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 ‘NAMI

Other Considerations on the NASMHPD, MHA, and This Type of Networking (Oct. 25, 2014 post updated June/July, 2017, Publ. July 3)

leave a comment »

Theme, continued…”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA:”

click on image to see website.

This post, renamed as second part of the original started October 2014, being published early July, 2017.  It is “Part 2 of 3” from that original, although each has a slightly different focus and title. This one’s full title is:

Other Considerations on the NASMHPD, MHA, and This Type of Networking (Oct. 25, 2014 post updated June/July, 2017)  (short-link ending “-761” and all three characters there are numbers).

I am publishing it July 3 (Tuesday) evening, 2017 at 18,000 words (!!).  Some images will be removed and others updated within one or two days, post-publication.  The removed images and/or quotes will be seen on Post #3; they represent an overlap.  Also, know that at least half the contents (top part) and anywhere you see a screenprint image in the bottom half (or where otherwise marked) are 2017 updates.  The updates are to best clarify the material, or display it better than I could in 2014.

“The ocean is wide, and my boat (room to describe it on a single post) is so small!” if I may borrow (and apply differently) a motto from the Children’s Defense Fund.  The topic is a big one…this post does provide some signposts and navigation points on the compass…

(I see I omitted the first, and more important, part of the motto — “Dear Lord, be good to me” see logo):

self-explanatory logo and motto: CDF claims to be strong, effective, INDEPENDENT voice for ALL the children of America. It is, in fact, a 501©3 and as such is benefitting from tax exemption, and its revenue sources, as well as the strong reputation of its founders and leaders.

While I’m there (section in next background-color):

INDEPENDENT — REALLY?  Any tax-exempt organization, whatever its cause, either operates on the strength of 100% volunteers, or has some revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, and many of them also have employees.  This one has 303 employees (latest tax return shown below), but spent slightly more on “Other expenses” than on its employees.The tax exemption is courtesy a situation in this country where it’s very easy to go tax-exempt, but those who do not do this individually, will generally speaking, if earning enough to be taxed, be paying a higher percentage than those corporations which do not, providing an incentive to form as many as possible nationwide.  Money is attracted to (tends to flow towards) places which increase tax-exemption and better preserve profits, in general.

CDF’s claiming to represent ALL the children of America actually goes against the grain of the existing systems of representation in place for them, including state legislatures, U.S. Congress, and local representatives.  I am well aware that saying this regarding a well-known civil-rights oriented organization may read like one-step from blasphemy and is a volatile statement. They certainly didn’t represent my children…

This post isn’t about the CDF, but it takes only a few minutes to look up most tax returns (other than those which are simply nearly impossible to find — and one came up in this post below, the NASHMPD Research Institute, a.k.a. “NRI-inc.org.”

ORGANIZATION NAME   ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Children’s Defense Fund DC 2015 990 62 $27,749,303 52-0895622
Childrens Defense Fund DC 2014 990 86 $31,911,729 52-0895622
Childrens Defense Fund DC 2013 990 46 $35,047,275 52-0895622

Briefly, (a stroll/scroll through even one Form 990 above) notice that this particular organization (Sched R) has two related entities in D.C., a total of three out of the same street address in D.C., benefits from a $4.9M tax-exempt revenue bond from D.C., took government and private grants both, and $1.6M from fund-raising (of which about 50% was expenses), and (program service revenues) earned $3M running “Freedom Schools.”  However, (the same page, Part VIII, Revenues) shows that in selling $13M of securities it amazingly, earned only $802.  How does one do that? …. Its $1.6M grants to others (Sched I) are part, but not the major part of operations, however, a quick look shows what was granted out went, some to school districts, some to schools, some to direct to religious organizations (judging by the names) and some to foundations, in various cities.

In addition, the President of the Board (Marian Wright Edelman) presumably received also a tax-deduction in renting a room in her SC home for $1/year to an office in the state (Sched L).  In the process of paging through the tax returns, one repeatedly sees  “See additional data” where, for some reason, this major organization didn’t feel like coughing up basic information on the forms provided even when there was plenty of room. One thing however that was not skimped on, in the place provided on those IRS forms, was the organization’s purpose on Page 1, and again   the top of Page 2.

My point being here, take a little time to take a look at the tax returns when hearing about (and certainly before donating to) ANY charity. Don’t just toss a coin and don’t judge just by whether the cause is progressive or conservative, or has emotional appeal based on civil rights themes from the 1960s.  Also, I personally would not donate to any organization claiming, on its website, to represent ALL the children of America (further qualified — somewhat — on their tax returns), or claims to be an independent voice, when it’s a 501©3s.

(See more at Slogans vs. Speech-by-IRS-Forms 990: When the Resonance is in Conflict (A Quick Look at a Well-known Nonprofit, Children’s Defense Fund) (Independence Day 2017) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7af”)((link is active now but only accurate when the draft is published).

By contrast with Children’s Defense Fund, and all 501©3s, -©4s, or -©6s not specialized as I’m describing in these posts, the type of organizations I’m focused on in this theme (opening words to this post: “…NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA”)

  • obtain and receive/exchange among themselves at times, money (actually, resources of various kinds) in the name of representing more than “all children”but as representing the states  as a whole,** or departments or public institutions (courts, legislatures, state mental health program directors or city/county Managers as to the ICMA) within state (and some, local – ICMA) governments.  **(not mentioned in that list, but I have mentioned, “CSG — Council of State Governments and its CSG Justice Center, Inc.” — boasts about being the only national organization to represent ALL THREE branches of (state) governments:  Executive, Legislative and Judicial).
  • They do this by implication and justification as if on behalf of all people — but have chosen to operate from within associations formed in the private sector out of reach of the average person, or the common man — but NOT out of reach of the corporate + foundation sponsors, who are solicited to participate.  This includes, for several of the above not just one or two, as I recall from having previously looked, representatives of major pharmaceutical, chemical, telecommunications, investment management, real estate development, law, and other fields.
  • They mix corporate and currently-serving government boards of directors, AND funds, AND are operating in a coordinated, “in-synche” fashion with each other towards (a) their elected leaders constituents (respectively, wherever they be) and (b) the federal government.

In other words, they are playing intermediary, doing it nonprofit, and at public expense — but without adequate public oversight and certainly without informed consent or representation.

Their, this type of organization’s, individual and collective existence, let alone purpose and operations, concerns me far more than exaggerated claims or funky tax returns from, for example, a single though well-known entity, the CDF.  The NGA, NCSC,… organizations’ significance is easily under-estimated through a general unconsciousness  of their existence  thanks to under-reporting on them as nonprofit entities, let alone as they are: specialized nonprofit entities with government names representing government offices or functions, working in an intentionally coordinated fashion towards privately-determined agenda,  on say, the major news media (on-line or print)). How often do you overhear ANY conversations about them as a significant influence upon governments (plural) in the country, whether in passing, from friends, strangers, or in general social discussions of the challenges of this country, or possible source of its present problems?

In this post’s singling out the NASHMPD, I am pointing to this type of organization whose purpose and “reason for being” is focused on the mental health field which, in parts, deals with drugging of patients, or helping people detox from other drug and alcohol abuse, and in systems involving intricate, and expansive (expanding) networks of similarly-named nonprofits in, it seems, every state and no doubt also territories.  And, thanks to recent Presidential Executive Orders both over time, and specifically, the 21st Century by former President George W. Bush (“Bush, Jr.”), relating to the so-called “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” with its focus on transforming the entire field.

So now, you have a good idea what I’ll be discussing below, and I hope, also why.  The Oct. 2014 section of this post, marked by these words in red

WHERE THE 2014 DIALOGUE STARTED (as taken from original post to this new one):

starts right after several five rectangular images of corporate and foundation donor logos (notably, in the Rx or Healthcare field) to the organization NAMI (National Association on Mental Illness, Inc.), a Missouri organization with its own network.  MHA has a MHA-named network, and NAMI has their networks also. One uses the word “Mental Illness” as a point of reference, the other the word “Mental Health” but they have much in common and at times, leadership in common I seem to remember from the websites.  In Part 3 of 3 I show more (visually) of the MHA affiliate network scope and agenda as self-described.

The 2014 section below that dividing line (the above title in red), you’ll notice has more to say on the history of Mental Health America and founder Clifford Beers, while still mentioning by name many of these related organizations, and quoting some of their tax returns.


To review see also Part 1, the post just published 6/30/2017 called:

Original/full post title: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”,

Posting Context: I mistakenly thought it had been published when first written.  After not posting anything to FamilyCourtMatters.org (then “____.wordpress.com”) most of 2015 and starting to post again on January 23, 2016,  I stayed on that year’s topics (and 2017’s), summarized key blog themes, and worked on a more complete table of contents, so I didn’t pick up on the “MIA” post until recently, when I had occasion to quote (link to) what I remembered writing up, rather than just re-explain the same material.

Having found it was still in draft, and reviewed, I found its 30,000 words, in hindsight, still relevant and worth the time to update and publish.  Especially after more time refining my understanding, scope of organizations, and some expansion of ability to present the evidence.

Part 2 Update, Spinoff Post from this one:  Considering this situation and filling in some of the missing information might distract from what’s already in this post, so I made some of the update into a spinoff post (written, but still currently in draft), and for lack of a shorter or better label, called it:

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, NAMI),and MHA + Their 501©3 Affiliate Networks. And Recent Epidemic of Attorney-Generals Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-79i” previously-written contents moved there July 2, 2017) (link active now but only accurate when published)

About that situation:

Showing the current relevance, more on how MHA is set up to network through its many affiliates, and connecting this also to NAMI, and the recent trend of state attorneys-general to file major lawsuits against some of the same “Big Pharma” corporations over the costs to government (and, secondarily, human life) of dealing with the opioid abuse epidemic, took considerable show-and-tell (images, quotes, and narrative).

Meanwhile the same states and their state mental health directors (which NASMHPD here represents) surely knew about the same drug companies (Johnson & Johnson, and its subsidiary Janssen, and others) were already funding major networked nonprofits and with/through them promoting major use of other, known to be harmful and expensive medications (patented atypical antipsychotics, specifically) on populations under state control.  The whistleblower on TMAP and PennMAP came out in the early 2000s, and now a decade later, the states are surprised at the results — although in a different class of medications?

(Why not go after the FDA?)

About this post, Part 2 of 3 from the October 2014 original “Do You Know Your NGA,….?,

For updating that portion, to conserve what time is left, I’ll simply be condensing some of the quotes (reformatting to fine print) and not attempting to retrace or reconstruct my original purpose, for example, in exploring relationships between MHALA (Mental Health America of Los Angeles) and the “MHA Village

Realize that this shows affiliation with and promotion by then-U.S. President Bush’s New Freedom Commission of 2003, which comes up in the post, extensively though in a different context.

Here is some reference to the MHA Village, and background on the “New Freedom Commission,” started as an Executive Order (April, 2002), and part of a trend and intention to transform mental health care nationally, with some of its immediate history shown.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ignorance — about Privatization, Reorganization of Government within the USA– Ain’t Bliss!

with 5 comments

[In present form, this post is over 12,000 words. I’m posting it anyhow; it should raise awareness of certain types of national organizations [nonprofits or centers with the word “national” in their title] as a pattern, as well as awareness of specific influential ones –some long-standing, some newer– each with its agenda for ALL states [as witnessed to in part by their name including the word “national“] which bypassing the local (state-level) legislatures and general public awareness locally, then, through force, bullying (one example below, this includes litigation — suing), or simply “outflanking” informed consent of the public through inclusive, open, public debate seeking to inflict privately-agreed-upon models, practices and values developed among collaborating experts, as “in the public interest” and therefore, to be applied to all.  
I hope this reveals some of the strategies already in place to bypass due process in writing, passing state laws, or policies.  You MUST look at the nonprofit sector as the powerhouse it really is, and as the position that nonprofit organizations hold by virtue of not having even public shareholders — and by partnering with the significant financial clout involved in government entities.  501©3s  and 501©4s, for example, being private NONstock entities (although they certainly can and do invest in or own stock, or sometimes even control for-profit related businesses) are primarily accountable to their boards of directors.   Even after their existence reaches one’s awareness, their funding is not always immediately obvious.  Where that funding is private, it also may not be traceable at all.  Where it’s public, it’s listed on the Form 990s as “government grants” and good luck locating consistently– from which government agencies!    These organizations, as a sector,  therefore should NOTbe ignored!
Whatever the specific agenda and policies end up being — you can be sure it will involve moving the balance of power away from government into the private trainer, technical assistance, and program-providers.  Government, meaning, “the public,” of course is welcome to continue funding all stages of the system change, and the new systems — coming, going, and inbetween.]

Recently, I re-booted (so to speak) a service which lets me see where blog visitors are coming from.  Highly recommended (statcounter.com) and not too expensive. Readers cannot view this on the site, it’s a password protected service to help bloggers understand their audience.

On seeing the quality and affiliations of visitors (WHO is watching — or at least repeatedly visiting this site), I decided to speak more plainly about the macro-systems through which privatization of government and progressive reorganization of the Executive Branch of the USA has been set up, was planned at least 100 years ago and is proceeding, fast, in the same direction:  Undermining representative government at the individual level, and strengthening the stranglehold of the nonprofit/government alliances.

I was surprised to see that despite over a year and a half of silence (no new posts), within 2016 alone, including before I broke the silence on January 23, 2016, FamilyCourtMatters was visited, repeatedly, by: HHS, USDOJ, several state governments (as in “State of Minnesota, State of Hawaii, Colorado”), repeatedly from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and, for some reason  DOD NNIC (Navy Network Information Centers), Bureau of Corrections in two states, Northrup Grunman, Lockheed, Ford Motor Company,multiple universities (Including MIT, and Yale at least once), a few law firms, California Judicial Council AOC, “The City of New York,” (and various other cities), surprisingly, several school districts, the IRS and the FBI — I think perhaps someone else may be getting the message that we are (I am!) now still reporting on certain things whether or not it’s popular, or picked up in mainstream or social media.

If these entities are at still looking at this blog, perhaps the average viewer (unaffiliated person) might also just want to acquire some time and patience to consider its basic messages, and the supporting evidence.   (Qualifier:  These are IP addresses which come in with their labeled names via statcounter, and not individual people or homes.  I do not have access to individual viewers by IP and would not report if I did).  Some of the visitors seem to relate to what I was blogging on, or potentially my own visit to their site. A visit also doesn’t tell me why someone was reading, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the visit was related to official business by any of the above.  It’s just a “came from” web address, that’s all. It could be people on break at work, etc.)


There aren’t many comments on this blog, and for one which has been around so long, really not that many registered followers.  I’m not promoting it enough (or consistently) on Twitter, on Facebook (basically at all).  I have always focused on writing my own material, which makes for less frequent posts (possibly less traffic).  Certainly, I quote plenty of others within posts, but I personally search out, personally process the information (to varying levels depending on the relevance)  and write.  The overall position I take, on the blog and on specific posts and, on the topics covered in each post, is my position:  this is my voice and understanding, and no abject copycat of a political, gender-based, or group-based.  If we were sitting face-to-face, I would say the same things conversationally, referring to the same themes, and offer even more in-depth examples.

Perhaps that’s what makes this resource (the blog is a resource) different from so much information now available on-line about domestic violence, child abuse, custody battles, and even “custody of children going to batterers,” let alone “protective mothers”  —  a term I hate because the “-ive” ending on “Protective” indicates a job not done or even likely to be accomplished, at least not in the family court venue, which was designed for:  collaboration, mediation, cooperation and (in effect) “conciliation” — not protecting children, or for that matter, their mothers.    The family courts have carved out a completely different market niche, namely “therapeutic jurisprudence” and “bring on the behavioral health experts…”

A much better designation involving the word “mothers” might refer to our ability, developed possibly in the process of raising children, or maybe it’s instinctive, innate? in being able to smell a rat, or smoke out a lie, particularly when offered as a pitiable excuse for some recent very bad behavior.  For example the words smart, savvy, or a well-placed comment, “Seriously?” Anything indicating we are actually a force to be reckoned with, instead of highlighting the victimization might be better than “Protective Mothers.”


For this Smart, Savvy, “Seriously??” “Force to be Reckoned With” to actually apply to mothers (or others), mothers (or others) have to exercise some due-diligence-reading, and use logic, commonsense, and a wider field of vision than just single-topic scenarios. A  sense of history (time passing in the development of any trends) also.  The ability to summarize, impromptu, key elements in creating a certain condition (in the courts, or elsewhere), to “get to the bottom of the issue” and then talk about it in those terms.


SO, in 2016, there have been admissions that federal incentives to the courts exist, and in recent years (2011ff) some investigations into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts operations (state chapter in Connecticut especially). Should this be called, “Breaking the Silence (on Who or What is Behind The Family Court Curtains)”??. Maybe, but….

What about the dozen, or more, OTHER associations also involving mixtures of judiciary (judges) or other civil servants (or, government entities) and private business interests?  Can you name a few? In this environment, is it really possible to discuss government without reference to the tax-exempt sector?

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: