Posts Tagged ‘‘What’s Your REAL Legal Domicile?’ [AFCC | NCADV| others]’
Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. [Draft, Oct. 26, 2021, Publ. May 18, 2022: at 27K words…].
This is what’s going on: I’m in housing transition: I’ll be out of this place within the next 24 hours, literally, and still not exactly sure how to reach the next (safe place) destination about one state away. I know it will represent a blogging pause, so I went through my most recent drafts, looked for some which were most helpful, and least embarrassing in format. Three or four qualified, but I chose this one. The most embarrassing aspect is its obnoxious length. On the other hand, within the contents is plenty of useful information; people who may follow my writing will understand better. It’s focused on a key concept and I think illustrates it at length (literally…). It was drafted eight months ago — that’s a long time, but this is still a worthwhile post for the patient readers, or those who understand it may work better read in installments (some today, some tomorrow…).
Parts of it apply to different situations: for example, (not its main focus, but) I see on scrolling through it today (5/18/2022), I’d shown the tax returns of what’s now called “Evident Change” but was then “National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” (inc. 1907 and I’d said, may just have been the model AFCC was following, only with family courts, not juvenile…) NCCD began with associations of probation officers, definitely a focus on the juvenile (age group), which I’d just Tweeted on yesterday. NCCD’s California Registry of Charitable Trusts “RRF” filings also show which governments — this usually shows which USA governments or government agencies — it was taking grants from. I still remember the shock of discovering, it was taking grants from a whole selection of governments OUTside the USA. From yesterday’s Tweet, I recall (possibly post http://wp.me/psBXH-2KW, but check Twitter) I’d written in 2014 but (another long blogging pause, that time for family court aftermath litigation) only posted in 2017. These delays happen at times, especially when your out put doesn’t keep up with your own research, which never stops… NCCD (Evident Change) has an office not far from AFCC’s office in Madison, Wisconsin (by “not far” I mean, when I last looked, a very short WALK away, around the block). I would say that’s an entity to watch although it’s not much in the news. Learn who it’s been and what it wants to do: this link will redirect: https://NCCDGlobal.org
I may never get around to splitting or further developing the material on this post. I can’t see that far into my own future, but I hope its serious topic resonates with gut instinct that there HAS to be a better way to categorize and keep track of advocacy groups, and governments. Before 2022, VAWA Reauthorization and other media “events” and campaigns, this was where my blog was going: to revisit and re-emphasize the concept of “Entity.” (Without the entity you can’t track the money…Looking for them is its own set of lessons). Another example: I see I had a link to the California Secretary of State Business Entities Search site. This will redirect — the appearance and function of that state has since migrated into a whole new format; at some levels it has more functions, but in display, in many ways less, making communications on findings among (normal people) harder… Government (and private) databases migrating platforms and undergoing format changes will happen, but still important to notice as it happens. “ENJOY…” //LGH May 18, 2022.
From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.
Post Title and Shortlink:
Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!
Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.” Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t. This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.
Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.
That means, relevance to accountability. And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.
It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.
The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].
Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?
Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search. Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear. The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country. A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats). Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.
On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted. These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site. Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access.
But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.
For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General.
Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.
To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:
…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.[h]
Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”
When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year. This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities. There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines. Example: The Tennessee Valley Authority.
The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).
It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.
Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.
And that’s a shell game!
Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction. The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is. Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9).
This Post Is: ‘‘From The Beginning, March 2009, FCM Has Been More About This Organization Than Me’ (FrontPage Sept. 2019 Subsection #1, Published/Expanded Sept. 9). (Short-link ends “-aUu,” as off-ramped, only about 1,500 words, with a mini-preview, about 2,500 words only and at the end of the day [9/9/2019] just over 6,000).
(“FCM” meaning, this blog. FrontPage on this blog meaning “FamilyCourtMatters.org“).
ANY post may be further edited (as in, condensed, or expanded, or both) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!
(This one was edited so much before, it’s unlike to have major changes soon after, though).
The writing and images posted below (where clearly marked) were previously published on the long front page to the blog and probably written in December 2018. Originally, just meant to show a few images from my existing media library for a few key points of reference.
It’s not intended to be a full drill-down with a developed argument and many kinds of connecting points of reference to support it, but just a call-out — an alert, not an expose.
However it still exposes many things. The images are either annotated or captioned or both, providing along with the few quotes plenty of details. The organization referenced in post title here to me symbolizes a key part of the larger system, even though it also is literally (not just symbolically) a major part of my blogging and I believe source of the ongoing problems “in” the family courts in more than one country.
However, those family courts exists within systems, not vacuums. Bottom line, they employe judges, the judges are paid by governments: a major part of those systems IS government itself (yours, mine, others’…). To understand government includes understanding its financing and who it hires (contracts with and grants to, employs etc.) to do its various businesses. That’d be a great place to start. BUT if one wants to focus, first, solely on the family courts, each one, and collectively (by jurisdiction) they still exist within an immediate level of government, and surrounding components, and encompassing (higher levels of government).
Those systems must be seen and discussed in public. Complaints about system outputs should be tied to documentation of system blueprints (original design intended). (See my next, “impassioned” inset):
“Complaints about system outputs should be tied to and premised (BUILT logically) upon
documentation of system blueprints (original design purposes).”
(//LGH 9/9/2019, NOT my first time saying this)
Some premises, if true, would preclude ANY consideration of certain corrections. These ones should be disproved (if UNtrue) first, before designing a solution to the problems occurring “in” the courts and claiming a cause-effect relationship between those courts and the problems.
If they were designed, for example, to resolve conflict through ongoing compromise of basic boundaries as exemplified in the criminal codes because ongoing conflict is psychologically worse for all (especially kids, RIGHT?) than criminal behavior — then criticism that they are failing to protect from criminal behavior is ridiculous.
This seems to be one premise behind “no-fault divorce” [First in the USA: California, 1970]. No one is “at fault” — grounds for divorce can now be just “irreconcilable differences.” The other spouse person wasn’t the problem, only the relationship: forget the past, move forward, crimes or no crimes. Funny how this mentality should have, it now seems, facilitated even more ways to punish and attempt to shame (or just plain old extort) people divorcing as though divorce, (or failure to marry) WERE a crime and inspired (?) or enabled the establishment of “conciliation” courts. Whether or not they’ve engaged in anything criminal towards the other person, society, or their own children (or anyone else’s) …
If on the other hand family courts originally were designed to divert too many argumentative, annoying, obstreperous or otherwise “recalcitrant” (searchable on this blog) parents (and their kids) into behavioral modification and education/therapy-based or attitude-adjustment court-connected (local community or on-line) psycho-educational classes and treatments — to the benefit and profiting those so involved, and for the overall social good of society — then saying they’ve failed or are broken is likewise ridiculous.
OR, if they were designed not with a view to (despite all the talk) what’s best for the children, but what’s best for those in quasi-judicial, immunity-prone fields involving the social-science and psycho-based (particularly psychologists) fields (and those who compile and annotate data on effects — as in, consultants and those with database and data analysis services), as a career path looking good because courts can order it, governments MIGHT help support it, and parents will HAVE to pay it if they want to see their kids again (or, get out of jail sooner) — then I’d have to say the family court systems seem to be a resounding success. Just not for everyone run through them.
There are no doubt several other “if they were designed for, …. then ….” possibilities. I think they should be listed, together, and the most illogical ones rejected, and reasons why, noted.
However what to me is equally ridiculous is failure to look into WHEN they were designed, BY WHOM they were designed, READ what those who designed said at the time, and HOW they persuaded (on what basis of public benefit) those in power to make it happen. (Administrative ruling of a chief judge (Maryland, 1990s) it took years to effect; in another (by popular vote to re-organize the courts, Kentucky, 1990s), and I recently ran across a (1998) feasibility study for Ohio mentioning who commissioned it, who provided the study, and whose ideas they were referencing. I will be posting on this, I HOPE, soon. (Partially written draft as I write).
Failing to even reference or admit this when complaining about the family court output and demanding change to alter that output — whether the complained about output (‘outcome’) is framed as” xx children murdered, or xx children ordered into “unsupervised” custody or visitation with batterers, or convicted child-molesters/rapists, etc. — AND whether complaint is publicized (typically, on-line) by way of:
one’s nonprofit organization’s website,
or mainstream media (independent journalists),
or independent journalists to whom nonprofits are pitching a story line working mainstream, free-lance, or freelance for other nonprofit investigative media (<~~you know who you are…), all of who stand to personally gain from the branding, name recognition, and further consultancies, reputation, and access to power.
or online petitions (Change.org, etc.). Or even lobbying legislators — successfully — to get resolutions passed which fail the above “common sense — not ridiculous” test above.
The original intent of my Dec. 2018 section from the Front Page being just a call-out makes this post a shorter and easier read, unless your mind works like mine, looking constantly for supporting arguments and proof when some assertion or assumption seems questionable but is unsupported.
Being so short, it doesn’t really need much of an introduction or guide to its layout (!), but as I had to make some introduction, I chose to re-emphasize those points and add a very short (informal, not in-depth) update referring to a different, participant in the larger system, illustrating the “Across-the-Pond”flavor of the family courts.*
Which family courts (or at least their preceding and their judges’ decisions) have upset so much of America, and which from time to time, many say and I have to agree, end up getting people killed in the context of divorce and/or in the context of separating from abuses in order to NOT, with their children get killed, or allow the children to be abused. Sometimes we know there’s collateral damage (bystanders, extended family, responding officers, too). Hard to disagree that there are such problems, while assigning blame for them is still under debate**
*While doing this (summary/intro/lead-in) I as always had to deal with my tendency towards sarcasm and mouthing off. Sometimes sarcasm makes the point quicker, whether or not it proves a point…
** Family courts + professionalizing all the ancillary services they exist to order (whether by a mass-mandate or as individually, but often, court-ordered — relationship education for all… education for parents that divorce impacts kids … behavioral modification for dangerous or alleged dangerous parents…) + then professionalizing, certifying or licensing anyone hoping to become a “new-kid-on-the-block” provider apparently is expected or desirable to lessen the governmental burden of too many people seeking justice (or protection from dangerous people) in the criminal courts, so the sacrifice of life must be worth it…
(“Why can’t you all just get along??“)(with our dangerous exes, the other parents to our children).
The next footnote has a long title, but not footnoting it would make the post top-heavy. (it also pushes the total word-count just over 5,000 words).
See FOOTNOTE “FAMILY COURTS OFF-RAMPED FROM THE CRIMINAL TO RELIEVE DEMAND ON RESOURCES. IT’S NOT WORKING. SO NOW WE SHOULD ON-RAMP CRIMINAL STANDARDS INTO THE VEHICLE/VENUE/”NEW VESSELS” INTENDED TO EXCLUDE THAT “OLD” (I.e., not “behavioral science”) LANGUAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Originally, the December 2018 section had only two basic topics. On it you’ll see large annotated images, some related quotes and these two headings:
- From the Beginning, More about This Organization Than Me (i.e., “thanks for all the stories, but Let’s talk about these systems!)** “Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?), and
- Who am I and Why Does This Blog Look and Talk So Different Than Others on “Family Court” matters?
** See Footnote “Why Talk Systems more than Our Experiential Stories“?
Having now moved it here, September, 2019, there are more additions than changes:
~~>I added this summary above (and you’re still reading it), part of which I footnoted below, necessary because of my sarcastic commentary and opportunistic tendency to emphasize main points..(so, I ran my mouth and wouldn’t just delete the content..). This summary came after…
~~>I added a Mini-Preview to include two short articles about a British parallel organization (so to speak) which has now become “BFF“[Best Friends oFFicially] with “this organization,” both of them in 2018/2019 are more open about it than ever, although some of us detected this basic cross-Atlantic dyad of public policy romance, perhaps based in beliefs about how family court systems — and families — should be run (and, by whom)…
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 