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 ‘WHat’s AFCC got to do with it?

“Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut,” the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse?

with 13 comments

[THIS POST has been expanded and revised to about 6,000 words, much of it quotes, and has a feedback form. It links to two groundbreaking “Washington Times/Communities” articles on very disturbing custody cases; what’s groundbreaking is the angle of approach, and type of evidence posted. This post begins referencing TANF, because “TANF” funding is often operative in such cases. And it posts a comment on one of them I couldn’t get posted over at the WT.

My post explains “AFCC Courthouse” (my generic term) in some detail. In this Connecticut case, “AFCC Courthouse” refers to the “Regional Family Trial Docket” in Middletown Connecticut presided over by a certain judge. However the term in general refers to the nonprofit organization (AFCC) started in Los Angeles County [at least, they claim exactly, i.e., 1963] five decades ago, which has a tendency to set up specialized courts, once its judges (membership) are in charge of a family division, or in positions of influence to do so. I forgot to mention, that in its early years, it also incorporated in a variety of states, changed its corporate name (and EIN#) several times, and probably is not properly registered as a nonprofit to this day in all states and territories where it operates (most likely, all 50 + territories). See early newsletters at bottom of my blog. AFCC runs conferences, trains its membership and others, and lobbies for legislative and administrative changes in the way divorce, custody, and dependency law works. Hence calling a certain docket an “AFCC Courthouse” is often very accurate shorthand for that particular courthouse, or docket.

This post was, however, to also publish my comment which didn’t make it onto the Washington Times comments field, for unknown reasons, and for further reference to interested readers. Last I looked, only one of my very generic (nothing specific) comments was cleared. AFter technical difficulties and over three days, I decided to bring my response over here to the blog.

Although I believe the blog makes this plain, FYI I am a survivor of not this type of case (mine involved DV not identified or reported child molestation) and know how devastating it is. I also network with people who believe that the key to this is the money trail, not the harm done the children, which we believe is more likely just collateral involved in extracting the maximum $$ (public and private) through this abusive system of handling such matters. If this subject matter interests you, a contact and feedback form is on the post. (I would’ve added them earlier, had I noticed the widget available on wordpress!)]]


The Time is NOW to Speak Out regarding TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) Extension!

Read the rest of this entry »

Certifiably Irregular Behavior among Certified Specialist Associations, and other Dispensers of Training…

leave a comment »

Warning:

Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest.*

(*cite, and this quote again, below)

INSPIRATION FOR THIS POST:

WAS THE “ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONALS.”

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1955108 12/04/1995 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW   SPECIALISTS, INC. LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

NOT JUST THE CONCEPT OF CERTIFYING A FAMILY LAW PROFESSIONAL TO START WITH, BUT THE CONCEPT OF A CERTIFIED SET OF ASSOCIATES THAT SEEM BELIEVE PSYCHOLOGY IS SCIENCE, AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, ISN’T, WHICH INCLUDES A CRIMINAL DEGREE OF PROFIT FROM PROMOTING SPREADING THIS “COGNITIVE DISSONANCE” AMONG OTHERS, WHILE QUITE CONSCIOUS OF THE PROFIT IN SO DOING.

First, the public face — clearly this is a hot shot, and professionally alert group:

See?

Welcome, from the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists in California, an independent association of California attorneys who specialize in family law.

ACFLS was formed in 1980 following certification of the first group of Family Law Specialists under the “pilot” program, now a permanent program of the State Bar. ACFLS monitors administration by the State Bar of the specialization program, legislation and court rules, develops and promotes Family Law practice skills, and provides advanced educational programs for the bar, judiciary and public.

In the 28 years of ACFLS’ existence, membership has grown to 490 of the approximately 982 California Certified Family Law Specialists, 50% of those certified by the California State Bar Association. . . .

This means one’s chances of hiring an ACFLS member in California is approximately 1 out of 2; 50%. I wonder who certifies the other 50% of family law specialists?

Membership in ACFLS requires Certification by the Board of Legal Specialization of the State Bar of California, and payment of the annual dues. Members receive all ACFLS Newsletters, notices of meetings, are eligible to participate in ACFLS activities (including seminars at reduced cost), and are listed in the ACFLS Referral and Membership Directory published each year and on our web site: www.acfls.org.

It is the Mission of ACFLS to promote and preserve the Family Law Specialty. * * * To that end, the Association seeks to:

  1. Advance the knowledge of Family Law Specialists;
  2. Monitor legislation and proposals affecting the field of family law;
  3. Promote and encourage ethical practice among members of the bar and their clients; and
  4. Promote the specialty to the public and the family law bar.

**notice nothing is mentioned about the best interests of the children.   

They have monthly meetings and occasional regional conferences.  Attorneys know how to through nice conferences, and I’m sure these do too.  For qualifications (of membership) notice:

Because couples who split up also must deal with custody of their children, family law practitioners must also understand child development and other topics touching on emotional and psychological concerns of families.  Part of the certification requirement involves psychological and counseling education.

(which can get written off where? and is provided by whom?)

There is a link for attorneys on Domestic Violence issues — the website intro claims to have “culled the best.”  After the disclaimer, the site says:

Domestic Violence Sites on the Worldwide Web

By Leslie Ellen Shear

Any search engine will turn up thousands of Domestic Violence sites on the internet. I spent many hours culling some of the best. These web sites represent many different perspectives and resources on domestic violence. **(Please note that sites appear, disappear, change or move to new locations regularly. If the link doesn’t work, try searching for a key word or phrase from the description.

** OK, let me review this.  ON a page by an association of lawyers addressing lawyers whose work likely influences where children will live after domestic violence has been reported, Leslie Ellen Shear’ believes that a few hours on the web will sufficiently inform her to post a resource for — lawyers? (Some of who are abusers, or have been victims of this too, no doubt).  This was put up when?  A clear look at the link shows that she’s basically posted parts of references beginning with the letter “A” (with one or two exceptions).   Many links, yes, are inactive, or domain name has been sold.

Every web page needs a list of benefits to readers from plowing through it, right?  So the one on Domestic Violence for Attorneys from this great group, has 20 bulleted points (unprioritized and some of them ridiculous) — of which point# 17 reads “keep your client alive,” thankfully at least one or two higher priorities than “write a great appellate brief,”  and — naturally — right next to an ALMOST acknowledgement that some serious risk is involved, “prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations”  See?

  • Keep a client alive.
  • Prepare a competent defense to false or inflated allegations.
  • Write a great appellate brief.

fourth DV link is:

Access to Visitation Grant  (which redirects to the AOC courtsite, and a persistent person might be able to locate the information on this program).

It’s important, yes, to know about this grant program,which has profited some attorneys of fathers saying “false allegations,” and which, on the other hand, has made it possible for some children to be murdered through its premises, and financial incentives to ensure noncustodial parent contact, even if that noncustodial FATHER is in jail, and also supervised visitation (a tool useful in silencing mothers who report abuse, by forcing them to pay to see their kids).  Yes, I believe that any family law specialist, being psychologically trained in child development, should know about this grant system — but it belongs under “endorsing” domestic violence.

Other than that, what’s with this one?

A.P.A.R.T.  The website reads “parentalabductions.org”  the Banner reads “Wives’ Tales’ and it’s simply about single-parenting tips.

A big deal is made about the ACFLS role in the (if you’re from a custody case in California, this should ring a bell) Elkins Family Law Task Force.  I was a standby witness to how little value on actual parental feedback was desired during this task force; read who was on it, and concluded that a task for is a task force is a task force.  Parents are not considered “stakeholders” and a mothers’ group was contacted after the fathers’ group had already been heard.  One could show up and speak for maybe a minute in public, or submit comments on-line (which is not anonymous) while engaged in an active case.   However, their nicely laid-out newsletter goes into great detail on the AFCLS response to the Task Force Recommendations.  Predictably, which includes this:

(paragraph 1, to set the tone — and the time here, 2009):

ACFLS’s Board of Directors unanimously adopted the group’s Family Law Reform Committee’s Comments on the Elkins Family Law Task Force Draft Recommen­dations. The action came on December 5, 2009 at the last meeting of the 2009 Board of Directors, chaired by 2009 President Joseph J. Bell.

(many ACFLS members were on this task force, as it says):

Since the formation of the Elkins Family Law Task Force, ACFLS has been proactive in contributing to the develop- ment of recommendations for reform of California’s family courts. Diane Wasznicky (2010 ACFLS President-Elect) chairs the Family Law Reform committee. Members are David Borges (Ex-Officio Director, Central Coast), Sharon Bryan (former Past President), Vivian Holley (Director at Large, North), Frieda Gordon (Director at Large, South), Michelene Insalaco (Director-Elect, North), Lynette Berg Robe (Legislative Coordinator) and Leslie Ellen Shear  {{WHOSE suggested Domestic Violence links on the ACFLS site I just reviewed; unbelievable that an adult would take the intro — or the set of links — seriously.  It shouldn’t pass a 12th grade essay standard, or even 10th!}}

On page 16, they get down to recommending co-parenting education (can’t miss that, can we?):

Parties to contested custody disputes should receive education about parenting plans and co-parenting. Every county should offer the following FCS services in contested custody- visitation cases:

1. Confidential mediation of custody disputes–including cases in which there is no family law action pending.**

**not to get boringly monotonous, but there’s potential for double-billing around access/vistation grants, county-appointed & paid mediators, and possibly even charging non-indigent parents for this.  Of course it should be offered in every county.  That’s standard AFCC (who are a mediator-promoting group if anyone is….). . … And it’s also been shown repeatedly that domestic violence advocates — earlier, when the word “grassroots” meant something — FOUGHT AGAINST forcing mediation on DV victims.  See Barbara J. Hart writings from the 1990s on this.  Having been through that gauntlet — I have to agree.  There aren’t enough options once a crooked mediator (or a lying one) (or one breaking rules of court) gets that recommendation in.

The next paragraph is utterly ridiculous, as applied in real situations:

2. Same-day emergency screenings for high risk cases.

3. Prompt,brief assessments with recommendations for cases or issues that are not resolved in mediation.

MAYBE this would be tenable IF FIRST — all cases involving abuse and violence were completely removed from the family law jurisdiction, and either handled in criminal court — where they belong, and should be PROSECUTED, after which assuming the abuse really did take place, there should be NO joint legal custody, no overnight visitations, and there should be prompt prosecution of any and ALL violations of court orders by the offending parent, in the criminal venue, not the civil and not the “family.”

This is not going to happen — because this family law exists primarily to defuse and derail people seeking to protect children, or themselves, from physical molestation, violence, threats, and severe destruction that by a stranger would likely lead to jail time.

I had my children stolen and held truant during an UNsupervised visitation — after I’d requested this and been turned down (being female) because “there’s no money” for it (meaning, in our parents).  years later, absent my kids, I learn about the A/V grants stream (and that one of my judges was on the Kids Turn board, too).  Now that it was clear to their father that he was above the law, but could attempt to throw it at me, I had to go again to the same mediator — or not get in front of a judge to get the kids back, knowing that police wouldn’t either.  Basically, nobody gives a damn if a potential program fund could be called into play somehow.

In the subsequent YEAR, after first permanently eliminating child support for our kids (My income was trashed, and his current obligations ceased — within 30 days, and no action on arrears for over a year, and the arrears was significant to the family), the court managed to recommend counseling for the children (both of who said they weren’t interested), which was a friend of a friend of one of the parties who stole them.  Then a court-appointed attorney was called in after yet more noncompliance by the father and complete cessation of visitation, holiday times together, and even phone calls — add a little stalking in there — and we’ve got some serious situations at hand.  This attorney’s apparent role (other than getting paid) was to finish putting the nail in the coffin of my ability to get legal protection in any form, or retain a relationship with my children, having asked the court to state its reasons for switching custody and having that question first mocked, then derailed (never answered).

In other words, zero legal or factual basis was ever stated for switching custody, and I was not given an opportunity in court to cross-examine the father on his allegations, to counter them in writing, and being in a state of shock a few months later, unable to speak (in pro per — what else?) in the matter, my kids lost their mother and all I had to offer them, and had been.  Shortly after, they lost their father too (it happens) in the household, meaning not one legal safeguard to their lives (or mine) existed.

In situations like this — and believe me, they are common — no one needs a damn co-parenting education class.  Co-parenting and joint custody have often been tried.  People who separate from abuse are trying before separation to co-parent with criminal behavior.  So why let them out, then force them back in just to please the court and someone who couldn’t get business in a free, competitive market otherwise?

(I’m sure you feel my heat in the matter . . . . ) ACFLS newsletter continues:

In other words, after co-parenting education, the parties in each contested custody-visitation case should go on to confidential parenting plan mediation. Where the parties fail to resolve all or some issues, they should move on to a brief assessment and recommendations by a different FCS staff member before the matter is adjudicated. Same-day screen- ing should be available for emergencies – such as safety or abduction risk issues.

Waiting times for appointments for mediation and brief assessments need to be very short – the long delays at this stage of custody cases are damaging to children and destabilizing to families.

(hypocrites!  The long delays free up more grants, and justify not disbursing collected child support, too.  Long delays are what the courts feed off!)

Mediators are not engaged in a systematic process of gathering and assessing data for the purposes of making recommendations. Either they compromise mediation or their recommendations are an afterthought. Mediating parents behave differently when they think their bargaining will influence a recommendation.. . .

and of course, market expansion into downloadable modules assembled by existing family court nonprofits is desirable:

It may be helpful for the Center for Families, Children and the Courts to develop a uniform curriculum for the co- parenting education programs, and to make on line classes available. Many parents cannot afford childcare or time off work for these programs. Others are out of state or out of the country. It would be helpful to offer these programs in many languages. The programs could also have various modules addressing children of different ages, long-distance parenting and relocation issues, domestic violence and child abuse, and special needs children. * * *

If domestic violence and child abuse issues impact on “Parenting!” can be handled in downloadable curricula, then why is California paying ONE nonprofit contracting out of Sacramento over $6 million a year for all kinds of counseling and interventions for victims of child abuse, trauma, and for sex addicts, drunks, and victims of crimes?  See Terra Nova Counseling (meaning — see their tax returns and charitable registry page, which shows this).

I wonder what Marcia Fay might have to say about that one.

(* * *In case you didn’t get it, that was the ACFLS’ plug for more Kids Turn stuff, since Gov. Gray Davis vetoed legislating this a few years earlier, which I blogged in “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post.  It’s interesting how many visitors to this site are following “Let’s Get Honest about Kids’ Turn and Judges’ Profits” yet still miss the follow up post there…

OK — so I added this intro on 12/8/2011 before posting what I wrote probably last week:

Here’s where the proof hits the proselytizing:

Statement:  ACFLS was formed in 1980

Actuality:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1955108 12/04/1995 ACTIVE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW   SPECIALISTS, INC. LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

It’s the same group.  Here’s a nice letterhead, with board members all along the left side, of ACFLS wish to get involved (i guess) with a certain marriage case:   http://www.acfls.org/uploads/files/ACFLS_ltr_to_JaffeClemens-4.pdf, “In re marriage of Valli” (August, 2011).  They are writing to rally to (addressees) who had some objections to writing by (see above) Leslie Ellen Shear who is head of the Amicus Brief Committee of this wonderful group).

OK, so now I’m really curious how anyone with a legal mind could’ve in their right minds put up that webpage suggesting that a few hours on-line (apparently going alphabetically on “Abuse” and not getting past the letter “A”) would qualify someone to write a great appellate brief, protect innocents against false allegations of domestic violence, (above that,) draft a supervised visitation plan, educate one’s experts — and “oh, yeah, I better include this for appearance’ sake”) “Save your client’s life.”

This is a section of what turns out to be a Super Attorney’s Bio, the same person, from the site with url “custodymatters.com

Selected as One of Los Angeles Magazine L.A.’s SuperLawyers (2004-2011)

PRACTICE EMPHASIS

Family Law Trial Court Proceedings

Representation and consultation in complex child custody, complex parentage and assisted reproduction, interstate and international jurisdiction (including Hague Abduction Convention and UCCJEA) cases.

Representation of children in family court by court appointment.

Consensual Dispute Resolution

Trained in mediation, parenting plan coordination (child custody special master), collaborative family law.

 Why doesn’t this next part surprise me — at all?
  • Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (ACFLS). Current Past President; President 2010; various board positions including Newsletter Editor, Technology Coordinator and Secretary from 1997). Author of many ACFLS amicus curiae briefs, current co-chair of Amicus Committee.
  • Editorial Board and contributor, Journal of Child Custody, published by Taylor and Francis.
  • Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC),** Past Board Member, California Chapter, director at large, co-chair 2001 Statewide Conference, steering committee 2003 Statewide Conference, frequent speaker at state and international conferences. Contributor to Family Court Review.
** File under “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, certain things (like evidence of DV) roll right off its back, probably is a duck”
  • Fellow, International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
  • Faculty member, 1981 Vallambrosa Retreat: Mediation of Child Custody and Visitation Disputes (trained statewide court staff mediators for California Courts following enactment of mandatory custody mediation legislation)
Which probably explains (i live in California) why my mediator, under such auspicious culture of mandated mediation and calling serious issues “disputes” — consistently ignored court-order-breaking and otherwise felony behavior by the father of my children, and countless others.  He was employed over the span of my entire case, and when I requested a less biased one (post-abduction) none was available, so it was either forget seeing your kids again (while they were MIA) or go to this dude, again.
ANYHOW — I just showed you — this group incorporated in 1995.  That means that unless they had some other corporate identity, their own website has falsified the record by FIFTEEN YEARS, aka, lied.    And the head of the Amicus Brief Committee of ACFLS, Ms. Shear — is considered by her colleagues a Super Attorney (does this mean, excellent and articulate liar? Wouldn’t be the first one I know (which comment I put in for said attorney), and by me, a person who doesn’t know squat about domestic violence, but considers such knowledge good enough to advise attorneys on it on-line.  Another Super Attorney (Jennifer Jackson) out of SF area came up, apparently, with the concept for kids turn and helped a family law judge set it up, too, in the late 1980s)

Is this personal (except the one I said I know?) — NO.  But I see what product they are putting out regarding situations I’ve lived and know others who have also lived.  Obviously, it’s a matter of viewpoint!   This is why (a long time ago) i contrasted the court’s opinion of a judge I didn’t even know (The Hon. Slabach) with the “Silenced Mamas” (see poormagazine.com) feedback on the same judge.  (That’s how I habitually get in trouble on this blog, but that’s what blogs are for, i.e., airing differing points of view).

How about we go take a look at their registration as a nonprofit — after all this is a membership organization set up by people already working in, and sometimes FOR the courts, and messing with other people’s custody matters through Amicus Briefs (remind me to read  in re:  Valli and what the ACFLS objected to, in said letter I linked to above).

(AFCC & proud of it on Ms. Shear’s website):  work includes:

Ohmer v. Superior Court (1983, 2nd District) 148 Cal.App.3d 661 Child custody evaluations, due process. Validity of former Los Angeles Superior Court policy barring custody litigants from cross-examining child custody investigators, and prohibiting custody litigants from obtaining and presenting evidence of investigator’s lack of mental health education and training. Affirmed. (Appellant)

That sounds like an interesting one…  Here (2008) is more evidence of pushing Parenting Coordination.  Like my post says, these people are pretty pushy:

In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass- roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute, 5 Journal of Child Custody 88 (2008)

A few years into a custody dispute, and most mothers couldn’t afford to keep current with this journal, if they even know enough to do so, in their own best interests of knowing what they’re up against…  This is recent, cited all over, and I recommend MOMS read it!  Obviously it’s not displayed in proper format below — see that link.  Randy Rand v. Board of Psychology and the other attorney involved in the brief is Stephen Temko from San Diego.

CASE NO. C064475 SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

LESLIE ELLEN SHEAR, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 72623 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Floor 7 Encino, CA 91436-2403

Telephone: 818-501-3691 Facsimile: 818-501-3692 lescfls@earthlink.net

STEPHEN TEMKO, CFLS,* CALS* SBN 67785 1620 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-2792 Telephone: 858-274-3538 Facsimile: 619-238-0851

Attorneys for Amicus *State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization

Curiae ACFLS

Paragraph from the amicus brief shows that FIRST parenting coordinators are appointed, then a clamor to legitimize it occurs.  Sounds (at first look) like the amicus wants only professionals already licensed somewhere else in on the show — but in classic “we want to have our cake and eat it too behavior), they don’t want those professional boards to have disciplinary power (What, are there some NON-AFCC or CRC powerhouses on any of those associations?) because ‘parenting coordination’ is quasi judicial and the best entity to discipline them would be — like, the family court that appointed them (sure, THAT”S a bias-free basis for some real ethical accountability! )  SO we’d best read this one all of it — and I do mean “we.”

“California has failed to adopt legislation and court rules governing parenting coordination despite the growing use of these service models in our family courts.** This leaves parents, parenting coordinators, courts, and licensing boards without clear directives about what practices are required or prohibited.”

**perhaps even California, in heart, agrees with Gov Jeb Bush of Florida’s (2004) objections to the practice of parenting coordination.  I know I sure do!  I read that PCANH handbook, apparentl lifted from Indiana practice?  (nice touch throwing the word “parents” in that sentence about “lacking clear directives!” as if that was the concern!

(the site I chose to post the link from was Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D.’s site called (appropriately) “californiaparentingcoordinator.com”  (got the message yet?) and says of him:

Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist (California Lic. # PSY10214) in private practice in Palo Alto, California, who specializes in forensic** child and family psychology. He has been in private practice in Palo Alto for 20 years, specializing in Forensic Family psychology.

He is a pioneer in the field of Parenting Coordination, which he helped develop in Santa Clara County more than 15 years ago,*** and has led the development of Parenting Coordination across the U.S. He is one of the most experienced Parent Coordinators (called Special Master in California) in the country. Some of the other roles he serves for families going through divorce include:

 **Child psychologists are frustrated child psychiatrists, some of who are probably frustrated MD’s.  They love to throw around the word “forensic” to lend credibility.
***Since he helped develop the field, he might want to rethink posting Ms. Shear’s amicus which states the field basically emerged.
{{Like most AFCC material does when describing some program AFCC has devised and wants legislated & mandated for VERY potentially high-conflict case (i.e., cases where someone — possibly a mediator trained b the sam people — made a really bad custody recommendation, which was enacted, and is having consequences, such as the other parent protesting it.  Voila! !  We have high-conflict, so we get to do parent coordinators, and maybe even some federal grant streams, too!)}}

OK, now that the very active ACFLS cannot ? show its origination, as claimed, in 1980 as a legitimate California corporation, but rather it was incorporated in 1995 (at least the one with “, Inc.” after its name is the only one I could find on SOS site) here’s the Charitable Registration:

From the California Office of Attorney General (Charitable Registry Search Site) — YES !  ACFLS DOES exist and at first glance, it’s charitable status is labeled “Current”:
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC. EX548531 Charity Exempt – Active SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
1
which is odd – because if one the looks inside — no EIN# has been assigned yet, it has never filed any IRS or RRF reports (annual requirement for CA nonprofits and for corporations too, for that matter).  Allegedly, per this record, their charitable status was issued in 1990 (10 years after they claim they started, and 5 years before the Secretary of State admitted that they did). (or perhaps this is just the boilerplate charitable registry BLANK format?).
They have NO EIN# and apparently ever bothered to register — NO founding documents are viewable – and obviously if the association is charging its (ATTORNEY) members any dues, they aren’t producing (all 490 members, all those nice monthly meetings and annual regional conferences involving hotels, golf, etc.) any income worht reporting? And though they are actually selling stuff from their blog — they aren’t producing program service revenue enough to require reporting to the IRS?
Yes — and I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge I wish to sell, also.
Full Name: ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC. FEIN:
Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1955108
Registration Number: EX548531
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 15 CORRILLO DRIVE Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information

Look it up yourself — here’s the link for the search fields.  Just type in the organization name, or whatever part of it fits:

CHECKING with  my trusty 990-finder, I find out that there IS an EIN# and income — but apparently not one of the Attorney General’s Office seems to have noticed, even though we can hardly say that the Attorney General’s Office is unfamiliar with the family law field.  After all, former Attorney General Bill Lockyer had a wife (about half his age?) from the L.A. area working as Exec. Dir. of the Alameda County Family Justice Law Center, annointed by a republican gov. in 2006, and this leadership was ceded to another family law professional.  San Francisco just went through a crisis and multiple courtroom shutdowns.  I feel it safe to say that PROBABLY the head of the criminal justice system in California — which is supposed to protect taxpayers from financial scam artists — knows about this organization, and that it ain’t reporting to them.   (or, they aren’t posting what it did).

What is a reasonably logical person to assume but that the OAG’s office is getting a cut on the undocumented funds, at the expense of Californians Right To KNow, Fair Political Practices (it would seem) transparency — and our state’s budget!

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2009 $107,507 990 17 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2008 $122,073 990 20 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2007 $158,102 990 19 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2006 $142,503 990 20 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2005 $93,608 990 16 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2004 $127,804 990 15 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2003 $76,425 990 16 94-3238376
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists CA 2002 $65,302 990 17 94-3238376

2009 IRS reads (probably like the rest) program purpose — why it’s tax exempt and for “PUBLIC” benefit:

“To Promote and Preserve the Family Law Speciality”

There are 20 people on the board of directors, NONE takes any money for this.  How charitable!

Educational Seminars revenue $138K; Membership dues:  $130K.

They are going to HAVE to lie, steal, and cheat to keep promoting this BS — especially with Ms. Shear in charge of education professionals on how to ignore signs of imminent lethality with a few hours of on-line research.  (too busy writing Amicus for other people’s custody disputes, I guess).  California just this past fall had an 8-person massacre after a father given 56% custody was angry he didn’t get 100% fast enough.  An AFCC professional was on his case at the time of his 2007 divorce.  4 years later, Mom dead and 7 other people also.  “Typical Divorce Case” says the family law professional, when interviewed on this.  This followed hard on the heels of an Attorney General employee having her own child (gave birth around age 44, it seemed) abducted and murdered in a murder-suicide by the father.  We also have families going homeless around custody cases (i know some) and in general, it’s one _ _ _ _ ing disgrace.

SO is this organization retaining any credibility and quite frankly, even during the economic crisis (like this arm of teh courts didn’t contribute to it?) it also reflects on the credibility of the Attorney General’s Office as well — at least as to Charitable Trusts.  I am thankful they seem to be getting on some organizations, but I sure can’t figure out how they determine who to let slide — and who to nail.  Unless, that is, there is some money greasing the decsisions — which I think is not an unfair speculation, although of course (at this point) it IS speculation, I admit.

Readers have any other speculations — or hard data — on why the ACFLS is held to ZERO standard within its state of origin, while pompously throwing its weight around, and citing itself as if this is a reputable organization serving the public by promoting and preserving the practice of family law — and pushing parenting coordinators on us — even as the FBI rushes into jurisdiction in Pennsylvania to investigate a racketeering type of setup (possibly) involving one of the parent coordinator trainers!   

Now that I have that off my chest, what’s below is related setups that I’d planned to accompany this one, in particular.

I don’t know how much more evidence – at this point — anyone would need that just because an organization has been around, and has good PR, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.  Or that the AFCC in particular, has a membership PRONE to forming nonprofits (membership associations especially) and engaging in tax-evasion and tax-reporting-evasion within their local states.

Cf.  Ann Marie Termini lists “Cooperative Parenting Institute” on her linkedin Profile and wherever else possible; so presumably does Susan Boyan, still (out of Georgia).   So what state does it exist in, again?  The parents in Scranton, PA deserve an answer, pending the FBI decision whether to finish their investigation — or shelve it — regarding some of the practices in Lackawanna County (which, FYI, is geographically right next to the infamous Luzerne County and in the state of the Penn State Sandusky scandal, with potential involvement of the charity “The Second Mile.”

I want to let these Preserve and Promote the Family Law Profession People in on a secret — apparently to them, it’s obvious to others:

  • MOST parents are not abusive, and care about their kids more than you do.
  • And if you were’t heating up the conflict (while insisting that your presence is actually intended to help dissipate conflict), probably more of those ids would be alive today — and those abusive parents could’ve been prosecuted as criminals BEFORE the offed their kids, their exes, bystanders, and occasionally a responding police officer.
  • And most mothers reporting abuse by the Dads, or kids reporting — are not lying.  They do not need “responsible motherhood” programs to behave as responsible mothers, even under the extreme conditions put upon them by institutions, advocacy groups (who don’t reveal their own funding comes from welfare diversionary programs, when dealing with mothers forced onto welfare somehow), etc.
  • There is an innate biological bond, particularly when mothers get to also nurse their kids and give birth to them, even in some pretty hostile environments.
  • And the profession that out of two parents, one who complies with court orders, and the other who doesn’t, or one with a criminal record — or criminal behaviors in evidence — and the other NOT — you are actually more concerned about the kids because you talk about “family” while she talks about SAFETY — is offensive.

+ + + + + + +

I have a question.  In fact, several questions:

Have you, has a family member or friend, been operated on recently?  Was your doctor officially vetted by the hospital, and is his or her degree valid?

Is the institution from which your doctor graduated, or was, it a real institution?

When they are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, UCBerkeley, Stanford, etc. — there aren’t that many questions whether or not the schools actually exist, and are “accredited,” for what it’s worth (and it is worth something, as to colleges!).  The only question becomes, did your particular professional actually go there, and has the school not, to date, disowned or otherwise dishonorably discharged them.

Generally, we expect more of Medical Doctors, although this is sometimes not delivered.  See “California prison doctors get millions while not working“, Associated Press article posted 11/29/2011.  Who wants to actually think about a government paying anyone over $226K per year to sort mail while figuring out whether this person was mal-practicing or not?  Not a thought good for the average digestive system, or blood pressure, probably….

At least 30 physicians and mental health professionals collected an estimated $8.7 million since 2006 as they went through a lengthy appeals process to determine whether they should be fired or reinstated, the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/vOJLlY ) reported Monday. The newspaper cited records from a court-ordered receiver now in charge of the state prison system.

Doctors who were alleged by colleagues to have committed negligence or misconduct — in some cases involving patient deaths — received their full six-figure salaries, even though they were not allowed to treat prisoners. Some did menial work [like, sorting mail…]

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me, either the original system, or attempting to “clean up” the systems.

But what is it about the fields of family law and psychologists that attracts people who LOVE to form nonprofit, trade-promoting, dues-paying (membership) associations which:

  • don’t even file tax returns, especially with the state they are registered in, after getting tax-exempt status?  or, alternately
  • don’t file period, and/or
  • cite each others names proudly on websites and on biographies in long strings of apparent officialdom before ording one parent into a situation doomed to bankruptcy, another child to go live with a molester he or she has already reported on, extort fathers into starting a custody battle they didn’t want — or, if they are in arrears somehow — into participating in some ridiculous (psychoeducational) program, typically in 6 to 10 sessions that someone pays for,  no one would otherwise take if there were an alternate choice besides going back to jail?[FN1]  Before adjusting upward or compromising downward child support for a noncustodial parent without notifying the custodial one of the discussion (or programssssssszzsss, plural) that led to this backroom deal?  and/or
  • hold conferences to figure out how to expand their profession, which profession exists at all over public distress and at public expense, i.e,. those who practice are already on state (judges) or county (county commissioners, family law commissioners, child support commissioners — and ANYONE among the support structure of the entire local child support agency, including attorneys, directors, specialists, clerks, data entry people (presumably) and office staff for derailing parents who want a direct answer about their own case.  This also includes court transcriptionists, court clerks, etc.
  •  Bill attendance at these conference, and travel to/from them (wherever possible) to their current employer, usually a county or county-level court  [FN2])
How is it that people who graduated from an institute that gave a degree to an imaginary cat can actually be practing and making custody recommendations for young children?  This literally is true, and a lot more than one thinks.  Surely Dr. Doyne must be a qualified professional (WHAT profession was it, again?) because he got a degree from this place.  However at least one man (see Request to file Amicus Brief in Tadros v. Doyne) decided to challenge (see Tadros v. Doyne; in fact this link summarizes and actually shows the “Specialty Diplomate” and how both the person who issued it, and the court, are retaliating against this M.D. for reporting it!  Many mothers and fathers know already about the “Zoe the Cat” fiasco, but still the custody mill (and other association-certification-mills) continue, one of which I found recently, hence today’s post.)  How can one be silent in the face of material like this?
(1). . .
for $350 dollars, Robert O’Block, who honored a Specialty Diplomate to a house  cat named Zoe (which states on the certificate Zoe has a PhD), and who also granted a Specialty Diplomate to Custody Evaluator Stephen Doyne, is threatening to sue the co-founders of California Coalition for Families and Children (CCFC) with a defamation lawsuit seeking penalties of 1,000,000 Dollars. Robert O’Block is seeking to shutdown The Public Court for exposing the truth about the “cat credentialed?”

If Dr. Tadros and CCFC do not keep quiet or “shut down” public exposure about Zoe the Cat getting a PhD and Diploma, they will be sued for this huge sum of money?

To the solid fact that Zoe the Cat is Dr. Tadros’s best witness, he is left with no other choice than to pursue the timely filing against Robert O’Block’s owner of the ACFE, who according to Professor carol Henderson issued a house Cat with “Diplomate (and Phd)” certificate, (read below) with the filing of Tadros MD vs. American College of Forensic Examiners International (ACFEI), dated January 10, 2011…

(2) . . .Well, here, from, the News Article on Doctor Doyne, but “thepubliccourt.com” is informative*

Custody Evaluator’s Credentials Questioned In Lawsuit

Dr. Stephen Doyne Has Been Involved In 3,000 To 4,000 San Diego Custody Cases

Lauren Reynolds
10News I-Team Reporter
POSTED: 7:10 pm PDT July 7, 2009
SAN DIEGO — Dr. Stephen Doyne, PhD, is widely used in the San Diego Family Court as a custody evaluator. His job is to advise the court on where children of divorce should live, which parent is more fit. The evaluations can be costly, both in emotion and dollars. Clients told the 10 News I-Team they paid Doyne between $5,000 and $30,000.  (That’s per evaluation — do the math)
“A child custody evaluator has tremendous power and influence,” said Marc Angelucci. He’s an attorney representing Dr. Emad Tadros in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Doyne alleging fraud and negligence. . . .
Dr. Doyne is one of a dozen custody evaluators repeatedly used by San Diego Family Court. The court had no response to the allegations against Dr. Doyne. The court also clarified that it does not verify the professional licenses or the resumes of the custody evaluators.

Apparently, per this article, he also falsely claimed to be an adjunct professor at UCSD (University of California, San Diego).  Reminds me of this Sandra Brown, M.A. (Liberty University) I was looking up recently, and her “IRHPE” (Institute for Relational Harm and Pathology Education”), not to mention the “Relationship Training Institute,” also (coincidentally) at San Diego where she was listed as a Guest Lecturer (to my recall), this RTI being a business which takes business from the courts, also.  Speaking of which, …

The “Relationship Training Institute” (EIN# 470942805), which you can (and should) look up on the California Attorney General’s site (http://ag.ca.gov/charities/, and select “Registry” on left side) where charitable organizations are required to register and then file ANNUALLY, and where one can look up their EIN#s) — registered here in 2006 (File issued date) and from the IRS, evidently it’s clear it showed assets of $1.5K and Revenue of $90K in 2005, and by 2010, assets of $13,569 & revenue of $271K.  In 2011, their assets went down by over $4K, but their revenue went up to $291K — and finally, in August 2011, the OAG decided to slap them on the wrist (who knows why), with a letter saying, you didn’t file your fee.

However, in the section where EVERY charity required to register under state law is to file 3 things (that I know of) (two of which the public should be able to look at, right here):  (1) a State return (RRF), (2) a copy of their IRS 990 return which the OAG can upload, and (3) a ‘Schedule B”* which lists their contributors’ names and addresses.  This is also to come with (4) an annual fee, which varies by size of the group.

(*which public doesn’t see, but the OAG, whose purpose here is to prevent Californians from being scammed by tax-exempt organizations and false fundraisers, i.e., professionally organized thieves, public financial predators, and money launderers, etc.  SPeaking of which, did I mention that a previous attorney general (Bill Lockyer) had his (3rd) wife installed, on pay from the DAs office, as the CEO of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” — an idea from San Diego City Attorney’s Office  Casey Gwinn plus the DV Council, Gael Strack, J.D. (as I recall) — which, somehow in the process of hiring the first CEO, got the slated salary moved from $65K to $90K, and the appointment process of which looks a little slimy (thank you, investigator Steve White, aka boatbrain or similar quirky username).  Nevertheless, we hope and expect the OAG to keep a lid on these things for our (public’s) sake.   They even went after the San Diego based Kid’s Turn for its charitable status, right? 

Organizations larger than the RTI have been noticed by the same OAG for failing to file fees and schedule B of contributors. The far larger Futures Without Violence (formerly, like until 2010, Family Violence Prevention Fund, EIN# 943110973) received one notice in 2010:

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

and another, August 2011, under separate cover, in stern terms, this time writing reflecting the corporation’s name change:

RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service

Futures Without Violence, now ensconced at the San Francisco Praesidio (a high-profile address to locals and international visitors), does big business:  In 2010, per information the California OAG apparently gets from the IRS (as opposed to the organization), it reads:

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
Total Assets: $36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00
RRF Received: 14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Rejected

I would ask too.  2010 is an increase in ASSETS of roughly $5.5 (million) and in INCOME of $10.5 million.  As Dolly Parton quipped once (possibly in a movie), “it takes a lot of money to look like this!”    Yet FVPF has been fairly regular in filing — up til 2008, anyhow.   Its primary program purpose, as of the last available 990, reads:

Significant activities: TO PIONEER NEW STRATEGIES TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT HOME AND ABROAD.

“FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” SETS ITS EYES “Abroad”

And well it might — having continued to ignore a steady stream of violence against women, and children (including some that results in deaths, a relentless litany, the background to their wonderful conferences and PR campaigns, and training institutes about “Fatherhood” as  tool practitioners can wield against family violence.  Sure, OK.  So, MOTHERS lveaing abusive relationships safely (and this group helped get VAWA enacted in 1994), still can’t — because of family court in USA is trending towards sharia law, at least in its “logic” and priorities.

Speaking of “Going Abroad”. . . .literally and allegorically

(I warned you at the top of this post…we are going to talk about defecation, and allegorically, why some nonprofits constantly need to shift localities, names and WHERE they are p*ssing on people’s due process rights, and covering up evidence of this in the family law system, lest they step on the wrong local toes, or bite the han)

The phrase “going abroad” in previous times meant going to take a whizz outside the camp, or home, where one eats and sleeps, so as not to pollute it.  When encased in a wood shelter over a large pit, with or without a porcelain chair, this progressed to the “Outhouses,” topic of many comedies and eventually we progressed to indoor plumbing, which can then get backed up and require a plumber to fix.   The practice of sitting UP to do this, I gather another Western creation, has helped create health problems too, per some.

I’m late reporting this – as it seems November 19th was “World Toilet Day” according to an article, “What would you Do without a Loo?” and another historical discussion points out that civilization and the development of sanitation go together; Rome, for example, could not ignore the problem.

The Medieval Ages (plus emergence of Fundamentalist RC theories related to original sin, and the nobility of suffering, including if necessary in filth, had their impact).  I hope you scan that — it’s a quick read.   “The massive deaths by reason of the plagues had some people rethinking hygiene” (year 1210) . . .”Since the 1820s there have been no fundamental changes.” (parallel — when was the last time any change in what to do about death-causing domestic violence actually surfaced, i.e., that wasn’t “treatment, intervention, publication, and training”?)

Meanwhile, it’s just as healthy not to use “the throne.”  In Fact, Bill Gates is working on re-inventing the toilet (how did my thinking go here?  It’s easy — the phrase “going abroad” — and I believe it’s necessary to use symbols and one systems of meaning to understand another, although if one gets STUCK in a symbol system (i.e., DV as a sickness, conflict as bad, professionals as actually helpful, etc.) the society and its process of observation, labeling, and logic (reasoning) can get, well, “constipated.”  So, I have a little fun connecting the absurdly different (a highly respected organization with an annual revenue of around $36 million and lofty claims to basic human functions that MUST be needed, and if not heeded with sanitation (and sense) can wipe out a civilization, i.e., plague.   Or, for example, we are told that the early settlers in the US didn’t wash in the ocean, and didn’t dig for clams or catch much fish — yet certainly that would’ve fed them and cleansed them.

Bill Gates Seeks to Reinvent the Toilet

Analysis by Nic Halverson
Tue Aug 16, 2011 09:11 AM ET

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently launched a “Reinvent the Toilet” competition and have already awarded $3 million to researchers at eight universities to redesign the porcelain throne. The challenge? Develop an economical toilet that is doesn’t need to be connected to a sewer system, or to any water or electricity grid.

Healthcare Districts, Associations of Healthcare Districts and their Watchdogs:

This blog is not about water, healthcare, or for that matter school boards.  However it IS about use of taxes.  I got derailed into matters of “Water” simply by comparing one Domestic Violence Funds proposition that we (taxpayers) collectively support its $36million plans to create Futures Without Violence Abroad to the practice of pissing outside one’s home area, which of course (how my mind works sometimes) got me on just how complex it becomes when people are crowded together so closely that there IS no backyard to go piss in, at least not for years on end, and thus the community pools its funds to elect people to take care of their shit (literally).  I believe that assaults and violence could (generically speaking) be lumped in that category, as the (stuff) of overcrowding and too many people codependent on others to protect them, feed them, educate their young (handle their money), regulate their parenting practices (?) and in general, nurse them from womb to tomb.   Perhaps that model is a little over-rated, as this example I hope proves.

SUPPOSE BILL GATES DEVELOPS SUCH A TOILET THAT COULD BE USED IN URBAN AREAS TOO?  HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS BELOW WOULD BE OUT OF A JOB?

AND WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT THE ROMAN EMPIRE’S FALL HAVING SOMETHING TO DO WITH LEAD IN THE PIPES? ….

I mean, why the chair portion?   Consider how complicated it gets; from a travel article:

 How to Use a Squat Toilet (Frank Burres in Worldhum, 9/25/06)

“Warning: This article contains language that some will find offensive, but that others will find refreshingly honest”

Background: Squatting is an ancient practice, but knowledge of it has recently been lost in the West. The flush toilet wasn’t even invented until 1596. And toilet paper didn’t become popular until the 1900s. According to the Toilet Paper Encyclopedia, pre-TP, humans used corn cobs, Sears Roebuck catalogs, mussel shells, newspaper, leaves, sand, hayballs, gompf sticks and the end of old anchor cables on ships. Ouch!

But the good folks at the TPE seem blissfully unaware that most of the world’s people still use neither toilet paper, nor western sit-down crappers. Nor do they use corn cobs, gompf sticks or anchor cables. Because, while most of us in North America and Europe sit, people on just about every other continent squat, using water and their left hand. In much of Africa and Asia you can be hard-pressed to find anything else besides the squatter.

Beginning Squatting: I called Doug Lansky, a traveler and travel writer who knows the hardships of squatting. “It’s difficult,” said Lansky, who edited a book called, There’s No Toilet Paper on the Road Less Traveled.

I wish Bill Gates well in his exploration of alternates to the water systems that make the economy go whirr and hum, some of which so reduce people’s self-reliance (and thinking about the basics of life) that they willingly allow commissions associations, agencies and task forces to try and keep up with the agencies (and commissions) to take their hard-earned (or, easily earned) income (taxes) and, such that they need a “Local Agency Formation Commission”  (I kid you not) to study whether to dissolve another agency — which no longer has a hospital, but is still collecting funds.  I cannot find this particular agency (maybe it’s been dissolved?) as a corporation or trust anywhere in the state — and the attorney which was hired to determine whether to dissolve the nonexisting entity — who was in 2010 head of an Association of (such) Agencies — which does not exist as either a corporation or charity in California, meaning, if anyone is getting paid for this association of (unregistered entitites),  it’s not reporting to the public without a FOIA request, WTF (that’s an acronym for an expletive) it’s doing, financially.

Association of California Healthcare Districts — and where is this “Mt. Diablo Healthcare District to start with?  I don’t know (I don’t see it registered as nonprofit or corporation), but here comes a news reporter to inform us that the attorney hired to decide whether to dissolve it doesn’t follow the rules either.  So rules were changed accomodate his inability to handle a $5,000 services cap.  Weird:

Mt. Diablo Health Care District lawyer billed beyond board limit

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/28/2011 04:15:57 PM PST

An outside attorney hired to help save an imperiled Contra Costa public health district billed the agency nearly three times more than what was authorized.**

Heavily censored invoices obtained through the California Public Records Act show Sacramento lawyer Ralph Ferguson billed the district for 52.3 hours totaling $14,000 in September and October. The district capped his pay at $5,000 when it hired him.

It’s the latest development in the increasing scrutiny of the Mt. Diablo Health Care District, an agency that lost its hospital 15 years ago but has continued to collect and spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars. Roughly 200,000 residents in Concord, Martinez, Clyde, Pacheco and portions of Lafayette and Pleasant Hill live in the district.

It hired Ferguson three months ago as its liaison with the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission, which is studying whether to dissolve the agency.

**Note:   He’s an attorney.  So this surprises us, why?  Same reporter, earlier this month (11/5/2011), in “Riding in to Rescue a Flailing Agency

The lawyer behind the strategy to rescue the ailing Mt. Diablo Health Care District will be remembered as a visionary or an opportunist.

Ralph Ferguson, the former chief of the Association of California Healthcare Districts and Mt. Diablo’s new attorney, believes the embattled public agency could model itself after the successful Beach Cities or Camarillo health care districts.

By way of background, a regulatory agency could dissolve the taxpayer-funded Central Contra Costa health care district. It has been criticized by four grand juries and others for its failure to do little more than pay its overhead and keep up the health insurance for a current and a former board member.**

Like Mt. Diablo, two Southern California districts no longer operate hospitals.

**perhaps this is what many agencies are for to start with?  Remember the Phoebe Factoids and the problems with Georgia’s chain of nonprofit hospitals, that stiffed uninsured parents and kept huge profits offshore?  Then apparently had enough clout to personally threaten the family of two men reporting on this?

This Commission to control Agencies and “Special Districts” really does exist, and has authority and a staff.  This authority seems to relate largely to taxes, incorporation, annexing or detaching land to one city or another, and things that relate to things we need — like water, schooling, healthcare, and such.  Authority:

▪ Annex land to cities or special districts,

▪ Detach land from cities or special districts,

▪ Consolidate two or more cities or two or more special districts,

Form new special districts and incorporate new cities,

Dissolve special districts and disincorporate cities, — WOW.  And the commission has six people. Only.

▪ Merge cities and special districts,

▪ Allow cities or special districts to provide services outside of their boundaries.

I hope that the term “SPECIAL DISTRICT” is required, by law, to be taught in all K-12 Special Unified School Districts so that, as adults, they can know who helps determine what low-income jobs  global marketplace their education is preparing most of them for, which will increase their odds of becoming part of the welfare caseload (or target in a drive-by- shooting) they will be able to work at, decrease their odds of giving those who know what a special district is — and how to obtain control over it — and cities.  After all, their JOBS provide tax income for these people to hire pricey lawyers to investigate waste of their own taxes. . .

I don’t know any individual that has the time to write “FOIA’s” (Freedom Of Information Act letters, requesting, obviously, information) – for every entity that is affecting that indivual’s personal, well, — Freedom.  Do you?

So JUST PERHAPS if a Bill Gates and friends can figure out that the rest of the west never needed the white throne, either (toilets) — we might be able to figure, as much of the non-Western, Pre-AFCC world, in fact Pre-1913 world  — how to live life without a parenting class. And that would put enough administrative and bureaucratic educators, and real estate, out of work to make OCCUPY THIS look like a children’s birthday party.

Why?  Because once people develop the habit of thinking, non-drug-induced, about HOW their world is run, the habit is catching, and many more taken-for-granteds will topple.

Put that next to a recent news article with the title “Agency in hot water over fees.”  This turns out not to actually be attorney-exaggarated fees on a Health Care District, not about water — however this one, “An End to Padded Water Bills  (Metropolitan Times, Los Angeles, 2009) IS.  This 2010 notice by “Californians Aware” on ” Subject: Notice of Strict Enforcement Concerning Certain Common Brown Act Violations is addressed to people at four different associations involved in basic business of — living — in California.  It is from another association, “Californians Aware” — the Center for Public Forum Rights.”

  • League of California Cities
  • Association of California Water Agencies
  • California School Boards Association
  • California State Association of Counties, and
  • Association of California Healthcare Districts, Ralph Ferguson, Executive Director (see next)
ACHD
In a very well-fleshed-out-website, the group’s (or lack of a better word reflecting their tax & incorporation status)  mission is stated:  “The Association of California Healthcare Districts serves and advances the diverse needs of all California Healthcare Districts through advocacy, education and member driven services. “

The “Association of California Healthcare Districts, INC.” is “Not Registered” as a California Charity (or corporation, that I can see) and “Ralph Ferguson” is the attorney in question mention as overbilling (etc.) in the article “Agency in hot water over fees” I linked to, above.  Go figure!

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS, INC. Charity Not Registered RANCHO CORDOVA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

The Secretary of State Site shows zero listing for the same Association.  IN fact, when I searched on only the words “healthcare District” there only 3 local ones showed, one o whose corporate status had been suspended.  If so, why a need for an Association of Healthcare Districts to start with?  Either have them — and force them to expose their corporate status– or don’t have them, at all, and quit playing games with the public.  I believe (?) the word “District” here means a region of people/residents who can be sold on the idea of accepting a tax to support, er, “Healthcare.”

Which of course, have been the topic of some scandal as to use.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1993854 11/05/1996 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION HELEN WALSH
C2439485 03/11/2004 SUSPENDED HEALTHCARE DISTRICT INSURANCE AND MARKETING SERVICES, INC. JAMES L. BEYERS
C2858426 02/21/2006 ACTIVE THE CLOVERDALE HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION JAMES F DEMARTINI

While the phrase “healthcare district” on a charitable registry search produces zero results, which leads me to speculate that this multiple field search site does not have the ability to search phrases in the middle of the group’s name – unlike other states’ corporate searches.  For such a large state, California has a lousy corporation search website!

So I looked up “Bear Valley Community” on the OAG (Charity) site and find SIX charities (and one raffle) beginning with those three phrases.  TWO of the sex are not registered, but our 1996 one (above) is.  One of the “not registered” charities is “Bear Valley Community Hospital.”  If I lived in Bear Valley, California — I’d get on this quick.  The BVHC District tax return of 2002 lists $13K of government funding, of 2004, $26 of public (but no government) and apparently the charitable registration didn’t start until 2006.  Since I’m a nice person, I”ll list what Bear Valley Community anythings are still around (the church — active as a charity — is no longer active as a corporation, but they began in 1946.  Besides (see row one, below).

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1137770 03/24/1983 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY CENTER FOR SPIRITUAL ENRICHMENT, A RELIGIOUS SCIENCE COMMUNITY CAROLYN DAWLEY
C0208456 08/02/1946 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH DONALD FOOR
C2233852 05/08/2000 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TERRY WOODROW
C1993854 11/05/1996 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOUNDATION HELEN WALSH
C1287435 09/30/1985 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AUXILIARY DOROTHEA SCHWAIGER
C0306083 07/07/1955 DISSOLVED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL FUND, INC.
C1604740 01/19/1988 SUSPENDED BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. VI COLUNGA
C0482507 12/16/1964 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY NURSERY SCHOOL AMY PREY
C3189110 01/30/2009 ACTIVE BEAR VALLEY SPRINGS COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES FOUNDATION MARGARET WANGLER
C1764347 05/30/1995 ACTIVE BIG BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY ARTS THEATER SOCIETY KAREN SARGENT RACHELS
1 2

Bear Valley appears to be a Ski Resort area.  Cloverdale has a multitude of corporations, this is only a sample.  Notice the “Status” column:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C0978805 03/28/1980 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE BOOSTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. DONALD SATO
C0175845 06/02/1938 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE BRIDGE CLUB
C0412712 04/18/1961 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CABANA CLUB NOE LONGORIA
C1602586 12/18/1987 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CABINETS, INC. ARNOLD M. HAUG
C3098377 05/05/2008 ACTIVE CLOVERDALE CANINE ALLIANCE, INC. MICHAEL P CAMPBELL
C1235613 01/11/1984 SURRENDER CLOVERDALE CASTINGS INC. C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
C0576616 07/31/1969 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CB-ERS
C0767052 04/02/1976 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CHAPTER #2430 OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, INC. DIANA TREANKLE
C0772429 06/24/1976 DISSOLVED CLOVERDALE CHILDREN’S CENTER, INCORPORATED
C1934975 05/15/1995 SUSPENDED CLOVERDALE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP JACK REGO

Cloverdale is in Sonoma County (California Coast, wine country) and in 2010 had a population of 8,618 in 2010, and is in California’s 1st Congressional District (FYI)

Cloverdale is located in the northern portion of Sonoma County, and is the farthest city north in the San Francisco Bay Area, about 85 miles (135 km) north of San FranciscoU.S. 101 runs through the town, as does State Route 128.

The city has a total area of 2.6 square miles (6.7 km2), all of it land.

Cloverdale is located in the Wine Country, being part of the Alexander Valley AVA.

(Thank you, Wikipedia) 

That’s a whole lotta business for a population of 8,000….

Californians Aware:  The Center for Public Forum Rights (who warned the above 4 association heads (at least one of who is an attorney) to mind their legal compliance on the Brown Act as to closed-door meetings) registered as a corporation in 2004, which indicates they filed articles of incorporation and paid a fee, and have a board of directors of at least one person.  THey probably even have a bank account.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2646702 04/16/2004 ACTIVE CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS EMILY KATHLEEN FRANCKE

They even dutifully filed with the IRS for years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, with a VERY modest budget (under $50K) and then stopped filing, meaning as of 8/23/2010, they are Delinquent as a charity.  However, their letter to the 4 association heads was written in November, 2010.  They do not appear to ever have sent anything to the OAG at all (either IRS return or RRF):

ull Name: CALIFORNIANS AWARE: THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC FORUM RIGHTS FEIN: 201008855
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2646702
Registration Number: 125817
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2006 Renewal Due Date: 5/14/2008
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 8/23/2010

They apparently lost a leader very recently, but are still collecting donations — possibly illegally — from their website, not that this would put them in different company than groups they are reporting on, who financially I’m sure leave this group in the dust.  The foundation number shows no (none whatever) returns under this EIN# above, but the California OAG has information from somewhere that is posted.  Then again, neither does the “Association of California Healthcare Districts” show its face — at all under this name, on the foundation finder.  How could it, without even an EIN# to go on?

Notice: The IRS has announced processing errors on electronically filed Forms 990 for filing years 2007-2009. Learn more»

Search criteria: ( Name: association of california healthcare districts State: CA )
0 matching documents retrieved (0 displayed)

Be that as that may, their board of directors is scheduled to meet this week, December 2, 2011.

The Brown Act in California deals with closed-door meetings on actions of public interest.

Perhaps in this case, the term applies.  Futures WIthout Violence has outgrown its britches, and I will not cease reporting on this.

(They’d better go abroad, because word is getting out — principally from me, that I can see — is that media campaigns don’t result in character transformations, and failing to report on the family court scams, and DV organization sell-outs is still getting families killed.  Last one — in the same general locality as this group — is a recent headline — a San Jose Policeman and his wife, apparent murder-suicide, and they have two teenagers. (Not sure about this incident, it looks almost staged from the reporting, and the word “apparently” shows up a lot.  I also note it was a second marriage (or, he had a stepson).  San Jose is not too far from San Francisco, however in the Bay Area there are drive-by-shootings hitting young people (recently a one-year old child) and in more than one neighborhood.  I believe that a $36 million annual revenue, even after subtracting several salaries over $100 million and Esta Soler’s of over $200 million (per year) should demand — not just suggest — some proof of effectiveness before getting one more cent — and this every five years at a minimum.  FVPF (FVW) claims to have begun in 1980.  If the Washington, D.C. corporations search bears this out, then it did — but in SF at least, it only began in 1989, meaning, a company that (now) specializes in media based campaigns and trainings, has been lying in its own self-descriptions.  1980 v. 1989 = nine years’ difference in reporting incorporation is not a minor issue, and I hope my suspicions on that one prove wrong.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2583174 05/17/2004 ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE DAVID B WEXLER

 Surely Relationship Training Institute (which falls under this category) also has to — but not one RRF or IRS hyperlink has been uploaded to the public website for it) while – there is not one single RFI filing from 2006 – 2011.   And the OAG somehow, hasn’t commented on this, and the charitable status remains labeled “Current.”  I figure this means someone is receiving money somewhere, and the “slap you on your wrist” letter may have indicated said someones wasn’t paid their (kickback, or payoff) this time.  Whether this is instinct, speculation, or error will not be known until other facts are known.

I certainly don’t buy that no one in the criminal branch of California Government (with the Attorney General being the top) knows about this group, for one, on their “About Us” page (including the “Guest Faculty list with Sandra Brown, M.A. (Christian “Liberty University” with on-line degree programs) and no known bachelor’s degree, plus CEO of her group whose corporate and charitable (if any) identity isn’t know either), not to mention  “Brian Erickson, Esq., San Diego City Attorney’s Office )(do a FOIA, get the payroll and reimbursements!), says:

The Relationship Training Institute is approved by the San Diego County Probation Department to provide clinical training for all authorized county domestic violence treatment programs for court-ordered offenders.

and it (RTI) is running certification programs for “Domestic Violence Providers,” probably receiving some help (whether as direct or subgrantee) from an OVW STOP program grant:

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence
40-HOUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TREATMENT PROVIDER CERTIFICATION COURSE

May 3,4,5 & 11,12, 2012

 Domestic violence is not a crime, but a disease that can be treated.  Sounds like the AFCC plan to transform language is indeed working….)

So, it just seems odd that this group doing quite a bit of business with the California legal and judicial systems (cf.  “court-ordered” “Probation”) has somehow escaped the OAG’s radar as to filing its annual statewide returns. Unlike many sites, I don’t see any claim of when they started (“ask me no questions, I will tell you no lies”), but from the registration site it’s been fully 4 years, from the Secretary of state site (above), fully let’s say 6 (allowing for the 2011 year to end) of its not doing anything.  Does this make you go hmmm? in context?  (it should).

I think I know “what is it” about this — it’s simply that the profits from these practice are pretty hard to profile (trace).

I’ve heard it said (NOYB where) that a psychiatrist is a would-be physician, in other words, the field has a bit of an inferiority complex, even though they can indeed prescribe medications.  And psychologists are would-be psychiatrists, there is a professional jealousy, hierarchy and wish for glory.  I think the evidence supports this characterization, don’t you?  They like to pronounce, but without enough trade promotion, who’s going to give a hoot about what they say?

When psychologists begin to rule a nation – which FYI has already happened — it’s just about gone.  Not much difference from when religion does, which I think is my point in the ridiculous term “faith-based” with which we are now drenched in the field of social service, thanks to President Bush, President Clinton, and a while back (like 1994), Congress slipping up and letting a single HHS grant go to jumpstart the National Fatherhood Initiative, which story EVERy parent (male or female) should know in detail.  This now has morphed and multiplied to HHS funding groups with six-letter acronyms (and only one vowell, or none) like:

NRFCBI

GOFBCI

NCJFCJ

or 5-letter ones such as I’m going to profile today

ACFLS (“Inc.”)

Respectively, “National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity Building Initiative” (translation, more HHS funds and a Certfication College), Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (this is in Ohio; translations — grabs more HHS money, in the form of TANF funds, for starters), National Center for Family and Juvenile Court Judges (HHS and DOJ supported, in Reno, NV), and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists (as opposed to what kind of Family Law Specialists?) based in California.

Here’s a glimpse at the purpose and method of the “NRFCBI” — think Wade Horn, Don Eberly, Don Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values (another nonprofit), etc.  Thanks to the web and well-trained trainers fo trainers (and not a few on the Congressional Legislative Task forces of NFI, see its site), one can simultaneously be meeting behind closed doors with a new Governor or head of the Social Rehabilitation Services for an entire state — and be training others, and get a whole dang lot of this soaking up public funds to do it.

About NRFCBI

In partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance,National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) has designed the National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative (NRFCBI) to aid grassroots and community-based organizations through a series of capacity-building grants.

These grants will empower community-based organizations by:

  • developing each recipient’s organizational infrastructure
  • enhancing its leadership; introducing sub-awardees to new programming recommendations, and
  • improving each awardee’s connections in the community-at-large

Ultimately, the NRFCBI aims to strategically improve sub-awardees’ capacity to provide services to local fathers and families.**

The NRFCBI was developed with funds and support from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance. Each awardee receives a one-time $25,000 award to strengthen fathers and families in communities throughout the United States.

** local mothers — including those dealing with said fathers, to their risk — can go jump in a lake.  Particularly if they hope to actually get the access visitation local sub-grantee, which allegedly is for noncustodial parents (not exclusively men) when there are problems with — access and visitation.

What — really, when you examine it, IS this National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative?  If you had to explain it to an alien, new to earth, new to the financial system, barely understanding the Internet, and someone who thinks instead in more concrete (versus “virtual” wordy) terms — what would you say?

Let’s try:

And most of these are “nonprofits,” which of itself means ??

Think about it:  Tax-Exempt = an IRS Perk that lets others pick up the “Social Services” 

Tax-exempt status implies (this isn’t actually true, but the theory goes) one is providing a legitimate public service, so this group should be exempt from the indentured service the people they serve (theoretically), that actually results things the public can use — cars, food, steel, paved roads, clothes — things that wage-earners labor at for their business employer, some of which the public actually needs (like homes to live in).  (I omitted the public school system in their intentionally).

Most of my close look at family law fields comes down to the same point:

The presence of the IRS and the accumulation of wealth, per capita (unless people know or figure out how to become tax-exempt or work under the table, which we know happens) — has enabled more inflated programs, initiatives, institutes, centers and for that matter has simply centralized wealth in the wrong hands — in the hands of people with global aspirations, historic to their family (Bush) and associations (Project for a New American Century, Family Research Center, etc.).  Billionaires and millionaires with apparently time on their hands (boredom – “let’s go find someone else to abuse,” and “play dominoes with countries”) and worlds to change, or as it may be starve into oblivion, attack without cause (Iraq), colonize — although supposedly the USA was “independent” of the empire on which the Sun never set, or simply blow off the face of the globe.

No wonder at the individual and family level, such societies have trouble with so many people who do this at the local and family level.  Perhaps it’s the “trickle-down” effect.  The wealth didn’t trickle down, but after enough decades of abuse and deprivation of rights, angry crowds assemble, without sufficient outlets, and they explode — or go home and kick the wife.  Or husband.  Or child.

One guy in France recently, just murdered his three-year-old son in a washing machine, allegedly for misbehavior (he was THREE!) at pre-school.  He was 33.  The mother, of seven (age 25), tried to cover for him.  The neighbors knew of prior abuse in fact the five-year old sister of the three-year old knew, and reported (probably at the same time).  I cannot pardon this mother for lying — but I sure do wonder what conditions had her marrying at age 19 (married to get away from abuse at home) and having one child a year, approximately, with the bastard.  Now the surviving six are going to be in foster care.  I sure hope THAT Grandma won’t put up a fight for custody, after no reporting in time to save her grandson’s life.

I cannot give an answer articles like this (as a mother, I tried), but I sure did notice that the AMERICAN article, reporting on this — had 89 comments, and the summary made no mention of where was the mother.  Only 1 in 10 comments (about 8-9 maximum) even mentioned the mother which (to me, not having read all the links) for all I know was not in the picture.  She wasn’t in the reporter’s picture.  Those who mentioned the mother verbally crucified her along with the Dad.  Others debated contraception and abortion.  A Dad or two got on to say, hey, c’mon, we’re not all bad!  And I couldn’t do a 1500 word response, because more than 1500 word circumstances led to this situation.

What good did the preschool do?  Did it have any concept of abuse going on of a little kid at home, or were traumatized, or acting-out little kids so normal to them, or shut-down emotionally ones — who knows?  Perhaps — barring families like this — preschool just isn’t an appropriate place for three-year olds; maybe they need to be taken care of by the Moms, not by the state, or parochial schools, or daycare centers.   Maybe if there weren’t such a push for early childhood systems (YES< I know this was France, not the USA, but think about it), there’d be more money for other social services — like FOOD — to help support even married or cohabiting mothers while they take care of their children.

What really bothers me was a comment from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia — “don’t they have children’s services in France?”

Don’t they have awake citizens in Georgia?  So many problem situations lead back to there, including people who began in GEorgia and now are so problemmatic in (Scranton), PA area that some parents who began reporting, and getting payment records from one of the dynamic duo of parent coordinators (Boyan, Termini — Boyan was the Georgia connection, but both are among professionals recommended — from Kentucky Courts — in:

  1. Active Parenting Publishers

    www.activeparenting.com/

    Active Parenting programs are built to help educators create successful parent  Active Parenting Publishers has provided award-winning, video-based parenting classes for helping professionals since 1983. Kennesaw, GA 30144-7808 

These professionals (on that roster and others), one of them was so “helpful” that between her, a local judge and a local GAL, apparently, the FBI went and raided the courthouse, walking out with evidence — before a man who’d filed a lawsuit against inappropriate use of public funds could complete the lawsuit.  The thread is here:

http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/t45346544/family-courts-co-parenting-coordinator-ann-marie-termini-vs-/?page=4

These parents and activists banded together on a forum, and have posted things such as a questionable professional’s contracts, payment vouchers, and made connections, for example (one post) Oct. 4th, from user “Toss Ross” (meaning — see below) — noticed (from the payments posted, presumably):

Is this just a coincidence or was there a natural huge spike in Termini’s income with the county?

January of 2008 is $2,320.00 total for her services.

January of 2009 is $3,220.00

January of 2010 is $4,110.00

January of 2011 is a huge increase to $7,050.00

Isn’t 2008 when Chet started appointing cases like crazy to Ross?

And all of a sudden Termini sees over 300% increase in business since Ross got all those case?  Did Termini get all of Ross’ cases.  Wow, if that’s the case Termini sure got lucky.

Coincidence?  I think not Mr. Fed.  I think not.

How about LiBassi? Did he get lucky, too?  Thank you, Mr. P.  What a treasure of information. I hope the investigators note the luck and the coincidences.

Ross is the GAL, and Termini the Parenting Coordinator.  He noticed a payment spike in 2008.  Well (coincidence?) in Georgia in 2008 a Boyan-Termini Business lost its incorporation status (National Association of Parent Coordinators), etc.

not here (note:  “0 comments”)

FBI searches Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) court administrator’s office

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)
Published: November 15, 2011

FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide Times-Shamrock newspapers a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour. . .

A source familiar with the visit told the newspaper the search warrant was related to the county’s guardian ad litem system.

The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ross.

Read more: http://citizensvoice.com/news/fbi-searches-lackawanna-county-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232501#ixzz1fzQiFd1s

As we have been talking about groups which are not filing consistently with the State (of California, mostly) for their Charitable Returns — or not doing so correctly — while doing sometimes (Futures without Violence) mega-business within the state — it seems appropriate to remind us about the strange financial relationship between KIDS TURN (SF) and the SFTC:

As below:

Record
Date Document Doc Type E/R Name
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/14/2010 J099605-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/14/2010 J098917-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/11/2009 I887047-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 01/27/2004 H647258-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TUR

 

 

You can see the four dates.  Every single one of them shows that “SFTC” actually has a LIEN on Kids Turn, meaning (apparently) that at some point in time, the nonprofit Kids Turn RECEIVED some money (or other thing that would be due back) from the SF Courts.  They now owe this to the courts, creating a Recorded Lien (?).    This has happened in 2004, 2009 and twice in one day in 2010, generally around the end or beginning of a year (Dec/January).  Was this for tax reporting purposes as well?
A BIG — very big — stink was made in California about Judges — who are to be paid by the state — receiving payment from the states, and not counties.  Legislation was passed to retroactively immunize the state of California’s Judges from prosecution for this (after Richard Fine casework) let the entire judicial system have to be shutdown.  Then they got back to disbarring the honest man, and throwing him in jail improperly, not to mention somewhere in there cutting off his legitimately earned fees as an attorney.  We should review this from time to time as a reminder of JUST who one is dealing with in the august legislators and judicial authorities of the state with the largest court system in the country, and which is looked to as a model.  I fear that Big Brother in this case has been setting a lousy example, and I cannot hold common Californians responsible for having high-conflict families, either, or being “flawed,” problemmatic, or most recently, having multiple personality problems troubling the court professionals (Bill Eddy High Conflict Institute language, etc.) as we are so often described in AFCC conferences.
KT was founded and “board-ed” as we know by judges, attorneys, and supported by foundations, donations, and of course some of the attorneys and judges on the board at times no doubt also contributed to Kids’ Turn) — which is a parent education model that tried to get iits name — SPECIFICALLY — written into California Law as THE standard, and which model has been followed in other states.
OK, let’s do a hypothetical situation here.  Again, I’m speculating — which so far, is not seditious, it’s simply expressive and cogitational.  I do not believe this is prohibited activity (other than we’ve already discerned that reporting criminal activity against one’s self or one’s kids, including kidnapping, assault, battery, molestation, stalking or other threats — is a self-defeating in the family law forum.   The ROI is just not worth it!  You will be labled and ordered into parenting services, and have another court professional assigned to your high-conflict-parent self.
But let’s just suppose:   At any given time (given the rotating board membership of Kids’ Turn), let’s suppose that a presiding judge, commissioner, or other person is ALSO involved in litigation on a specific case, and a parent, or a parent’s business, makes a nice fat donation to Kids’ Turn at the time.  Money is clearly changing hands between this group and the courts (not to mention, it also showed up as a nonprofit vendor in the City and County of SF 2007, 2008 & 2009) — wouldn’t that compromise the integrity of any ruling?
And because the general public doesn’t have access to the list of contributors in any timely fashion (the OAG does), unless the ruling judges were scrupulously honest (something they don’t exactly have a reputation for) how could any parent wishing to check impartiality, once aware of this particular financial relationship, protect his or her custody case?  Without access to the information.  As we can see below — (I think it was San Francisco) one of the groups had had its corporate license suspended, but now is reinstated (after I reported….):
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1657442 12/29/1989 ACTIVE KID’S TURN CLAIRE BARNES
C1970774 06/05/1996 ACTIVE KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS
Here’s the previous version, as I blogged Aug 31, 2011 in “Chasing Down Charitable & Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits”:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1657442 12/29/1989 SUSPENDED KID’S TURN CLAIRE BARNES
C1970774 06/05/1996 ACTIVE KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS

 

Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania (which is working on also passing a Faith-based initiative; I hope the bill stalls in suspended animation) civil rules of procedure were amended to specify REQUIRED use of “Kids First” (a fictitious name registered to Chet Muklewicz) a Kids’ Turn knockoff (same idea, same setup basically, different name); only this time, some of the locals caught on, reported, and in comes the FBI.  Believe me, I’ll teach them everything I know in the noble effort.  These are some seriously “high-conflict” parents (they have a serious conflict with court corruption) and may they never settle down, at least in that regard.

The forum was even shut down inappropriately without notice to the moderators, but the resulting suit pulled in the ACLU and up they went again

 

TIt’s self-evident that (given how simple it is to incorporate) the average “consumer” (litigant or “client” of any Family Court Services setup — even if they become aware of their local professionals’ addicition to forming nonprofits, & related for-profits marketing what the nonprofit sells, and memership associations to sell franchise opportunities for the same — while taking public funds as county employees, or contractors (etc.) — there is no way to keep up.

Nor should we have to — or be forced to spend the valuable ours of our lives as parents — or anyone else — tracking down crooked behavior on behalf of our own government that can’t (or doesn’t) keep up with it!

 

Just as certain parties wish to legislate their pet parent education (or abstinence education, for that matter) into mandated status — I believe that anyone who disagrees with this better think about how to get some legislating that starts with “JUST SAY NO!” to allowing ANY court employees or County employees staffing the courts, to form, be employed by, or be on the boards of, ANY nonprofit to which the court, jails, or county — will defer business.

The kazillions of diversionary programs presume that the US population has simply become unmanageable, riotous, incapable of monitoring themselves, dangerously volatile, horrible to children (universally, judging by how popular the foster care and adoption industries are) and in general incompetent idiots incapable of managing themselves or their neighborhoods.

 

I do not share this view.  Yeah, it applies often enough — but I have a problem with the parties stating this so often having been the ones riding herd for decade after decade anyhow — so this should be taken into account.  Starting with the public education system.  Talk about handing over one’s children to the current Administration the moment they go through the doors, and/or metal detectors.   No sir!   This is an institution that doesn’t handle competition very well, and the more centralized it gets, the less freedom the US has, and we’re pretty far down the fascist road already (referring to centralizing control and setting policy without going through Congress).  The more it fails, the more money it demands to compensate.

Taken as a whole, it is quite similar to the family court system, which people universally like to say is “broken” –but it seems to be working according to plan from what I can tell.  It’s the PLAN I have issues with — and which needs to be changed, if it cannot be tolerated by the public any longer.

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What’s Love — I mean Gender — I mean Gender Expression Discrimination– got to do with it? (Calif AB 887 & AFCC June 2011)

leave a comment »

“What’s Love Got to do with it?”

A film about the singer Tina Turner and how she rose to stardom with her abusive husband Ike Turner and how she gained the courage to break free.

[Yeah — how is beating a woman up related to loving her?  And what’s using her got to, either?]

I recommend seeing this (if you somehow haven’t, yet).  If not, at least hear the song:

This is a review of the movie.  If somehow, you are unfamiliar with the story/film, you might as well read it, to get a grip on how AFCC — a group renowned for minimizing and reframing exactly what this woman endured as a “high-conflict” and prescribing their coaches to coach victims of this type of brutality to learn now to get along with perpetrators of it [Or, we will take your children and give them to the other parent — or the state]– parodied the title  in a twisted perversion of the original reference — which is of a woman escaping brutal poverty and violence, a role model of success possible after confronting it.

This is hardly the first time AFCC did this, as I blogged earlier in “Clear and Present Danger — fuzzy usage by AFCC“, when a conference indicating that the “Clear and Present Danger” was not (as the California Penal Code stated it was) batterers, but lack of funding for their services.

Actually, that wasn’t fuzzy usage, but targeted usage — directly targeting legal language that addressed domestic violence, and switching usage.   Totally in accord with the organization’s stated purpose, which is the transformation of language — including the language of the criminal codes from state to state.  If, in the process, this also totally transforms the legal process, the courts (from judging law to dispensing therapy and counseling services, “Problem-solving courts” etc.) certainly (as defined by these helpful professionals), it was a worthy end to justify the means, right?

So o o o . . .. they next ask:

What’s Gender Got To Do With It?”

( a search of the phrase without “AFCC” shows how Tina Turna’s story has permeated the language…)

Many of the conference handouts I’ve been mocking and “outing”recently  (for the marketing schemes they truly are) are from this upcoming (like, next week) AFCC conference in Orlando, Florida.  I mean, what’s not to mock? including that it seems they take themselves seriously.

For example:  ”

This session examines the complex mental health challenges in some child custody litigants and the dilemmas they present for attorneys and mental health professionals working with flawed parents.

Yeah, for the superior professions, it’s sure hard to deal with flawed parents.  It’s ever so irksome dealing with inferior human beings and their flaws.  Perhaps they can commiserate with God in this matter… or seek counsel with Him (oh I forgot — it appears they already did..which is why we have to be subjected to the trainings…these conferences intend to fix us flawed parents (“been there, done that — I confess!  I’m not flawless!”). At our own expense, when it hits the courtroom.

Perhaps flawed parents, on the next go-round, should be sterilized and make life easier for judges, mental health professionals, and attorneys to ply their trades.

Plus, besides the troubles of dealing with flawed parents, the professionals have some of their own friction to work out (these family law professionals at least know not to display their conflicts  in front of the “kids” — i.e., mean, the troublesome parents that need to be educated on how to parent, and divorce, etc.):

 Implications of various professional roles will be explored as will the inherent friction between the roles of attorneys and mental health professionals.    …  Ethical implications of this work will be reviewed….

Wow — in private, among themselves, they actually admit there is an “inherent friction” in mental health professionals & the representatives of law?   And that ethical implications exist? — amazing.   I caught no hint of this in any court proceedings I was in for the past (xx years), most of them lasting 20 minutes and set to review a mediator’s report we’d just received in the courtroom minutes prior to the hearing.  This is called “due process” in action.  (or “inaction,” should I say).

This workshop was run — typical AFCC combo — by a Judge, two Attorneys, and a Ph.D.:

Mary Ferriter, J.D., Esdaile, Barrett & Esdaile, Boston,

MA David Medoff, Ph.D., Suffolk University, Boston, MA

Hon. Edward Donnelly, Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Cambridge, MA

Kelly Leighton, J.D., Barens & Leighton, Salem, MA

OK, so apparently Gender has something to do with it.  So let’s talk about Gender.  Or, eavesdrop on our Legislators trying to talk about it.

What’s Pacific Justice Institute Got to do it?

(with the Gender Debate?)

Who??? — Well,

Pacific Justice Institute for one has lots of love.  They provide services for free to “those” they serve according the the blurb at the bottom of my email alerts:

About The Pacific Justice Institute:  Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.  Pacific Justice Institute’s strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, “The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened.” “Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless* individuals, families and churches… without charge.”

What gender individuals.  Does this include the right gender individuals involved in the destructive jaws of the family law system, and spat out by it when there is neither wealth, nor children under 18, to suck the life out of?

(No.  While PJI tangles repeatedly with the Public Educational system (public), they’re not so foolish as to consistently engage in the family law system, or those entangled in such “family matters.”  Doing so on the behalf of women like me might jeopardize some of the financial support, I suspect….)

**Well, being a nonprofit, they’d better keep some books, like something resembling a headcount at least of their own clients….

AS TO CHURCHES NEEDING TO HAVE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED, BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CARES:

Churches and church-affiliated charities / organizations have received governmental support a decade by Executive Order.  This means that even tax-paying atheists may be supporting them, unawares, and are, because then-President Bush thought it was a great idea and ordered it.  “Let there be an office of faith-based and community initiatives.”  Lightbulbs went off in religious institutions across the land about access to grants…..  [see intro to google book “Godly Republic:  A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-based Future”

or a (positive, probably) Georgetown 2004 Master’s Thesis submission(search “Eberly”) ?  Don Eberly, a founder of the National Fatherhood Institute, whose agenda was obviously to protect the civil rights of fathers — all fathers — nationwide, who had been attacked by welfare Moms and anti-domestic-violence feminists and the child support system. “

Don Eberly, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives noted that he believes that the efforts are “’The Ultimate Third Way’” in the renegotiating of ways to approach social philosophy.25 The recent enthusiasm for the new method of social analysis is shared by President Bush as a result of his personal experiences.  The faith-based initiatives stems from his belief that prayer has a transformative power to combat social ills.

About Don Eberly” (Positive).  Note the sections “Influence Domestically” and “Movement Founder and Scholar”:

  • His career includes a decade serving in senior policy positions in the Congress and in the White House under two Presidents, and another decade advocating for and creating non-profit organizations to strengthen community and civic life.
  • Don spent much of the 1990s as a social entrepreneur, founding several nationally recognized non-profit organizations, including the Civil Society Project, which promotes innovation in community development and offers technical assistance for new non-profit start ups. In 1994, he founded the National Fatherhood Initiative, a national non-partisan civic organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of children by increasing the number of children raised by committed, engaged fathers.
GWB had faith in him, for sure:
  • George W. Bush

Thank you all very much for that warm welcome. It’s an honor to be introduced by Tommy Thompson, who not only was an outstanding Governor but, I can assure you, is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is bright, capable, smart, and does everything the President tells him. [Laughter

(We are less than amused….)

He’s my buddy. But thank you, Tommy, very much.

I am so honored Members of the United States Congress are here. I appreciate you all being here, Senator Carper, Senator Bayh, Congressman J.C. Watts. If there are other Members of the Congress here, thank you all for coming, as well. Roland Warren, it’s good to meet you, sir. I appreciate your focus and effort. I’ve got something to say about the other two characters up here in a minute. [Laughter]

For 7 years, the National Fatherhood Initiative has been a powerful voice for responsible fatherhood [programs.& funding…] [as defined by the NFI…] . And for those of you involved, on behalf of our Nation, I say thanks from the bottom of our collective hearts.

  • [Ha, ha, ha….How many restraining orders were in effect that year? ….How many femicides of women who tried to leave abuse?  Was this detail somewhere, in a dark corner of the conglomerate heart?]
Most States now have initiatives that promote responsible fatherhood, and more than 50 mayors are involved in the National Fatherhood Initiative’s bipartisan Mayors Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. The fatherhood movement is diverse, but it is united by one belief: Fathers have a unique and irreplaceable role in the lives of children.
Two people who have been a central part of the National Fatherhood Initiative are now a valuable part of my administration, . . . . 
the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Don Eberly, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services—and, we hope, a man confirmed soon—Wade Horn. [Applause] I was pleased to see Senator Carper leading the applause. [Laughter] Thank you guys for your service, and thank you for your willingness to work on behalf of the American people.
Sounds to me like our former President, and the Congressmen with him, had VERY little confusion about gender, and which one it was most important to support intellectually, morally, and financially…  and this was, obviously, love.  It also sounds to me like the civil rights, if not privileges, of “parents families and churches” had serious support from above, and I don’t mean only their god.  This was 10 years ago.
(This included to highlight the Federal support of Faith, Fathers, and Bush-buddy Don Eberly).
This has affected custody hearings, obviously, and issues surrounding child support, child abuse protection, and violence against women (GENDER-based violence, that is) obviously.

About Don Eberly” (skeptical) (By: Bill Berkowitz / Published: Feb 7, 2005 at 06:38)

  • An advocate of shrinking government, Don Eberly, the head of the Civil Society Project promotes faith-based organizations, private philanthropic initiatives, traditional families, volunteerism and the building of a ‘values’ society. Whose ‘values’ is the question.You won’t find him on many of television’s talking head programs, you wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a line-up, and his essays aren’t sexed-up or buzz-worthy, but for more than 15 years, Don Eberly has been one of the leading advocates of a strain of conservative advocacy known as “civil society.”Although vague and often ambiguous, “civil society” advocates intend to shrink government by handing over responsibility for maintaining and administering what’s left of the social safety net to faith-based organizations, corporate and community groups, families and philanthropic initiatives. As neoconservative cultural critic Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, “When we speak of the restoration of civil society it is a moral restoration we should seek.”

The Teacher in me (forgetting Tina Turner for a few minutes here) believes that we should have a nice link to ath Executive Order of January 29, 2001).  (George W. Bush of Texas having been President 2001-2009, this appears to be one of the first things he did in Office):

For Immediate Release January 29, 2001

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows: ….   (Recommended reading!  For example, ”

d) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall cooperate with the White House OFBCI and provide such information, support, and assistance to the White House OFBCI as it may request, to the extent permitted by law.”)

BARACK OBAMA 2010 UPDATE, incl.  “(e)  Administration of the Initiative.  The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group (which we can see (click on URL) includes the panorama of departments & agencies) to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.”

As we know, from Whitehouse.gov, there’s the:

And then, to get the jobs done, to execute the policies of the other two branches which the Constitution supports, there are for the Executive Branch

  • Federal Agencies & Commissions, too many to list on this site…

    “There are hundreds of federal agencies and commissions charged with handling such responsibilities as managing America’s space program, protecting its forests, and gathering intelligence. For a full listing of Federal Agencies, Departments, and Commissions, visit USA.gov.

(complete with Czars, etc.)  The first one of hundreds — alphabetically — is the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) where Fatherhood.gov, and Child Support Enforcement, Child Protective Services, Head Start, and many of the issues that this blog deals with, resides.  Not to mention The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 

I’m not sure if I come under this category or not, yet.  Academically, no.  As to work history, no, or health — probably not.  But if the highest levels of the US government itself cannot figure out whether gender does, or does not, matter how can I be expected to?

Again, how can “PJI” possibly supplement all this  Faith & Fatherhood-laced Federal Endorsements of NFI and OFBCI?   What ongoing attacks on fatherhood and faith is it addressing?  (actually, I do know — I keep my eye on their email alerts..)

Well, for once, it earned its keep, in my eyes:

The conservative legal advocacy group (not that they ever helped me, a female with family law issues) for once earned its free place in my inbox by alerting me to another move by my state legislature to help deconfuse us about how to respond to people who are confused about gender, or at least express it differently.

They write :

CA Legislators to Consider “Refining” Definition of Gender

Sacramento, CA – Lawmakers in the golden state are considering changes to thirty-four statutes “by redefining the definition of gender to also include a person’s… gender expression.” The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explains that under the proposed amendments “gender expression would be defined as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The bill, AB 988, amends the Civil, Education, Government, Labor, and Penal Codes

Well, who’s complying with most of those codes anyhow?  If they are violated, what prison cell is anyone going to go to?  Last I heard the recommendation from our “head of state” was to go build prisons in Mexico.

Consider what’s been poured into the “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” from HHS, enaabled years earlier by GWB as President, this sounds as though California forgot where it’s money comes from — haven’t they been listening?  Or does California(‘s legislature) have some confusion about states rights, still?

Mission & Purpose

The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a pioneering non-profit organization that works throughout California to improve the well-being of children by strengthening the relationship of parents through Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

Correct me if I”m wrong, but the main thing they were pioneers in was size of federal funding and scope of potential clientele (i.e., the entire married, or divorced, or separating but parents, or marriageable, potentially fertile population of California from age 15 up. male & female..).  How courageous, to surge forth on behalf of “Family” with only $2.4 million/year backing….)

Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California.  Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs ** through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs.

Just a little reminder, ‘FBCO’ means “Faith-Based Community Organization.”  Any faithless, secular, agnostic or atheist organizations that may have already been doing marriage counseling need not apply to join THIS marketing group…….  You can be faith-based and counsel the unbelieving (perchance, they’ll be converted by imitation and association) but your leadership cannot be godless….  $2.4 million per year –shared websites — technical and marketing support —  wanna reconsider the category of your org, wanna be transformed to a FBCO?

Well I suppose I better get to the point of this post, which began HERE, which at first blush looks to be a “what’s anatomy got to do with gender?  And what’s my gender expression preference got to do with my employability?”

 

 

California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 887,

In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
struck out text denotes deleted text

BILL NUMBER: AB 887 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

An act to amend Section 51 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 200, 210.2, 210.7, 220, 32228, 47605.6, 51007, 66260.6, 66260.7, and 66270 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12930, 12931, 12935, 12940, 12944, 12949, 12955, 12955.8, 12956.1, and 12956.2 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 676.10, 10140, 10140.2, and 12693.28 of the Insurance Code, to amend Section 3600 of the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 186.21, 422.56, 422.85, 3053.4, and 11410 of the Penal Code, relating to gender.

 

I don’t know Assembly Member Atkins, but it turns out that through redistricting, San Diego voters were able to (and did) elect an “openly Queer Councilmember,” some of which is detailed (when I simply searched on the Assembly person’s name) here.  Lo and behold, Assemblyperson Atkins was the former staff chair of a similarly “out” lesbian, [current Senator] Christine Kehoe –– whose name I know from her attempt to sneak a thinly disguised attempt at legislating Kids’ Turn as THE state-approved parent education plan by having the Judicial Council conduct effectiveness studies.  (Yeah, that’s a mouthful– but see post  on Kicking salemanship up a notch.”).  Amazing what you can do with some great redistricting….

While Atkins was addressing the San Diego Democrats about the horrible budget cuts, it appears a little GLBT (“L” to be specific) nepotism — caught by the San Diego Reader — was going on between her wife’s contract on tehcnical assistance to help San Diego’s homeless by counting them  — yes, counting them — to the tune of $464,750  (Details at “Is Assembly Leader Toni Atkins Cashing in on Homelessness?

By historymatters | Posted March 8, 2011, 9:07 p.m.

There is an enormous amount of money to be made solving the problem: so more homeless equals more money for State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins and her wife’s private business contracted to do a study.

The article boasts a photo of State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins leading the charge of more than 550 volunteers searching for homeless people with her flashlight.

I have actually heard (in a different county) certain homeless people at a soup kitchen joking about, could they get a county job counting themselves?  After all, who would better know where to look?   

To understand why certain politicians get all excited at the prospects of helping vulnerable populations (kids of divorcing parents, homeless, battered women, etc. . . . ) one must first understand what’s in it for them, or their associates  = contracts.  This sounds like a fairly typical situation.  Do the math.  I’m sure Assemblyperson Atkins’ wife Jennifer did.  $225 per hour, hire an $175/hr expert, a $90/hr former reporter, and some volunteers.  Lots of them.

(Welcome to My State….)  Here are legislators supporting mandatory positive portrayals of LGBT as role models for children in public schools.  Ah well…..

California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models ~ Family advocates call plan ‘worst school sexual indoctrination ever’

The Rebel~PWCM~JLAFebruary 12, 2011

{actually not just lesbians, interesting choice of lables to highlight)

“Equality California, an organization that advocates for homosexuality, said others sponsoring the plan include Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego; Assembly member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco; Assembly member Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assembly member Rich Gordon, D-San Mateo; and Assembly member Ricardo Lara, D-East Los Angeles.

Lawmakers in the state of California are proposing a law that would require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles as positive role models to children in all public schools there.

“SB 48: The worst school sexual indoctrination ever” is how officials with the Campaign for Children and Families describe the proposal, SB 48, sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno.

Openly homosexual, Leno boasts on his website of founding a business with his “life partner, Douglas Jackson,” who later died of AIDS complications.

 

(Leno is known among some circles to be closely connected with a certain self-promoting judicial excellence nonprofit reporting on the “crisis in the courts” locally.  This group was for years (the few years it’s been involved) refusing to report in the fatherhood funding, and still doesn’t, when it comes to feeding information to local on-lines.  So, I do….)

 

To me, sounds like a very expensive Legislative WAR on Gender Definitions!  However, when I hear about any assemblyperson or senator (LGBT, not LGBT, or redneck) involved in corrupt financial practices while yakkin’ about our broke state, I’ll blog the practices.  Toni Atkins trained under Christine Kehoe and BOTH of them apparently were trying to pull a fast one on voters who can’t keep up with the ideologies (or are focusing on them, rather than on the payrolls)

BUT, MEANWHILE, if we are going to transform society, 

AFCC I think has a simpler, more honest way.  They force us all to pay them to force indoctrinations  on as many people as possible which help make the Civil & Penal Codes, and the language of them, a moot point, and for that matter, the laws.   They do this by getting paraprofessionals into private matters, causing chaos, then running off to hold conferences and trainings with themselves on how to best profit from the mess, and try to exclude non-AFCC-trained professionals (however qualified) from getting a piece of the action.

Jurisdiction was set decades ago, as the chink in the door — any couple having a custody conflict.

It’s clear when you read their conference materials and compare it to actions, that they are simply fulfilling the goal of transforming language — and with it government.  And when you read, you can understand that this is the scheme.     I think it’s a bit roundabout to undo our Bushwhacked Country by rounding up all damages done and starting a States/Federal fight here.

 

Why should I pay, in any form, for politicians’ gender wars?

I’m an adult without, to my awareness, gender confusion.

Is it OK if I get out from the middle of this ‘high-conflict” relationship?   I’ll even take a “Kids in the Middle“(r), Children in the Middle(r), KidsFirst (though mine have aged out) or even Kids Turn(r) course at my own expense and not ask which foundation also sponsored my participation, or which government grant ALSO sponsored my participation because someone, somehow, somewhere, actually got their paws on my kids’, my, and my ex-husband’s social security numbers and truly understood they were worth more than their (virtual, I guess) weight in gold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 887, as introduced, Atkins. Gender.

(1) Existing law contains various provisions that define sex as including gender and define gender as including a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

This bill would make technical changes to those provisions by refining the definition of gender to also mean a person’s gender identity and gender expression and would define gender expression as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. The bill would also replace cross-references to definitions of gender with the referenced definitions refined in the same manner as specified above.

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act…

….

(e) For purposes of this section: …

4) “Sex” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender- related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth .

Copyright 2011 State Net. All Rights Reserved.

What about sex as the direct object of a verb, references to (or promises of) which activity fuels so much of our state’s economy?  And Bush’s intentions to have us abstain from has cost in “abstinence education programs,” as in “Having Sex,”  commonly known as (well, this is wordpress, so fill in the blank after a trip to the local school’s girls — or boys’ — rooms and reading the graffiti, in case your language hasn’t kept up.)

What about sex as a recreational — or procreational –activity, which occasionally and sometimes accidentally, results in human life which can and often is terminated in a variety of ways before or after childbirth, legally or illegally, throughout the lifespan?

 

Is it really possible to categorize and make legal (or, illegal) all the varieties of human behavior by VOTE?

Note:  Bill was posted at the Network of Care for Behavioral Health with the seal of the City and County of San Francisco up top.  I think their business will be booming shortly, if it isn’t already.  What expressions of healthy behavior are permissible, and who is going to pay if I violate them?

 

Or feel that my right to, say, indecent exposure might be civilly protected on the basis that I was just engaging in gender expression, and wanted a response as to what others thought mine was…

Well, you tell me — what’s up NEXT in the Legislature that’s likely to affect the bottom line of, for example:

 

?

%d bloggers like this: