. Johnson is charged with party to first-degree intentional homicide. Wold was arrested Wednesday night at his Lubbock, Texas, home. He is being held in jail there on a charge of party to first-degree intentional homicide. All three men are being held on $2 million bail. Smith, 39, was found dead about 9:30 a.m. Oct. 1 in her home in the 300 block of S. Maple St. Her hands were bound and she had been stabbed a number of times, court records state. Her 4-year-old son, Jackson, was home at the time of the slaying but did not witness the killing. Smith’s current boyfriend, who lived with her and Jackson, found Smith’s body in the living room and called 911. The boyfriend said he had left for work about 6 a.m. and returned after learning that Smith didn’t show up at her job, according to Beguhn. Welch’s ties to Wisconsin are not known, and investigators do not know if Smith knew him. Smith’s relatives told investigators that they do not know Welch.

(2)

Oconomowoc investigators get break in murder of Kimberly Smith

Bob Moore FOX 6 Reporter

October 27, 2009

WITI-TV, MILWAUKEE – Oconomowoc investigators get their first and only break in in the murder of Kimberly Smith. Smith was found dead on October 1st. Tuesday morning, a Waukesha County judge issued an arrest warrant for a California man, Justin Welch.

Police collected evidence from an Oconomowoc home on the morning of October 1st. Last Friday, a DNA analysis of several items matched the DNA of 26-year-old Justin Welch.

Welch is now the focus of a nationwide manhunt. The Waukesha County arrest warrant is for first degree intentional homicide. He’s suspected of killing Kim Smith. Welch is wanted in California on a felony, no-bail warrant for a parole violation.

Police are now trying to determine the connection between Welch and Wisconsin. They suspect Welch and Smith may have connected on the internet.

If you have any information about where authorities might fight Welch, you’re urged to call the Oconomowoc Police at 262-567-4401 or the Waukesha Co. Sheriff’s Dept. at 262-446-5070.

(3)

Kim Smith remembered for big smile, thoughtfulness

Oconomowoc murder victim identified

By Katherine Michalets and Jeff Rumage Freeman Staff

Oct 3, 2009

. . .

According to a news release, Smith was found dead in the living room of her residence at 334 S. Maple St. The police department was notified by dispatch at 9:32 a.m., and officers and rescue personnel arrived on the scene within two minutes.

Oconomowoc Police Chief David Beguhn said the boyfriend that she lived with left for work at 6 a.m. When he called her at the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services where she works, he was told she had not come in, so he returned home to find her dead body, Beguhn said.

Police believe the murder took place sometime between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.

Smith was also living with her son, who was unharmed by the event. After the murder, the young boy underwent a forensic interview at a specialty care center in Waukesha. Based on those interviews, it did not appear the young boy witnessed the event, Beguhn said. The boy is staying with his grandmother, he said.

Online court records show Smith was involved in a yearlong custody battle with the father of the boy. Beguhn said police contacted the man Thursday, and he was in Texas, where he lives.

Police File Four Sealed Search Warrants In Oconomowoc Homicide Case

No Arrests Have Been Made

POSTED: 6:50 pm CDT October 6, 2009
UPDATED: 10:47 am CDT October 7, 2009

etc.

QUIZ:

These are the ages involved:

26, 4, 65, 41, 39

These are the geographies (state/country):

Wisconsin, California, Texas, Mexico

These are the last names, not including the boy: Welch, Wold, Johnson, Smith, Beguhn

Question1: Who’s who?

Match age to state to last name — quick now… can you keep them straight?

Question 2: How many generations, so far, has this one event affected?

(answer — apparently, four. youngster, 20 yr old, 40yr olds, 65 yr old.)

Question 3:

Did anyone (article) mention domestic violence yet? Want to place a bet whether there was or was not such a criminal record? (I’m thinking, probably not). Would a restraining order have helped her somehow? Was she aware of her danger (lethality assessments)? (Note: 3rd party involved, bound hand and feet, she maybe didn’t have her first cup of coffee or get out the door to work yet). Was she in an unsafe place? YES: Her home, after a custody battle.

Question(s) 4:

What was Dad doing in Texas? Did having Dad in Texas make anyone safer?

Question(s) 5ff:

Did fast response by police, or a live-in boyfriend make her any safer? No, she’s dead. But his fast response helped probably catch the killer.

Did her expertise in Health &Human Services make her any more alert to the danger? (Apparently not).

Finally:

Do I have time to analyze this one?

Answer: no.

Instinctive response (no wrong answer):

What word comes to your mind in regards this case? Summarize/label it…. Answer must be in 3 words or less.

You know what word comes to mine? In light of the: Wisconsin/California/Texas/Mexico connection, plus a 4 year old boy and willingness to KILL to get custody…. what a dedicated father. . . .

Child-trafficking. But maybe that’s just me.

Sure, it’d have been better if they’d had a better marriage, or married, or stayed married. But suppose there had been a mismatch, and there had been violence — should she have kept herself and her son around for more?

What about that shared parenting theme? Wasn’t Dad interested, or wasn’t he allowed? It’s dangerous pissing off a Dad these days, apparently…. Maybe that’s part of the formula with this fatherlessness thing. It’s countercultural, it’s not accepted culturally, and that can get REAL sticky with cultures (or religions) that place themselves above the law. Or individuals.

Here’s another excerpt from (I think) first article link, above. Catch the drift?

Long-running dispute

Smith was entangled in a custody dispute with Wold, and the proceedings were favoring her.

Question: Which one of my posts handles the hazards of actually winning in court?

Court records show that Smith and Wold, who previously lived together in Germantown and in Pennsylvania, have been fighting for more than two years in Washington County Circuit Court over custody of the boy.

As these things can go, that ain’t ‘squat.’ Look at the Oconto County, WI case. There are ways to keep it going, and going, and going. . . .

In July, Wold was ordered to spend 60 days in jail after being held in contempt of court, but the jail time was to be imposed only if he failed to follow certain conditions for a year, records show.

He had lied about where he was living and failed to make court-ordered payments.

LYING, in court especially, about where one is living is a character indicator. Courts ought to wake up. Guess this was a family court…

QUICK now, before you’ve thought about this, one there are others. I can’t keep up, myself…

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

November 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Fatal Assumptions, Lethality Indicators - in News

Tagged with Intimate partner violence, men's rights, Motherhood

Give us your huddled masses, your underage daughters: Oconto Co Wisconsin locks up Lorraine, . . .

with 5 comments

Earlier, I (and colleagues — see those buttons on my blogroll!) posted on the 30-plus individuals involved in ONE mother reporting sexual molestation (and more) of her little girl in Wisconsin, after CPS workers in 2 counties confirmed it.

As reported Oct. 17th (DV awareness month, much?) on another blog (calling her a “teen” daughter was inaccurate. Though the abuse started earlier, my understanding is, she is 11). You should click on this link also — someone’s comment (wife of a police officer) is relating another account.

Wisconsin Mom Lorraine Tipton (Oconto County) is under fire because her teen daughter refuses to go on visitation with her abuser father, who makes her sleep on the floor and drives with her drunk in the car. The father, Craig Hensberger, managed to convince the father’s rights judge, Judge David Miron, in power there, to threaten Lorraine with jail if her daughter does not go. Her daughter was in the emergency room this past Thursday night, sick and frantic, and is currently home with her mom, medicated and scared. The abuser’s mommy has not picked her up as she threatened to do. So Lorraine faces jail on Monday. Please say a prayer for her.

Here’s a StopFamilyViolence release on it at “RandiJames.com” File it under “a Thanksgiving to remember…” I guess…

Daughter Won’t Visit Father? Jail Mommy!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2009

Contact:
Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org

WHY IS THIS MOTHER IN JAIL?

(Oconto Falls, WI) Today an Oconto County family court judge sentenced a mother to jail because she was unable to force her daughter to court mandated visitation with her abusive father. The daughter will be sent to foster care if she refuses to live with her father while the mother serves her sentence.

Circuit Judge David Miron sentenced Lorraine Tipton to 30 days in county jail for contempt of court, for her failure to follow the custody order requiring her daughter to live every other week with her father, Craig Hensberger.

NOTE: Anyone see this work in reverse, father jailed for refusing visitation to mother? If so, let me know — it’s my situation. I miss my (daughters) too! And if I file for a contempt (further upsetting someone) knowing the courts or enforcement will do nothing, leaving an angry male on the loose. Same deal with “certifiably insane restraining orders.” But there’s not a single qualm about restraining protective mothers. Fork them little girls over, we want a fresh supply of young flesh, plus that adrenaline rush that comes from dominating a woman, for those who feel entitled, or have become addicted to this need.

These are country-wide, generational nightmares. When’s the wakeup call? What will it take to stop it?

“She’s terrified of going; she has night terrors and severe anxiety” says Tipton, who admits her daughter hasn’t visited with her father since August.

“I thought the court was supposed to look out for the best interests of the child, not the best interest of the father,” Tipton continued. “I thought once I got out of the abusive relationship everything would be fine. Instead, my abuser is continuing his abuse of me and my daughter with the help of the court.”

Over the course of their on and off 8 year relationship Hensberger was arrested three times for domestic violence and once for child abuse. Since their separation in 2005, Hensberger has been arrested twice for DWI, including once while the daughter was in the car.

Although the court has ordered Hensberger into alcohol treatment and ordered “absolute sobriety” when having visitation, the daughter claims he continues to drink to excess when she is visiting. The father told the court he had stopped drinking completely. The mother recently had a private investigator follow the father, who found that the father drank heavily on a night he was scheduled to have visitation. In court today the father admitted to his continued drinking; nonetheless the judge still sentenced the mother to jail.

Clearly this judge marches to the beat of a different drummer, or is it $$? One wonders…

Hensberger achieved his local 15 minutes of fame in Oconto in March of this year, when he forced his daughter to enter 3 different fishing tournaments using the same fish so that he could collect the money – a story covered widely by local news. While the local media angle related to his transportation of fish against DNR regulations, Ms. Tipton’s concerns were for the well-being of her daughter, who was being taught to lie, cheat and steal by her father. Since this incident, the daughter’s relationship with the father has deteriorated, Tipton claims.

Additionally, the father’s employment is irregular, his house is in foreclosure and he currently resides with his mother. The daughter claims she is forced to sleep on the floor in the living room or in the unfinished basement since there is no bed or private space for her in the small 2 bedroom house.

“Sadly, this case typifies the problems we are seeing in Family Courts nationwide,” says Irene Weiser, executive director of StopFamilyViolence. org. “Family court judges are failing to recognize signs of abuse, and are placing children in harms way. {{I DISAGREE. THEY SEE IT, BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT. The KEY TO THIS PROBLEM IS WHAT ARE THESE JUDGES PAYING GREATER HEED TO THAN THEIR JUDICIAL MANDATE HERE?}} Even worse, instead of investigating the abuse allegations, they accuse the parent making the allegations of being vindictive and punish them for taking actions to protect their children. Often judges seem more concerned with maintaining the child’s relationship with the father than ensuring the child’s safety.”

Apparently this mother is now out of jail, and her daughter is back in a different kind of jail sentence, and we will just have to figure out how to grow up around all this. And the reporters will continue wondering why we have so much rape, violence, and substance abuse, let alone, mental health problems in our country. Gee, let’s take a wild, educated, guess…

Again, folks, this is not anomaly, some aberration, some weird exception in upstate (or wherever) Midwestern Dairy State (?) . No, this is the pattern, this is the intent, and this is the practice in the family courts. You are watching it. Watch your headlines….

At the risk of hammering in this point of HOW it happens, and why (i.e., pointing to probable cause, not just effects), here’s an excerpt from the NAFCJ.net website as to this practice.

Further down on this link the “Center for Policy Research” group is mentioned. Check it out — it’s a key player, and sets a pattern for similar groups…

Meanwhile, I am saying my prayers for the Tipton family (and mine).

Child Support role is often a key factor. Don’t know if it was this time, but t ypically it is. A broke Mom can’t stick up so well for her rights.

ANYTHING below this line is a quote from that NAFCJ site, though not so formatted, which ends my post today.

One reason I understand this pattern to make sense is watching the pattern of abuse, individually, between the family of origin and my ex, and the role of finances, etc., develop over the years, and a progression to the careful vocabulary / jargon used to justify it.

There is most definitely a system to the chaos. In fact, chaos is the desired status, from what I can see. (See also Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine,” referring to continental lockdown, etc.) When people, or a nation, is in shock, it is vulnerable to dictatorship. That’s why we must FIGHT LIKE HELL for Constitutional rights for all citizens: male/female, young or old. This is a language issue, and then practicing what the Constitution says, eliminating something else in one’s life, and forcing legislators, judges, attorneys, and lawyers to practice what they swore an oath to. It requires checking public records and trying to stop kickbacks, racketeering, double-dipping, and so forth. This is the price of freedom — vigilance. And yes, it matters, if it’s not your immediate neighbor!

—————————————————————————

Read about Meyer Elkin’s role in the AFCC is discussed toward the bottom of their site AFCC: History page  .
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group – Children’s Rights Council. Study these people and their site carefully because it is the “blueprint” of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies.  Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people. It is all done for them by the government. They get their bribes paid for them !

The AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people. While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters, which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them. Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell. CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999.. Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself. He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC. He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency. This perversion of OCSE’s agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date. This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging. They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner. Their scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations.

{{COMMENT: This has absolutely been my experience, and the Center for Policy Research link, and many others, tend to verify it. I pressed for child support, my kids were STOLEN, and this was rubberstamped. Have barely seen them for dust since….}}

Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant [“litigate”] for custody. The judge hearing these cases proves [“provides”?] payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators. None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing)..

The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments. {{GOT THAT??}} It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples. This is what keeps their litigation game going and going. They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud. The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases. However, this doesn’t stop the crooked AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling. Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

{{NOTE: Like other organizations (me talking, again), AFCC may have some fine members. I know some. However, like our educational system, this system’s history and intent of the organization stands, and I stand by the above summary of it.}}

Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council. Their favorite researcher — Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant. Braver, found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men! Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE. Pearson/AFCC have been using their influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS. She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs.

The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation. Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father. Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children. Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies.

{{GOt those 3 avenues? Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Child Support arrears. She protests, on behalf of the kids, she loses contact with them. More business for the court. Alternately, for a supervised visitation center, another “racket” as far as I am concerned. LetsGetHonest speaking in that regard, not everyone agrees with me on that. Jack Straton, Ph.D. and a few others seem to have already, though…”What’s Fair for Children of Abusive Men?”}}

This tactic actually works well for them, because so many people are inclined to believe that women can’t take the pressure of martial break-up they “go-crazy”, imagine or even fabricate problems in their attempt to “get-back’ at him. These tactics are effective against even professional and prominent women. The commonly heard “bitter custody dispute” really means: “crazy lying accusatory woman” who drives the man to violence out of shear frustration (lets call this the Alec Baldwin excuse)

{{YOU WANT TO HELP KIDS? TRACK THEM THAR FUNDS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT….}}

###

Left from previous news release above…
StopFamilyViolence. org is a national activist organization that works to ensure safety, justice, accountability and healing for victims of family violence. Irene Weiser coordinates the Family Court Reform Coalition, a coalition of advocates, professionals and organizations formed in response to the national crisis in the custody court system, where all too often, judge’s order children to live with abusers and punish, silence, or jail the parent who tries to protect the children from harm.

Irene Weiser
Executive Director
StopFamilyViolence.org
331 W. 57th St #518
New York, NY 10019
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org

OK, my commentary again. See next post (11-17-09) for next installment in this fiasco (or, business as usual, depending on one’s perspective)….

This mother eventually DID go to jail for failing to force her underaged daughter to allow her father to force himself on her, drive drunk, and other forms of child abuse. What a few judges with an agenda can do in a system that allows this . . . . We were pissed off, appropriately. I’m tired of that! This mother was sentenced to jail, in 30-day stints, until her girl went back for more of the same (as I heard it).

When the girl caved in, her mother was released. This story is still unfolding.

USA, folks, this is not Guantanamo, this is motherhood, USA. And she wasn’t even a single parent, this time. How’d you like to marry into that situation?

Unjustice and abuse affects EVERYONE….

It affects the next generation, assuming they live that long.

Over the past decade or so, researchers at McGill University in Montreal, led by Michael Meaney, have shown that affectionate mothering alters the expression of genes in animals, allowing them to dampen their physiological response to stress. These biological buffers are then passed on to the next generation: rodents and nonhuman primates biologically primed to handle stress tend to be more nurturing to their own offspring, Dr. Meaney and other researchers have found.

Now, for the first time, they have direct evidence that the same system is at work in humans. In a study of people who committed suicide published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience, researchers in Montreal report that people who were abused or neglected as children showed genetic alterations that likely made them more biologically sensitive to stress.

[After Abuse, Changes in the Brain by BENEDICT CAREY

StopFamilyViolence.org, Feb. 23, 2009]

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

November 16, 2009 at 6:29 pm

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…
	davidhendren on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	NSPC — ‘… on ‘High-Conflict’ Co…

National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2009	$0	990R	1	95-4423621
National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2010	$113,732	990	19	95-4423621
National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2009	$58,470	990	31	95-4423621
National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2008	$48,791	990	25	95-4423621
National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2007	$136,014	990	24	95-4423621
National Family Life and Education Center	CA	2006	$265,681	990	22	95-4423621

Language:	English
Annotation:	Analysis of parental child–stealing cases in Los Angeles reveals that this crime occurs after a divorce action and following a period of compliance with court-ordered visitation privileges.
Abstract:	Study data came from cases screened for prosecution by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office between July 1977 and June 1978, the first year in which California law made this activity illegal. A total of 91 cases were examined. The crime generally involved young Caucasians, with fathers generally abducting children from mothers awarded custody. The crimes occurred equally throughout the seasons of the year, but took place more often on weekend days than during the week. The parents communicated after the child theft in almost half the cases. The communication usually involved announcing the offender’s intention to keep the child, trying to influence the severed relationship, or justifying the crime. Surprise abductions and use of force were rare. Although just over half the abductions took place within 18 months of the divorce, 37 percent occurred 2 or more years after the divorce. The child stealing reflected the offender’s desire to maintain a full-time relationship with the child and to help reestablish the marital relationship. Additional California and national data suggest that about 1 child theft occurs annually for every 22 divorces. Further research should focus on other jurisdictions and other aspects of child stealing. One note, data tables, and 22 references are supplied.
Index Term(s):	California; Child snatching; Crimes against children; Family offenses

Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature
		NCJ 190074, Janet Chiancone, 2000, OJJDP, (13 pages).

Posts Tagged ‘men’s rights’

…

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

(with respect to the late Dr. Hershel K. Swinger, I cannot respect using TANF and other funds to proselytize, and then cheating the California out of transparency and accountability).

(And I SURE as heck don’t respect anyone using the US Government to try to evangelize ANYone!)

The clinical psychologist who taught at Cal State L.A. created Project Fatherhood, which has provided therapy, support and training for more than 7,000 low-income urban fathers since 1996.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Monthly Specials For July

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

“Wife’s anger misdirected in Mirkarimi case.”

This week, Myrna Melgar, a survivor of domestic violence,** wrote a passionate account – with Lopez’s blessing – of her friend’s devastation and anger in how the case was handled. While the opinion piece in the Bay Guardian had some fascinating details, it missed the main point.

Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:

District Attorney Power Still Unfettered

Experience

Ellen Pence

Witnesses save lives

Seizing on sentence

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

http://www.cpradr.org/ The CPR Institute is an independent, nonprofit think tank that promotes innovation in commercial dispute prevention and resolution. By harnessing the collective …

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

. . .

“Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field“

“USEFUL LINKS” (useful for WHAT?)

ANYHOW . . . The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .

— lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

— it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

— loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

— lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

He is thinking in terms of the Corporation that holds the (moulah) versus the “State” which is subject to it. It’s a BIG deal!

That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

So here we go:

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

Working for whom?*

Define “working” — what’s the goal here? (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”

I posted this on August 17, 2009

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

pc 278.5 IS (California) Penal Code 278.5.

found 14 years after being abducted

as a 7-year-old by her mother

Question:

Answer:

1980: Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

Is the Federal Government Becoming Too Intrusive in Family Law Policy?

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

(1)

(2)

(3)

No Arrests Have Been Made

QUIZ:

Long-running dispute

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

OK, my commentary again. See next post (11-17-09) for next installment in this fiasco (or, business as usual, depending on one’s perspective)….

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

Short Unique Words (Acronyms, or even EIN#s) Work Better than Phrases. I don’t always tag & quit using “categories.”

ARCHIVES | Posts only (March 2009ff, pick a month). For Pages, see my Tables of Contents, & (as of its date published) Sticky Post ’58 Essays.’

Visitor Count (added 1/29/2018, Blog started 3/2009). Only Counts Home Page.