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 ‘NASMHPD

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

leave a comment »

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

click on image to see website.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

About that situation:

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

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

(Why not go after the FDA?)

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014**, split in three; this part published June 30, 2017]

with one comment

This post was first written October 25, 2014, about 30,000 words covering the above theme and an extended section, after pointing out the type of organization, looking closer at “NASMHPD” and “Mental Health America,” not to mention showing basic ABA (American Bar Association) and APA (American Psychological Association) Forms 990O, 990 (respectively) tax returns for a glimpse at organization size,** and some of their history, from its own timeline, (**Originally, not including their known related entities, formed much later than the original associations, also.  In the update, I showed and discussed some of those, however).

…not to mention, again taking on the (il)logic of the “Broken Courts” theme for which conference, Amazon books and university-based resources are still active on-line and which also are being promoted in part with foundation backing and via various nonprofits, particularly two from California  associated for years as presenters or participants in the “BMCC” (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) on the East Coast (New York, and in more recent years, Washington, D.C.)

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

These reflect key topics of the blog as a whole — developing a better awareness of this type of nonprofit, professional trade association (not just one or two of them) as an organized tool by those who form them, to push private purposes and theories upon the often-unsuspecting public — because the public typically doesn’t focus on the networked nonprofit sector, let alone the networked nonprofit sector with words implying “government entity” in their names, when they actually aren’t (in other words, functioning something like squatters in public office, to add weight and importance), they are operating in the privately controlled nonprofit sphere,##

AND,

developing an awareness of the means and consequences of having “mental hygiene/illness/health” theme promoted upon the population at large with a focus on screening everyone possible, or claims (by another organization whose original legal name had the word “national” in it, but was not of this type I’m discussing here as referenced in the post title), that is NAMI, that 1 in 5 Americans live(s) with a “mental health condition,” and (shown below and in subsequent post/s from this one’s split) that this also can and has led (through one of the named organizations above) to excessive and harmful promotion of medications (Rx) and paid-for “expert consensus” on which ones to use, when, resulting in harmful side-effects, such as suicide and other causes of death, and other destructive, life-altering conditions.  Key phrases there include:  patented atypical antipsychotics. 

The promotion of organizations and themes focusing on prevalence of mental illness, early prevention and services to promote mental health,  and attempts to turn many basic public institutions — such as the superior courts under state jurisdiction — into behavioral health (modification, training, indoctrination, re-setting of personal values, etc.) revolving doors diverting people who walk through those doors into “community resources” is pervasive and is also reflected in practices and by design, intents, of the family courts.

##That comment may seem harsh, but I believe it’s true and relevant.

Towards the bottom of this post, I had earlier referenced a career attorney working first for in child support Tennessee, but later for Policy Studies, Inc. (deeply involved in the field), and after a long stint there, then for Maximus.  Maximus bought Policy Studies Inc. (one source said) ca. 2012.   Regarding my harsh comment about these organizations, and although Maximus isn’t in the same category, while talking about government privatization with outsized contractors, Maximus has a horrid, fraud-ridden, and frequently-sued record in the US, THEN got contracts for government services in the UK, and continued, allegedly, manipulating the data and falsifying records to the point of harming those the government’s charge was to help, that is, the most vulnerable.  This was debated 2/9/2016 in the UK Parliament (House), which I quoted.  It acknowledged the problem with accountability to the public when the purpose is contracting out services.  In the U.S., “Sourcewatch.org” also reported extensively on Maximus disgraceful track record — yet somehow, it’s still in business.

What I’m looking at here is not just what’s being done (the cause promoted) but the leverage provided by the networked nonprofits intent on pushing the cause — or any other cause they may agree upon, once the mechanism for promoting/pushing it is in place.  These are nets; they are intended to catch people, and they are referred to among the fishers as helpful, good, beneficial and for public service.  I’ve looked closely at the nets, and been caught in some of them, and do not believe this should be the purpose of public institutions.

I’m not a fish!! or somehow less knowledgeable about my own life simply from holding a different position, profession, or place in society, than those who operate in these circles. But, collectively, the public is being treated, if not literally farmed, like fish, that is, simply exploited, under pretty flimsy pretenses, without legitimate argument (that is, OPEN argumentation) and once the infrastructures are well set, privately, in privately networked circles, like the institution and attitudes to match it of, say, slavery, it’s hard to change the dynamics, or channels we (the public) get chased into.



I found it interesting that NAMI (formerly The National Alliance of Mental Illness, Inc.) was only formed, by one account in 1980 (IRS exemption only obtained in 1985), and with an initial statement of focus on mental illness in general, but also seeking biological “causes and treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.” (That image and more images and discussion, especially of how NAMI organized and “reproduced” nationwide, further below), a tactic and approach shared by other do-good, cause-promoting organizations (this topic continued, below).


 

ABOUT THE TIMING of TURNING AN OCT. 2014 DRAFT INTO THREE mid-2017 POST Updates.

I’d thought this had been published. In fact, throughout the second half of 2014 and all of 2015, I’d taken time off publishing posts on the blog (see my TOC page), not time off researching and writing it up, just posting, mostly because my personal situation had heated up (legally) and was in major life transition.

Somehow after resuming it in 2016 and focusing on present tasks, and getting the Table of Contents page organized, I thought — probably because had worked extensively on it, and on the theme, that this post had been published. (See image showing revision dates from administrative part of the blog).  Once involved in a post, or a study theme, I am intensely involved and focused on it; once things are written, they tend to be somewhat off my mind unless related to the current theme, with, of course, all of them building on each other.

Having discovered the error after trying to quote this post, I decided to correct the situation and get it published.  This required splitting it into segments (three), and involved, as it always does, further reflection and some updates on the subject matter.  The updates are mostly shown as “preview” sections.  I also cleaned up the formatting some (paragraph breaks had been lost) and used a font and post format which has since become more standard on this blog).  As usual this process took about a week, and deepened my current internal, mental awareness* “database” of knowledge on, and understanding of, specific organizations and topics. (*And saving the evidence electronically for future reference of course.)


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

The basic concept, as one of its “tags” says, is “national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships.” If you can think of a two- or three-word phrase describing this, which would apply to those mentioned above and others in the category, please help out – submit a comment! (Input at the bottom of any post.) A shorter sound-byte to convey the essence is needed.

In function, and as to at least the NGA (only one I’m aware of) in classification, these are not just ordinary nonprofits or 501©3s (or “©6s”) because of their boards, memberships, and chosen names representing several aspects of public office but most of them, by type, seem to be registered as straightforward 501©3s or ©6s.  (The NGA is classified as “deemed to be an instrumentality” per its consolidated financial statements and earlier tax returns; now it’s simply labeled “nonprofit”).

However organized except for the defined “instrumentalities,” it’s their restricted memberships and boards of directors as reflected in the names, and the sense /aura of right, that is governmental jurisdiction, which seems to set them apart and empower them to do things which local legislatures ideally responsive to their state populations only, or having to deal more directly with them, might not get passed.

Some of these organizations have been around a LONG time, others not so long, but we must face that this has been part of the way the US operates since at least the invention of tax-exempt status that seems to have coincided with “tax almost everyone” around 1913, not to mention further changes in the 1930s (between the wars) and yet more after World War II.  That is, these are NOT, for the most part, as associations, Constitutionally mandated or warranted, whether U.S. Constitution or state/territories’ constitutions.

If and when some were set up by an Act of Congress (or other administrative order, if by President or Chief Justice of the US, comes to mind), they are STILL functioning primarily in the private area, and are as such privately controlled, and can legislate as nonprofit to accept direct bribes  contributions by supporting (corporate) partnerships, and exclude whoever they want from memberships.  They are essentially private-equity, private membership clubs (associations) who want to govern, and have been doing it, but more as “squatters”  and by consent through apathy, than by informed consent of those governed.

And the plan is for unified, coordinated forms of control by agreement among the professional associations, apparently, how to recommend handling all sorts of governmental programs, in discussions NOT typically soliciting or receiving input from the lowest form, apparently, of US life, the common citizen, and strategically unaligned (other than perhaps with a political party) person.

Not all in the post’s title list have fully-restricted member eligibility or boards of director eligibility as civil servant-only, but those that don’t (NCJFCJ, NCCD [National Council on Crime & Delinquency], NACC [National Association of Counsel for Children] for example) still tend to focus on public-office and public institutions, or spheres of operation, as their names reflect — and their boards often DO have people fulfilling simultaneous dual-purpose (one, public, the other technically and in reality, private) functions.

By providing dual (public in one role, private in another) contemporary roles for:  Governors (NGA), Lieutenant Governors, State Courts (NCSC), Judges (several, but one entity similar, but not identical to the others focused on two types of courts: juvenile and family (FYI, juvenile came first historically)  would be the NCJFCJ), State Legislatures (NCSL), Attorney Generals, Mayors (US Conference of Mayors),  AND organizing memberships, conferences, and soliciting partnerships from corporations, they are in effect re-organizing and restructuring government itself, but “behind the scenes.”


(RE:  MENTAL HYGIENE/HEALTH/ILLNESS promotion/advocacy; NAMI/TMAP topic, cont’d.):

I”ll color this section light-green background.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm

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

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: