Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘(My Blog’s Sidebar Text & Links Widget)

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far).

leave a comment »

(Post updated month by month since first posted Aug. 5.  Some updates include explanations or commentary..//LGH Dec. 19, 2019.


No single essay (post or page, even with the exhibits) can expose an entire network developed over the decades, expanding and evolving in its many roots, branches, tendrils above and below ground (direct public awareness ℅ storefront websites and periodic MSM feature stories). Understanding comes with exposure over time and seeing some of the basic operating principles in action, which I blog in a show and tell manner.  I’m just not focused on anecdotal narrative based on individual cases, not even my own. (See blog motto: “A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment”).

YOU ARE READING:

Table of Contents 2019, FamilyCourtMatters.org’s Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far).

(Shortlink ends “-ayV”. About 9,600 words (w/ monthly updates extending the table; word-count high in part because of the post “tags” added to the table as their own rows).  Last update Dec. 19, 2019, adds all Nov. posts and all Dec. posts so far (@12/19).


Post published August 5, and updated periodically as the blog grows.  The post shows on the table, chronologically under Aug. 5th, but being marked “Sticky”  remains in top position of “Current Posts.”   TOCs 2018 and 2019 are both recommended reading for my current research focus (browse titles) as is anything which made it onto my top right sidebar widget. Direct links to both this post and TOC 2018 show on my right sidebar, and both also are marked sticky, so TOC 2018 is also stationed among the top 12 posts. I’ll explain this again below with some images.

Within the table of contents, you’ll see this August 5 post easily from its white-on-black color scheme:

2019 FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org
The Year in Posts  & Pages (so far, through Dec. 16)
(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some)
URL: short-link ends:
 (Normal color for a row containing a post title & link)
Aug. 5
STICKY, &
THIS POST
Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – Dec. 16 (so far).
(“Sticky.”  About 6,000 words initial; the word count growing month-by-month with each update of course)
-ayV

 

Table of Contents Post PREVIEW

 

Table of Contents 2019 here, unlike TOCs for 2012-2014, 2016, 2017 incorporates any new pages by date published. Individual TOCs for late 2012 – 2017 can still be accessed within the top dozen sticky posts through the one for “2017” which internalizes links to the others: full title:  2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. Shortlink-ends 5qZ,first published Jan. 9, 2017.. 

  • The 2017 TOC (which holds links to earlier ones) is a formerly sticky post accessible I just realized, now through the widget  box “New To Blog?  Want My Position Summary or a Review?” publ. Jan. 27, 2018.
  • That access is a bit cumbersome, so I’ll add a more direct link to the sidebar (about the same placement) now, because TOC 2017 should be still easily accessible. This will alter and update the sidebar top right “Go To” Widget (which contains TOC 2019 and 2018 already; an image of it is lower on this post too). //LGH 2019.  In my latest post (Dec. 16, 2019) I had occasion to include small section reviewing TOC access points.

Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”) also includes pages. The “ARCHIVES” function does not. Here, I highlit pages bright-yellow because the short-link protocol for them differs (by just one capitalized letter) from that for posts.

While I have fewer pages overall, the ones I do have tend to be as important as key posts and often paired with them.  Some exist to give more in-depth detail on a topic a postmay have introduced.

 

IMPROMPTU COMMENTS FROM MY October 2 UPDATE, this color background, green border:


In September 2019, I worked extensively on (condensing) the massive Front Page to the blog, resulting in some off-ramped posts, connecting links, and updates

I’m not sure how much longer I can keep blogging and wanted this blog more accessible.

All my indicators are there’s still nothing like it out there: written by someone with experience of both the domestic violence protection and the family court system but despite that personal experience still focused on obtaining and featuring basic data (i.e., much from databases) available to common people (i.e., people without access to academic journals, insider information on the courts, or individual court cases) to show system organization, and that built-in conflicts of interest within that organization as a rationale and solid — as opposed to “assumptions unspoken/unchallenged, and when challenged, found lacking proof — base for (family court) system reform.**

(**See “Clarifications added Oct. 3,” next inset.  The statements from this paragraph continue below that inset and brief “footprint” from it).

Section “Clarifications added Oct. 3, 2019″ was moved to Bonus Content (Illustrations, More In-Depth Details) by Post, from Certain 2019 Posts, ‘Oct. 3 Clarifications’ and my FNAQs (Publ. Nov. 4, 2019). about 6,500 words)  Now that this has been published as a separate post, that post is also in the (updated) table below.  //LGH Dec. 19, 2019 (while adding Nov. published posts to this table).

Clarifications in part say:

(Footprint left from now off-ramped material):

. . . It seems that what you do (or fail to do) after you know matters the most.


**(Nonprofits who manage to get cited, and eager to file amicus briefs, testify before task forces, and to the extent their leadership has academic connections, publish in a law or other journal), some getting minor USDOJ/NIJ grants to start finally backing up the [ridiculous and barely supported] numeric claims about the family courts, others working more getting their names alongside the former in media articles about the problems in family courts).  See my June 29, 2014 post for a list as of about that time, but I’ve known before then.  Collectively, they make this blog necessary, and its basic work, harder.

In my “58 Essays” and “Acknowledgements” (now second and third sticky posts on this blog) —  Acknowledgements, Executive Summary (Current Projects | Rolling Blackouts) and What Makes This Blog “What You Need to Know” (July 31, 2019). (<~~Click to Access; shortlink ends “-auh”, also marked sticky). I gave these groups a backhanded credit for the existence (as a necessity) of this blog.

[Continuing from just above the Oct. 3 inset and this ‘footprint’ left here from it:]

The family court system has been but shouldn’t really be characterized as either politically progressive or politically conservative, as understood in the USA or elsewhere.  It is what it is, and developed over a timeline with specific agents, and actors already in place and in power.

In more than one country family courts continue to have damaging effects and outcomes (“roadkill”).

I see that both the actors[1] who helped originally set up the family courts and the (self-appointed/system-anointed) family court reform movements [2]  have professional “story-tellers” with revisionist, fictionalized, or just plain dumbed-down, illogical explanations bordering on mythical fairytales with religious superstition for those bad outcomes, including but not limited to headline-making “roadkill.”

[1] People, associations, and/or institutions such as universities, or parts of the federal government (USA); [2] protective parents, battered mothers, family rights, etc.

I chose early on to go look at who’s funding such myth-making; what an expedition it’s been!

By the way, more logical answers continue to be hard to argue against, as shown by collective refusal to engage, attempts to co-opt on-line discussions with a highly diluted version (I say this with specific websites in mind) and in general refusal to mention this blog by name while I know as blog administrator many of the same groups and their leaders (as well as, per “statcounter” certain universities, government entities, and followers from specific countries) have been following it.

{END, “IMPROMPTU COMMENTS  FROM MY October 2 UPDATE”}

Despite the uncomfortable content, we need more logical answers to counter the seemingly easier and strong collective urge to instead “play the fool,” and to continue to be exploited because it’s more comfortable socially to join existing movements than start one.  This reminds me of how, on the surface, it may seem easier to submit to abuse than confront it, something I know about experientially, before, during, and after. You’d better believe it’s a “gender” issue, but it’s also a freedom and economic issue.  Abuse is a form of slavery and exploitation. Those who profit the most from its perpetuation are going to, generally, be the most resistant and likely to try scapegoating just single (demographically labeled) groups rather than correct the system.

I would never dedicate, as I have, ten years of investigative blogging and (as possible at any time) social networking on this issue were it not so deeply dangerous to future generations, and I have been and am a mother, no matter who may or may not wish to acknowledge that socially, or in my own family line once I confronted in-home domestic violence and all kinds of “coercive control” i.e., “abuse” and (ever since) had to also deal up close and even from afar with their intent to stuff it back into the closet, at least as it pertained to my family line and our shared family line.

There is no excuse for the levels of abuse we have condoned through passive ignorance of our own governmental systems in flux  (USA and internationally).  At the heart of this is utilization of tax-exempt status in the private sector to stockpile influence and resources to drive the public sector, which is SUPPOSED to be “wealth-blind” when it comes to legal rights.

//LGH Oct. 2, 2019, tweaked some Nov. 3 during table update to add October’s posts.


The main, but not only important content, on this page is the table which looks like and begins:

2019 FAMILYCOURTMATTERS.org, The Year (So Far) in Posts,* 2019

(with approximate word counts for each and “tags” for some)

URL: short-link ends:
Jan.5, 2019 2018: A Year On This Blog | Table of Contents (Posts) | This One is “Sticky” [@ Jan. 5, 2019]

Under 4,000 words, but see also, below, Table of Contents 2018 (<~second version, better format, published March 24, 2019; short-link ending “-9y7”)

-9p3
Feb. (no posts were published this month)
March 4

 

How 501©3 “The Next American City,” with help from at least Five BIG Foundations, lost its “American,” while Devastated Detroit’s DESIGN is Anointed by UNESCO (Written Sept. 2016, but Published Mar. 2019). (about 8,600 words)

“The post was fully written in 2016 as you see below (except this update in this background-color) but, through my oversight, was not published until now, 2019.”
-4iT

(The above was a sample of what the post looks like.  Scroll or page down for the full table…)

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019) [Actual Widget shows current rev. date (through Dec. 16, 2019), though this earlier snapshot of the sidebar doesn’t.

FINDING THIS TABLE of CONTENTS 2019 IS EASY, several different ways exist:
~~>Best: If blog’s right sidebar easily viewable) click “Current Posts” page (it’s at the top for now, so that’d lead right to this post) OR a bit below it, a direct link widget labeled TOC 2019 (shown in nearby image, along with a similar widget linking to TOC 2018).
I realize on some cellphones (including my own) the right sidebar isn’t easily seen; if so, then:
~~>Second Best: Type FamilyCourtMatters.org (=”Front Page”) and click the link provided near the top to get to the “Current Posts”(“Posts page”) on this blog.  

~~>Serendipity: Occasionally reading some other posts, you may run across a tiny section with the image to left and some active links to TOC 2018 and 2019.


COLOR-CODING: For some posts in this table I added separate rows with tags, immediately beneath the row for each respective post, labeled “TAGS” in the left column and “n/a” in the right.  I labeled “Sticky” posts “STICKY” in the left column, no extra highlighting.  I called attention to any new pages because they are highlit yellow. (and marked “PAGES” in middle and right-hand column).  The addition of tags probably doubles the size of the post (and table) but I feel is helpful information to browse or notice.

My average post size is probably about 8-10,000 words, but several are longer.  Because of this, I’ve included approximate word-counts for each post on the table.
Read the rest of this entry »

Women Judges still form Funky-filing Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later)

leave a comment »


Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later) (short-link ends “-9YW” and about 10,000 words long. Post written May 20-25, 2019, updated May 26).

“PREFACE”

I’m publishing this post “as-is” because one cannot squish too much documentation into one place.  There are more things I could say or links include, but this post “as is” says plenty.

I like to triple-check statements; there are one or two I haven’t yet, regarding research done six years ago.  In double- and triple-checking, more information and more understanding of the existing connections comes into focus for me as a blogger, which I then naturally want to reference or summarize.

Without a more direct, immediate, known (and prospectively more interactive) audience for this blog, I cannot put more days into it.

Most people I know do NOT go around reading business entity filings and tax returns — I do.  I do it ALL THE TIME.  Over time this has also developed a general, mental database of key organizations, awareness (generally) of how they tend to spin off over time, or sometimes I can catch a new one as it’s forming, or has just formed.

The issue, however, is with whom to talk about it.  Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations are generally already committed to their ongoing operations; those not involved and often not local (as the networks are coordinated nationally and at times internationally) in my experience (and with current connections) either not alert enough to even acknowledge the importance of  reading business entity filings and tax returns as indicators of the values of the organization’s leadership, or are overwhelmed possibly with their own court cases involving still-minor children.

Those who’ve aged out if not already aligned with the (usual) family court reform group loose (or tight) coalitions tend to want their own lives back, or just not to be bothered.  Those who haven’t directly experienced this firsthand (which is to say, those “on the sidelines”) generally seem to fall along the usual religious (religious or not), political (left or right persuasion) dividing lines and not about to cross them seriously, either.

Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations in many cases, (specifically, as mentioned on this post, as mentioned on most in the blog), will be also judges, or retired judges — and other court-connected professionals continuing to push programming put in effect in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, first decade of 2000s, and now in the second decade of the 2000s fast approaching its end. These programs will also be pushed, promoted and if possible perpetuated, regardless of which political party is in power, or who is U.S. President.  It’s an ECONOMIC matter.

I could post more tax returns or charitable, corporate registrations on this post as simple links (without the images).  I especially could post EVEN more on the connection between the “woman-judge-formed nonprofit” and “MACSA,” and recent findings on the (very much related) background and filing habits of the local (county) fatherhood collaborative, which I have seen and saved much of it as computer files or images, but it will not all fit in a single post.  The connections between MACSA, the nonprofit, and the county probation department (and with it, under “fatherhood collaboratives” also county-based) speak loudly as to the origins of that nonprofit.

(MACSA = Mexican American Community Services Association: Bay Area News Group March 6, 2014 article describes its woes, most of them involving improper handling of financials, IRS-revoked nonprofit status for non-filing (with the local DA’s office having seized its paperwork possibly related).  Notice the years..)

I have one or two statements I’d like to, and will try to, triple-check (specifically the fiscal agent connection between the DVIC and DVCC referenced below), but as a reminder, no matter how formal it may “feel,” a blog is an INformal medium, and I am a volunteer investigative blogger all these years.  Last year I left one state and relocated to another for a fresh start, which requires major energy still, and I’m recently, technically speaking, a senior, and have always been a mother, whether or not permitted to function as one over the years.

 

MACSA (The Mexican American Community Services Agency) existed 1966-2013 | CalEntity C0512046, Status ‘Dissolved’ per California Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search, re-checked in May 2019

The situations I’m speaking of in this post are typical, present multiple red flags, and should be noted, and watched.  It may take some time to become familiar with the setup, the terminology and where to look filings up, but that can be learned, and look-ups, up to a certain point, can be done.

I think the blog’s limits structurally on how it can deliver what I see needs to be delivered, is reaching its boundaries and think constantly about what other communication and message-delivery options exist that I could remain involved in — or find an ethically and intellectually (diligent fact-checker) responsible person or group of people to delegate them to.  //LGH May 25, 2019.


Originally, my purpose on this post was to preserve the text and story within a sidebar widget on this topic; administratively I needed it removed from the bottom right sidebar.  That text is below, in a narrower column, and beneath it a few footnotes from my substantial (extensive / long) updates on the top.

These topics are still relevant, and this is in part a re-statement of them (followed by the preserved text).


(Above image gallery:  I found a MACSA EIN# 941635200 from the IRS which also noted it was revoked in 2012. I see three tax returns from FY2007-2009 showing several million dollars’ worth of assets. It eventually registered as a charity in California; the “Details” page are full of demands for missing or incomplete information, and notices of ITS (Intent To Suspend). To view, you can repeat the search, or (for a snapshot as of several years past “Revoked” status, click “MACSA California Registry of Charitable Trusts | Details“~~>MACSA (TheMexicanAmericanCommunityServicesAgency) CalEntity 512046, EIN#941635200 CalifOAG Charity (Status ‘Revoked’ 2014ff) Details (RelatedDox Links Still Active) @ 2019May link added  5/26/2019. Note:  for pdfs (vs. plain images) on this blog, you must first click the link to see page with blog & post title and beneath it a small blank page icon, then click on the pdf icon to load the document.  Bonus Attached Info: When pdfs are printouts of California Registry of Charitable Trust “Details” (any entity), scroll down below ‘Schedule” to the bottom of the resulting document: any links under “Related Documents” for the filing entity should still be viewable by clocking on them.) (The California OAG RCT of course at any time may change how it loads or the user interface on this database in which case some of the above notations may not apply).

The latest charity renewal for MACSA (for FYE 2008) shows that about HALF its $10M revenues were from government sources.  It was status “Revoked” since 2014 (as a California Charity) and as a tax-exempt organization, 2012 — however as late as June 2017 (see colorful image above) it was being positively referenced in association with a Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative — from a University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) in a “Policy Brief.”  That colorfully annotated image and link to it above comes up again soon, below.)



This post references Santa Clara County “Domestic Violence Intervention Collaborative” (<~~DVIC is a nonprofit | “DVCC” is a named “Coordinating Council” under the county’s “Office of Women’s Policy” (OWP created in 1998)) and through it, at that level one of just two ex-judges* I just featured in the last post, Classic AFCC Combos, Collaborations, and Commonalities (Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra H. Lehrmann) and What’s WITH Middletown, Connecticut? . *He’s ex-judge because he’s retired, she’s ex-judge now only because a state supreme court justice, is no longer called “judge.

That nonprofit DVIC wasn’t the main focus of this post but arose in connection with another nonprofit, referenced in the title which I am now reminded (through revisiting) originally framed its reason for existing as family violence prevention, too.

The relationship of the DVIC (nonprofit) to the DVCC (coordinating council) is a little complicated.  I think that the DVIC was the fiscal agent for the DVCC, although with one being county-office-associated and the other not, that doesn’t even make sense.

The concept of “coordinating councils” isn’t complex, but I wonder how well the significance is generally understood; they’ve been around in reference to different subject matters, and when it comes to “DV” seem to take on a specific flavor.

The post title alone doesn’t reflect also how Judge Edwards’ “consultancy” was at the highest state level, but the post does. Before retirement in Santa Clara County, and again, he was and probably still is active in at least three very controlling and significant membership associations — AFCC, NCJFCJ and (as to child welfare), NACC.

That retired Judge Leonard P. Edwards founded the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (DVCC) is stated in this glowing commendation from California CASA Association mentioned among other accomplishments: he was also the first juvenile court judge to receive a special award from (yet another nonprofit, PRIVATE, association, the “NCSC”) in 2004, as the NCJFCJ’s publication reminded readers in 2005 when reprinting a 1992 article from Judge Edwards on “the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge.”

NCSC = National Center on State Courts is not the major focus here, but I’ve posted on it (June 30, 2017, split off from Oct., 2014, “Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?) and often call attention to it.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: