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

Like many of my posts, it will undergo some post-publication editing, usually for clarity or layout (how images display). [[In fact,  this next segment added post-publication update, on 7/19/2017.  I’ll mark where the added segment ends.]]

 [[Segment added post-publication update, 7/19/2017]]

The ongoing theme has been …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?” that is, do you know? about the network of private nonprofit associations named after public offices or officials who are networking together to function as government without being government entities? In this theme, drafted October, 2014 under basically that title, I split it into three basic parts, with the last (“Part 3”) about the ABA (Bar) and APA (Psychological).  I also wrote at length and an extra post about the pushing of the mental health/illness theme when it came to the NASMHPD (National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors) which is operating under a cooperative agreement with the “NGA.” (National Governors’ Association).

The NASMHPD is problematic through:  (a) involvement with the objectionable TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project), a way of getting around failed clinical trials to promote excess and more expensive types of (unsafe, injurious it turns out) medication for use statewide, an area over which, obviously, groups like the NASMHPD would have some influence as its members are state-level heads of “Mental Health Programming.”  (b) in general, taking funding from some of the same “Big Pharma” (Rx) companies developing and pushing some of the drugs, including several who are now being sued by state attorney generals and others for their responsibility in current very unhealthy (except for business profits) opioid abuse epidemics and ===>>> (c ) patterns of networking AS nonprofits with a specific theme intended to go national, which brings it into an area I have now researched as to several different fields (including marriage/fatherhood, domestic violence prevention, child abuse prevention, supervised visitation and related, and more recently, school reform initiatives (public/private liaisons with big foundation money behind them).  I believe that the extent of such networking when it comes to mental health (and related Rx possibilities = major financial incentives to at times inappropriately control population, and bill the public for it) is pervasive and should not be ignored.  However, it’s the organizational tactics in the nonprofit sector (regardless of “theme”) to also be aware of, and how organizations copy other organizations’ successful models.

Another factoid is that many of these same pharmaceutical companies can ALSO sponsor or get to government officials more easily ( for membership or Corporate Donor/Partner fees  — which they can certainly afford to pay) — which brings us back to the NGA, NCSC, NCSL, etc. list above.  The fact that the organization (as to that list) is in the private sector makes it legal, and because these organizations themselves are not usually in the headlines AND on Forms 990, donations are aggregated, at least as far as public gets to see (i.e., contributions are lumped together into a single number on the return), harder to follow. The collective influence is also harder to see simply when it is dispersed among many entities. This influence is not less for being less seen — it still is there, but when results are showing up inappropriate, specifically WHERE to resist or protest should be known.  My point is, the nonprofit sector PER SE sets the stage for this.   The nonprofit sector understood as a factor of everyone else (incl. corporations) getting taxed, brings it back to the point of taxation, specifically the income tax.   

That’s also WHY the “CAFR” material is so important to grasp!

re: (a) TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Project) (just a reminder):

Two screenprints, one from TMAP Wiki (part not shown describes whistleblower Alan Jones’ experience, including being fired from his state’s OIG after reporting on this).  You can see readily how it would intersect with politics and government:

Annotation bottom right actually comes from p.2. Click image to access the 2-pager document (but p1 w/o annotation) as found at BHRM.org (in IL)

Texas Algorithm Project “wiki” (click image to see) also references the whistleblower and “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” connections (i.e., from Texas governor George W. Bush to U.S. President George W. Bush (pls. read if unfamiliar with it!) [NOTE: WIKI References insufficient: 2 link to CCHR, one to AHRP (which quotes an Oct. 2005 Alan Jones interview w/ Rutherford Institute (VA, John Whitehead), link broken and no search site there. AHRP doesn’t post its financials (which I looked up to verify its statement that whistleblower Alan Jones was on its board) and I found a tiny and irregularly-filing NY entity, no Forms 990 [vs. 990EZ] showing (which’d show date founded) before ab. 2008, no return found readily before then either (perhaps filed Form 990-N). A 4th Wiki “Reference” viewed, it said, 2006, and not well framed, misdirected to a site MHC on “trucks” and the one to “Texas Dept. of Health” lacked specifics, leading readers to flounder (there are algorithms for many different diseases, not just the psychiatry-related ones for which TMAP became so (IN)Famous.

THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CCHR) IS A NON-PROFIT, NON-POLITICAL, NON-RELIGIOUS MENTAL HEALTH INDUSTRY WATCHDOG WHOSE MISSION IS TO ERADICATE ABUSES COMMITTED UNDER THE GUISE OF MENTAL HEALTH. WE WORK TO ENSURE PATIENT AND CONSUMER PROTECTIONS ARE ENACTED AND UPHELD AS THERE IS RAMPANT ABUSE IN THE FIELD OF MENTAL HEALTH. IN THIS ROLE, CCHR HAS HELPED TO ENACT MORE THAN 150 LAWS PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FROM ABUSIVE OR COERCIVE MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICES SINCE IT WAS FORMED OVER 48 YEARS AGO.

re: (c ) patterns of networking AS nonprofits with a specific theme intended to go national (just a reminder):

I  also looked at, if you read these (my) posts, other mental health/illness-named nonprofits, which have “umbrella” or “parent” organizations (Mental Health America, National Association on Mental Illness, now branded as “NAMI”) and “DBSA” (Depression Bipolar Support Association), including in “Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA.…”  Each of the above associations has spawned, launched, inspired, and helped support (including sometimes through direct grants ) the creation or organization of many — several dozen similarly-named (after originating nonprofit) for each, or more, for some, as I recall — but I did post sample screenprints showing the list– fiscally independent (filing their own tax returns, not under a group membership) and “unrelated” (NOT referenced as “related entities” on the main group entity’s tax returns — MHA, NAMI, or DBSA) nonprofits also, typically named after a state, metropolitan region, or county.**  Each entity may have different by-laws on how this works (for example, I believe it was NAMI which allowed only ONE state-level affiliate per state).  In other words, networks of “kinda/sorta related” organizations, but not really when it comes to the IRS.

**So does CCHR (look at its organization-posted FY20015 Form 990, Schedule C (Schedules come after all Roman-numeral identified Parts of the Return, That is, I, II, III etc.), which provides a two-page list of affiliated entities all named “Citizens Committee on Human Rights” — and add a geography identifier (i.e. state or city name, etc.).  While there look at its Schedule B named contributors and see that one couple gave $886K and other individuals over $70K each such that ⅓ of its contributions/donations (See Pt I and Pt VIII) came from just a few people.  Advertising (Pt IX) occupied about ⅓ of its functional expenses, while a pittance (Sched I) was returned to affiliates and some to the Church of Scientology, nearby on the same street.  There  were some membership fees and there was some (Schedule F) recorded international activity.

The APA and the ABA are also so organized, which I also gave in sample screenprints in previous posts. My point is become aware of the networking in the private, nonprofit sector as organized nationally (or, internationally) targeting specific functions or services provided by government, with the purpose of controlling in which direction they are moved.  Also become aware of them as a financial force if and when their assets and investments are collectively pooled.  This happens in both the private and the public sectors, which also interact (trade, buy, sell, etc.) with each other.  This type of information isn’t “journalistic” and doesn’t tend to sell newsprint and may lack social media “curb appeal”– but it’s part of how our country operates, and has its core basis in WHERE one falls along the tax spectrum or continuum (exempt, or not).  It’s essential to know and come to terms with!

 [[This  ends a segment added post-publication update, 7/19/2017]]

I have been putting out some long posts recently.  But this one is shorter at about (with above addition, now) 8,800 words. It introduces the concepts from and links to some of my key prior posts on the same (I picked out five specific ones), then continues on a post that references them, published 07/12/2017, called Featuring Five Vital Posts on …. Our Assigned Places in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order (from ABA, APA post update).  That continuation post has more substance on the Five Vital Posts.  This one (that you’re now looking at) serves as an introduction, and has some extra material not on the continuation post (in light-blue background section).

The originating post itself actually I see reflected three major subject matters, although that length of title also reflected what was actually covered in the post three years ago.  The three subject matters are reflected in the post title’s three sentences:

Read the rest of this entry »