Two related posts (both named just below) were on hold for some months in Q1 2018 while I restructured blog home page, added some tables of content posts (for Q4, 2017, actually) and posted on more current events, and how “Community Development” as “expanded Real Estate Development” was expanding government costs and concentration, while placing many assets directly in the hands of private investors who needed low-income populations to test their behavioral modification and social science theories upon, globally.

Having worked so hard on this blog, I then visited Twitter after a very long break and saw ongoing questions that a more consistent reading of (at least) this blog with its many links to supporting information on nonprofits and the professionals (attracting parental complaints) who tend to set up and populate them would’ve answered and took some moments to Tweet and reply to some I’d been included in.   Here’s a link to a recent Tweet” (3/18/2018, username there is @LetUsGetHonest) with three attached images re: reunification camps [another December, 2017, blog theme] also my chance to practice that new (to me) technique) with, I think, very well-annotated exhibits on some of the same.  Some deal with equine therapy treatments and the “aftercare” models so the reunification indoctrination sticks better post-experience.  So perhaps it’s appropriate to say regarding the nine-year span this month of investigative blogging and consistent and ongoing acquisition of more in-depth insight through administering (and writing all posts on) this blog  you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him (or her) drink,” of people who just can’t be bothered to personally tangle with this scope of information.

And, “oh boy!” do these posts elucidate just how globally such demonstrations are, some programs (and software applications) originating (which by now should not be surprising) out of Harvard, MIT, and a new center at Rutgers University, typically with a variety of creatively named and name-changing nonprofits reflecting the global intents, and justification for continued control of major assets under multiple corporate names by anyone BUT the people whose wages help create them, while those subcontracting or otherwise collaborating as employees  with those who have great, innovative ideas (for example, getting MORE people on as many public benefits as fast as possible, digitally) participate in the “fees for friends” and “trickle-down” business of consolidating federal funding across all the various agency “silos.”

Except this intro, post is mostly intact as written. I’ll add tags soon….//LGH March 18, 2018.

Post Title: NYC’s largest anti-poverty organization (so it says) appropriates for its name a well-known 15th century British legend about a 12th century outlaw of noble character, a name preserved by Hollywood and a parade of famous actors for about a century– a name like many iconic “handles” often translated into business models (incl. “Anti-Poverty” ones) — hoping to absorb some of the glamour, reputed compassion for commoners, and in general, virtue. of this well-known hero. Such names are taken for the PR connotations and ALWAYS deserve A Closer Look, especially in this 21stC. I have been…. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8NN.” Moved here Dec. 8, 2017, being published March 18, 2018(!), still under 8,000 words)

Short version of that information?  This post exists to preview my upcoming (but previously written) Robin Hood Foundation post*** which just about wrote itself as I summarized the information and thought about the significance of the situation which had gripped my attention for several days.  Previously written, moved here.

***RHF post title and link, still in draft as of this writing, Dec. 4, 2017 [and at March 18, 2018] refers to:

That long title took some explaining, resulting in this post.

[This “Pep talk” section added after the move, I’ll mark where it ends]:

Please remember when I explain certain levels of detail on single (or single groups of) organization, it is still “show and tell” mode.

Many transferable principles (practices) can be seen in operation across different organizations, including organizations following even vastly different stated purposes.  Seeing these principles (common practices) also builds for the person looking IF he or she consistently fact-checks my statements, as I intend people should, transferable skills which, put into practice, build at least three valuable things:

So I do not believe readers’ time who may not be particularly interested in a New York anti-poverty organization with Ivy League university connections (when professors’ CVs are also considered, and in this one, a related university “center”) is really wasted time.

[End of “Pep talk” section added after the move]

The title I’m previewing, again:

I’ve split the explanation (of that long post title!) into three parts* (each labeled in blue) (*and this short preview — four more paragraphs [I numbered them <Para.1,2,3,4>] and one quote — leading up to those three named parts labeled in blue). The first part …(“Disregarded Entities…Ponzi Scheme”) raises some questions which aren’t fully answered yet but regardless of Yes/No answers as to RHF involvement, the possibility still demonstrates that the most important information about any organization (especially tax-exempt foundations, including those classified as public charities like RHF) even when truthful still cannot be found on an organization website, or considering even its charitable projects and benefits. Only by actually looking at the other evidence can whether it, or the charitable events and website “About Us/History” is more relevant to WHO the organization is, and what its agenda is individually, or collectively with other like-minded organizations and people!

<Para.1>The picture is always incomplete without an eye to the assets and connections to other wealth-building activities and where/how/if this also relates to the leadership’s outside activities.  RHF dates to (as I recall) about 1989, so it’s had time to develop those, form related entities, and buy and sell investments over time. RHF calls itself the “largest anti-poverty organization in New York City and is consciously looking to export its model practices further abroad (certainly at least nationally), yet they do not even post their own Forms 990 as I recall. The chosen popular folklore name also is associated with radical do-good activities and as though going after the perpetrators (those with stockpiled wealth) to help the exploited victims (the poor).  Whether it fits or not might bear a closer look, and if not, then the name could or should be considered an attempt to throw others off-track when tracking the “macroeconomics”of the organization and whom it networks with.  (Famous actors who have played Robin Hood in film (LA Times 2010 recounts (May 12, 2010, Susan King)* about the time a Russell Crowe version was coming out).  Not counting the animated, musical or comedic versions, also includes:  Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner). Said the LA Times article, though the setting was 12th century, the earliest ballads recounting it weren’t until 15th and 16th centuries:

*The legend of Robin Hood is firmly entrenched in British folklore — an archer and swordsman who, with his band of merry men, robbed from the rich and gave to the poor during the early 12th century in Nottinghamshire’s Sherwood Forest. Originally portrayed as a commoner, Robin’s image changed so that he was later thought of as a nobleman who lost his lands and was cast out as an outlaw. …The earliest surviving ballads telling his story are dated to the 15th century or early 16th century.

<Para.2> When, and what cost, will we learn that corporate names can be mis-leading, and that there’s always more than one angle to what’s considered charitable organizations?  Even the best of them operate in a field which is vast, uncharted, and fast-growing, and whose collective economic impact is unknown and cannot be fathomed even in legitimate cross-sections within slice of time. One reason why: the potential for so many related entities per 501©3 (or ©4 or © 6 — that is, per entity), and lack of shareholder oversight because a nonprofit is by definition non-stock issuing.  But any nonprofit with assets can invest them in a variety of other companies (Public traded, private-traded, other investments, other assets are all categories shown in a standard IRS Form 990 Pt X Balance Sheet), and it can contract independently with all types of companies (private, public, or other tax-exempts, and corporations or LLCs  — and/or overseas companies according to their home country’s regulations), donate to other tax-exempts and government, take government grants (in essence, redistributing public funds), and likewise donate to a variety of other organizations (although most often it’s other tax-exempt private entities and/or government entities).  And, let’s talk universities — these donations to, investments in, subcontracting with university to serve the organization or vice versa, often come with professors or associate professors (whose careers have many times involved major grants from public, and/or private foundations; and universities in the USA also span the public and private sectors, and when private mostly as nonprofits often with their own companion or attached foundations(!!).  Some are organized at the state level and supported by people within the state, and typically commandeer significant institutional funds which can (“Go back to Square One”) be invested in a variety of vehicles both domestic AND off-shore, and employ many. … Also, leadership (board of directors, etc.) any public charity (501©3-filing corporation) leadership must declare “interested persons transactions” and business or family relationships — but simply having them is not prohibited.
Read the rest of this entry »