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 ‘Nancy O’Malley

(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?

with 2 comments

This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)

Seriously, now …..

 

What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?

(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of

One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)

 

BUSH:  Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)

Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.

Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.

Russ Baker’s website       ”

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years  [Interview]

(note:  I don’t have this book.  But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).

Or,

The Family:  The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:

(from Harpers article 2003 by author.  Note:  The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”

Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):

“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “

The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd.  I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance.  I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents.  Look at who is sponsoring the movement!

 

OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.  

 

DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,

a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent.  Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General.  Later in the post, more on this process is discussed.  Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.

 

ex-CA  = San Diego County Family Justice Center

President = well, he was always into promoting Family.

 

Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.

Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running.  How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable.  Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.

 

California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly

Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments

The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model.  It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”

Votes
and
Last Action last week.  This bill is indeed moving.  Remember that one of the Centers (Alameda County) boasted originally as its first director, the then-state Attorney General, and this person is now State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer.  He also was previously Sen. Pro-Tem. fighting with the Governor for collective bargaining rights for the courts.  His name is on the 1997 Lockyer-Isenburg Trial Court Funding Act, described as:

I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.

Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.

There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]

So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative.  And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..

The former CEO of the Alameda COunty Justice Center just so happens (yeah….) to be his third wife. Now she is County Supervisor, even though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponents, characterized as “having more experience than [Ms. Davis-Lockyer] was alive.”  The race was also locally characterized as having funding more equivalent for a race for Senator (around $2 million, though don’t quote me on that).  Perhaps that’s next . . . .
I wonder what might happen if they all opposed this center on the basis of, has it produced results — would the legislature have the courage?
  • 06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
As introduced February, 2011 (not current version, excerpts:)
This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to 
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the 
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical, 
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.

About privacy of information:

The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliancesubject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate  data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and 
the outcomes of those services.

The bill would provide immunity from  civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.

There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start.  But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where 
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or 
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised 
of, but are not limited to, the following: 

**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.

Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case.  Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues.  When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?)  there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members.  The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival.  Anyhow, potential staff might include:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.  {{note:  = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each. 

(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center?  )

(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members. 
(8) Child welfare agency social workers. 

(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for

any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or

declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services.  There are program funds for these activities.  What about program administrators of such funds?

and so forth…..)

(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers. 

(Translation:  People administering TANF funds.  We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access.  No.   Uh-uh, No.  )

(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Huh….

Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:

This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a  family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the  law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.

(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)

This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.

This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history. 

(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )

 

Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:

03/29/11  Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Ayes – 6 Anderson, Hancock, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg / Noes – 0 / Absent, Abstention or Not Voting – 1 Calderon
  • 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)

Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno

  • 05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended

Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters

  • 06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)

Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):

The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history 
search from being conducted during the client intake process.

prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.

Sections e, f:

(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and  procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the 
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy 
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center. 

 

No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds?  How would this be done).  This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).

Formal feedback good:  (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)

WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT.  IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR.   MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT.   See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.”   and re:  nepotism, cronyism, racism:

Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:

Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.

{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.   . . . By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.

And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:

Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center

Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT

 This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.

The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW). 

{{more on this, below — LGH…}}

The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)

Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff

Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47

I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.

The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.

The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office. 

and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:

[he]  clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest

Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job.      These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start.     Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post 

Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC

Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37

The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.

The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.

Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.

MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO.  Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:

The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.

It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.

I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.

Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.

Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website. 

The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true:   Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.

But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.

So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.

My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.

The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.

I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.

All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading

He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”

It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.

The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.

I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.


((i))

That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…

In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing).  WHat goes around comes around.  Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth.  This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS  – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).

I have a general rule of thumb.  If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence.  This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts).  After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?

The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:

This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers.  The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

     WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”

“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”

{{HYPOCRITES!!}}

     The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.

{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note:  Republican) had a White House connection here…  Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country.  Unbelievable…..  The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)…..  I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental.  Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}

Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.

{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}

     “The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”

     Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.

Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.

{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so.  They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse.  GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….

{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective.  Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized.  SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times.   Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}

     “The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”

(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . .   )  Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…

 

I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally.  Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the  Family Justice Center” model  (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….

District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.

We invite you to view this comprehensive report.

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).

 

Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it:  the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?):  “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.”  On the palms of their hands is written:  “I have the right to protection”   “I have the right to be heard.”

Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them)  “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.

{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent.  Note the grammar change:  “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it.  The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly.   District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues.  In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}

The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:

  • Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”motivating, inspiring, supporting and serving sexually exploited youth.
  • Legal assistance services
  • Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence
  • Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services
  • Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders

In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.

 

I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall.  After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)

 

From the DA’s report, a segment:

5. Putting Victims First Page

Alameda County Family Justice Center 22

Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24

Victims’ Rights & Services 25

Marsy’s Law 25

Victim -Witness Assistance 26

AND . . . .

Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .

 

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

 

The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models.  (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.”  So, how’d we say it’s going?

 

CA SB 557 — “Just say NO!” or at least “Whoa!!” (show me the money…) to Scandalous San Diego’s One Stop Justice Shop Pyramid Scheme

with 3 comments

CA SB 557 — “Just say NO!” or at least “Whoa!!”  (show me the money…) to Scandalous San Diego’s One Stop Justice Shop Pyramid Scheme (post title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-HG”) first published 6/5/2011.  Format updates (for quoting in a 2017 post) 3/30/2017.


A Family Justice Center (like a Family Physician?)  — what a warm and fuzzy concept!

The ‘California Initiative” (per graphic) has a motto:  “Bringing Hope to Hurting Families Across California.”

Hope of what?  I didn’t ask for hope.  I would’ve settled long ago for simple enforcement of existing court orders!

How warm and fuzzy is it?  Was the public asked whether it’s a good idea, before, during, or after it’s conception, the labor ($3 million grants, etc.) to bring it forth, and the subsequent cloning actions?

Let’s consider (and then, I’ll get to the colors and graphics part, don’t worry….)

  • First, the “Family Justice Center Initiative” in San Diego (#1 site) is the project and brainchild of a City Attorney whose handling of the City’s pension funds (see below) has been labeled “negligent” and eventually brought the FBI and US Attorney’s Office investigating the corruption.  In Alameda County (#2) it is a District Attorney Dubious Doing (see my post) and was pushed by this person to get a founding grant, and promptly install a crony, that, improperly.
  • Second, the concept of combining “services” and “collaborating” is questionable — I question it, for one.  It has a dark side.

My post is long, but don’t forget to read THIS site (hover, I’ve copied text of Obstacle #4 (relevant here) onto the URL description) from Sonoma County, where another proposed Justice Center is to start (or has already, perhaps).   “Mapping the Obstacles to Criminal Justice for Women” :

 

The six principle obstacles to protection and justice for women in the criminal justice system are:

1. A near absolute police and prosecutorial discretion to pick and choose which crimes the system will treat seriously and which they will ignore, and to do so with impunity. The exercise of this enormous discretionary power is virtually outside the rule of law.

2. An intractable, deep-rooted sexism and racism that remains institutionalized throughout the criminal justice system. This sexism and racism, combined with the system’s absolute discretion to ignore crimes whenever they wish, means that violence against women cases are the cases most often ignored, dumped, or given short shrift.

3. Society’s failure to answer the question of who polices the police, and the failure to even ask the question in regard to district attorneys, means the criminal justice system is not only legally unaccountable when dumping cases of violence against women. In addition, there is also virtually no other viable social mechanism by which the public can make the system implement its powers on behalf of victims of violence against women.

4. The repression of effective victim advocacy due to increasing criminal justice system controls over the funding and functioning of rape and domestic violence centers.

5. The invisibility of denial of protection and justice to victims of violence against women to the public, often to the victims themselves, and even to the officer’s supervisors who review the officers reports.

6. The failure to target the district attorneys.** Advocacy groups, social justice groups, and civil rights groups that aim to correct abuses in the criminal justice system usually do so by focusing on the police, while completely ignoring the District Attorney. This is monumental and puzzling mistake, since the District Attorney is the most powerful law enforcement official in your community.

(**for more on DA’s role, see this site)


Does its pretty purple-bordered website with vivid graphics look nice?  Sure.

See?   http://www.familyjusticeinitiative.com/

Interview with Ellen Pence

Telling Amy's Story

[Images could be looked up and replaced I’m not going to do that just now, trying to get some current posts at — LGH/2017]

Do (and should?)  public stamps of approval from:

a former San Diego City Attorney, a current Alameda County District Attorney, Verizon, Blue Shield of California Foundation, at least one prominent Domestic Violence Professional** — and in 2003, even former U.S. President George Bush

earn OUR stamps of approval?  Because we will be helping to pay for it….


(And, should we encourage our local CA legislator to vote “YES” on SB 557, which seeks to legitimize and expand these, naming specific cities)

**Domestic Violence Professionals should be clearly distinguished from Domestic Violence Victims, although in some cases, the latter have become the former.  The way you can tell them apart – DV Professionals generally have a paycheck, DV victims are often losing theirs.

The Professionals  profess things at conferences, and sometimes even interview each other on TV.  The steady stream of DV victims, new, and ongoing, provide ample material to practice on (practice makes expert, right?) and talk about. …

Another way you can find domestic violence professionals, is going to TAGGS.hhs.gov and looking up the CFDA category relating to “Family Violence Prevention and Services” which often has the word “discretionary” attached.    Or, it goes to a Coalition.  If you get a grant or two, you are viewed as (and may be, but the grant sure helps lend authority) a professional.   So Here’s a TAGGS.hhs.gov summary (from 2005 forward, only, nationwide) of two types of violence prevention grants:

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 CFDA Programs

93591                   93592

CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Awards Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
93.591 ACF Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions 219 271 $50,573,527
93.592 ACF Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants 324 624 $165,460,776
Page Total 543 895 $216,034,303
Report Total 543 895 $216,034,303

Ellen Pence compatriot Denise Gamache, for example, shows up on a similar search, with more fields.  Last time I looked at this, the amount was only $1.78million,

I see that there has been great success in stopping violence (either that, or failures) hence, more funding to prevent it in the same manner — conferencing, and figuring out best practives, and of course collaborating and training.  See?  Also note this is a “Social Services” (not legal, criminal) activity, preventing violence.

[UPDATE: NOTE re: this chart:  The report could be re-run at TAGGS.HHS.Gov (Advanced Search) and should be; it would generate a url link to share. I have recently (2017) blogged on these CFDA Numbers and this topic for further information).  I see the column headings do not match the contents. A re-run would present an easier to read format; fixing it from this stage is not a good use of my blogging time…I also learned that some of these categories were, at least by year 2010, written into the FVSPA Act, which is under CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act).  See my later posts for more info. //LGH]

Program Office Grantee Name City Recovery Act Indicator State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
FYSB MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC ** DULUTH NON MN 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 93592 SOCIAL SERVICES DENISE GAMACHE $ 2,407,624
FYSB MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 93592 SOCIAL SERVICES DENISE GAMACHE $ 2,686,366 Abstract Not Available
FYSB MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 93592 SOCIAL SERVICES DENISE GAMACHE $ 3,536,432
OCS MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 93592 SOCIAL SERVICES DENISE GAMACHE $ 3,925,981 Abstract Not Available
OCS MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH MN 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 93592 SOCIAL SERVICES DENISE GAMACHE $ 3,957,873 Abstract Not Available

The “93591” category is grants to “domestic violence coalitions” which must be how everyone gets their terminologies, communication lines, and practices nice and coordinated.  Meanwhile, others who have worked at street level (but had less backing), take a different point of view than “Constant Collaborations.”

Here’s a San Antonio, TEX Family Justice Center (2010) Conference List of materials one can purchase.  After all, these are professionals…  I missed that conference — somehow are not on their email alert “cc’s” and at the time, didn’t have airfare, either….

 

As to BUSH:

I think I made my feelings known about former President Bush, and his concept of “Family” in my last post.  The actual “Families” in this case are the associations and collaboratives of people who get the funding.

If Bush had required that all — without exception — STOP VAWA grantees inform ALL — without exception — female clients with children where the perpetrator of violence against them was the father of the FATHERHOOD.GOV infrastructure, and that this was actually enabled by the federal office of child support enforcement (OCSE) — then it would’ve been OK. There’s no question that fatherhood groups know about VAWA, they are constantly complaining about it.

If all grantees would’ve been required to alert women of pro-VAWA and anti-feminist (feminists are destroying the country, of course) “family” courts lay ahead between them and freedom, that’d be one thing.  But apparently, the two sets of untraceable grant expenditures go along side by side quite nicely, watching the genders war it out themselves on-line, in the streets, and lobbying legislators to change the law sin their favor.


Well, now, let me think a moment on that last one….  in fact, let me ask Josie Clark:

September 28, 2004

 “The Clark lawsuit deals with personnel matters, involving employees who are on my staff. The courtroom is now the appropriate place to respond to these allegations where I believe my office and staff members will be cleared. Therefore, I decline to be interviewed. I am referring your call to our outside legal counsel, Kathryn Bernert, who is handling the case. Here is her phone number which was provided to you last Friday morning by Maria Velasquez.”

Statement by Kathryn Bernert
Outside Legal Counsel for the City of San Diego
Partner with Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP
Sept. 28, 2004

???   What Lawsuit?  This Family Justice Center isn’t even that old….

September 29, 2004

  •  Clark is suing the city and Gwinn, not for what happened to her co-worker, but for the way she said she was used to cover it up. Official records show that police responded to numerous calls at the victim’s former home on Armacost Road. Several workers at the City Attorney’s Office and the Family Justice Center told 10News that the victim came to work with broken bones, bruises, cuts and black eyes.“If Casey Gwinn didn’t notice that on one of his own — seeing her every single day — then what is he doing at the Family Justice Center?” questioned Clark.According to the lawsuit, a long history of severe abuse against a Family Justice Center employee was going to be made public when the woman threatened to kill her husband and was arrested. Clark was then assigned a special project to quietly help the woman.”(Gwinn) said that my job was going to get her into rehab, because that was the only way she was gong to be able to keep her job,” Clark said.The assignment came from Gwinn, (pictured, [below]), 10News reported.

    Clark took on the new responsibilities that lasted more than two months. She said the woman called her seeking help day and night — once every half hour at work and at home at 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. Late last year, Clark said the woman’s estranged husband threatened her life.

    Her husband basically said I was going to regret it for interfering and said he was going to come after me and that he was going to kill us both,” Clark told 10News.   After her arrest [and obviously, release], Gwinn had the woman working as a receptionist on the 16th floor near his office. But when the death threat allegations against Clark surfaces, the woman was moved to the 11th floor, just 30 feet from Clark.

    “She still comes to the office beaten up, and Casey Gwinn has done absolutly nothing to help her,” Clark said.   The lawsuit itself, the plaintiff’s attorneys say, is about how Clark was forced into the mess and then discriminated against after she had nervous breakdowns and clinical depression. Conditions, they say, came directly from her “special project” to basically act as a drug, alcohol and abuse counselor for a co-worker.

If what she says is true (and there seems some backup corroboration), then why didn’t such a highly connected individual so concerned about Domestic Violence as Casey Gwinn is, talk with some of the District Attorneys — or the abused woman — about getting some criminal prosecution of her husband’s behaviors, rather than wait til the situation got to death threats, and then watch his own employee be arrested for someone driven to threaten back to get free from ongoing broken bones and beatings?    I mean — is this who you want spearheading nationwide, nay, global, justice centers?  Charity begins at home, brother….

Here’s the self-report of how great this justice center is:

At least they acknowledge it’s a personal narrative:  ”

Acknowledgements

This story focuses on the evolution of the criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence in San Diego. It does not develop the entire history of the battered women’s movement in San Diego. We should also note that “The San Diego Story” in this book was written primarily from the recollections of Ashley Walker, Casey Gwinn, and Gael Strack. Many others in San Diego County have played powerful roles and would clearly highlight other aspects of San Diego’s criminal justice system journey based on their own experience.

I have a little more background on this than some, including how the justice center followed Mr. Gwinn from his role as City Attorney, out to an exterior location (I think originally at the Y).  YOu can also see here, Task Forces, a Council and some heavy funders who are thinking in terms of Collaboration that did not come right from within San Diego City Attorney’s Office.  (Just for a little background):

Philanthropists and funders like Joan Kroc (wife of Ray Kroc, the Founder of McDonalds) also played a powerful role. They encouraged members of the domestic violence, child abuse and substance community to work together. As a substantial funder of these programs, in 1990, Joan Kroc made collaboration a part of her granting process.   {{i.e., you want our money?  You will collaborate!}} She paid all expenses for twenty community activists in these fields to spend a week at the family program at Hazelton in Center City Minnesota. She also held special fully-funded trainings at her ranch at Santa Ynez Valley to encourage collaboration.

During this same time, Dr. David Chadwick, a pediatrician, at Children’s Hospital, also dedicated major resources by creating the Family Violence Program, under the leadership of a social worker named Sandy Miller. Dr. Chadwick too had a strong vision for focusing on the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence. Sandy Miller developed a close partnership with Deputy City Attorney Casey Gwinn and even housed a portion of her staff in the City Attorney’s Office in the early 1990’s.

Pause.  Because later on, I have a post from the succeeding City Attorney, Mike Aguirre, who had to clean up a lot of the accounting (over-billing) from Mr. Gwinn’s office, and wrote an interim report in the practice of over-billing (for work that did not happen) as part of the “SLA” (Service Level Agreements) and “MOU” (Memo of Understanding).  This July 28 2006 this report on “IMPROPER BILLING PRACTICES BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICEmentions the Justice Center a few times.  For example, ”

 Gwinn ran unopposed for City Attorney in 1996 and 2000. Prior to assuming office in 1996, Gwinn was allowed to put his leadership team in place and begin making policy. It is around this time that billing to SLAs was modified (Exhibit 5), and as time went on the program was expanded to increase staff and services.

In 7-21-06 phone contact was made with Investigator Brendan McClory at the Family Justice Center. The following is a summary from a statement taken from McClory:

During 2002 – 2004 McClory worked for the City Attorney’s Office Civil Division. He was assigned to bill 60 hours per pay period to MWWD due to the fact that he was assigned to Kelly Salt, Ted Bromfield, and Tom Zeleny. McClory noted that he was directed to bill 60 hours to the enterprise Department even though in actuality he only worked on average 10 hours per pay period for these individuals. The vast majority of his time was working for Trial Unit attorneys. He noted that he advised Robert Abel that this was the case, and Abel responded that he should bill the hours anyways per office policy.

In 2004, soon after Aguirre took office, this policy changed and McClory was directed to only bill for hours worked

or, ….

Maria Velasquez

On 7-28-06 personal contact was made with City Attorney Director of Communications Maria Velasquez at the Offices of the City Attorney. The following is a summary from a statement taken from Velasquez:

Velasquez was hired by the City Attorney’s Office as Casey Gwinn’s Press Secretary in May of 2001. She was assigned to handle community and media relations for the Office. Her daily responsibility was to handle all calls from community members and press regarding the Civil and Criminal Divisions. She was responsible for coordinating and responding to community events. In 2004 she worked almost exclusively on developing the Family Justice Center by educating the public, attending community functions, and media events. She billed all her time to the City Attorney’s general fund.

These key steps helped lay the groundwork for the Family Justice Center and for the close working relationship between the Center for Child Protection, the local child advocacy center now the Chadwick Center), and the domestic violence community.

The Domestic Violence Council was created in the November, 1991. A number of key events occurred in those early years.

In 1992, the Council became part of the Mayor’s Office under the leadership of Mayor Maureen O’Connor

In 1994, the Council was asked to leave the Mayor’s Office by Mayor Susan Golding and soon re-established itself as a private, non-profit organization housed in the San Diego City Attorney’s Office

In 1996, the Council suspended its non-profit status, electing to return to a grassroots approach consistent with its beginning in 1987

Casey Gwinn led the Council until 1999 and hosted the Council out of the City Attorney’s Office. His secretary, Jean Emmons, provided the administrative support to the Council and handled all mailings, meeting notices, and coordination of all committee meetings. The Council did hire an Executive Director, Denise Frey, for some of the early years of its development. Denise worked at the City Attorney’s Office and played a very significant role in helping to organize the committees, the structure, and the advocacy agenda of the Council.

In 1999, Assistant City Attorney Gael Strack became the President and Gael’s tenure for two years played a critical role in the early planning stages of the Family Justice Center. The entire Domestic Violence Council and all member agencies endorsed the vision for a “one stop shop” Center and much of the focus of the Council in 2000, 2001, and 2002 was on the development and opening of the Center. Subsequent Council Presidents, Verna Griffin Tabor and Diane McGrogan, made the Family Justice Center a high priority during their tenures.

There are more than 2 serious red flags in this Family Justice Center Alliance (starting in San Diego) concept.  I’d say one indicator that the guy didn’t help someone in his employee is a huge one.  The second one, Alameda County, another author believes seriously exaggerates their “people served” figures (see my “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post), and I would have to tend to agree, as I am local to the area and courts.     Moreover, these nonprofit 990s need to be scrutinized better in ALL the little reproduced family justice centers which are taking, for example, public (government) employees, forming nonprofits and then where, exactly is the funding coming from and going to?

Fiscal (dishonesty) in San Diego was not limited to the Water and Sewer Departments, but also the Pension, which (among other reasons) is why I sarcastically refer to this collaborative as “Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan.”  (Someone has to do it!)  His city attorney’s salary was $175K (it says below) — like a CA judge.  His measly pension, ony $79K (a great perspective from which to understand domestic violence issues).   He’s canvassing all over for this model and so are like-minded individuals, as we have seen.

My question is, are they like-minded in (1) failing to actually provide service to victims; (2) overbilling   (3) over-reporting the impact of the services provided?

  • NEGLIGENCE IN CITY PENSION FUND SCANDAL REPORTED :

THE KROLL REPORT
Ex-City Attorney Gwinn called ‘negligent’ in pension fund mess

By Mark Sauer
STAFF WRITER

August 16, 2006

Past and present city officials cited last week for acts ranging from malfeasance to mischief in the long-awaited report by Kroll Inc. on the city’s pension mess are ranked according to culpability.

NADIA BOROWSKI SCOTT / Union-Tribune file photo
Then-City Attorney Casey Gwinn (right), with former Mayor Dick Murphy at his side, was criticized in last week’s Kroll report on city finances.

In the top tier are those who acted with “wrongful intent,” a violation of civil law, in hiding from bond investors the pension fund’s severe underfunding and the city’s twisted sewer-rate structure.

One step down are those found to be “negligent” in carrying out their responsibilities. It is in this section that former City Attorney Casey Gwinn appears.

The report is blunt: “The City Attorney’s Office failed the City.”

In singling out Gwinn, the report said, “As the top official in the City Attorney’s Office – which certified to the accuracy of incomplete and misleading disclosures – City Attorney Casey Gwinn negligently performed his disclosure responsibilities to the City, and failed to supervise other attorneys” under him.

Among the lapses by Gwinn’s office cited in the Kroll report:

Its certification of the city’s financial disclosures to the “investing public” without independently verifying the accuracy of the information.

It kept quiet about the city’s potential obligation of up to $370 million for breaking “grant and loan covenants” while in violation of the federal Clean Water Act.  (“the city” is supported in part by taxes from wages of its residents, right)

Gwinn’s deputies failed to identify “the central illegality” of underfunding the city’s pension plan as officials made those decisions.

Like it seems he also “failed to identify” that an employee showing up with bruises and broken bones and her husband calling her constantly at work is a domestic violence victim . . . . . . 

It also chastised Gwinn’s office for years of falsifying billing records to the city’s water and wastewater departments for legal work.

Kroll, a risk-management firm based in New York, spent 18 months investigating the city’s financial practices. Kroll was paid $20.3 million for the report.

Who pays for that?  This is starting to add up — $370 million risk, $20.3 to audit something that shows up as needing an audit….

The company’s investigators didn’t get to query Gwinn about his actions during his 1996-2004 tenure as city attorney. He was among 53 city officials and employees who refused to be questioned.

“But he was not known around town as a good attorney. He didn’t want to get bogged down in pensions and water rates and all that confusing stuff,” Stutz said. “It was, ‘Let me deal with guys who smack their wives and I can get on TV.’ ”

The description does seem to hold.  Some people just love the limelight….

After term limits forced Gwinn out as city attorney, he has devoted himself to his anti-domestic-violence cause.

I have been trying to tell us — this is a personal retirement project of what now looks like a negligent and dishonest City Attorney, who became City Attorney running unopposed, partly because his predecessor (John Witt, who seemed to favor him) delayed announcing his departure so long it was hard to prepare a campaign against him.  I”m remembering how it seems Alameda County’s Tom Orloff, similarly, handed over the reigns to Nancy O’Malley by retiring early and assigning her as interim D.A., thereby skirting the open election process neatly.  She then stacked the decks (per “Steve White” of indymedia report) to make sure another crony, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., got the plum job as Executive Director of THEIR Family Justice Center.   The question comes up — who is in “The Family” here ???

In addition to being a trustee for the San Diego Family Justice Center, Gwinn works part time on special projects for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who stands behind him.

“I hired Casey because he is a well-known and respected expert in domestic-violence matters,” Dumanis said. “He’s doing a great job in that area for us.”

She said Gwinn, who began working for her in December 2004, originally was a manager for the victim-restitution and crime-prevention programs, but now is a contracted employee.

“He works on special projects, mainly the regionalization of family-justice centers,” Dumanis said. The main Family Justice Center in downtown San Diego is a one-stop facility for domestic-violence victims, with police officers, social workers and medical personnel available.

Well, it’s in on the VAWA grant streams, so there’s some potential financial reward in the model.  It’s an identified VAWA “purpose model.”

 

There’s more, but probably too much for one post.  Casey Gwinn’s negligence as City Attorney was not limited to water and sewer matters, but also — well this NYT article says it much better, and SHOULD be read if we want to begin to understand family justice centers, their originators and promoters, and get a sense of how they’ve handled previous, smaller, responsibilities — like heading up the City Attorney Department and reporting honestly what was going on in it:

Sept. 7, 2004 NYT article (notice, around time of Josie Clark lawsuit)

Sunny San Diego Finds Itself Being Viewed as a Kind of Enron-by-the-Sea

By JOHN M. BRODER

Published: September 7, 2004

Correction Appended

SAN DIEGO, Sept. 1 – In the summer of 2003, Diann Shipione, an investment adviser at UBS Financial Services in San Diego and a trustee of the city’s employee retirement system, was scanning a prospectus on a proposed San Diego sewer bond issue when alarm bells began to ring in her head.

Important financial information was missing. The prospectus did not mention that the city had for years been shortchanging its public pension fund, leading to an unfunded liability of more than $1.15 billion, or that the city owed nearly $1 billion more in health care benefits to retirees and did not have the money. And it implied that the pension fund’s actuary had approved the underfunding when Ms. Shipione knew that he had not.

In a  etter to city officials, and in a commentary in the local newspaper, Ms. Shipione blew the whistle.

 

“I had completely lost confidence in the city’s financial decision making,” she said in an interview on Wednesday. “I just couldn’t let this go forward.”


Jack Smith for The New York Times

Diann Shipione did not like the way San Diego was handling its employee pension system, and let the world know. Mike Aguirre calls the situation “a powder keg.”

 

Well, I”m suggesting (and blowing a whistle) on the thing that came OUT of this department, called the “Family Justice Center Initiative” and all things associated with it.  Just because things are central, doesn’t mean they are honest.  Moreover, would you buy a used car — or program — from someone who’s last time in office was marked by having the FBI and US Attorney’s office investigating your city’s finances?  That’s why I’m posting a lot from this article:

And the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States attorney’s office in San Diego opened investigations this year into possible fraud in the city’s financial statements and potential political corruption. Subpoenas were served on a number of city offices and several people confirmed that they had been interviewed by the F.B.I. in connection with the inquiry.

“This is a powder keg, a major, major problem,” said Mike Aguirre, a securities lawyer and former financial fraud investigator for the United States Senate and the Justice Department who is running for San Diego city attorney.

Mr. Aguirre said that the city’s inability to produce a credible financial statement made it impossible to know just how severe the crisis was. He said that a corporation that behaved like the City of San Diego would be delisted from the stock exchanges. He suggested that the best solution might be reorganization under Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy law to allow the city to rescind pension benefits.

Mr. Aguirre blamed San Diego’s laid-back civic culture in which a handful of influential businessmen, union leaders and political figures called the shots while issuing reassurances to the public that everything was on the up-and-up.

“The basic story is that San Diego has become a thoroughly corrupt community in which the power players cut the deals, you don’t ask any questions, and everybody gets what they want,” Mr. Aguirre said. “People don’t realize that one of the largest cities in the United States is on the verge of bankruptcy, and it’s on the verge because of a massive amount of local corruption that has resulted in the thorough mismanagement of city finances.”

I realize Aguirre also was running for City Attorney — however look at his background.  He’s qualified to say this.  And the more I look at it (and I am a California resident, domestic violence survivor and family law veteran, I have been looking a LONG time, locally not just nationally) — would you buy a bridge from these guys?  Corruption cannot bring forth justice, and if these centers are multiplying and expanding, I have to ask, just WHAT is being disseminated in the model?

A GREAT measure of how honest a person (or organization) is — is its financial statements, and their accuracy.  Particularly when it’s public money.

NOW is the time to say “HALT!” — and not when it’s too late.  Stop, Look, & Listen.

 

Oct. 2004 article:

 

San Diego now ‘Enron by the Sea’

By John Ritter, USA TODAY
SAN DIEGO — This laid-back city seems to have it all — stunning beaches, best weather this side of Honolulu, a national image as a vacation playground and top convention destination.

Nearly a decade of fiscal shenanigans came to light when Diann Shipione, a pension board trustee, blew the whistle. But it took some doing. She wrote letters to the mayor, city officials and fellow trustees. She spoke up at City Council meetings. She wrote opinion columns in the San Diego Union-Tribune.    [“Diann Shipione says her many warnings to the pension board were ignored.” photo by Robt Hanashiro, USA Today]

By Robert Hanashiro, USA TODAY

Funny how often it’s women noticing and blowing the whistle, and how often they are just not heard, til it becomes a crisis…

But the City Council and the trustees ignored her. At one point the pension board bought an ad in the Union-Tribune that scoffed, “Chicken Little Would Be Proud.”

Only in September 2003, when Shipione alerted a lawyer handling a municipal sewer bond sale to facts the city hadn’t disclosed, did Wall Street pull the plug. The bond issue was canceled. Soon the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and the U.S. attorney were asking questions. In January, the city admitted errors and omissions in its financial statements.

“The city’s conservative image is completely false,” Shipione says. “It’s reckless, it spends wildly and lavishly, it saves nothing and it hides the truth.”

 

SPEAKING OF WHICH REGIONALIZATION EFFORTS: — from the FamilyJusticeCenter.com website on “The California Initiative.”  This is about as much purple-framed plain text as you are going to get anywhere on the site, perhaps there just wasn’t a desire to really pull attention to this page.  Read it, though!

The California Family Justice Initiative (CFJI) is funded by the Blue Shield of California Foundation under the leadership of the National Family Justice Center Alliance. {{headed by guess who…}}   The Initiative aims to create shared learning, shared expertise, shared capacity building, shared on-line resources, and shared technology to achieve a statewide network of Centers using model protocols, best practices, and innovative strategies to meet the needs of women, children, men, and families exposed to trauma and abuse.

What has happened to the concept of “justice” here?  However, one of the critical areas of need these populations still have, is understanding the FAMILY law system — about which little seems to be said here.     OK, here comes that expansion — like it or not — and

CA SB 557 INTRODUCED BY Senator Kehoe 
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Atkins and Fletcher) 

FEBRUARY 17, 2011 

An act to add and repeal Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) 
of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers.

will certainly help this personal retirement plan of some key public figures.  No wonder it’s catching on..

[Back to the FJC site….]

The CFJI consists of two 2-year phases. Phase I operated from March 2009-March 2011 and Phase II will operate from March 2011-March 2013.

You know why the “Crisis in the Courts” people aren’t paying attention to this and letting mothers know (nor do the justice centers, naturally, report on the Crisis in the Courts when womeon come on for restraining orders — which are certifiably insane, potentially lethal, and from which if someone just so hap

In Phase I of the Initiative, five communities were selected from across California to participate as “learning laboratory sites” where multi-agency, co-located service delivery models for victims of domestic violence were supported and expanded.  The five founding centers from Phase I are: Shasta, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Los Angeles (San Fernando Valley), and West Contra Costa County. The Alameda County Family Justice Center, Anaheim Family Justice Center, and San Diego Family Justice Center served as Regional Training Centers, assisting sites in expanding and developing multi-agency service delivery models around the state.

I.e., if you weren’t in the loop, you just missed the roots spreading and establishing a presence in 3 California Counties — one north, one south, one Anaheim.

 

Phase II of the California Family Justice Center Initiative will maintain and expand a network of Centers across California.

Not if I have anything to do with this!

I suggest that they be forced — with supervised visitation monitors paid for from their last set of royalties or anywhere but a federal or foundation grants stream — to sit through classes from the “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” whether or not they have faith (This $2.4 million/year grant from HHS was to establish a coalition of coalitions on the other side of the issue of DV _- i.e., it’s just a “family” matter, you guys should work it out…. stay (or get) married, marriage is good!).   Make everyone wanting to expand these centers take time (get off a plane!  Skip a conference!) and sit through a session of KIDS’ TURN SAN DIEGO at their own expense, and then publish narratives of it.  

This meeting of the Family Justice Center ALliance staff with the Faith-based abstinence and marriage/fatherhood promoters should definitely be live and youtubed, so we can see one trying to convert the other.    OR, if they set up another mutually profitable “collaboration” we can catch them in the act and tweet it.

OR, have them hire Diann Shipione to audit Kids’ Turn books, too!  There are a number of alternatives I can think of which might free up some public monies in these troubled times….

Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

 

Ongoing support to the five founding centers created during Phase I will be provided. Five additional California communities will be selected to receive technical assistance and planning support for expanding multi-agency, co-located service deliver models for victims of domestic violence.”

 

Here’s SB 557 as of now, and an AROUND THE CAPITOL BILL TRACK link to it:

 

xisting law provides for various services and programs to assist victims of crime, including grants to proposed and existing child sexual exploitation and child abuse victim counseling centers and prevention programs, and the establishment of a resource center to operate a statewide, toll-free information service consisting of legal information for crime victims and providers of services to crime victims.

This bill would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.

Good grief — some of the hardest times women have is reporting to police officers or sherriffs, or DA’s offices, and getting a response.  This is already documented in SONOMA COUNTY-based:  “Women’s Justice Center.”

Increasing Women’s Numbers and Influence in Policing
Breaking and Entering the Thick Blue Line ~ Where is the Women’s Movement? 
Law Enforcement Opportunities NOW!
More Sexism than Ever at Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department

The police and enforcement profession historically has been rough on women — in 2000s, and ongoing.

Sexual Harassment at
SRJC Police Academy
 

March 17, 2001

Mr. Robert Agrella, President
Santa Rosa Junior College
Santa Rosa, CA

Dear Mr. Robert Agrella,

We’re writing to express our concerns that months of unchecked sexual harassment at the SRJC Police Academy this past year resulted in the loss of five promising female cadets from the evening academy.

We are especially concerned that, according to a number of cadets, this harassment went on for months and that the director of the evening academy, Deputy Peter Hardy, repeatedly ignored or minimized cadets’ reports of the harassment. In fact, according to cadets, Director Hardy protected the perpetrator at the expense of the cadets, and allowed the perpetrator to graduate in December. The perpetrator is now eligible to become a police officer in California. The careers of the female cadets have been lost to the community.

Here’s some more from this public letter, although this is not my only concern about having “JUSTICE CENTERS” (which as we can see are nonprofit organizations, or foundations set up (ACFCJ) to channel $$ to nonprofit organizations) but sometimes staffed and working by public employees, as with Mr. Gwinn.

In fact, it could be said if anything, these centers might specifically have been designed to NOT allow the independence women need to protect themselves,

and later, their children, by demanding equal treatment by officers as well as in the family law systems (although, the family law system was set up for “wide discretion with judicial immunity” and nothing approaching equality. ).  Read on:

Here are just some of the indicators of the problem:

  • The national average of female sworn officers on police forces is 14%. The percentage of sworn females among the sum of police in Sonoma County is less than half the national average.
  • In the last four years, at least ten female sworn officers have left the Santa Rosa Police Department, five of whom stated to us that they left because of the hostile work environment in that department against females. Santa Rosa Police Department has never had a female in any position of rank, not even a female sargent. As of August 4, 2000, Santa Rosa Police Department had only 13 sworn female officers (7%) out of a total of 173 sworn officers.
  • In the same time period, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department has had at least 10 female deputies and corrections officers file sexual harassment complaints and lawsuits. As of August, 2000, the Sheriff’s Department had only 17 sworn female officers (7%) out of a total of 218 sworn officers.
  • Sebastopol Police Department has never had a female sworn officer until this year,
  • Sonoma State University Police two years ago paid off a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a female officer who was sexually assaulted by one superior, and ordered by another to falsify a domestic violence report so that the report would favor the male suspect.

In addition to the gross injustice to the women in these situations, what’s equally disturbing is the intolerable cost to our communities. Two decades of research on women police is conclusive. Women officers exceed male officers on many of precisely the skills that are so sorely needed to correct chronic problems plaguing our police. The research shows that women officers have much lower rates of excessive use of force, they better handle rape and domestic violence, and they excel at de-escalating volatile situations.


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

 

The bill would prohibit victims of crime from being denied services at a family justice center solely on the grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history search from being conducted during the client intake process.

The bill would require the family justice centers to submit a report to the Office of Privacy Protection for review and comment, and then submit the report to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Judiciary, no later than January 1, 2013, as specified. The bill would require each family justice center to maintain a formal training program with mandatory training for all staff members, volunteers, and agency professionals, as specified.

Training doesn’t ensure compliance.  At what point in time can a litigant — any kind of litigant — actually read the laws, and codes of procedures, AS they exist, and expect elected or appointed city, county (or state) employees to simply follow them.  We have to obey traffic signals or get fines, and have our licenses revoked or suspended if we can’t pay (see “SF Pre-Trial Diversion Program,” under some comments on “Ron Albers” recently, I posted on this one).
This bill is PASSING — fast:  Yet who has really followed up on what the first two have actually been doing?  Or looking at the books?
Remembering the comments form “Women’s Justice Center” of Sonoma County (here, and at top of post), which I feel are very close to reality (and this grandiose talk about helping hurting families is just sales talk….), let’s take a look at the personnel in the “California Family Justice Initiative” from the site.  Notice the titles — who is whom (top left & bottom right are Blue Shield, California)…

 

 

cfji advisory board

I have expressed my opinion on the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” plenty on this post (search it).  They are a major player, and receive funding from
very conservative big-players (annie E. Casey, as I recall) and highlight Fatherhood.  A post in January 2011 (I think) quoted their preventing violence by encouraging fatherhood theory (whatever it was called).    We have two Lts. heading up 2 family justice centers, and two of the originators (Gwinn/Strack), both attorneys, on this project.  CPEDV  (Shabazz) would be on the CFDA 93591 grants stream (grants to domestic violence coalitions) and formerly I believe it was called the California Alliance (not partnership) Against Domestic Violence, which also shows up in the FVLC Executive Director’s background.
This person started safe houses and advocacy in the 70s, watched it change, had some struggles with her own organization.  I met her.  I heard how there was a move to get her group out of the “Coalition” membership on a technicality, which affected grants they could get.  Yet, at Battered Mothers Custody Conference 2011 (my first — and probably last — attendance, as it’s primarily DV professionals and Family Court Professionals marketing their wares to some very, very distressed mothers) (and they tell less than I do about the system…..) . . . ..    This woman (I believe it was her I spoke with) brought the women with her (it being geographically within range I guess) and sold nothing.  http://www.rbrw.org/RBRWblog/?p=651.  The solutions are local and not forever trying to change the world at public expense — but really help real people (from what I can tell).
The women had a strong spirit of unity.  As you can see from this article, she also acknowledged the custody struggle, sexual abuse allegations issue and was involved in helping women deal with it.  That is a FAMILY law issue….
SB 557 is a personal project of politically connected people from Enron By the Bay and a County with some of the highest homicide rates in the country (Oakland, Richmond). I have suffered for years in this county and experienced multiple problems with honesty among law enforcement.  Never during the years of severe abuse in one of those cities did anyone inform me of laws or legal options to have the batterer arrested for assault & battery (it was my husband).   Then when I became independent and “off the system” the real troubles began — probalby for those reasons.  Again, police were called to help at times, and finally, in what the California calls a felony — but family law calls a “dispute” — and law enforcement, I learned later, calls a “wobbler” — meaning, the D.A. exercised HIS option not to prosecute — my children were illegally and permanently removed from my custody (as so often happens) with no judge, anywhere — giving a legal OR factual basis for doing so.  This was done knowing that the method of removal was itself an act of violence and blatant violation of about 3 types of codes (Educational, Family, Penal) at a time — and that was just the beginning.  It was done around the issue of child support (which pretty much eliminated child support from my kids).  ALL of this happened with clear knowledge — and what sure seemed to me like complicit acceptance — by the county sheriffs, various police (not Alameda County) and eventually, the DA’s in two different counties, as initially I didn’t know which one had jurisdiction.
THIS INITIATIVE IS PASSING REAL SOON IF NO ONE PROTESTS — please get involved, and I ask for feedback, and help investigating the various nonprofit (form 990s) for the many justice center initiatives already involved.  It’s time we got some answers why justice will not happen without more nonprofits.
Here’s a narrative from this SOSDV.org about a woman who, like the woman at Casey Gwinn’s office, felt she had to defend herself form an incident.  It talks about how the evidence was handled.  She is alive — but now in jail, per this.  Can you imagine the situation?

Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)

with 3 comments

This post title:  Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-Hy,” published 5/29/2011 (May 29). 

Memorial Day Weekend.  Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.

Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices

Always.

Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:

(By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)

For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)

BIOGRAPHY

Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.

Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.

How Nice.

I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever.  HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went.  Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget.  Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….

While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post.  If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).

But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:

Pre-Retirement (from the office):

WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000  starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:

In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.

Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…

Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…

Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.

Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after.  As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer:  “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”

Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’

Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children.  Richard Fine did.  The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father.  Narrated briefly here:  When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles).  Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.

This was an unbelievable mess.  Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of  holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part.     They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.

See?  CA.Gov

Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!

California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).

* this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements.  How ‘holistic.’

and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:

The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.

and such financial concepts as:

Federal Performance Basic Incentives

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.

OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed).  No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:

Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant

DESCRIPTION:

This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.

The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.

This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.

KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:

• Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].

• This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.

• The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources.  [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]

Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.

But that’s another topic.

Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:

Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note:  I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)

For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs.  It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.

Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”

I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means

I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also.  Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them.  Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.

Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes.  I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California).  Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?  

So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.

Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear.   They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.

And here’s SB 557.  Glad I happened to hear about it.   And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):

CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION

SENATE BILL No. 557
________________________________________

Introduced by Senator Kehoe
(Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)

Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747)  & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887):  the Dynamic Duo strikes again

  • This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice”  coach parents  suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
  • This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.”  However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.).  Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
  • SB 117 (Kehoe)
    Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)

While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum.  Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room  — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives?  Note:  no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.

Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn).   Has she had children?  Has her partner had children?  So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?

Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.

So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).

Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.

We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too.  And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.

February 17, 2011

________________________________________
An act to add Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers. **

**the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it).  This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.

While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender.  Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers

13750.
(a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
(b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
(2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
(3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
(4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
(5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.

(6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)

Wow.  I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing.  San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.

I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.

Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.

Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).

Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)

FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:

D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein

In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.

The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center

(A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it.   Which I have blogged.  Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.) 

. Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.

In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.

Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”

THE BASICS

Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))

WHO’S COVERED

  • Local agencies, including counties, cities, school and special districts. (§ 54951)
  • Legislative bodies” of each agency–the agency’s governing body plus “covered boards,” that is, any board, commission, committee, task force or other advisory body created by the agency, whether permanent or temporary. (§ 54952(b))
  • Any standing committee of a covered board, regardless of number of members. (§ 54952(b))
  • Governing Bodies of Non-profit corporations formed by a public agency or which includes a member of a covered board and receives public money from that board. (§ 54952(c))

This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it.  Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me?  (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).

In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.

Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like

NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):

(no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate?  Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark.  And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows?  WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with.  At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting.  They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny.  )

From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.   

Legislative Initiatives

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers.  No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.

I have a motto to counteract this trend:

JUST SAY NO!

Meanwhile…

Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so.  Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?

How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.

A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…

McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people.  That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..

This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.

Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.

Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance.  Each one teach one — we can do this!

What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?

with 2 comments

Yesterday, I almost got lost among AB 887 (redefining gender) and the backgrounds of its sponsor, after my recent post about the attempted (in 2002) AB 2263, suggesting that our top Judicial organization in the state (California Judicial Council) get paid — assuming it could also find other funding — to judge the mental health efficacy of Kids’ Turn, excuse me,  (this is the sanitized version)”

projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their 
families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation... [[not mentioned -- this process can and does often take years -- like 10, 15, 18...]]

and which measures, among 5  standards, 3 which deal such hard data as “degree of conflict,” “mental health of children,” and “change in (parental) attitude”:

(1) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding custody issues, as reported by the parents.

(2) The mental health of the children, as measured by their attitudes before and after participating in the project or program.

(3) Any change in the attitude of the parents who participate in the project or program.

Conflict is obviously bad — this is why, the US never engages in wars abroad or at home, such as on terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty, or fatherlessness.  Conflict is Bad.  Having the Judicial System involved in receiving public monies to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral modification programs (run by family law professionals and supported by millionaires and billionaires — see my posts, it’s true!) — is, per our Legislators (in 2002) Good.  All they wanted was $50,000 — plus matching funds. In the cleaned up version…

Original version was more direct – but someone thought better of that and reworded it from the original, as reported May, 2002:

AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

I think we should know who those 23 people sitting on the Appropriations Committee that said YES were:

FYI, for a perspective Assemblypersons in 2011 have salaries ranging from $95,291 (most) to $109K (one) and a few $102K.  Judges outrank them by ca. 50% as to salaries.  Kids’ Turn is a judges project (if not slush fund..)  Judge are always being so helpful, because they love kids.

One legislator (Atkins) had previous been chief staff of the other former assemblyperson, now Senator legislator (Kehoe), it turns out and both were “out” lesbians (hardly unusual for California, but sometimes even I forget).  Another Sunburst Youth Housing Project has Atkins & Partner/Wife’s name on it.

 January 2005, after more than 3 1/2 years of hard work, The Center announced the creation of an innovative youth supportive housing project. This cutting-edge program is one of the first projects of its kind in the United States. The Youth Housing project provides 23 units of affordable, supportive housing for youth between 18-24 years of age, with a special focus on LGBTQ+ youth. These high-risk youth were living in the streets or in public spaces after having been ejected from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

This project has been made possible by the leadership and vision of Rev. Tony Freeman, Dr. Heather Berberet, San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins, Jennifer LeSar, The Center and its project collaborators — YMCA Youth and Family Services, San Diego Youth and Community Services, Metropolitan Community Church, Walden Family Services and the Chadwick Center at Children’s Hospital.  We opened our doors to youth at the beginning of February 2006.

Oh yes, and the AB 887 sponsor’s wife was caught — well reported — exploiting the homelessness problem in San Diego to turn a nice penny as consultant for herself ($225/hour) by farming out the work to others, while her wife (Assemblyperson Atkins) was photographed with the volunteers counting the homeless.

2011, SanDiegoReader seems to be keeping tabs on these conflicts of interest:

Why Was Toni Atkins Consulting for Developers Vying for Redevelopment Dollars After She Was Elected to State Assembly?

By historymatters | Posted January 27, 2011, 3:51 p.m.

Why was State Assembly Majority WHIP Toni Atkins working for LeSar Development Consulting firm as the Senior Principal of Housing Policy and Planning even after she was elected to State Assembly? Toni was consulting with developers and helping them lobby to get these redevelopment tax dollars for their projects. So how in the world can she vote objectively as a State Assembly member let alone State Majority WHIP to freeze this redevelopment money and return it to schools and other state resources when she has a definite financial stake in seeing that the money remain in the pockets of developers like her wife and their clients.

How is it that Atkins and her wife Jennifer LeSar are continually allowed to financially benefit from the affordable housing gravy train. Affordable housing is a multi million dollar issue with a multi million dollar bounty at stake to the most cunning and shrewd land developers and Atkins is voting on this issue despite her personal financial stake. LeSar served as a CCDC Board Member for years while Atkins simultaneously served on City Council and voted to approve millions in redevelopment funds.

Meanwhile, Hunting for the Homeless (2011 Feb. Press article)

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year's numbers were up.

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year’s numbers were up

I’m starting to like this blogger, “historymatters” — who seems to be on top of the issues — not that anyone seems to be stopping this flagrant wearing two hats at once while selling projects (contracts to cronies — or partners (nepotism?) — which are to help the public, allegedly).  San Diego is not my area — except for the reputation they have in messing with parents around family law, and the infamous “Family Justice Center Model” (Casey Gwinn retirement program), same general idea.  Our public servants are I guess to busy working on (and dreaming up, or expanding) projects to help the rest of us that it slipped their minds to report who was getting the contracts for those projects.  During an era of increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, closing libraries, thousands of California prisoners being released due to overcrowding, and such — it’s very important to sell educational programs to parents undergoing divorce (and measure whether they worked) — and of course SOMEBODY has to go hunt up the homeless (while, during the daytimes, they are encouraged to keep moving….)

In “I’ve Got Issues” (I’m starting to like this blogger):

Jennifer LeSar was on the Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) from 2002 to 2009. She started her development consulting business in 2005 consulting many of the same developers she was working with on CCDC. http://lesardevelopment.com/about-us/ CCDC recently asked the City Council to approve the contract extension with redevelopment money, yes that same redevelopment money that Atkins as State Assembly WHIP will vote on in Sacramento….sound like a conflict of interest?

2009 Article stating that Kehoe is going to back her former staffer, ex-City-Councilwoman Atkins for State Assembly( which we can see, she obviously got).

2010, January — The GayandLesbianTimes protests politicking by this duo (Kehoe & Atkins) (control of a nonprofit board? stacked — under threat to the organization if it didn’t comply?)

Former board resigns, San Diego Democratic Club appointed by Kehoe to take over Pride
The reconstituted Board of Directors of San Diego LGBT Pride met Wednesday, Jan. 27. The first order of business was to accept the resignations of board members Philip Princetta, Co-chair and Mike Karim, Treasurer. According to Pride, the new board members are fully committed to transparency and will honor the duties and responsibilities of the organization and continue the mission of San Diego Pride. However, the first meeting was closed into executive session soon after it began.
At a special meeting held last Saturday, attended by City Councilmember Todd Gloria and former San Diego deputy mayor Toni Atkins, State Senator Christine Kehoe demanded that San Diego LGBT Pride board members Chair Philip Princetta, Treasurer Mike Karim, Secretary Carl Worrell either resign or she would place the organization into receivership – a court action that places property under the control of a receiver during litigation – according to an anonymous source at the meeting.
Kehoe, Atkins and Gloria packed the San Diego Pride Board with a crossover of supporters, donors, and endorsers of their political campaigns – appointing the San Diego Democratic Club to take over Pride.
Community members are questioning if they have legal authority to take such actions under the Brown Act….
In a letter, obtained by the Gay & Lesbian Times, Worrell said, “I don’t know that I have ever before found myself in a situation where every alternative solution is wrong. But, in my opinion, that is the situation now. After the unconscionable bullying we took from Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria and Toni Atkins; it is obvious that my involvement in shaping the future of Pride must end.
In addition to demanding that the three current board members resign, Kehoe also stated that all Pride board meetings would be attended by a representative from both Kehoe’s and Gloria’s offices. She ordered a hiring freeze and said all Pride business must go through her office before any actions were taken, according to the anonymous source.

One reason I steer clear from nonprofits.  Another reason is that I learned the hard way that they are answerable to their funders more than the clients they serve.  I would NEVER deal with a nonprofit (If I were you) anymore without knowing who is on the board of directors, and who is footing the bills.   Moreover, nonprofits can have their boards taken over and start firing staff, totally change the character of any organization which may have started out well.

So, I’m interested why these people would be so interested in controlling the nonprofit here San Diego LGBT Pride and looked it up.  “Year Founded:1974 Ruling Year:1995” (meaning actually showed up as a nonprofit 21 years after it started…  Wow, kinda like AFCC, which took forever to incorporate properly and start reporting income and paying taxes…).   Income they deal with listed at $1.47 million…   Purpose:

Foster pride in and respect for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

and Transgender communities locally and globally.

(See yesterday’s post on the gender expression bill.  Guess some real progress has been made there.)

Guidestar’s IRS form 990 for the year 2009 shows only the 3 ousted officer, plus Exec. Director Ron deHarte earning $113K, and the main activity rallies, festivals, etc.  (and operating in the whole).  The income is mostly “program service revenue.”

Whether or not this type of behavior and leadership qualities is played out in the LGBT community or not, it seems common in these combos, I have noticed:

  • Legislator Connection
  • City level control (Councilmen, Councilwomen), and  County Level Supervisors
  • Redevelopment Connections (real estate developers, or those financing it)
  • Favored nonprofits controlled by one of the above to provide services
  • Cronies getting the contracts, or cronies/spouses getting to be Exec. Director of the favored Nonprofit/agency  (Example:  “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys — Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s (3rd) wife gets coveted $90K job over a $3million-grant-initiated “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (I think was the title) whose actual benefits to the public are questioned (if ever proved).    The process by which this Executive Director was appointed took the cooperation of County Supervisors, helped by the early resignation of a (as I recall) District Attorney (rather than waiting out is term to let the appointment happen normally:  i.e., From Orloff to Nancy O’Malley.
For an example, here’s a quick summary (I also blogged it — but it was someone else who researched it):
SEPT 2009 (article shows an Oakland City Council person deluged with protests about constituents being whammed with parking meter increases, and slammed with violations…which is affecting business for the local retailers…   So the City Councilperson is often between a rock and a hard place, meaning the collaboration between other already tightly bonded parts of local govt:

Case closed: One big reason the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to name retiring District Attorney Tom Orloff‘s handpicked successor, Nancy O’Malley, to the plum job was her role in helping launch the Alameda County Family Justice Center – a federally funded program that helps victims of domestic violence.

Not only are Supervisors Gail Steele and Alice Lai-Bitker big supporters of the program, but its executive director is Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer – the wife of longtime East Bay pol Bill Lockyer.  Nadia is also running for supervisor.

Both Steele & Lai-Bitker have a reputation for being really concerned about domestic violence, and Steele, even for this crisis in the courts.  HOWEVER — has that justice center actually helped as many people as it says it did?  And if they’re so concerned about the bottom segments of society (and kids, of course….) — why not set a better example, and let the heads of major nonprofits receiving a FAT federal grant – be picked legally, instead of voting to minimize public awareness, and public comment ?  A “Steve White” (Indymedia) blogged this in 2006.  I can’t see that the practices have changed much, over time.  I blogged it, too:
There’s a certain truth (though not as intended, I’m sure) in the testimonials from this Justice Center’s site:

This is really changing the way the system is responding to victims.”
-Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney

“We use business principles to address social problems and build lasting solutions.”
-Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., Executive Director

Well, well — the Sneak Peak of ACFCJ finds out that Ms. Nadia is going to take retiring County Supervisor Gayle Steele’s place — very appropriate, because Supervisor Steele probably could have — but like Lai-Bitker, chose not to — protest the improper propelling of this woman to the head of the ACFCJ to start with (see the articles i’ve linked to).  TWO county supervisors protested swishing the appointment past the public improperly.  THREE County supervisors (including those two) did not.  So here we are —

Congratulations and Thank You, Nadia Lockyer

On November 2, 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to fill the seat vacated by retired County Supervisor, Gayle Steele. Nadia’s last day as the Executive Director of the ACFJC was December 31, 2010. We wish to thank Nadia for all she did for the ACFJC and we wish her well in her new position. We know she will continue advocating to ensure the safety and health of all children and families in Alameda County.

Senior Deputy District Attorney, Kim Hunter, will be the Acting Director of the ACFJC. She and Cherri Allison of FVLC will work together to provide leadership until a new director is installed.

And of course a blurb in this ACFCJ newsletter celebrates the inauguration of Nancy O’Malley, who helped get this ACFCJ started:

District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Sworn in at ACFJC

The Inauguration Ceremony of Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attor- ney, took place at the ACFJC on January 3, 2011. Approximately 250 people gathered on the 2nd floor to hear an introduction by Chief Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Dunleavy, and the Oath of Office administered by Cali- fornia Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan. Nancy ended the ceremony with a touching speech that thanked her mentors and family. A reception immediately followed at Z Café.

Congratulations Nancy!

While most Centers & Units  under this County’s DA’s office have addresses basically at the courthouse (1225 Fallon St most common address listed), “Child Abduction” and “Domestic Violence” have been exported to a different address, or “Center” here — 427   27th Street, Oakland.  (I developed a recent habit — looking up street addresses of nonprofits to see who else is there).
Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.
While I’m here (on that Alameda County Family Justice Center) — FYI
Guidestar, the address shows a nonprofit “Bay Area Women Against Rape”BAY AREA WOMEN AGAINST RAPE

Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 27TH St
Oakland , CA 94612 
2008 IRS Form 990 (contains warning notice on potential errors in this version)
EIN# 942300454
This group’s budget is small fry among big fry (Grants $650,000) and its Executive Director, Marcia Blackstock has something worth hearing about this group and practices in general:

If you’ve got ears, listen up to this one:

Biography

Blackstock is the Executive Director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, which was founded in 1971 and is recognized as one of the first three victim assistance programs in the nation.

Initial Involvement in the Crime Victims’ Movement

Marcia Blackstock became involved in Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) as a volunteer in 1978. BAWAR had been formed in 1971 by an outraged foster mother whose high school-age daughter had been treated badly both by the police and the emergency room staff after she was raped.

Context of the Era

BAWAR had a “huge adversarial relationship” with law enforcement, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, and the judiciary in the early days. Blackstock remembers that BAWAR’s views were not trusted, nor did BAWAR trust anyone in the system to appropriately assist sexual assault victims. “It was a lot of upheaval, a lot of anxiety, and frustration,” Blackstock recalls. On the other hand, there was substantial community support from the local universities and other collective groups such as the Berkeley Free Clinic and the Women’s Health Collective that were also working and organizing to see that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their needs were met.

Greatest Challenge

Looking back, Blackstock believes that the greatest challenge was establishing credibility among professionals in the various fields that dealt with rape victims. The therapists, law enforcement officers, judiciary, and hospital personnel considered themselves the “experts” and maintained an adversarial relationship with BAWAR mainly because of its grassroots origins. The BAWAR advocates were not considered to be “professionals.”

“We were coming from a peer-support, community-based, grassroots organization that brought in a huge variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and education and ideas, but all coming together and focusing on a common goal. But we were considered ‘peer’ and not ‘professional’, at best paraprofessional and rarely that.”

One of the problems that BAWAR faced was that licensed counselors who felt that they were more knowledgeable had no experience at all working with sexual assault victims.

Or course, professionals and experts know better than grassroots advocates (or victims of crime) what’s best for them, and should be paid accordingly.
In looking up another Board of Directors of BAWAR, (Candace Archuleta)  the “Rakheem Bolton” case (Dallas, Texas) comes up, in which a cheerleader who was held down, locked in, raped — and whose rapist got off with a handslap — took a real stand.
In fact when she was supposed to be jumping up and down and shouting encouragement to him, she just stood.
She refused to cheer for him when he was back on the basketball court.  She didn’t call names, throw things, threaten, or anything.  She just stood, silent.  And for this, was punished
(WHY does this remind me of battered mothers who have some resistance to co-parenting with identified abusers or child molesters?  Family Courts have a hey-day with that obstinance….) 
Oh boy — none of that lack of “spirit” in the school! — and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

A high school student who refused to cheer on her “rapist” has been ordered to pay $45,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Where’s the justice in this?

By Cord Jefferson
Posted: 05/05/2011 02:54 PM EDT

I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she told reporters in 2009. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

To that end, HS refused to cheer for Bolton when he stepped up to take some free throws during a game in January 2009, four months after he had pleaded guilty to the attack. When she folded her arms and stood silently, however, her school’s superintendent, Richard Bain, ordered her outside and told her she had to cheer for Bolton. When she refused again, HS was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

(How much money, fame, press does a good basketball team attract to a school?)

HS later sued the school for kicking her off the team, but the results of that lawsuit have time and again gone terrifyingly against her.

(What’s Gender got to do with THAT situation?  Or, money? –or Justice?  The rapist paid $2,500, and she has to pay the school district $45,000 for protesting —  not with violence, but with silence?)

 

Now — think about it.  BAWAR is at this area, and getting small amt. of funding compared to the larger scope, yet rape and assault is a major part of domestic violence.    Yet Guidestar shows this “Alameda County Family Justice Center” at the same address — which we know is a major project — it has a physical, building presence — and yet it’s listed on Guidestar AS IF a nonprofit, incorporation 2010 (we know, formed much earlier) same address:

ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC   [EIN#  26-1141080]

Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 270TH StOakland , CA 94612
At A Glance
Category (NTEE):
Human Services / (Victims’ Services) 
Year Founded:
2010  Ruling Year: 2010 

I’m looking at a 990 signed this past February by Harold Boscovich.  (You can too — it’s free).  There are no officers, no income, and no officer, it says, was paid.    Now THAT’s an unusual tax return!   “The purpose of this corporation (not nonprofit?) it “to provide comprehensive collaborative professional services to victims of domestic violence and their children, to victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation; to victims of elder abuse, and to victims of child abuse, at no cost.

WAIT A MINUTE!  Aren’t these the legitimate functions already of governmental (not nonprofit) agencies?  Such as the District Attorney’s office?
The books of this corporation are in the possession, it says, of D.A. “Nancy O’Malley, 470 270th Street, Oakland 94612″ (deliberate typo?  Oakland has no 270th street; see address) and the corporation’s contact# is the same.”
 We already know that Ms. Nadia’s salary was paid by the DA’s office (per indymedia blogger & local commentator, Steve White — see links)  It is classified as a “community trust” (line 8, Part I, of “Schedule A”) I guess IRS Section 170 (b)(1)(a)(vi).
Huh?
I’m a novice and maybe you are.  A SF Law firm summarizes / explains (Thank you, Adler & Colvin, a Law Corporation, 235 Montgomery, Ste. 1220, for this link and information):

QUALIFYING FOR PUBLIC CHARITY STATUS: The Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) Test and the Section 509(a)(2) Test

Tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a charitable organization to pay no tax on any operating surplus it may have at the end of a year, and it permits donors to claim a charitable deduction for their contributions.

There is a further division in the world of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, classifying them into private foundations and public charities.

The private foundation laws impose a 2 percent tax on investment income, limit self-dealing and business holdings, require annual distributions, prohibit lobbying entirely, and restrict the organization’s operations in other ways. Also, large donors to a private foundation have a lower ceiling on the amount of deductible gifts they can claim each year. In most circumstances, public charity status is preferable to private foundation status.

And it appears that this Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACFJC” as I might refer to it again), started by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, hand-picked by the retiring one TOm Orloff as a shoo-in (or to be the incumbent shortly before he retired) whose connections I’m sure helped get the $3 million grant to start this particular ACFCJ — and who then helped get another connected individual, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq. become Executive Director and at once get a 50% increase in salary, to just below what a California Legislator (Assembly) typically gets ($90,000 / $95,921)….

Well, back to our IRS stipulations / qualifications link:

To determine the charity’s support base, (we might as well look at this….)

Gifts, grants,(Footnote 3) contributions, and membership fees received.

Gross investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, rents, royalties, but not gains from sale of capital assets).

Taxable income from unrelated business activities,4 less the amount of any tax imposed on such income.

Benefits from tax revenues received by the charity, and any services or facilities furnished by the government to the charity without charge, other than those generally provided to the public without charge.

{{Hmmm….Does this rule have anything to do with why a new location was needed for the Center?}}

Footnote 3 In some limited circumstances, an unexpectedly large grant may be excluded from both public support tests as an “unusual grant” described in Regulation § 1.170A-9(e)(6). These technical rules are beyond the scope of this memorandum.

 

Not becoming a Private Foundation — Well, if there’s a whole lot of wealth involved, this could be annoying.  Also, if you want very large private donors to support you, they deductible for those donors is also lower, which may make them wish to contribute instead to  501( c)3s as “Public charities” — like the Kids’ Turns of the family law world?

A Section 501(c)(3) organization can avoid private foundation status, and thus be classified as a public charity, in any of three ways: (1) by being a certain kind of institution, such as a church, school, or hospital; (2) by meeting one of two mathematical public support tests; or (3) by qualifying as a supporting organization to another public charity. In this memo, we discuss the two mathematical public support tests.

The Public/Governmental Support Test of Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)

This public support test was designed for charities which derive a significant proportion of their revenues from donations from the public, including foundation grants, and from governmental grants. The test has two variations. If an organization can satisfy either of the two variations of this support test, it will qualify as a public charity under Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1).

The first variation is known as the one-third test. A charity can satisfy this test if public support is one-third or more of the total support figure. Nothing more is needed if this mathematical fraction is attained.

The second variation, known as the 10 percent facts and circumstances test, has two requirements. First, the charity’s public support must be at least 10 percent of its total support. Second, the charity must demonstrate, with reference to facts and circumstances specified by the IRS, that it is operated more like a public charity than like a private foundation.

For “Program Accomplishments” it says “See Schedule O.”  One year, the return simply had the organization’s title in there; the next year, it again restated the organization’s purpose.  These are hardly “program accomplishments.”
As it’s a certain kind of public charity, I’d like to see the IRS letter of Determination
Now — When I googled this Inc’s name (ACFJC) 3 and 3 groups only came up.  This (also Oakland-based) is the second one.     (The third is the Bill Wilson Center in LA? area).  This is where the money seems to be recorded — the Family Violence Law Center  (EIN# 942527939)
Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623
Category: I71 (Spouse Abuse, Prevention of); P43 (Family Violence Shelters and Services); P62 (Victims’ Services)Physical Address:PO Box 22009 Oakland , CA 94623Web Address:www.fvlc.org  Telephone:(510) 2080220 Facsimile:(510) 2083557 Contact:Ms. Cherri N. Allison, , Esq.cherri@fvlc.orgExecutive Director(510) 2080220 x32
This amount seems closer to the grant mentioned for the spanking new ACFJC a while back.  NOtice different address (like a PO Box….) and although ACFCJ actually has a web address, Guidestar doesn’t list it for some reason.
2008 Tax Return says that
GRANTS — Prior Year, $318,322,
THIS year $1,386,008
Program Service Revenue  — last year:   1,680,748,
THIS year $1,867,703
Given that part of domestic violence is economic abuse — the victims are not usually flush with funds — I’m going to hazard a guess that they are selling trainings and products to other nonprofits, or to agency professionals whose trainings are paid for by public funds.  That’s just a guess.  Unless you know a slew of domestic violence survivors that can pay this kind of money to help support the group.
I’d say collaboration works, eh?
Here’s a current job advertisement for “youth program director” — will earn perhaps a bit less than half what the former ACFCJ Exec. Director did, at $42K – $48K per year.  Children are being born daily (hence no shortage of Youth in the area) and the former clients that ran through ACFCJ are probably dealing with high-conflict custody cases, wondering where their child support went, and figuring out how to co-parent with whoever this group helped them get a protective order on earlier.   Meanwhile, their lives having first justified grants to this organization, will now be justifying grants for “access and visitation,” a cause which essentially undoes what the first round did — protection.
Their mission statement, history, accomplishments, and who they collaborate with is listed clearly here:

Mission Statement

Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) has been working to end domestic violence in Alameda County since 1978, when a small group of abuse survivors founded the agency. To advance our mission of ending domestic violence, FVLC employs a holistic approach that integrates a comprehensive service model with dedicated efforts to address and change institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors within the legal, health, education, and criminal justice systems.

Yeah, “holistic” and “comprehensive service” are definitely the keywords these days.  Please notice carefully (underlined) which systems it tries to address and change “institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors” within — it specifically does NOT mention within the Judicial system, and it most definitely does not mention anything — at all – about the “FAMILY LAW SYSTEM” although it’s title says ‘Family Law Violence Center.”

Go figure, huh?  And how telling.  The most critical information people coming through “stage one” of leaving domestic violence, assuming kids are involved, is what is coming up next — which IS the “family law system.”.

After looking at the 990 (as usual, I often go straight to the officers’ page), and notice the Executive Director is being paid a modest (for this size of operation) salary of $90K year, and her name is:

ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Cherri N. Allison, Esq. is the Executive Director at FVLC. A lifetime resident of Oakland, Ms. Allison has more than 7 years of legal non-profit management experience. Ms. Allison also has over 12 years of experience as a family law attorney.

Prior to coming to FVLC, Ms. Allison was the Director of Programs at the Alameda County Bar Association. In addition to Ms. Allison’s expertise in non-profit management, she has experience in board development, program development, grant writing and investments. She currently serves as the President of the Board for the Women Lawyers of Alameda County, is a former member of the FVLC Board, and is a member of the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

In 2008, she is (not inappropriately, I’m sure) awarded by the Bar Association for the work with this Community Organization, along with other judges, attorneys, etc., as it says (tickets, $125),

2008 Installation and Distinguished Service Awards Dinner

Join us on Thursday, January 17, 2008, as we swear in our Officers and Directors and honor the recipients of our Distinguished Service Awards while we enjoy a delectable dinner buffet and cool jazz. The festivities will take place at the Claremont Hills Resort & Spa, majestically resting on 22 acres of beautifully landscaped gardens in Berkeley.*

(*starting to sound like some of the wonderful AFCC, or for that matter, Kids’ Turn promoting retreats and seminars.)

(the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” is a grants recipient, from my understanding, through HHS and is where CPEDV went….).   WELL, I guess that FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE may tell us why this group doesn’t seem to educate its clients about the family law process, and what’s happened to it since, say, 2001 (Bush, faith-based), or even 1998, 1999 (US Congress passes resolutions on fatherhood).  However, it’s clear Ms. Allison must be informed about the intersection of DV & Family Law; she has written about it:

Domestic violence remedies in California family law cases, 2008. Cherri N. Allison, et al. (CEB, 2008)  KFC 115 D664  not accessible to general public, unless you are in L.A.?

Get this (2009)

Women Lawyers of Alameda County (WLAC) honors Exec Director  of ACFCJ, District Attorney (who helped fund and start ACFCJ) who also honor a retired woman judge (Hon. Peggy Hora., Ret’d.) who pushed “therapeutic jurisprudence”  – a VERY problemmatic practice in the judicial field, and also endorsed by AFCC.

How sweet — aren’t these professionals all close friends with each other then?  (Except the women driven homeless through family law system and twice-thrice-and ongoing-abused (Legal abuse syndrome) through its practices, or while (out of state — MD — another state pushing Therapeutic Jurisprudence through Univ. of Baltimore School of Law “CFCC”) a pediatrician mother (is that professional enough?) lost 3 children, drowned in a bathtub on a scheduled visitation, although she warned, pleaded, and asked for visitation to be curtailed based on the prior mental health history and state of the father.  (“Cabrillo”).

WLAC “Honor Roll”

This Issue’s Honor Roll:

Cherri N. Allison, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center of Alameda County, was recently named “Woman of the Year” for the Justice Category of the Alameda County Commission on Status of Women and will be inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame on April 25, 2009.

I think that instead of professionals honoring and decorating themselves in nice ceremonies (Sun Myung Moon and the U.S. Senate mock coronation ceremony comes to mind) instead some of the women who DIED because of stupid family law rulings, sometimes along with their children or in front of them, in scheduled exchanges with the father for co-parenting purposes — THEIR names should be honored.

I do not live in this county and so am not familiar with which is most dramatic, but how about honoring the mothers who, having left an abusive relationship (or possibly separated because of the abuse) thereafter, by complying with family court orders to fork over their children to an ex-batterer or abuser, ended up dead.  

If this is too many low-income people to consider at once, then why not go for someone closer to the legal profession’s social class — Hans Reiser.  Why not honor his wife, Nina.   I’m not sure which county this case was in, but sounds like her body was unearthed Alameda County.

And whoever is recommending Batterers Intervention Programs gets my “dunce award of the year; here’s why from “Sagaria Law” — they don’t complete the programs anyhow!  Or, (in one high-profile case) they complete the programs and then walk back and kill the woman anyhow (Scott McAlpin).

The programs draw funding  — is there something too hard to spell about that?

I started this blog to warn others!   after years of the rollercoaster (downhill slide, overall) of the family law system that no one who was involved warned me about when I separated from the abuser.  In retrospect, it might have been better to ask for self-defense lessons, mace training, and just utilize it, so I could communicate directly to this person that was is and is not acceptable is, in marriage, a two-way street, and wives are people, too.

FVLC’s services include both protection initiatives for people currently experiencing abuse and prevention initiatives to eliminate future abuse. Today, FVLC is recognized as a leader in the community in both delivering exceptional services to abuse survivors and in advocating for long-term social change for victims.

Maybe I should go find these people  — a list of clients with children who then went into “high-conflict custody battles”– and start interviewing them to see if the perspective holds — and if they then lost their kids to the abusers, because doing something about that issue is not, er, under FVLC’s 501(c)3 goals….  Abuse survivors with custody cases need not apply — go see your local family law attorney….
Well, I recognize that someone else has to tell about the Access Visitation Factor, the Child Support Incentives, and that that whatever groups like these WILL instruct people about, the functioning of the family law system is not on the curricula.    We had to learn the hard way that if our problems were not going to attract major funding, we could just go deal with them ourselves.  THESE types of programs, however do get the moulah:
How much easier to teach, coach and (allegedly) prevent — than to scrutinize, analyze, and dis-assemble destructive institutions which result in family wipeouts — but which are already entrenched…

During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:

  1. Provided legal services (representation, paperwork preparation, and advice and counsel) to 525 clients, for a total of 2,250 contact hours and 692 court orders.
  2. Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.
  3. FVLC’s HEAL (Healing Emotions and Loss After Domestic Violence) Program provided intensive parent/child psychotherapy to 31 children and their primary caregiver, for a total of 900 contact hours.
  4. FVLC’s RAP (Relationship Abuse Prevention) Program provided intensive leadership training to 56 youth and violence prevention education and outreach to 1,008 youth.

FVLC has set the following goals for the current year (FY 08-09):

  1. Continue to strengthen collaborative relationships with other agencies co-located at the Alameda County Family Justice Center with FVLC.  This includes the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and numerous other community-based agencies.
  2. Engage in policy work around domestic violence by playing a leadership role on several state and countywide task forces, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Alameda County Family Violence Council, Domestic Violence Advisory Council for the Social Services Administration of Alameda County, and Alameda County Teen Dating Violence Task Force (formed and led by FVLC).
(As you can see, it’s now fashionable to say the words “domestic violence” and form task forces to do something about it, allegedly.  Look at the variety of groups that do:  The ABA, CPEDV, and something from Alameda County itself I can’t even find (yet), as well as a SSA “Domestic Violence Advisory Council.”   How many of these talk to victims they helped 5 years down the road or so?
  1. With our collaborative partners Youth ALIVE! and Youth Radio, expand leadership training and policy work around teen dating violence at Oakland middle schools through various classroom, after-school, and summer activities, effectively reaching approximately 1,600 adolescents.  This is made possible through a generous four-year, $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

(Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is very big into funding fatherhood materials. )

These are recommended reading to pick up on the patterns, and alliances.  It almost gives one a headache (for non-politically-minded individuals who just do their jobs, obey the law, pay taxes, volunteer locally, probably contribute locally, etc.) to conceive of the extent of deceit and collaboration that is simply government.  And then all the public press about how poor we all are, and how it’s time to tighten our belts — and cut back on the social service infrastructure.  And (in California) release from 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners.

This is simply taxation without representation, and totally unacceptable in my book.

And I’m not a Tea Partier.

It sheds a whole different light on the “social contract” that most of (what remains of) the middle class has bought into.  If they stick to their jobs, neighborhoods, kids, and planning for leisure & retirement (and don’t ask too many questions about the top layer) — then the top layer will structure society so as to kind of leave them alone, and of course (this goes without saying) make sure the rabble doesn’t get out of control.

 

FAMILY  JUSTICE CENTERS, per IRS search (on the name):

Name City StateSorted Ascending Country
Code
ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Oakland CA USA
ANAHEIM FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Anaheim CA USA
FRIENDS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Riverside CA USA
NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE San Diego CA USA
SOUTH BAY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Torrance CA USA
STANISLAUS FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION Modesto CA USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC. Tampa FL USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION OF IDAHO Nampa ID USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INC. South Bend IN USA
THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF BOSTON INC. Boston MA USA
ESSEX COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Roseland NJ USA
CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE Albuquerque NM USA
TRI-COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF NORTHEAST NEW MEXICO INC. Las Vegas NM USA
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ERIE COUNTY INC. Buffalo NY USA
YOUTH AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. New York NY USA 4
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY Georgetown SC USA
KNOXVILLE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Knoxville TN USA
BEXAR COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION San Antonio TX USA
FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER San Marcos TX USA
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MINISTRY FAMILY SERVICES CENTER Woodville TX USA

to Be Continued…

%d bloggers like this: