“Mother Says” — Words to the Wise for Women in Custody Challenges
[Intro paragraphs -- some of underlines below are hyperlinks. Publ. 12/27/2012; Rev. 2-19-2013, split in half 06-06-2013, putting Michigan Material in a separate post.]
NOTE: OVERALL THIS BLOG IS FOR BOTH GENDERS, AND TO THE WIDER PUBLIC WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE STRUNG OUT HANDLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL ABUSE (OR SIMPLY FINANCIAL DESTRUCTION) CASES IN THE COURT.
Truth, however framed, is offensive, and my blog certainly will offend plenty. However, I am still more interested in systems, and perhaps the mentality of the people that designed them, tolerate them, staff them, and fund them. Society has to have some labels, and designations, to work as do systems. I think different personalities gravitate to certain portions of certain systems — but there are SOME systems which affect almost everyone. So like it or not, their damages have to be discussed; there is no other way to mitigate them.
Overall, it is an appeal for the public to wake up. To identify and find ways to quit financing institutions within America that undermine justice (as defined in terms of due process, representative government of ANY sort, and oppose over-centralization of power). Doing this requires identifying and letting go of significant myths on which the economy** — and from there, most social relationships (in fact, from which society) — is based.
** So the natural question is if the state’s withholding of $600 billion in our cash and investments does not fund pensions, address a budget deficit, or prevent devastation to infrastructure, how can we best restructure the purpose and use of OUR MONEY for optimal public benefits?
(others without Harvard Degrees explain this just as well, but I figured readers still probably respect Harvard degrees. I no longer do… or much of Yale, either. For one, Yale admitted women WHEN?)
Or, same idea from a non-Ivy leaguer (former sound engineer) — but a person who from what I see, at least employs reason — compares the Vatican claiming it’s broke, to governments as corporations, basically singing the same tune financially. Taken from a summer 2012 AP article featuring the Vatican declaring a $19 million deficit. Yes, this is relevant to the court systems, moms! (and dads!):
1) The Vatican is a corporation, as is each individual and Federal government entity.
2) The Vatican and government operate both in the non-profit and for-profit realm.
[[LGH note: The non-profit and for-profit realm reveal that the separate but unequal status of nonprofit organizations versus wage-earners, and of the tax system as a caste system, i.e., while it was probably sold up front as an equalizer, long-term it is the exact opposite -- it simply re-aligns the entire economy around the IRS, the USDOT, the Federal Reserver, and a different set of values. As of 1943, I learned nonprofits were required to register as nonprofits, but religious institutions and charitable and educational were not. This was found in th econtext of a Congressional Hearing on what to do about the fact that (megachurches, televangelists, etc.) were operating so many businesses with so many exemptions. Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, and eventually Saddleback Church (Rick Warren) were discussed. to get around actually being scrutinized, it seems that some of the evangelists put together their own "we'll monitor ourselves, thank you!" credentialing organization, which shows they have been learning from other professionals all along (like, lawyers, behavioral health boards, psychologists, etc.)]]
3) Both have an Annual Financial Report, and both have a budget report.
4) Both the Vatican and the Government have real estate holdings, as well as stock investments, foreign currency holdings, and both invest heavily into the world-wide corporate structure and fund its liquidity.
5) Both promote their debt, while hiding their investment asset balances.
6) Both have a central bank, which bails it out in moments of need, and then expects Catholics/taxpayers to pay the bill despite its liquid investment holdings.
7) Both openly lie by omission to the people of Earth, while in a position of trust, referring to a deficit while completely ignoring its investment holdings – as if these fund balances don’t even exist.
8) Both use the “depreciation” of capital assets (land holdings, buildings, etc.) to show on their financial reports a liability against other assets, in order to decrease reportable value of these investment assets.
9) Both create budgets that are falsely imploded with such things as future liabilities so as to justify its raising of taxes and its request for tithing.
10) Both create separate sub-corporations with their own financial statements as for-profit entities, but do not use those profits for the benefit of the people.
11) Both call the people “customers”, not people.
12) Both lay off employees with the excuse of budget shortfalls, still not dipping into their vast trillions in liquid investment capital.
13) AND BOTH OWN AND CONTROL THE MEDIA THROUGH STOCK INVESTMENT AND COERCION, AND USE IT TO HIDE ALL OF THIS FROM THE PEOPLE BY KEEPING THEM ENTERTAINED WITH EVERYTHING BUT THIS INFORMATION.
In this truly ironic statement by the Vatican we can see perhaps the best example ever of how a government corporation lies by the act of utter and ridiculous disassociation and nondisclosure of its true wealth. And yes, the Vatican is a corporation, and it is the government of Vatican City – as a “nation state”. It just happens to call itself a church.
Similar statements could be made (and yes, I have been looking) about major Protestant denominations, or nondenominational megachurches, etc. However, we should admit that the Vatican is one of the oldest, and longest standing corporations still in existence today. This has little to do with whether people tithing to it are moral, nice, smart, intelligent or personally ethical. However, they do support that system of wealth with time, talent (often volunteer or low-paid compared to the Vatican itself’s holdings (ask me how I know…), in exchange for some wonderful architecture, art, music, and shelter for various communities, plus weekly gatherings to soothe the stresses of the worklife, or to help each other, pray, etc.
Intelligent and independent, competent, single (or re-married) mothers are being tortured through this system, and if they won’t cower under the first few rounds (and for any survivor of abuse, “cowering” is not a survival posture to take), their children will then be taken and abused by the former violent parent, or elsewhere by “the state.” I have spoken to women who, in the 1980s, were able to get free and get on with life; it is no longer possible under the tightened-since-welfare-reform regime and political climate. Fatherhood.gov simply will not tolerate this
To Intelligent and independent, competent and courageous women should understand, and be able to communicate to the larger public, and anyone else willing to listen:
Everyone would do well understand that the funding platform of HUGE pension funds , income taxes, sales taxes, and etc. has already provided (transferred from private to government hands, from which it is then contracted out at will to either govt employees, or their private contractors) a vast source of wealth which your (our) government uses to pick winners and losers in the corporate field AND in the family court cases, individually and collectively. Federal governments aren’t supposed to interfere with state laws, but there are ways to get around that — which is top-down funding of state governments, etc. Think of the cycle of precipitation, evaporation, etc. Water goes up, it comes down (flows to the oceans), goes up, comes down again, etc. Money isn’t quite like that, but perhaps this is a way to understand distribution systems from individual public through centralized government entities and out again to (wherever it goes). There ARE roadmaps.
(Government is essentially a corporation, only with the right to use force to enforce its corporate, UCC, state, local, etc. codes)
The peace, stability and security you may have — which we, your friends sometimes seeking help, support, or protection individually that the courts and law enforcement REFUSE to give us for more than a few moments, and at a very high price (contact with our children, etc.) — is also temporary, and is being used to build and sustain these terrorizing institutions in which truth is subject to re-definition by a presiding judge and his professional “staff” who are primarily in the mental health fields, formerly called “mental hygiene.” For where that’s leading, see Solzhenitsyn (1978 Harvard Address) (Gulag Archipelago)
|[Wikipedia/from "Gulag Archipelago")There had been works about the Soviet prison/camp system before, and its existence had been known to the Western public since the 1930s. However, never before had the general reading public been brought face to face with the horrors of the Gulag in this way. The controversy surrounding this text in particular was largely due to the way Solzhenitsyn definitively and painstakingly laid the theoretical, legal and practical origins of the Gulag system at Lenin's feet, not Stalin's. According to Solzhenitsyn's testimony, Stalin merely amplified a concentration camp system that was already in place. This is significant, as many Western intellectuals viewed the Soviet concentration camp system as a "Stalinist aberration." 
Historical impact of the text
Solzhenitsyn argued that the Soviet government could not govern without the threat of imprisonment, and that the Soviet economy depended on the productivity of the forced labor camps, especially insofar as the development and construction of public works and infrastructure were concerned.
This put into doubt the entire moral standing of the Soviet system. In Western Europe the book eventually forced a rethinking of the historical role of Lenin. With The Gulag Archipelago, Lenin’s political and historical legacy became problematic, and the factions of Western communist parties who still based their economic and political ideology on Lenin were left with a heavy burden of proof against them. George F. Kennan, the influential U.S. diplomat, calledThe Gulag Archipelago, “the most powerful single indictment of a political regime ever to be levied in modern times.”
When, if you hang with this blog, or start to understand the “theoretical, legal, and practical origins” of the family court system, in the framework of the inheritance and backgrounds of the mental and behavioral health fields, with their origins in (and labeling of) individuals tortured, assaulted, or simply who need to be indoctrinated into jumping out of parachutes or charging suicidally into war, as well as small children and/or individuals who have been subject to long-term violence and threatened in order to keep them silence, you will understand that there are not “Corrupt judges” or “corrupt custody evaluators” for which any band-aid system of ethical oversight, training, or re-indoctrination of the indoctrinators (according to the Barry Goldstein/Mo Hannah // Leadership Council // Lundy Bancroft // or any others saying, “Let US train the trainers for a while, use OUR curricula.”
You will also understand that as the Soviet economy depended on the productivity of the forced labor camps, especially insofar as the development and construction of public works and infrastructure were concerned, OUR economy (and the family court system) depends private control of the welfare state, and all its systems of control — and where the middle class of professionals sits in the mix.
You cannot understand the family court system without understanding the federal grants and contracts to the states, and their distribution to the courts (or central agencies funding the courts) which then do a “Fees for Friends” contracting-out to psychologists, counselors, social workers, therapists (etc., get the picture?). This system is a set of freebie slush funds (the public will remain largely busy, or traumatized beyond belief, and as such, clueless — or distracted), infinitely expandable as we are distracted from the organizing principle.
It is also an appeal for mothers, in particular who are a force to be reckoned with when our children’s lives are at risk (cf. the image of the mother bear; in the wild, to not approach a predator with young at risk, right? Humans are predator animals; they will eat anything, but also are dangerous far beyond what they just need to physically survive). I appeal to mothers to quit signing over their emotions and mentality to groups whose agenda (1) is not up front, and (2) entails censorship of critical elements of the problem they are saying “help us solve.” They need to regain the use of their own faculties (trust me, it’s fun!), and stop joining, or recruiting, for anything which resembles (or is) simply a cult. Time is short — quit compromising, and don’t follow the Don Quixote model — charging windmills may be romantic, but it’s also poor judgment (or eyesight). Both of which, in a warzone, could get you or others hurt.
(SEE GRAVATAR) I AM A WOMAN AND MOTHER, AND UNDERSTAND HOW WOMEN/MOTHERS ARE HANDLED IN THE CUSTODY COURTS FROM BOTH EXPERIENCE AND ANALYSIS.
THE ANALYSIS WAS AS SHOCKING AS THE EXPERIENCE, IN THAT — COLLECTIVELY, THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION NEEDED ABOUT THIS VENUE WAS ITS OPERATIONS, THE OWNERS, AND THE LONG-TERM GOALS OF THOSE OWNERS. ANYONE CAN SEE IT’S HURTING FAMILIES WHILE PROMISING TO HELP THEM. IT TAKES A DIFFERENT MINDSET TO UNDERSTAND WHY, AND to STRATEGIZE WHERE ONE STANDS IN RESPONSE. I LOOKED FROM THE BOTTOM (GRASSROOTS LEVEL) UP, AND NOW ALSO LOOK FROM THE TOP DOWN (THROUGH THE FUNDING). WHAT ADVOCACY GROUPS DO IS CLAIM TO HAVE THE BIRDSEYE VIEW, WHILE APPLYING INFORMATION FILTERS TO WHAT THEY RECOMMEND AND TALK ABOUT. THOSE FILTERS COME OFF QUICKLY WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL AND CORPORATION/BUSINESS POINT OF VIEW. TO DO THIS, YOU CANNOT !!! JUST LOOK AT THE LOCAL SYMPTOMS OR COUNTY COURTHOUSE.
SO, THIS POST IS TO THOSE SMART, WORTHY (AND OF COURSE LAW-ABIDING) MOMS WHO ARE WILLING TO THINK CLEARLY AND ACT DECISIVELY ON THIS INFO, AFTER THEY HAVE DECIDED IF IT MAKES SENSE OR NOT, AND IS VALID OR NOT.
AROUND HERE (THIS BLOG), WE LEARN TO READ A FINANCIAL STATEMENT (BY READING LOTS OF THEM), FIND AND READ CORPORATE AND CHARITABLE REGISTRATIONS, LOOK UP GRANTS AND CONTRACTS, SORT, READ A TAX RETURN, and WHILE WE READ VORACIOUSLY IN A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, WE ARE IN A FAST LEARNING CURVE TO WHAT TRUTH SMELLS LIKE, AND STAY ON THAT SCENT. THIS MEANS DISCARDING IRRELEVANT OR DISTRACTING MATERIAL, UNDERSTANDING WHATS AT STAKE. WE NEVER STOP LEARNING THIS STUFF, AND ONCE BASICS HAVE BEEN GRASPED, DON’T FORGET THEM.. . .
AROUND HERE (THIS BLOG), WHILE REMEMBERING NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS, THAT MEMORY IS NOT DRIVEN BY REVENGE OR ANGER, BUT FOR WHAT ARE THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS’ PLACE HISTORICALLY IN THE SYSTEMS THAT HAVE HURT EITHER US, OUR KIDS, OR OTHERS WE KNOW.
However, IF YOU ARE LOOKING JUST FOR SOMEONE TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT “THE COURTS SVCK,” THEN GO BACK TO THE CLOSEST “PLEASE, PLEASE HELP US” ADVOCACY GROUP and GET SOME HUGS AND MORAL SUPPORT, AND CONTINUE TO DO (AND PARROT) WHATEVER THE EXPERTS (NOT NECESSARILY THEMSELVES MOTHERS OR SURVIVORS OF THIS PROCESS) SAY OR ENCOURAGE/TELL YOU TO.
THIS BLOG IS NOT FOR “FOLLOWERS.” FOLLOWERS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE STANDING FIRM, BUT INDEPENDENT ON THE TRUTH, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SILENCE THEIR OWN INSTINCTS, AND FOR THE SAKE OF EMOTIONAL COMFORT, THEIR “SISTERS” WHEN INFORMATION DOESN’T ADD UP, OR WHEN THEIR COMPANIONS DISAGREE. THIS MAY BE CONSCIOUS, OR PARTIALLY CONSCIOUS.
IF THAT’S YOU, AND YOU ARE OR WERE IN A DRAMATIC AND STRESSFUL COURT CASE, NEED TO CHANNEL EMOTIONS WITH OTHERS, OR TO DISCHARGE THEM WITH OTHERS — RATHER THAN CHANNELING THEM IN A DRIVE TOWARDS THE TRUTH — THEN I (SARCASTICALLY) RECOMMEND: CONTINUE TO DEMAND THE COURTS BE “AUDITED.” ASK FOR MORE “INITIATIVES.” GO ON OPRAH AND DR. PHIL SOME MORE.
LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE WITH THE PSY.D.’S AND PH.D.’S SAY. CONGREGATE (INCLUDING ON-LINE) WHERE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD TO YOU, AND GIVE UP YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS and CASE DETAILS TO LOTS OF STRANGERS, some of who may reveal it to others who already know that complaining about a problem is going to produce a result, and have pre-determined pictures of what the solution should look like (and who should be in charge of crafting one).
Doing some or all of the above did NOTHING to help my children, my court case, get a child support order enforced consistently, a restraining order respected (or enforced) or, finally, even a custody order respected or enforced. When it was violated, the father of my children was rewarded for his “bold initiative” (in committing that felony crime) with an immediate cessation of current child support (having racked up considerable debt), a later compromise of its arrears, and complete control of our daughters (who I’d raised, including for many years as a single mother post-DV, not to mention throughout a violent and abusive marriage), who he later abandoned callously, concealing this (with others who had a vested interest in the case) easily as I was, on my end, professionally destroyed , without work, and fighting not only ongoing trauma, but the realization of the limits of my ability — and the courts, and law enforcements — lack of interest in doing anything to put the brakes on it.
Common sense (which my children detected years earlier) was that the courts just while, preaching it wanted to mend relationships, in fact, had simply picked a scapegoat, and was working the crowd for the pre-determined takedown (cf. bullfights). I had this confirmed later by someone in the business of training custody evaluators in their domestic violence segments, among others.
I don’t know what put the curiosity in me, but after this court experience, I wanted to know historically whose idea were these courts anyhow? Did you ever ask that question? Once a reasonable answer shows up, you can then see the same groups (types of professionals/organizations) going about — with the lobbying and legislative clout they have sought and obtained — to create more and more “problem solving” “therapeutic jurisprudence” “Unified Family” “High-Conflict” “Domestic Violence” “Fathering” “Child Support” “Mental Health” — and you name it, courts. Unfortunately, our concept of “Courts” meanwhile is from a few centuries ago….
Part of the Problem:
We have been so “sold out” by people who have spoken a language we empathize with (domestic violence is “bad,” child abuse is evil, help us stop it!) but in the bottom line, are more concerned about the preservation of their own professions and organizations than the truth.
And so we have for too long and too often adopted their language without editing it for reality, supplementing it with our own research and validating/invalidating it; too often without testing it for logic, or doing background checks on the people talking a certain talk. This is hardly surprising, because as one follows the money, it is taken from a major resource (federal government, plus private foundations, etc.) and a lot is dumped into virtual media campaigns.
I did not come to this conclusion overnight, without research of many of the nonprofits involved, without having spoken (or sought help from) them, and without having thereafter confronted some of the leadership by phone or on-line (more than once) with knowledge that had been available (on-line) for years, but which their material habitually neglects to speak about, although it’s known to many in the field. My blogging helps fill their omissions & censorships. I get consistently high traffic (for such a blog), few comments, but the people who have commented or contacted me, are appreciative.
I recommend that people look through the links if they cannot get through my posts — because I KNOW that the parties (organizations, groups, etc.) I am reporting on are also watching this blog, i.e., as any blogger can, up to a point, identify inbound traffic. If the people and groups I’m reporting on are watching this blog, I think it would make sense for the people whose lives are being destroyed by those groups (speaking courts, gov’ts, certain law firms, etc.) also know. There are times when a presiding judge seems to have thought I was someone in a case before them, simply because I report over a variety of jurisdictions, but cite specifics. This feedback came up from both East and West Coast USA. However, I report specifics to illustrate the points, and there are always plenty of examples to use.
I am looking for dedicated individuals (male or female, parents or member of the public who are tired of picking up the pieces, and “the tab” for custody case disasters, and want to change the steady drumbeat of ones that end up with “roadkill.” I am working on better ways to present and organize this, which requires some skillsets, time, and technology I don’t yet have.
So have other mothers, specifically, and were accordingly spat out, or let go (??) from the organizations that, at one time, had confronted the federal incentives to produce out-come based custody courts, without quite being held responsible for it at the federal level (after all, custody courts are state’s matters, right?).
Each of us have gone about this as individual bloggers (burnt out in different years, passed the torch in different ways, and I think eventually reached something of a tipping point in that now some of the groups which refused to deal with this, are doing so — although in a very diluted and misleading manner to their followers, STILL not giving them the basic tools to confirm information themselves.
(I’m working on a timeline from this perspective).
Look, when fishermen go fishing, there is often bait, right? That bait is legitimate food — it just has a hook in it. The same is true of the domestic violence industry AND moreover, the developing “Crisis in the Courts” industry (they want the same privileges and press that the domestic violence, fatherhood promotion and child protection industry had, and are copying its worst, not its best, practices).
Of course there is SOME truth in there, or who would bite — but not all the relevant truth and not necessarily the most relevant truth. I actually see them as intentionally derailing the conversation in a way that obscures the “operational realities” which anyone can learn to look up — it’s not rocket science!
And when I learned about this from some predecessors, too late for my own children (basically) I made up my mind to report it, AND report the people I know who simply didn’t care enough to report it, although they knew. Sometimes professionals just have tunnel vision (and arrogance) and an agenda; in this agenda, incorporating our actual feedback recommending changes is less welcome, than our warm bodies, donations, referrals, and email lists soliciting our anecdotal stories.
They want the public (the government) to pay attention to them, and attract funding to put out a certain message — but not the whole truth. It is AS important to understand (and research) groups “on your side” of any debate (whether or not the gender divide) as on the other side.
(The top paragraphs were written a while back, I added an example below, and then got lost in the magnitude of this particular one. After all, we are dealing with powerful networks — at the receiving end. These are not even as simply organized as a beautiful spiders’ web (though they ARE many of them organized ON the web. But if you understand this basic setup:
- The Nonprofit (promoting a For-Profit Product or Service) CORPORATIONS are often formed by public employees, often in the Executive Branch of a State (or County) government but sometimes in and among the Judiciary. These are often (but now always) organizations named after their employee’s position (i.e. easily marked as trade organizations) but are also often called something warm, fuzzy, and apple-pie sounding. Especially with words like “Children” “Family” “Parenting” Protect” or “Prevent” in them…. they are of course going to protect or prevent violence or abuse (the BAD stuff) and promote fatherhood, healthy marriages ,or child welfare (the GOOD stuff).
- Regarding the public employees that do this — some are STILL in the family court system (or criminal justice, etc.); some are cycling in and out of it (work HHS, form a nonprofit and promoted it ,then go back into HHS), and some, this appears to be their retirement plan after a spin (sometimes a disastrous spin) in government.
You will go far.
Subscribe to comments with RSS.