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 ‘national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

with 5 comments

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: