Posts Tagged ‘NCJFCJ’
“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019).
“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019). (short-link ending “-9NU,” post drafted as insert to “More Perspectives” in late April, under 4,000 words, for starters…). (now exactly 6,000 words; latest revisions for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).
This post prepares people for another post, already written, which asks a hard, “what-if” rhetorical question. I hope readers on considering that (coming post’s) rhetorical question have the integrity to consider where they may have been radically mis-led about the real purposes of family court reform/fix/correct movements. Even though it may be embarrassing, confronting, or disturbing.
IF I COULD FIGURE THIS OUT 2006-2010, especially (and subsequently)…
If I could figure this out with what I was going through 2006 through 2010 especially (and subsequently) under the related conditions post-DV, post-overnight-custody-switch and all kinds of family betrayal, amid professional livelihood destruction, repeated stalking over the years, and at this point it seems about every other year, another lawsuit of some sort — when I don’t have the ongoing income to predict a future at times more than a half year, or a quarter-year in advance — then I know other, more consistently employed and less family-court-plagued individuals, including professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, law professors, psychology professors, state court administrators, and politicians could have chosen, IF not in on it, to figure it out and, for mutual public benefit and “out of the goodness in their hearts” share it.
And share it not just among the mutual professional circles within court-connected and cause-related [abuse prevention, etc.] fields, but also with the people they are charged to help, while dealing with the issues named and as reflected in the respective organization’s business names (i.e., “Family” or “Battered Women” or “Violence Prevention” etc.)…
What’s more, outside the professionals, there are plenty of women (and men) who have been in my situation who could’ve figured out and reported (blogged! spoken consistently) about the same things I did as just a human being with (I admit) at most times — some times a lot harder to access than others — access to the internet and (eventually) a laptop so that access wasn’t limited to library hours and time limits (where I lived, generally maximum 1 to 2 hours at a stretch)… And common sense enough to pay attention!
“BY NOW, WE SHOULD KNOW!”
In fact (looking for a certain reference to include just before publishing this post), about a year ago, I see I went through it again last spring (May, 2018), even though at that time I was being gradually pushed out of temporary housing, and within just two or three months of having to flee the state:
Post title: How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in (or ‘Enhance/Reform’) the Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line — Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018) (Case-sensitive shortlink ending “-91l”; that’s two numbers, as in the year “1991” and a lower-case “L”) (Posting “as-is” about 5,680 words on Mothers’ Day (USA) May 13. Subject to later updates for clarity and/or towards bottom of the post).
(I was also active on Twitter today with more links, documentation and as ever, reminder of terms in use in current fatherhood policy, particularly as involves Temple University-housed, Center for Policy Research-organized “FRPN.org” (also previously posted herein). http://bitl.ly/2KVQHOi) {{<~~may be multi-Tweet/ a thread; see the whole thread if so and I tend to have attachments (media) to Tweets to explain them}}
This post will illustrate both those who won’t (while talking on the same topics) and those who, obviously do acknowledge AFCC when presenting at its conferences or listed among its ongoing board of directors or other activist members (i.e., on individual C.V.s)
That post has has some typos I see but its contents are still relevant. Some emphases added.
I even found a post written almost exactly EIGHT years ago, featuring the general operations and co-operations among key organizations. It doesn’t drill-down tax returns so much, but it does show tendencies and business relationships among them (reference, background, cream-colored, inside green borders added one day post-publication here);
Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).
See Gilder-Lehman Center at Yale or his NYT Obituary April, 2019. Undated photo.
[WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog: “-K7”]. As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019]
On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” (2008, I think) from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.
Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.” [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]
I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph. And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.
Most of the July, 2011, post deals with and quotes the entities its title names (starting with the OVW as part of the US DOJ, the associated “entity” here is the U.S. federal government (with DOJ under its Executive, not Legal or Judicial Branch, despite the word “Justice” in the Department name); all other “entities” referenced are either nonprofits, or projects of them)..
I don’t know how many “re-caps” and reminders it’s going to take to sink in….or what it’ll take, but I write (in part) because I know for some, it’s not reminder — it’s news. On hearing this news, some decisions might need to be made (unless you’re OK continuing to “float” and becoming a “floater” when it comes to effective strategy, or even figuring out what’s going on…. “just go with the closest flow that sounds friendly… or go against the closest hostile currents around, and hope that’s got some real impact, makes a splash, makes a difference (etc.)….).
(Impromptu re-cap, with attention to the key players addressing “DV” aspect hitting family courts.)
By now people should also be aware of to what extent and HOW the “sleeper organization” Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”), working often in tandem with the better-known “National Council of Juvenile and Family Courts (“NCJFCJ”)## all but runs the family court system as we know it today …
(I’m referring to in the USA, while aware of a longstanding intention to align practices across country lines, not to mention through private association influence as has already been taking place, across state lines.)
This Impromptu Recap isn’t going to post tax returns or extensive documentation, which are spread throughout the blog and searchable on it (or search even post titles throughout the blog). For the most part here, although there are some links and images, I’m going to just say it.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
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]
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.
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know). (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)
Election Day USA, Polls are closed, I’m calling it a day — and posting this 17,000– 18,500-word post, the first since Oct. 2015 (not including updates or revisions to previous posts). Feedback welcome via comments! //LGH.
Full post title of this post with shortlink: Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know). (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List,” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)
Title updated for accuracy 11/10/2016.
By the time I am putting information on a Table of Contents Post this long after realizing that post should be primarily — the table of contents — you can guarantee I consider it vital information. So, this post does hold valuable and commonly overlooked information, formerly at the top of my sticky “Table of Contents” post, the one labeled essentially “My Posts — Just the List (2014 backwards).” (Full title & link of that “Sticky” post is My Posts, Just the List (June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012. From Jan. 23, 2016 forward now available @ “Table of Contents 2016 ONLY” Post) FYI, “shortlink” urls from WordPress posts appear to be case-sensitive.)
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Now, the “Find,” About NCJFCJ (Nevada), its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and so-called NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded (“PRSC”) Providence Service Corporation (and, its Board Members’ background companies)[Publ. March 16, 2016]
Post title: Now, the “Find,” About NCJFCJ (Nevada), its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and so-called NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded (“PRSC”) Providence Service Corporation (and, its Board Members’ background companies)[Publ. March 16, 2016] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-39r” and post is about 18,800 words!)
If you haven’t read the previous (3/10/2016) post — go back and read it, for the context and significance! Thanks (it took about two days to compile and write up).
“Post-Publication Preview:” Section titles in this post include:
- Was “Kids-For-Cash” just “The Tip of the Iceberg”?
- What is, and is not, RICO? (Jeff Grell Interview). For example, BCCI)
- Pre-Game Pep Talk (on Why we all should understand RICO, and “Models for Change”)
- The “FIND” and Questions It Raises:
- SOME (not all!) INFORMATION on PROVIDENCE SERVICE [singular, not “services”] CORPORATION, its SOLD-OFF SUBSIDIARIES, and SOME (not all) of its BOARD MEMBERS and their PRIOR COMPANIES
- How I found this one (the NCJFCJ / Providence Services Corporation connection)? (I read tax returns, cont’d.)
- More on NCJFCJ and NCJJ (Including some of its donors)
- “Gratuitous Posting” (not essential to the post) and some more Food for Thought on Moelis & Company (Providence’s Financial Advisor for latest subsidiary sell-off): [[aka what hard work (and your family’s three generations of Wharton School of Business, plus strategically choosing work likely to produce multi-million-dollar fees) can do]]
My eyes were crossing towards the end of this, but I still question what kind of positive juvenile justice reform is likely to take place under the watchful (?) eye of a nonprofit judicial membership association (NCJFCJ) claiming a subsidiary “NCJJ” which neglects to mention the NASDAQ-traded multi-million-dollar business one of its devoted employees has been directing since 1997 apparently, or that some of the subsidiaries are getting in trouble at the state level for, oh, racketeering (South Carolina-based subsidiary) and coverup of sexual abuse at one of the institutions at least two board members had ties to (Florida-based Youth Services International)? Meanwhile NCJFCJ is primarily government funded, but also takes donations.
I just found after publishing last night, that the IPO (Public Offering Registration with the SEC) on The Providence Service Corporation (found at “NASDAQ.com”) took place only in 2004. This link also reveals, I think, who backed it when it was still private. I’m setting up a separate page to show it off as an example of how centralized control of the “diversionary services” nationwide was attempted by a for-profit corporation.
As familiar and conditioned as we are with the for-profit / not-for-profit tax sectors throughout this country, I still say that income-taxing “all” (except those who file for or are tax-exempt) HAS created (perpetuated) a caste system, an administrative nightmare, and an inherent imbalance of power between government and people because the people cannot fully see or monitor what government is doing with revenues they help provide. It has driven revenues underground and work opportunities into the nonprofit and government sectors. Let alone it creates a statistical impossibility — it is impossible to track all the nonprofits, and that impossibility sets the stage for crooks vs. IRS (actually, IRC, Internatl Revenue Code)-compliant to the DISadvantage of the IRS-compliant. And transparency/accountability to the public supporting all this? Forget it. That system has been around now for just over 100 years (1913-2013), and we are reaping the consequences…..some are reaping profits, but most, consequences.
That Prospectus Summary starts:
(From 2004 IPO (Public Offering Registration with the SEC) on The Providence Service Corporation)
Our business
We provide government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit social services organizations whose operations we manage. The recipients of our services are individuals and families who are eligible for government assistance pursuant to federal mandate. The governmental entities that pay for these services include welfare, child welfare and justice departments, public schools and state Medicaid programs. Our counselors, social workers and mental health professionals provide our services primarily in clients’ homes and communities, instead of in institutions. Our delivery method reduces the government’s costs for such services while affording the clients a better quality of life. As of December 31, 2003, we served, directly and through our managed entities, 13,371 clients from 99 locations in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
Our services
Among the services we deliver are:
• Home and community based counseling. We provide counseling in clients’ homes and help schools manage at-risk students through training and counseling programs on school grounds. Our counseling services address such social problems as marital and family issues, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, chronic truancy, hyperactivity, and criminal and anti-social behavior.
• Foster care. We recruit and train foster parents and license family foster homes. We also offer therapeutic foster care to emotionally disturbed children and adolescents who might otherwise require institutional treatment.
• Provider managed services. We manage the delivery of government sponsored social services by multiple providers on behalf of the not-for-profit entities we manage. Management services we provide include intake, assessment and referral services, monitoring services and network and case management services. Our contracts and revenues
Our revenues are derived from our provider contracts with state and local government agencies and government intermediaries and from our management contracts with not-for-profit social services organizations. Under the majority of our provider contracts, we are paid an hourly fee. In other situations, we receive a set monthly amount. Where we contract to manage the operations of a not-for-profit social services provider, we receive a management fee based on the number of clients enrolled with that entity or a percentage of its revenues. As of December 31, 2003, we and our managed entities operated pursuant to 202 contracts. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, our revenues grew to $59.3 million, an increase of over 42% from our $41.8 million in revenues for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2002. Additionally, during the same period we increased the revenues of the social services organizations whose operations we manage to a total of $62.8 million from a total of $46.1 million.
(End of “Post-Publication Preview”)
In fact, here are the first 9 posts of 2016 in a table (or see Table of Contents page for the blog).
Read the previous post, #9, get the juicy details on this one, and by the end of both posts, didhope readers will start to comprehend the size of the problems generated by having public/private partnerships run government institutions, and be persuaded to do further research on NCJFCJ, Providence Service Corporation (and maybe even the organizations run by some of its earlier board members, as shown below)!
Then, in another post, I will (I hope) raise my concerns about how Models For Change, through its constant focus on “diversionary services” actually may have helped set up RICO, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and by way of the Juvenile Law Center (location: Philadelphia), although that center then became even so the organization filing a class-action suit on behalf of victims of the similar type of RICO (Kids-for-Cash Scandal in Luzerne County, ca. 2008) in the juvenile justice system within the state. (see their website for the full account. There’s actually a menu item (link) for the Luzerne County scenario on the top banner, but it’s no longer current. I found the description under “Legal Docket” paging back by year, to 2009:
FEBRUARY 26, 2009
H.T. et al. v. Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr., et al.Filed a federal class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of the children and families of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, who suffered significant harm as a result of ex-Luzerne County juvenile court judge Mark A. Ciavarella and the “kids-for-cash” scandal.
Was “Kids-For-Cash” just “The Tip of the Iceberg”?
SHARE THIS POST on...
About UNevada-Reno-based NCJFCJ, its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E.Hunter Hurst III(d.2012)’s Tuscon-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded company (“PRSC”): First, the Context
This post was drafted January 20, 2016. It holds a significant “find” that I don’t know who else has found, or would ever have found. Probably, only people who drill-down on organization tax returns and notice what might be missing when any organization describes itself, boasting about the public service it’s done over the decades, might have run across this information. There are some indicators that the organization involved did not want it to be found.
I am under considerable personal pressure this year (more than last year), and because of possible consequences depending in how I may find a way to stand up to it, I am concerned that this information might not get out. So, although it may not be in perfect sequence with other posts, or even various sections within this post in the best sequence, I am publishing it now.
The “find” on this post speaks loudly as to whether or not the private and government-funded organizations collectively driving national family court, and juvenile justice policy (including responses to child abuse and domestic violence, i.e., criminal matters) can be trusted AT ALL, and whether they should, or should not be permitted to continue setting standards and driving policy, let alone receive cooperation and government financing (grants and contracts).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Still Caught up in DV/Custody Drama? For 2016, What about Catching up on OVW Discretionary Grants (2013) and these SIX, ah, “Groups”?
FYI: This post has several sections, and puts the post title in a larger framework, which means some of those sections have a lot of quotes. This post is also: conversational (more than “developmentally edited”), informative, and almost 15,800 words (not including this “FYI”), which seemed like a good place to put a lid on it!
Feedback pro/con welcome (Comments available at bottom of post. Comments with links to other relevant information are particularly welcome. If you are sharing experientially and it’s OK, a geography (at least what state if it’s re: a custody experience) might be helpful to reference. Feel also free to argue (=/= namecall; bring something to the table to argue with!) — I may argue back (that’s my style, and it’s also a process), but if I’ve got my facts wrong, I do want to be corrected — with links, quotes, or cites on what basis. Also, feel free to use those “DONATE” buttons on the sidebar — this blog is a one-woman operation! Thanks…//LGH
“DV” in this context, of course, means simply “domestic violence,” which alternately goes by any other number of names, depending on the speakers and the speakers’ intentions to highlight the violence, or frame it as a relationship disease.
- My next intended post (split off this one for length!), through multiple quotations, treats the rest of us to collegial discussions on Batterer Typology with a view towards future research on screening instruments to bring low-income, situationally-violent couples into psycho-educational interventions, with of course a heavy sprinkling of impressive (or what ought to impress) terms such as multi-variate, bi-modal, and implications for — of course — “future research.” In at least a few of the speakers’ cases, I have already posted some cheating on tax-returns and falsifying how much federal money actually came their way (OR, HHS falsifed it — but the reports don’t match, so both cannot be concurrently true!) and seeking “fees for friends” while being employed by the state. As well as a few more overtly AFCC professionals and professors.
I wrote this post as part of an ongoing, I hope, dialogue about some of the groups which I already know, but bet most blog readers don’t, are serving to standardize and internationally align common practice in the courts whether or not it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or state law, or citizens’ individual rights as residents in a specific state.
- “Dialogue” — There are always comments fields, and I will be re-posting a feedback form soon. But more important than individual discussing this with just me, I hope this information will continue to inject some startling, but significant truths into other discussions already taking places about distressing realities, or outrageous injustice when it comes to handling of parents and children in the courts.
Rather than violent, revolutionary overthrow (of government), around the time of the World Wars and particularly World War II, a progression of paradigm switches, systems changes and plans to undermine jurisdictional boundaries, including national sovereignty, was set up to take place incrementally, by stages: “plan the work, work the plan” for decades (at least) now. Principles were involved, some of which include regionalization, privatization / functionalism, and within the USA at least the Congressional authorization of “Reorganization Act” special procedures for the President. (See also two pages I have on this, on sidebar).
In addition, setting up networks among universities, and at times privately funded “centers,” within them. Such centers are not bad “per se” but as parts of an otherwise coordinated system with the intent to change justice systems — and doing this below the radar for anyone who doesn’t happen to be tracking the universities and their various centers — it’s not exactly open, transparent, and, well, “American.”
Over all of this, a system of taxation which while promising a levelling of the field, in fact does the opposite. This system also tends to “separate the men from the boys,” meaning, those who know accounting –including government accounting — from those who do not, and those who comprehend the scope and operations of government, conceptually — from those who are clueless.
SHARE THIS POST on...
What does Custody-Switching REALLY have to do with Unsound Psychological Theory? (Not much, actually)
BLOGGER note: I determined to start posting “fast and furious” which may mean, less developmentally edited. So, you may see in this one what a copyeditor or developmental editor would clearly mark as two or three different “starts” to the post. That is indeed what happened. You may also notice not completely consistent styles for quotes (though I tried to mark off the different sections). I am sacrificing these technical issues for quantity of publication on material already looked up. I may (or, may not) come back and clean it up, add a full list of “tags.” I often tweak published posts when possible (out of desire to avoid humiliation if nothing else, at the format, or wording). BUT, this is still good material, so out it goes. Also — thanks to some recent paypal contributions through my Donate Button, much appreciated. They are rare, generally speaking….and to reiterate, I am not a 501©3.
FYI, I am also in significantly pressured litigation involving my immediate future (I’ll leave it at that description). I just came from ANOTHER (local) court venue yesterday, and now have another level of understanding of what “theater” means. I had the facts, I even complied with the rules of court; the plaintiff didn’t have a cause of action, proven standing, the lawsuit was obviously retaliatory for exercising known rights, and I was up “pro se” and under conditions of ridiculous duress (documented in my Answer) against two lawyers, ONE of who I learned in this process was a frequent-flyer in this jurisdiction and after a “rout” (which was clearly expected) expressed (his) real feelings about women like me, and about the class I represented in the present case. A reference to the Salem witch trials (process of trying the witches) was made. The other one (the real motive behind the lawsuit and not the “fake plaintiff” labeling), being much younger, represents literally decades more of this self-assured crooked behavior being financially rewarded without objection from anyone wearing a black robe.
On the bright side, I heard (though haven’t seen the print yet) that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki was just released from jail. Not from having to face a felony trial in the near future — but at least she’s been de-incarcerated. GOOD.
This post highlights the a footnoted portion of a recent post, published January 23: 2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers) which picked up on some passing language in a related Carver County Corruption post which, unfortunately (in my opinion) was circulated, it says, to 150 legislators.
Please take into consideration the next few paragraphs.
I know they may have long sentences and what may appear to be “far-off” topics. However, you are hearing from an individual (myself) who has been studying and writing on this for SIX YEARS now, diligently, while also, experientially, dealing long-term with many of the institutions and issues involved over time: domestic violence, family courts, custody/visitation / child support issues, overnight switch of care-taking parent, abrupt cutoff of contact with one’s own children, corollary (and predictable) impoverishment through ongoing court litigation, stress (off the charts, throughout), forced dealings with social service organizations, familiarity with the wild-goose-chase of 800#s people approaching any public institution for help tend to get, usually coming up empty where actual help is concerned.
I’ll bet several of those legislators, know a lot more about why custody-switching takes place (and under which programs) than the well-intentioned authors. There is no bliss, nor do I see any purpose, in continuing to ignore how power is consolidated in and around government in an urgent focus to obtain press coverage of specific, local, or even county or state-level policies. As a country, we have been (I eventually learned) at least 100 years, ALL of us (all citizens, all taxpayers, and most residents, citizens or not) living and functioning in a land where public/private partnerships are the political clout. Public signifying “Government Entity” and Private signifying “NOT government entity.” I did not always know this — I deduced it after about a year of delving into the realm of non-profit organizations strategically coordinated to co-opt the judicial process.
The Private “NOT government entity” functions in both tax-paying (corporate) and NOT tax-paying (corporate) forms. I’m over-simplifying that, obviously (government entities pay FICA, social security, etc. — but they do NOT pay the corporate taxes because, as entities, because they themselves are receiving payments collected by the IRS or (depending on the level of government, if federal, state, local, special district, or multi-district, i.e., Joint Powers Authority, etc.)
Legislators, already by definition in positions of power, are more likely to be aware how financial power circulates among from public (federal to state to county, or metro regions or “joint power authorities” etc.) to, and in combination with private (for-profit/nonprofit corporations and associations) and in and through academic centers at universities, and all that ….. The University of Minnesota is, I hear, the 9th largest research institution in the nation and is essentially part of government.
As to domestic violence issues, a center at its School of Social Welfare called “Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community” has several people on its steering committee, including Oliver Williams, PhD (who has published alongside Jeffrey Edleson, PhD** who has moved from UMN to UCBerkeley, where he is Dean of School of Social Welfare) as well as Johnny Rice II, M.S.,
Minnesotans, Did You Know About IDVAAC and MNCAVA? And, “the Jeffrey Edleson” Connection, how Men’s Groups & Father’s Rights (federally supported) Continue to Influence DV Policy? And how, separately, the Duluth-based nonprofit (cf. Ellen Pence) “DAIP” fits in?
IDVAAC is a key — but so far as I can tell, unincorporated website and collection of networked professionals, at UMinn School of Social Welfare; an example of coordinated control of national social policy from “centers” or “institutes” within academia.
But that’s another topic — coming soon…..
- Attributing PAS Theory as a CAUSE in Custody-Switching:Should We Focus on the Individuals (Judges + Psychologists), or Perhaps Court-Connected Corporations [especially 501(c)3s] + Their Networks, Initiatives, and Projects?
- Why Focus on Individual Judges + Psychologists, instead of their Networks of Court-Connected 501(c)3s + Favorite Initiatives, Projects, and Purposes?
The absurdly long titles are the same rhetorical question I’ve been asking for years, and already know where I stand on it. As most people go with the other choice (focus on individual performers in the family court system), I’ve had a lot of free, not-socializing time to keep investigating the networks, in a public-access, free (except for time invested!) way, and continue to learn about some of the key players. The patterns are easy to see, but not of course, if you never, EVER, go through a few basic look-ups to start to see some of the evidence revealing those patterns.
For one, the systems are not designed so as to be easily viewable by ANYONE struggling with a current case, or by tax-payers, because they involved corporations. Tax-exempt, and able to take both private and public donations, and as corporations, not as restricted to local political (state/county/municipal, metro, etc.) jurisdictions as are the specific courts themselves. But, heck, it’s not as though they are 100% leaving no footprint, or linguistic similarities to identify themselves.
Read the rest of this entry »
