Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery (1997 Interview)
File this Article under “What a Difference One Person can Make, if that person:
Has Guts, Will Obtain Evidence, Look at Evidence, Come to Logical Conclusion regarding Evidence Obtained AND Publicize It!
See Large Yellow Inset Box below this opening text (which I added May, 2013), and take it from there. Check back from time to time (I may later pull that opening text into a separate place).. Please trust me [OK, just consider -- check it out against other evidence] that the next link is one of THE most important ones any person in a custody battle (male or female) should be reading, and thinking about.. Very few sources will focus on this when it comes to “reforming the courts” “protecting children” or in short, any good and noble cause such as might be the topic of an federally funded (or private nonprofit) initiative.
This post is PRIMARILY to promote this ONE link. It’s a 1997 interview of a grandfather witnessing his daughter’s custody battle, I believe in Los Angeles. You don’t get much more relevant and central than what’s happening in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. This is where the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” began and, in a real way, a good deal of the entire system we have today (although definitely national and international alliances were involved early on). It says:
Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.
Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.
He got (from the bank — not through FOIA, which can be forestalled more easily) the records of all Donations from the County Bar — to the Superior Court. The County Bar was an Association — and I have another post about Bar Associations, because the topic is so vital.
Judges have immunity for what they do on the bench — but Bar Associations do not. If there is a conspiracy between bench and bar…He is not talking “they just don’t understand” (custody matter) — but words relating to the handling of money: fraud, grand larceny, racketeering; in other words, taking money for funds that don’t exist.
This approach and information runs completely contrary to any and just about ALL the advocacy efforts in any number of advocacy groups — and shows them for who and what they truly are: self-serving collaborators who have intentionally engaged in a virtual “media blackout” on the economic angle to the courts. That last comment was not made lightly; it was made from a place of both observation, a good deal of personal acquaintance, networking — AND lookups. (Like most of my opinion, I no longer “take it on faith” but administer a “show me the money!” as well as often watch a group’s actions and affiliations develop over time.
After reviewing a mutually self-congratulating self-promoting group of individuals (and their nonprofits — the ones I could locate in time and space, that is) I decided that needs to be a separate post.
The True/False — Relevant/Irrelevant Factor
It is just about as important to know who is NOT telling you truth they have already been told, and rejected, than to know the truth itself. It saves time — and time often means life in these situations. The clock is always ticking fast while children are growing up, and abuse is a factor. I look forward to publishing that post.
What’s WITH this “Supervised Visitation” Racket!?!
Is it to help children, abused or not, their mothers, or their fathers? Who foots the bill? Who’s made a profession out of the industry? Whose idea was it?
The systems change artists (there are many) know how to set up systems, and publicize their priorities as in the public interest, when quite often, they simply are not. For example — when it comes to (for example), “Supervised Visitation” — who has that benefitted? The children? The violent or allegedly violent parent? or the Supervised Visitation providers, collectively? (again, click on my “Let’s Get Honest” gravatar).
Let’s practice a little Nonprofit Lookups of the “Supervised Visitation Network” (SVN).
Regional Training in Denver this June, only $250 ($200 for members, $100 for Colorado Chapter Members). After training, attendees will have:
Each training will begin with a brief introduction and overview of the Supervised Visitation Network and the The SVN Standards, The Code of Ethics, SVN Training Requirements,conflict of interest, and confidentiality. And will be followed by sessions based on the SVN Training Manual:
All Participants will receive modules from the the SVN Training Manual and a CD with copies of the PowerPoint presentations. Attendees will receive a Certificate of Attendance and completed participation will meet approximately 16 hours of training requirements as outlined in the SVN Standards.
All attendees receive full copy of SVN Training Manual ($89 value)
[[Or, to order "a la carte" see here]]:
Beautiful multi-color registration packet -for a different Annual (not “Regional”) conference taking place in CANADA — has checkmarks for “Are you an OVW Grantee” and “Do you receive Access and Visitation funds?” (an aspect of 1996 welfare reform available as federal grants to the states administered by the HHS, $10m a year to start with).
Repeat until you go into a trance: “This is not a Ponzi Scheme.” then keep reading.
Yep. Be assured this isn’t a “Supervised Visitation Over the World” outreach network, and this map of how to reach the world with the good news of SVN (and its trainings) doesn’t exist. There are not four “domemstic” regions and one international. This is really just about, as the upcoming Toronto conference says:
“Helping Families, Engaging Communities, Enriching All”
Connecting the Dots
conference, run by a FLORIDA (formerly TENNESSEE, formerly ???) nonprofit (EIN#521831498), to be attended by government agencies (want to bet some from the US?), but held in Ontario, Canada.
Entrance Fees [membership] to this “enriching all” SVN nonprofit show as $125/individual $175/agency — which means, most likely, a loose term for a nonprofit previously formed anywhere (in the world, but particularly USA or Canada) to avail itself of the created profession of court-ordered services for which public grants exist.
A quick look at the SVN as a Nonprofit:
(This section is background-color light-blue [with an sizeable inset box on a Connecticut Supervised Visitation case/white-tan backgrounds) if you want to skip past it. I wanted that case to be put right next to the conference claims about how this is helping (enriching) families by producing penniless parents, and helping families by switching custody of little boys to men who rape them (Family Preservation???), which in other circumstances and cultures might be recognized outright for what it is -- torture of dissident population, (dissenting to harm to their kids) and your basic hostage-taking. But of course, that would never happen in America..It's extremely effective, except -- I hope -- if enough people realize, some have overplayed their hands at the game.
By looking up the EIN# anyone can see that at some point this organization skipped states (common to certain types of organizations). Apparently from 2003-2007 it was in Tennessee, then 2007-now in Florida.
Pls. Look at the 2004 (Tennessee) tax return of this very modest, unobtrusive corporation, Executive Director "Nancy Fallows." On page 1, we see that there is very LITTLE public interest (or at least contributions) to this nonprofit ($215 for the year). Very roughly speaking, the revenues came FROM "program service revenue (including gov't fees and contracts) (a VERY relevant category in this particular field) -- $76K. Membership fees: $36K. Cost of goods sold $5K. For where it went? you can check, however don't miss the best part -- the last page listing the officers and directors (p. 13 of 13). ALthough for 2005-2006 (not 2004) year. Notably, the 4 OFFICERS are from: Minnesota, Texas, and two from Canada. The DIRECTORS include -- predictably -- what look like visitation centers (very likely taking government money for their services) -- and includes SHELLY LaBOTTE of California Judicial Council, AOC in San Francisco and (of course), David Levy of "Childrens Rights Council" (Maryland), whose organization has been pushing the concept idea "access and visitation" since the 1980s.
Of course this is "not" a conflict of interest in that Shelly LaBotte is (and has been for a good while) a public employee (California civil servant) whose job description just so happens to be the Program Contact for the Access and Visitation Grants under PRWORA (which will be funding many of these visitation centers). See SFExaminer article ("California Judges trash-talking the AOC") by Bonnie Russell, a person I know who happens to "get" the supervised visitation racket. However, the judges and AOC have been fighting each other. She specifically cites LaBotte as resisting oversight of the programs... More, here.
In fact, they are from all over the country (Los Angeles, you name it). Joe Nullet (future Exec Director) was also apparently running a service also in Jacksonville, FL. [[just for the heck of it -- the TN Co-Exec Directors are Nancy and Randy Fallows (he's listed as Web & ITS]]. Looking up the street address, Spokeo lists the multi-unit residents average age 70s, N*** Fallowes, R*** Fallowes; house built 1997. A 2011 company (est income $32K), “Randy’s Web Design” was founded at the same address.
Thought I’d check the TN Corporations search, and we find that the move was intentional — Articles of Dissolution were filed, and the mailing address changed to Florida beforehand. Rather than showing, here’s the Tennessee Business Info Search link (make sure not to check “active” bcause it isn’t). Click on “Control#” (the only link) then “History” once the organization shows up. I can’t tell (and images aren’t uploaded) whether it did, or did not, file its annual report for three years in a row; the heading reads “Annual Report DUE” (2004, 2005, 2006) and in 12/2006 AND 12/2007 a “Notice of Determination” followed (two days later) on 12/05/2007 by “Administrative Amendment [mail address changed, we're skipping the state]” and next month, 1/11/2008 SVN filed “Articles of Dissolution” with the State of Tennesse. Florida Incorporation (link above) is stamped 11/9/2007. It basically looks like SVN may have [again, the notation "Annual Report Due" absent any image) thumbed its nose at state corporate laws.
They are not "AR" exempt. My initial guess would be, it formed, didn't file annual reports -- ever -- was notified they were being terminated (Notice of Determination) -- quickly moved the mailing address to Florida (2007) and closed up shop. That would be also in-character for the organization which eventually, we think, became "AFCC" -- as I have detailed, and (elsewhere) Marv Bryer (see yellow box, below) has narrated in detail. State-skipping. .... But of course, without my hands on the articles of incorporation (etc.) I don't know for sure.
Back to Florida to look up the organization the Tennessee-based nonprofit (ie.e, supervised visitation provider) (as of Tax year 2004) shows the TN-based SVN Network director (one of many) Joseph Nullet affiliated with.
That organization (founded 1993) was "Family Visitation Center," but changed its name in 2000 to "Family Nurturing Center" and in 2004, Nullet replaced himself (or was replaced) with a Different Exec Director. I looked up THAT group's EIN# (597004981) and found that in the past ten years (2002-2012 roughly), it appears to increased its assets by about 175% (i.e., almost tripled its "assets." Curious how they did this -- I looked at the top return (FY 2011) and noticed that (unlike SVN itself), this
Supervised Family Visitation (excuse me, "Nurturing") Center got more "contributions and grants" ($136K) than it produce Program Service Revnue ($98.7K). Of the $291K gross receipts -- $225K of it went into salaries and employee benefits, and $66.1K into "Other." Per its website, I'd guess the organization exists ONLY to get referrals from agencies and the family law courts.
|A mother in Connecticut recently got seriously stiffed paying to see her son, after her son reported abuse by the father. To reiterate -- the parent who was ordered into supervised visitation, with the help of a $300/hour GAL (now a judge) -- was the mother who's little boy protested being raped. (Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut/Max Liberti). He is now living with the father he protested being raped by, and almost everyone in that case has been enriched BUT the child.)|
"The MONEY TRAIL"
(from guest post 2/28/2013 in The Washington Times / Communities, by Aine Nistiophain).
Understand that when you are sued, you cannot opt out of participating in the legal process, nor can you take your business with the law elsewhere. When Max reported to authorities that his father had raped him, the Judge Munro awarded sole custody of him to his father. Suddenly, Max went from living with his mother full time, to seeing his mother a few hours a week in supervised visitation run by strangers armed with clipboards, then no contact at all.
$1.5 million in litigation fees later, the invoices show that Max himself was probably a stranger to the professionals paid to decide his fate. Perhaps the bills can tell us what Max could not.
In 2010, the court appointed Guardian ad Litem (GAL) Attorney Maureen Murphy to represent Max’s best interests and wishes. Murphy billed at a rate of $300 per hour, collecting over $100,000 in fees from Max’s home, …
Per the court order, Max’s time with his mother was supervised by NJ Sarno, Inc., who billed Max’s mother $105,000 over the course of 16 months. [[a questionable provider, it goes on to detail]]…
Court transcripts show that from 2010-2011, NJ Sarno, Inc. and Sunny took Max to the ER during visits when he arrived from his father’s with burns, cuts, and bruises on his body, abdominal pains, fever, anal fissures, an infected penis, urinary tract infections, and experiencing a psychotic break. The supervisor also called Max’s father, who rushed to the hospital to deny any wrongdoing, then filed a motion to end all of Max’s parenting time with his mother.
In February 2011, Judge Munro decided that Sunny was to have no rights to either access Max’s medical records or to seek medical attention for Max. Although the supervisor was a former sanitation worker with no special medical training or knowledge, NJ Sarno alone retained the right to decide Max’s medical care during visits. Sunny and Max were ordered not to sit together in the car, forbidden to speak about Max’s about life with his father, his medical needs, or any litigation matters. GAL Murphy’s bills do not evidence any meetings with Max around this time.
Instead of asking Max directly what was happening to him, Judge Munro ignored 2 recent psychiatric evaluations and appointed Dr. Kenneth Robson to evaluate Max’s situation. Robson billed the family at a rate of $350 per hour for a total of $17,163 over the course of 2 months, then appointed other evaluators onto the case at Sunny’s expense. While Robson never interviewed Max alone, the majority of his billing time was spent talking to over a dozen adults, some of whom had never met Max. . . .
After Sunny received the final judgment, she learned that therapists from Connecticut Resources Group, Dr. Howard Krieger and Dr. Sidney Horowitz[SEE *** below!]] were involved in her family’s care.
Judge Munro concealed her final orders under the title Jane Doe v. John Roe; Max’s name was changed to pseudonym “Peter,” as if Max himself never existed. Now penniless, Sunny has unable to purchase a single visit with Max in over a year. This involuntarily severed all of Max’s contact with his mother. GAL Murphy is now a judge, but Max’s new GAL took no steps to preserve or restore Max’s relationship with his beloved mother. Given that Max had never been injured in his mother’s care, did Max wish he could have invested the millions diverted to court professionals into a safe home for them to live in, or alternatively purchased bodyguards to keep him safe at his father’s? [ENDQUOTE}
[*** re: Connecticut Resources Group -- I added this link, showing these two providers bio blurbs. It is obvious at a GLANCE that they are AFCC-style psychologists, (acknowledged in the case of Krieger, read carefully), and engaged as "special masters" at the Special High-Conflict Court set presided over by an especially AFCC-friendly Judge Munro. The words "High-conflict" ought to be trademarked by AFCC, as they made it up; that would add to the already substantial profits coming membership's way by having judges as members.
It's my understanding Connecticut Judges that have engaged in this (really, anti-trust, collaborating in how to defraud the public, and parents) practice are about to get spanked by some state-wide Judicial authorities who are, starting to "get" that an increasing sector of the public "gets" what some of their colleagues are up to!!
Yes, "connecting the dots" (more likely connecting with governmental officials with connections to the funding for this field) engaging communities, and "ENRICHING ALL" (who are in on that style of networking).
However annual conference is in Toronto at the end of this month -- (coincides with AFCC conference in Los Angeles). Scan the faculty & speakers; I see at least one (California Parenting Institute) which, it says, has a $2.6 million budget and is running Kids Turn Classes.. and Fatherhood Classes, etc.
What most people just don't seem to get (yet) is that BOTH "fatherhood" and "domestic violence" (or "Family Violence") prevention are indeed industries; and they do similar things: Run conferences, train providers, order more services (supervised visitation, batterers intervention, family reunification camps, parent education classes, education of KIDS undergoing divorce -- the opportunities are absolutely infinite once this gets in motion). This can be seen simply by looking.
In order to better collaborate with EACH OTHER, the Supervised Visitation Industry would ensure a constant stream of traumatized children (and their parents) to be needing mental health remediation (because of that abuse, ongoing exposure to the perpetrator, and/or fiscal devastation of one or both parents). All of these (a factor Byer's not brought up here, but it exists) are often networked with social services in theirs tate, or federally. For example, one of the SVN conferences I looked up is working with Massachusetts DCSS on "Nurturing Fathers" programs.
This practice automatically incentivizes psychologists and psychiatrists to get involved in handling the trauma aspect. While it's claimed they are "TREATING" the family holistically -- the fact is, this very habit is TRAUMATIZING the whole family, generally speaking one partner of which doesn't seem to mind, as there has been abuse involved to start with, sometimes more than one generation of it. There are aspects of this (very troubling ones) which, in my opinion, relate to the same mentality as those who devised, and ran the concentration camps. Exploit them while analyzing them -- and this is for the greater good of the entire country, somehow. (If I accidentally referred to Hitler, or the Bush dynasty in America, please for give the "Freudian slip.")
Hence, the "fix the courts" psychology-based groups (which are many, and show up as "advocates" to women and children post-abuse, or during their family court proceedings) -- are NOT going to coach ANYONE to step back, say, WAIT a MINUTE!!!" -- and look at the billings. Look at the contracts with the courts. Look at the nonprofits. No -- they want to raise consciousness and train the judges TOO -- like every one else appears to be.
In my opinion, there is no excuse for these dozens (if not hundreds) of multi-state, interdisciplinary, coalition-style networking groups (which, when you get right down to it have perhaps at maximum, FIVE good ideas and a few common patriarchs or matriarchs (gurus, that is) -- revered above all reason, and the peasants at the "receiving-services" end should shut up and be thankful someone else is even talking about them in a conference.
Fatherhood and Supervised Visitation + VAW = Grants, Grants, and more Grants.
On-line Publications, Coaching Fathers IN Supervised Visitation and Mothers ABOUT Supervised Visitation (at public expense) results in a scathing 2010 audit of the handling of a particular DOJ/OVW grant: 2004-WT-AX-K046
I linked to just one workshop presenter? from the SVN conference representing "fatherhood" industry (Fernando Mederos). He is also acknowledged in this 2008 56-page Guide to Grantees (of Supervised Visitation / Safe Havens). The nonprofit publishing this guide is a MULTI-MILLION-DOLLAR one in San Francisco. It was written by "Juan Carlos Arean with contributions by Fernando Mederos."
The 56-page-guide itself was the product of a grant from the DOJ: Grant 2004-WT-AX-KO46, and is called "Working with Fathers In Supervised Visitation." Unbelievably a search on the exact same grant number came up with a 17-page guide in coaching MOTHERS with CHILDREN how to submit to the Supervised Visitation regime (MINCAVA). (Grant acknowledgement is at bottom of page 2 of Supervised Visitation: Information for Mothers Who Have Experienced Abuse by the Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Googling this grant number JUST one more time (often, three's a winner), I found an unbelievably (scathing) DOJ/OIG AUDIT report dated 2010 on four grants totalling $16 million to the NDAA (National District Attorneys Association) under various categories -- including two under the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women).
This is really not too hard reading; clear print, charts, and words fail me to summarize how many INappropriate things were found on this particular grant, not to mention it and three others were suddenly subject to a "computer crash" of the general (electronic) ledger resulting in lost data. It was also nailed for under-reporting around $328K of grant expenses on its FSR (Financial Status Reports), for 98 (count 'em, 98) Unapproved expenditures, unsupported salaries, employees approving their own timesheets, Unallowable salaries, you name it. Really -- please -- just read it. These are PUBLIC funds.
Moving on....I found the "Supervised Visitation: Mothers" guide posted at a group fron Idaho, motto "Engaging Voicees, Creating Change"
and whose "modest" organizational identity and "Statement of Beliefs" purposes include:
Our work is to build the capacity of programs, organizations, and systems through learning communities to provide safe, compassionate, traumainformed, inclusive and accessible services to adolescents and adults and their children exposed to violence and to increase offender accountability.
What We Believe
Inclusive and Diverse All forms of oppression – including but not limited to patriarchy, sexism, racism, ableism, classism, ageism, adultism, heterosexism, and religions oppression – create a culture which enables violence to occur. We value inclusiveness and diversity and believe that the voices and experiences of all human beings are vital in preventing violence.
I think they meant "religious" oppression. However, I have to go with the Bible's FAQs on the source of "evil."
"The love of money is the root of all evil."
or, quoting the earlier portion of "The Book" "Thou shalt not covet." (#10 of the 10 Commandments).
So, I decided to take a look:
...The "Idaho Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence" (EIN# 82-0410899) did even better than the Supervised Visitation Network -- it Quintupled ((from $50K to $250K)) its Assets (not revenue, but what was left over after all is said and done, each year) in not ten -- but only SIX years, per "990finder." Curious, I thought I'd see how they did it (like we don't have a clue already....) That link is to the 2008 tax return. THIS group doesn't even screw around with producing any "Program Service Revenue" -- or membership fees. They simply go for the "contributions and grants" (almost $2million) and then spend it, for the public benefit called "Educate the Public About Domestic Violence."
The Formula: $1.9million income - [$0.6 million Salaries + $1.32million "Other Expenses") = $36K IN THE HOLE (I could have fed, educated, housed, transported, and clothed my kids, even in a high-rent area (which I'm thinking Boise probably isn't?) more than adequately on what they LOST. So who would keep contributing to an organization that squanders money like that (you have to read the return to believe it...)?
Well, from HHS, so far: Look it up!
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BOISE ID 83712 ADA 129850590 $ 5,112,148.
One of the directors (on a tax return I looked at) was "Kelly Miller-Pluckebaum" receiving a nice legal advisor salary of $104K. Apparently she has a son? or relative "Hunter Pluckebaum" who as a teen went to Washington, and "Kelly Miller" wrote an article thanking Obama for signing the VAWA again (Don't quote me on that one, search yourself). Elsewhere she was signing (among a cast of thousands) a Change.org petition sponsored by the Democratic National Campaign ?? saying "STOP THE GOP WAR ON WOMEN!" with several thousand signatures (there's no search function, so I didn't scroll through to find this woman's).
I find that odd, because the HHS-funded organization above is CLEARLY associated with a Family Justice Center (see below), which alliance is known to be (at least by people who do some of their homework) sponsored by the very GOP former President George Bush in the "family justice initiative" founded first in San Diego by the very republican City Attorney, Casey Gwinn. I guess it's OK to play both sides of the fence when it comes to accepting and collaborating with GOP-initiated public funds to save the world from the GOP, and programs with an utterly clear faith-based component while educating the public about stopping violence by stopping "religions oppression."
There are other anti-violence nonprofits in Idaho (including one identified as one of its partners, i.e., a "Family Justice Center" in Nampa, ID (EIN# 264423289).
Remind me to look up more DOJ audits of grants to national nonprofits composed of public servants, like that 94-page one above, of $16 million of awards to the National District Attorneys Association: (BOARD)
(I just scanned the JUSTICE.gov/OIG grants under "OVW" (office of Violence Against Women) (the link is in VERY, very tiny fine print at the VERY VERY bottom right of the Department of Justice's Website. It belongs closer to the top! I decided to look at an audit of PCAR (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape) and found a 2012 audit which referred to the 2010 audit above. It turns out the the group AEQUITAS (see p. 2) was formerly American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) funded under NDAA -- however APRI officials decided to reform under a former NDAA partner, "PCAR" and start up Aequitas. Specific reference to the exact same grant was made. They were caught in the act of having been caught previously (in scamming the public), and simply jumped fiscal agents (I guess) from NDAA to PCAR -- and started up again, under a new name. Here's the Audit.
Sample DOJ/OVW recipient behavior: From APRI under NDAA, it becomes PCAR (cooperative with NDAA) and Aequitas. Aequitas then seeks another cooperative arrangement with a 2009-formed organization, APA (Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, see below). WHAT ABOUT THE PUBLIC's wish to know where its money is being sent, in a clear fashion?
These groups are heavily into technical assistance and training also: AEQUITAS web page doesn't have a "donate" tab -- because it's a project of PCAR (Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape) -- see very bottom of their web page for "Aequitas" link.
They are based in Washington, D.C (see bottom of page). while being a project of "PCAR." They also take money from Battered Women's Justice Project. (see "Staff/Rhonda J. Martinson, etc.). Aequitas now sports a page showing they are doing a cooperative arrangement with a Virginia nonprofit, "Association of Prosecuting Attorneys" EIN# 263117485, which was only formed in 2009. Interesting timing -- as that 2010 audit was finding mis-handling of funds from that grant by APRI.
Technical Assistance/Prosecution Assistance
NDAA serves as a nationwide, interdisciplinary resource center for research, training, and prosecution (or technical) assistance. NDAA's core competencies include knowledge building, training and technical assistance. NDAA responds to hundreds of requests for technical assistance each month via telephone, mail, e-mail, fax, and the Web site. How can we help you?
NDAA has committees with the following titles and responsibilities: Audit, Crime Control, Ethics and Services, Finance, Juvenile Justice and Family Law, Legislation, Membership, Metropolitan Prosecutors, National, Nominating, Science and Technology Committee, Media and Communications, Corrections and Reentry, and Victims. NDAA is located in Alexandria, Virginia.
(POINT: Public funds are distributed to this nationwide nonprofit, various grants. The DOJ audited the grants and found a lot of trouble in 2010. A Tax return for 2010 shows what they are doing.
So: The Federal Government has the Funds. (See "CAFRs/income tax, investment on returns, eminent domain, etc.). The DOJ/OVW (formerly headed up by a family court judge, Susan B. Carbon, courtesy Pres. Obama, in 2009) administers millions of $$ of federal grants -- and the grantees are sometimes PUBLIC officials' NONPROFIT associations. Those nonprofits, obviously (if legitimate) have budgets -- income, expenses, revenue, depreciation. Often they have employees, and conference, etc. expenses; including travel, hotel, publications (which they then sell) and help influence policy to create professions. The public funds this unknowingly, more than half the time, and the DOJ/OIG -- when it gets around to sample audits -- doesn't appear to have teeth, although no doubt all employees and materials for the audits are also public expenses.
Apparently no one gives a crap about the taxpayer in all of this. That's what we give for giving the US Government too much money, too much privacy (freedom of operation), too much of "the benefit of the doubt" when anything in the public's welfare is on the agenda -- and not enough FOIA requests or, as it was noted back in 1997 -- Common Law Discovery involving bank accounts, bar associations, and superior courts.
Just an Idea:
Here's how we could stop, or at least reduce! domestic violence, including homicides, and child abuse, including molestation, and AVOID inducing life-long trauma and related disabilities (physical and psychological), especially against women and boys and girls, at least when it's already come from men who can't be trusted without supervised visitation to see their own children. And that is: Separation. There's a standard. If someone cannot meet the standard of "don't assault" or "don't molest"-- then they don't visit. I believe men and women are fast learners when they choose to.
Here's how -- instead -- the public employees and those on the federal grants faucet chose instead to "stop" it: Form hybrid centralized courts where the language of "right and wrong" is altered to the language of collectivism: the "family." Create specialized "problem-solving" practices, courts, procedures, and finally laws mandating the same -- to handle "domestic violence (which is a misdemeanor or felony under civil or penal codes) to persuade EVERYONE involved it's not dangerous, it's just a dispute, and anyone who disagrees will be diagnosed with a "conflict" disorder (or PAS), forced into therapy, and made a public example of. They will be marginalized and deprived of basic human rights. The public will be made co-conspirators by funding it, and incited to get angry at the marginalized and dissidents for becoming a burden to society.
Just another idea:
Another way to have fewer pissed-off fathers around [possibly reducing the violence]] is quit stealing their dollars to start with! by shutting down any, and all, money-laundering and otherwise financial fraud — in the public sector, specifically the JUDICIAL sector. This would also definitely slow down epidemic of burgeoning mental health industry, which profits from more and more social trauma and turmoil.
One reason I added the Supervised Visitation (section) above is that in the Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption article below — one of the topics is payment for the trainings to become such a provider. (actually I see it’s re: CLE seminars — but elsewhere on this same topic, Bryer did note the trainings. I’ll find & link to it, of you can search “Judges Slush Fund, Insight Magazine” and probably find it.
1997 interview with Marv Bryer.
Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?
If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?
Show me in some comments that, as an adult (college grad, high school grad, parent, non parent) you can understand the basic commentary here:
(Pls. answer yes, or no).
Note: Guts without Good information is commendable, but not so useful.
Speaking of “guts,” see also Richard Fine, who in 2009 spent 18 months in coercive solitary confinement, largely in retaliation for exposing systems of bribes paid to the judges through the county, child support withheld improperly at the DA’s level, and in general demanding that the judicial system follow its own rules. Did I mention, they also disbarred him and granted the judges retroactive immunity from criminal prosecution for taking this form of bribe?
Many parents have spent time in jail, probably retaliatory, through the custody system for failing to pay up, on contempt of some order, and I know at least one case where a mother was jailed because a daughter refused to visit an abusive father. After 30 days, the daughter relented, and for the sake of her Mom, made the visits (Oconto County, Wisconsin). You wouldn’t believe how many ways there are to put parents in jail if they don’t succumb to prior threats and intimidation, or extortion, nicely and without “high conflict.”
However, how many of them have spent 18 months in solitary confinement like Mr. Fine (who was released, age 70, as I heard it, on Yom Kippur by a retiring judge)? Yet, not only was this under-reported by the people complaining about custody courts, but what he exposed at considerable trouble, has also been largely ignored by the same, who are busy correcting the training, education, and professional standards of professional niches which (in my opinion) have no business in the courts to start with.
The message behind that incarceration was “don’t mess with our money, and our systems.”
For more information, although it’s probably a little longer, read through and see links at the text underneath my Gravatar. I have been at this for several years now (investigative blogging and reporting) and have a sense of where things are coming from based on a number of factors, and language used in the reporting.
May you prosper and be in health, and hopefully solid information and appropriate language to understand these “family court matters” may help your soul also do better, at least than it may have been perceiving a problem, but not its causes, and therefore, not reasonable potential solutions. No one said it was going to be easy — but this is important stuff!
Another question: What’s the difference between a “Family” court and a “Conciliation” court? And why are so many programs in the courts being pre-planned by membership of a private nonprofit association which (eventually — after people started pestering it to get its own EIN# and quit hiding and evading taxes under the County’s EIN#) called “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” which previously was a “Conference of Conciliation Courts”?
What does that mean, legally?
How many states did this happen in — has it happened yet in your area?
Law was passed in Arizona, it says, in 1962:
(see choices on left margin of site)
Apparently High Conflict is Bad. Treatment to eliminate conflict between parents can be accomplished by a court-ordered class (only $50). Sure, yeah — and I have a great deal for you on some land under the Brooklyn Bridge.
Perhaps if enough generations are taught through authoritarian and arbitrary K-12 (thereafter?) and authoritarian courts that “conflict” is bad, and “high conflict” is even worse, enough of us will be submissive and gullible to forget the resemblance between these systems and flat-out slave-hood. Serfdom.
Even the California Judges fighting their own AOC call it the fight over “fiefdoms!”
From May, 2012 (part of an ongoing power struggle from California’s Trial Court Judges — with 58 counties, we have the largest court system in the country — and the Judicial Council with its Administrative Office of the Courts. In 1997, a Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act (I believe) centralized the funding; there have been scandals, shut downs, stepd0wns, new leadership, and a group of judges formed their own association to protest perceived centralization.
Written up here in “CourthouseNews.com” (an excellent source of who’s suing whom nationwide, well-edited, by the way. Search Back issues on “Administrative Office of the Courts” or “California Judicial Council” and learn about their “trials and tribulations”)”
Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO ShareThis SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized. Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.
In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system. Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.
(This document is actually good reading or skimming, even for those not living in California, but who have similar AOC’s. It talks about increasing centralization of control, expansion (MAJOR) of staff and offices, and with it, financing. Most important (see a flowchart/organizational diagram on p. 47, at the bottom (left, viewed properly) is “Center for Families and Children in the Courts” — see also pp. 81ff which describes this “Center.”
This segment processes a lot of grants which go to influence our custody decisions. For example, Access/Visitation funding, and many others.
I’m resisting the temptation to lay it out here, but if you hover cursor, it can be seen. Increasing centralization. Why is this important? Because, for one, many AFCC personnel are at the pinnacle of power, handling the grants, and affecting the mandatory mediation, education, curriculum, promising practices, etc. – for the courts which deal with children, juveniles, and families. CENTRALIZATION in THE FINANCING & EXECUTIVE HANDS of JUDICIAL matters:
Here’s the first page (page 81) of description from that report, with some comments from me:
(para mine.. That sounds great, right? However, this is where the grants, including fatherhood/marriage promotion, etc. grants come in, and engaging more PRIVATE groups (nonprofit organizations) as influences in what happens in the “family court services programs” which are not themselves even the family courts — but programs initiated or started by the courts.)
Why this is significant: First of all, the AOC is an administrative center to serve justice (the Judicial Council), not private interest. however, the National Center for State Courts is — again, a private, nonprofit formed long ago, and I just learned recently that, pretty early on, it became affiliated with (became the “secretariat” for, i.e., started serving the private interests of….) the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.” See links to its 1983 or thereafter newsletters, on my “Vital Links” section of blogroll. the announcement was made to AFCC membership– not to the public — back then. This gave increased PRIVATE INTERESTS more influence and control of the judicial sector of our nation’s court system. (Se also an 1983 AFCC newsletter Vol2#2
(from my “Vital Info-Links”)
On p. 5, above (right before the announcement of AFCC’s having gotten NCSC as Secretariat to help them, and around all kinds of news of conferences, materials for sales, new services being offered to Conciliation Courts that some of its (AFCC’s) membership have set up — i.e., when NJ got a legislative ruling to set up a Family Court, help from AFCC members from Los Angeles (Hugh McIsaac) and Connecticut (Tim Salius) helped.) — anyone can see where why “Richard Gardner” (PAS) theory got into the judicial brains: he was a keynote speaker at a 1982 San Diego conference run by the Conciliation Courts which this group was working since 1962 to set up….)
(if inset doesn’t display, pls. just browse the newsletter. a full-page description of the NCSC follows, which I have copied below):
From the 1983 AFCC newsletter link in table above — this describes the NCSC, and mentions another group merged into it, plus I notice the focus on Mental Health towards the bottom:
“In 1981, the National Center’s Board of Directors authorized the founding of the Institute on Mental Disability and the Law as a unit within the National Center; it will be a focal point for continuing the work done by the National Center in this important area.”
So we should be able to see what the private organization NCSC has to in common with the private organization AFCC and its focus on behavioral health psychology, psychotherapy and psychoanalyzing, particularly of children or adults who report abuse. (see feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler, “Women & Madness,” etc. This was a major source of help to the organization AFCC which is responsible for having lobbied so hard at first to get mandatory mediation (membership includes those providing mediation services,a nd training for it), or Conciliation Law, or Parent Coordinator laws, or High-Conflict Courts, or etc. etc. This coincides with the development of groups beginning to confront the issues of battered women, and follows the enabling of no-fault divorce in California. Timing hardly coincidental, in my opinion….
Remembering — assuming you read the first link here, Marv Bryer 1997 interview — I am not aware of ANYONE “outing” the system of slush-funding of such operations through MCLE and other trainings, prior to 1997 — it goes all the way back to 1962, in California and in at least Arizona here:
Superior Court >Family Court >Services >Conciliation Services
Conciliation Services: High Conflict Resolution Class
The High Conflict Resolution Class (HCR) is a single four-hour class taught at the court designed specifically for parents in high conflict. Because research has shown that parental conflict is harmful to children, the class will address specific strategies that parents can use to reduce their conflict and the negative impact it has on their children along with research on what is behind these conflicts.
The HCR class differs from the standard “parent education” classes in that there must be an order from the court directing one or both of the parties to attend. With that order, each parent is automatically sent a notice to appear for a class at a specific date, time, and location. Parents are required to attend separate classes. If there are questions about the class or a need to reschedule the class the number to call is 602-506-6124.
A $50.00 fee is required to attend the class. Payment may be made at the Clerk of Superior Court Filing/Service counters. A fee deferral or waiver may be requested at the time payment is made. Payment may also be made by credit card over the telephone by calling (602) 506-7036. Payment must be made 5 days prior to the class date. You are required to bring a receipt for payment, a signed fee deferral or waiver, or a confirmation number of telephonic payment with you to class.
Don’t you Get it Yet? The Money is Made in the Trainings!
[[comments added 5/20/2013, next two paragraphs]]
The idea behind Conciliation Courts, already specialized courts lobbied for by activist judges, was to bring on the Counseling and Training for Private Profit as a “Public Service” and [originally, paid at the County level?) in part through Federal Grants to the States] at the Public Expense.. and that was just the beginning
Marv Byer’s piece, above, shows what was done with at least SOME of the checks provided for training to become a court-appointed SOMEONE — they were written out to nonexistent business entitites // funds! and deposited somewhere else. Hence the question about a “judicial slush fund.”
The Training [of Parents, of Supervised Visitation Providers, and/or CLE classes, etc.] is where the money is made, I guess in some situations it can be written off as expenses, AND it can be easily laundered because almost no one (in the public sphere) is paying attention, or even has a CLUE of the overall system.
There are other ways, but through public (civil servants — judges, court-appointed attorneys, GALs, etc.) sitting on privately run nonprofits taking contracts with the courts (previously strategized for setup through certain trade groups “incorporated” (formed for the purpose) years ago.
Whatever they say they are doing, the processes in place create ongoing revenue streams, and ongoing clients (some of them legitimately needing help, after going through the dissociative and insane procedures set up by the same groups!!) who really might be classified as “insane” — from trying to make sense of the insane system!
Some people are very smart about how specific, trademarked, narrow (as to its ideas base) and formulaic LANGUAGE can be used to sell programs. This is just “spin” or Public Relations. Situations observed can be labeled according to criminal or civil code, generally speaking, as a crime, or as some form of tort. I’m no attorney, but it doesn’t take too much analysis to realize that crimes and torts are a little more clearly defined than “mental hygiene” let alone social science-based terms.
Sheer Genius: Planned Linguistic Anomalies makes Judgment Completely Arbitrary, provoking sometimes Confusion, sometimes Anger, Sometimes Indignation and Outrage, and sometimes Post Traumatic Distresss (shell-shock) from the Courts themselves. This self-perpetuating scenario is now, and always was, a fantastic (if completely immoral) business plan.
Bringing the wealth future, safety, and jurisdiction of individuals who might have otherwise had legitimate, prosecutable causes of action under Criminal or Civil (breach of contract, etc.) Codes — under the jursidction of “Family Law” to start with, and, within Family Law, under to previously strategized (not in front of hte public, but in prviate conferences by private trade organizations — and we now have the names, and early newsletters, and some of the dates and states of incorporation (or lack thereof), as well as incorporators, etc.) — of these ogranizations.
EITHER GET SOME ECONOMIC UNDERSTANDING
Or, GO INTO EITHER “DYSFUNCTION” OR “DENY & DISSOCIATE” MODE — which is the last thing needed for target populations.
Information overload — leading to confusion, paralysis, or other strong emotions over the human rights violations which are now intrinsic to the family court system, and in short to government as we know it these days.
However, it is not necessary to either stay passive about changing the course of things we don’t like, nor is it necessary to, while worked up and ready to act — to let one’s passion or outrage be used by others to drive one either over a cliff to mass destruction (like buffalo, or lemmings, or the famous “herd of swine” were driven over a cliff when Jesus threw a “legion” of spirits out of a man plagued by them.
It’s 2013 and in ONE month, the public funding program generally called “welfare,” is up for re-authorization. Historically, it was AFDC, then TANF (1996), then DRA (2005?) then ARRA (2009?), then Claims Resolution Act (2010). I’m sure another wonderful name will be made up for the “block grants to states” that free up millions of dollars to be lost in the cracks, while blending private and public money, religion and state, to support PhD’s in social sciences, marriage and relationship education, and a HOST of “forensic psychiatrists” (or psychologists, who are always trying to get even with the psychiatrists, particularly when it comes to the ability to prescribe Rx, i.e., they really like to be “psychopharmacologists”) which are treating the symptoms of all kinds of child and adult horrific abuse (sexual, physical, psychological, etc.) that no one cares to really stop.
Processes are designed to produce certain results. In this realm of family court, we have a literally, Conciliation Court taking jurisdiction over Matters defined in parts of Family Law itself as “Domestic Violence” and in parts of the Criminal Code (some being nearly the same category as “Crimes Against the Person”) as Crimes Against Decency and Public Morals (particularly relating to children). Clearly these crimes continue to be committed around the country — so how can we reconcile ourselves to the fact that they are? Do judges just not “get” this and hence need someone to teach them? It seems to me that one obvious result will be widespread cognitive dissonance through conflict of mutually exclusive rhetoric (language) to describe the exact same situation, by the exact same individuals — i.e. certain incidents.
Why should criminals and victims of the same crimes be forced to engage in “reconciliation” services through Conciliation Courts? When — or more accurately — where is a crime not a crime, and who gets to decide whether it is, or whether it isn’t?
From 1983 and earlier, the nonprofit organization (notice I use this word a lot: ”Nonprofit” — it’s important!) AFCC was selling and renting tapes, curricula, video, and trainings on its version of how to think about domestic violence, including ROLE-PLAYING involving judges, mediator, and/o police officers!). Re: Domestic Violence — the theme is “It’s a FAMILY affair.”
As a domestic violence — lots of it — survivor, I have to disagree. You cannot contain this type of violence within the family — it’s a public and a criminal matter; it has a way of not staying well-contained within the walls of a home, or to the family members. Moreover, if a family becomes a group that simply covers up such domestic violence and handles it all in-house, they might as well (except for the nonprofit status) be a religious group, or a cult. Or a gang. What kind of group normalizes assault and battery, terroristic threats, stalking, threats to kill, and homicide — how is that a “family affair?”
Yet this is exactly what the organization in 1983, A SF Judge plus Judith Wallerstein, mediator (et al.) was promoting.
The means through which they promoted it was to form revenue-raising nonprofits in which some membership were already on the public payroll (i.e., were “civil servants”) — judges; and some were not, but wanted some business to come there way FROM the public payroll (and private as well, the parents, and operating foundations and private grants, etc.)
This puts a real unfair advantage to the public which obviously doesn’t have time to keep track of a nation of nonprofits — and all their legislators and governments as well, while supporting the same governments through their taxes, and contributions to their pension funds which are, sometimes, face it — invested right back in government itself, including debt service to money previously raised.
1997 interview with Marv Bryer.
A related one — not paragraphed, it took me some time (and outside lookups) to “get” how relevant what he’s said here is, particularly about nonprofits being formed in public courthouses (or under public EINs) and how that enables money to be moved through the system (tax evasion, grand larceny (theft), fraud, etc.)…..