Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Public/Private Partnerships (as the Food Chain)

The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings + Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019)

leave a comment »

Post Title:

The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-bXO,” last letter “O” as in “Ohio” not the symbol for zero (“0”) and about 9,000 words)

I off-ramped this material from the Front Page December 25, 2019 — it’d been up there quite a while but it seems I then left it in draft format.  Publishing it now just over five months later (mid-May, 2020),* I supplemented it extensively at the top, as usual.

*Part of the delay was until I could replace a dysfunctional (and decade-old) laptop and adjusting to the on-set of the “COVID-19” epidemic and business and public buildings, public gatherings shutdowns restructuring daily life and short-term, probably also longer-term plans to keep on living.  

Interesting to write then and now and (as always) I learned more in the process of writing.  You may be interested in the section

 The APA Website and its Self-Description, What’s Missing

..and watching me attempt to match up two APA entities registered in Washington, D.C., both non-profit,** with one tax return for each showing which is which. In the process of trying to do this, I found there ARE two tax returns labeled “APA” but the second one is APA Group Return for the many (about 54) divisions which, says its return, does NOT list all divisions.. and seems to have little to do with the second, more recent, nonprofit, registered only recently (relatively speaking for such an old association).

**(one is called “American Psychological Association Services, Inc.” and uses the tradename “APA Services, Inc.” [initials only] formed only in 2000, the other around since, per DC statement, 1925, although I the APA generally dates itself as far back as 1892 (corrected from “1875 as I just published it.  See next inset).


APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.
Read the rest of this entry »

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

Read the rest of this entry »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)

leave a comment »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark ().  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”

In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Read the rest of this entry »

Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019)

leave a comment »

Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3” | just under over 2,000 words).  Two Posts published in a row only to segregate the footnotes from post In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… (short-link ends “-ac4″/ #1 of 2) which really should be read first.  It’s more important and has more content.

These footnotes are named, not numbered; each has its own text box and background color.

Footnote:  Taxation + Tax-Exempt Sector: “Not quite the level-playing field facilitator…”

The private, tax-exempt sector can’t even be seen as a whole without significant and ongoing attempts to follow tax returns (audited financial statements, often in rare supply, are also necessary). Unfortunately (?–is it really fortune/happenstance, or coincidental?), structure and access to databases of IRS tax returns are designed, organized, and controlled by the same tax-exempt sector (increasingly, merging into each other, as “Foundation Center” recently did by acquiring “Guidestar” and now labeling it “Candid”)  Or, The Urban Institute did by re-structuring its previous data base “NCCS” (National Center for Charitable Statistics), which I just revisited after having noted a year or so back that it’d been shut down; readers were directed to just a few alternate providers).  IRS.gov holds much, but doesn’t upload several years worth of returns, and not all organizations that file or once filed are searchable on its Exempt Organization Search list.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: