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 — then the angle of approach is getting the evidence and understanding the pattern in those areas..
This approach and information runs completely contrary to any and just about ALL the advocacy efforts in any number of advocacy groups and shows MOST of 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.
. . . . . (text deleted, separate post on supervised visitation) . . .
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 may solid information and appropriate language to understand these “family court matters” help your soul also do better, at least than it may have been perceiving “there’s a problem,” but not seeing clearly its causes. This is like trying to figure out why the equation “4 + 5″ is consistently producing a “3″ in court decisions, without even figuring out (and going to look for) the missing elements of the equation, and understanding that the “formula” is closer to “4 + 5 + ?? = 3 and that the “??” has to be some combination that looks more like “4 + 5 + -6 = 3.. It’s illogical And then to continue doing so AFTER others have previously published this. Perhaps if one’s associates are not mentioning that there might be some missing information (rather than trying harder and harder to deal with only the 4+5 elements to make them add up to “9,” we’ll never get that the formula, or even closer to it.
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.)…..