Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and "Conciliation" — Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Search Results

Yes, Broken Courts, Flawed Practices, and the Parade of Fools: (Pt.1(a) Intro, Context)

with 6 comments

 [post in edit mode late July-Aug. 2014;  expanded to almost double the size; background info....]

 

Between “Pts.1″ [1a and 1b] and “Pt.2″ I expect to post more material on the Family Court Enhancement Project (“FCEP”), which I understand is all the talk about town (i.e., on the internet in these circles (use your search function to find some of it…).   So the title of this blog refers to a series.  It is a natural continuation of the recent (and from May 2012) “Parades, Charades and Facades,” and my posting this is keeping a personal promise (to myself) for the year 2014, to expose what’s underneath the rhetoric.


 

Because it’s become a problem for the people who match the profile of what they claim to represent, “Protective Parents” and/or “Battered Mothers,” specifically.

I have for years attempted to have intelligent conversations on the money trail and the matter of court-connected corporations, not to mention the more than obvious federal marriage/fatherhood promotion grants, with mothers who have been wrapped up in blogging their, or someone else’s personal stories — without running basic background checks on who they’re doing it for.

However, the leadership and by association followers have habitually refused to discuss these topics properly, timely, or thoroughly, remaining focused on the apparently pre-planned solutions to the crises — essentially, get better trainers (i.e., themselves:  a self-defining mixture of professionals, nonprofits, some groups absent any corporate identity and enough mothers who tell their stories to lend the experts credibility. For example, see in recent “Parades, Charades and Facades” post, or find and read a typical newsletter or press release from one of the members).  Unless you look at other sources of information, on the same topic it is less clear how self-defining and discussion-limiting the conversations are.

These are professionals whose background and skills are in the fields of persuasion, experienced in group situations and guided-group attempts at behavioral modification [seeking to persuade the court, persuade the public, or persuade the legislature towards system change, or persuade people to refer services and advertise product].   People who have obtained PhDs, published, conferenced, been professors, and many (not all) still are.

And there’s been definite “guidance” on what is and is not acceptable to talk about in these life and death matters.

Like, the money trail, from the United States (Executive Branch) Departments of HHS and DOJ.  And private wealth pouring funds to produce certain custody-outcomes, by state, and by gender.

Like, nonprofit trade associations that populate judge-ships, head family court services, and organize nationally to favor their members interests.



So, the “Broken Courts, Flawed Practices” the court reform group’s leadership it seems was all along as “the professionals” setting their sights on becoming the subject matter experts for this exact type of FCEP project, i.e., public recognition and with it, potential related spinoff income from close association with the “source,” i.e., with people managing the funding stream out of the USDOJ (among other places)’s  Office of Violence Against Women  $400 million budget, and direction of public (federal) money funding grants stemming from the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act).

(Announcing the project June 2013 on facebook and responding to comments)

Barry Goldstein The courts’ response to sexual abuse issues is particularly horrible and I hope that is included in the practices adopted by some of the courts. It is included in the best practices discussed in a few chapters for my next book with Mo Hannah.

I have been watching the promotion of this book since before it was first published in 2010 and noticed how relentless Barry is on the matter, and how followers of the Crisis in the Courts crowd do this as well, reblogging.  Readers take note:  Similar behavior for the book promoted about ten years earlier, same basic circles, by “Our Children Our Future Foundation” which corporation barely existed for two years.  (See recent post “A Different Kind of Attention“).

The book here is meant to sound so authoritative, but it isn’t!  It is anything but complete on the subject matter and its deliberate avoidance of reference to the money trail, to specific organizations, or any searchable terms or names which might better alerting women, definitely some of the target readers, to the scope and context and history of HOW “custody of abused children going to batterers” actually happens.


Track the organizations* promoting this book, and you will find a very speckled and incomplete trail of corporate and nonprofit filings with a literal obsession with intervention at the federal level while ignoring how the federal grants factor are already in place to intentionally produce certain custody outcomes. In other words, they are a significant factor in the problems to start with.  Track the people promoting it, and most likely you’ll find a presenter, a nonprofit associated with, or a “poster-child custody disaster” case associated with the “BMCC” conference group in New York, which since 2013 seems to have moved its business to Washington, D.C. (2013, 2014 so far).


[*Some are corporations and nonprofits, however some are not but through associations  masquerade (i.e., whose public writings imply) as if they were a legitimate corporation without actually having filed and maintained as required by state laws the paperwork to become one.

Another neat trick, discovered by simply looking this up, is that some talk "small, oppressed, needy and helpless" but on closer examination are hooked up by association with groups with powerful international connections, including to powerful law firms or lawyers].  Like fish and other oceanic species, each occupies different places on the food chain (which here is the publicity/information/funding), and some relationships are “symbiotic.” ]  By now, and with the announcement of the Family Court Enhancement Project [FCEP] stages,  I hope it’s absolutely clear why the omission of the money trail; the Barry Goldstein/Mo Hannah (editors) book had a strategic purpose related to its editors’ professional positioning on court reform purposes — although it was clear to others earlier, some of who turned away in disgust, or having been wiped out by the system, quit trying to talk across, shout past the PR, or otherwise out-social-media this bunch.

In other words, when one plans to be collaborating with certain groups already higher on the food chain (taking HHS and DOJ grants and private foundation sponsorship) as consultants, evaluators, or reforms, it wouldn’t really do to be exposing those themes AS primary themes with a negative impact on the family courts! (i.e., don’t bite the hand that might be feeding).

 


Whoever heads the OVW is the “liaison” between that funding stream and other governments (federal state, tribal) in the subject matter of “Violence Against Women.” The theme song of the Broken Courts crowd is that the family court judges and custody evaluators, etc., just can’t recognize real domestic violence when they see it (but that blindness can be trained out of them, of course, with proper professionals such as ourselves).  This viewpoint dovetails neatly with how the OVW has been set up to do “technical assistance and training” nationwide.  (Why deal with peasants and commoners, and their tough questions or opposing viewpoints, when you can bypass that, get to Congress, and just start turning a private philosophy into a nationwide one?)

Since 2003, the Battered Women’s Custody Conference has been habituated by membership from domestic violence professionals — but somehow 10 years of conferencing and “telling our stories”  produced the sudden awakening of the USDOJ/OVW’s sleeping moral conscience and compassion for the  Crisis in the Courts???  And what other fairy tales (folklore) are we supposed to subscribe to?

Principal Deputy Director of the United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).

In her role, she serves as the Photo of Beatrice Hansonliaison between the Department of Justice and federal, state, tribal, and international governments on matters involving violence against women.

She is responsible for developing the Department’s legal and policy positions regarding the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act and overseeing an annual budget of nearly $400 million.

She has served as OVW’s Principal Deputy Director since May 2011.

The budget may be $400 million but since 1995, when the OVW was established to implement “VAWA” act technical assistance and training, and national leadership regarding that act, it has handled (distributed) “nearly $4 Billion in grants and cooperative agreements.”  (from a 2010 announcement):

From a 2/16/2010 USDOJ press release on a former director of the OVW, more below.

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) provides national leadership in developing the nation’s capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Created in 1995, OVW administers financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending sexual and domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.  Currently (2010), OVW administers two formula grant programs and 17 discretionary grant programs, which were established under VAWA and subsequent legislation. Since its inception, OVW has awarded nearly $4 billion in grants and cooperative agreements to communities throughout the nation.

From what I can see, this FCEP project is, or will be, pretty much more “business as usual,” i.e., the DV movement making token gestures  towards cleaning up about two dozen years of dumping cases into the family court system, after having years ago already cut compromise deals by sponsoring and recommending (nationwide, and of course with related nonprofit associations named after this) such things as:  supervised visitation, batterers’ intervention, and “train-the-judges” policies to start with, through organizations set up, some of them, as early as the 1980s.  One of those organizations in Duluth, Minnesota now has “BWJP” or Battered Women’s Justice Project,” but also runs family visitation center, and trainings for both fields (supervised visitation/batterers intervention), taking public grants to do so.

The slight difference here is merely that the “protective parents” people finally got their names down as subject matter experts on the roundtable, and now will be providing a ready-made “excuse” if the USDOJ/OVW is again approached about this matter — “but we’re working on it, we have a task force!”

As it turns out, when I looked up where Bea Hanson, Principal Deputy Director of the OVW worked previously (“Safe Horizon” in NYC) — this astoundingly connected and networked organization is already hooked into the divorce/family/mediation business as well as the domestic violence, shelters, and other treatment for victims of trauma business), which from what I can tell, is BIG business.
Read the rest of this entry »

Who Can Measure, Quantify, AND Stop Federal Grants Fraud? And if No One, Then What?

with 2 comments

[this post is approximately 12,000 words, most of it in tables or charts.

If you follow HHS matters, this is an eyeopener....

I am displaying / sampling HHS database dysfunction and dishonesty, which --

if more of the general public , I think actually knew about this database and looked at it

especially people actually ON welfare or people IN some of the programs aimed at them --

more would be upset about and start to comprehend the scope of the problem of "government."

This post is essentially my notes, I didn't format.  If things extend past the right margin, hit "View/Zoom-Out (or "CTRL-hyphen" on some equipment)" until it doesn't.

After displaying some of the missing or strange data fields, I also profile a few  organizations, or track who's running them, or did.   For example, COAPP, NCJFCJ, Family Development, Inc., and just a few more..  This includes some tax return and corporate filing lookups....

 

A problem comes up when most of us don't comprehend large numbers, or have a conceptual (mental image -- I mean a relatively accurate one -- of    what money  is, and how it moves electronically,

or over time.  Failure to have enough independent people/groups who DO (and then act on it) is a recipe for slavery -- let alone the topic of "abuse."]


If I had a choice, 100% of the time I knew someone was deceitful, or defrauding me, I would cease doing business with them and go find better friends, associates, or if possible employer.  That is, if they refused to correct the bad behavior.

Now — suppose that were the U.S. Government in all its main branches and tributaries, both ingoing and outbound?  Then what?

Ay, that last choice can be a problem, because our economic system (here, USA) depends on enough people being highly invested in their jobs, highly enough such that leaving them was not an option.

And that is EXACTLY what the fake money / federal reserve / centralization of wealth (i.e., “income tax,” IRS, etc.) — represents.  That, plus the two kinds of money — on the table, and under the table.  The “table” generally speaking meaning any more that which was spread by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) dividing things up into for profit, not for profit (foundation), and government.

The TAGGS.HHS.GOV data, even were it accurate and consistent (which it’s not) would still only represent outflow (payments).

Last post (and plenty of others), I showed examples of how the TAGGS database is not really usable to track the OUTFLOW of grants, and once it’s flown (or has flowed) out who really knows where it lands.  And can quantify that enough to make a definite statement that something’s OK, or NOT OK?  Can you?

I may elaborate a little more on this.

Beside this, also, what I’m actually looking at are only electronic entries in a database — I’m not seeing the books, receipts, or invoices of the groups it went to, am I?  Suppose the electronic entry — and many (how many?) others was an error or a fabrication, and not tied to any real exchange of goods, finances, or services to a real entity?

And we say that a good portion of this country is not religious?  There’s a lot of “take it on faith” on continuing to pour funds in (in the form of labor, taxes, setting aside for retirement funds and pensions, etc.) to this system in hopes, or wishes, or beliefs that what went in will be what came out, only maybe even compounded through the marvel of the extra clout of pooled funds, compound interest, and our leaders’ economic wisdom in planning for the future.

We don’t know what we don’t know, but I will say that my sense is that (definitely) the majority of the marriage/fatherhood grants are going to “Cronies” of HHS/Faith-based connections — and that the general game plan is to raise money by marketing the curricula, while also (for fun?) running cognitive behavioral health demonstration projects on as many people as possible.  why else would they insist on limiting it to, really, so few curricula?

This category of expenses (payments) got supercharged with welfare reform // block grants to states.  The purpose of this welfare reform (whatever it was sold as), I’ll assert is “Fees for Friends” and changing the basic form of government, towards the mental health model and away from the legal // justice model.

It removed accountability further away from individual families, and guess what — there’s stil a lot of talk about Medicaid fraud, HHS fraud — and billing services to particular, individuals’ (esp. KIDS) social security#s that don’t correspond to real services (or real cost of services) produced.

The following grants have no address, location, or DA#.  They’re only (several million$$) –but those are just ones I happened to stumble on while looking at taggs.HHS.gov…  And how many people even look at that database?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 8, 2012 at 2:36 pm

HHS’ Grants Database (TAGGS) isn’t “Close enough for Jazz.”

with one comment

[this post is about 9,000 words.  Like most of my posts,

that includes a lot of quotations... Showing how HHS,

the US agency in place to help Humans be Healthy,

isn't Helping us Track its Grants well enough.

Data elements that the users should be able to sort on, aren't even menu choices...and of the fields they CAN sort on, those aren't always even entered.

I pick on a few examples, including an Abstinence/healthy marriage grantee, of course]



HHS Data Quality in the TAGGS Database.  ~ ~ Accessible Data for the Public

Business is Business — and some VERY sophisticated software is available to those doing business with the US Government, or those whose functional engineering projects, or fundraising, depends on excellent and relevant, reliable software.  At the bottom of the last post, I also clearly showed how fortunes are being made in the field of software platforms to government (and elsewhere), i.e., a prosperous Private Equity Firm in SF investing in several software companies (sometimes, at once) is doing VERY well; they also became the majority shareholder in BlackBaud, Inc. — which provides software Cloudfund raising to nonprofits, including our Minnesota TechnicalAssistance and Training provider to OVW Grantees (and if anyone else can afford to attend, like a battered woman), Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs.
Blackbaud is an international company whose founder was from the UK and answered an ad from a NYCity school for a software design.  Tony Bakker is majority owner of a Charleston South Carolina soccer team, a real estate investor and “restaurateur,” after buying and restoring a 1760 property in Charleston, sold it for $7.6 million, having found a $5 million property on the waterfront they just couldn’t turn down.
And think about it — HHS and DOJ funding to train people how to work with people that batter, people that are being battered, and how to provide supervised visitation services, and to an organization promoting that Community Collective Response will help stop evil behavior in a community.  In studying further how to do this, one of its sub-projects (BWJP) also chose to “collectively” associate with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an organization of dubious origins in Southern Los Angeles (according to some), which has sought to UNdo the concept of criminal law and replace it with the language of behavioral science, and which promotes a psychological terminology as a legal technique to re-frame children saying “no” to abuse as parental alienation, and which believes that “CONFLICT,” if high, is bad.
They have no conflict, however, with centralized control if it includes them, or taking grants to expand their technical capacities, or web presence.
MEANWHILE — if the public is expecting representative government still, at this late date — this is what they get:  A database of HHS grants which is incomplete, inaccurate, whose entries are inconsistently entered below the level of what basic support staff would accept — and in which one CANNOT sort on the most relevant fields in Advanced Search format.   I have almost never run across someone even LOOKING at this database as a layperson because they were curious about the use of its funds (and I’ve talked and corresponded with hundreds of heads of household involved in the courts; funds to the courts are recorded in here! — who even looks at TAGGS.HHS.GOV unless they got this habit from my blog, or people who associate with Liz Richards’ “national association for family court justice” from which I got the idea to look it up (and just kept going….).
Some of these fields are below.  Fiscal Year is shown — but
 http://taggs.hhs.gov/HelpStatus/datadictionary.cfm
Appropriation Fiscal Year Fiscal Year of the appropriation used to fund this action. Note: An appropriation is a statute made available by Congress that provides the authority to incur financial obligations and to make payments associated with DHHS grant programs.
Appropriation Number Treasury account code identifying the appropriation used to fund this action. Note: An appropriation is a statute made available by Congress that provides the authority to incur financial obligations and to make payments associated with DHHS grant programs.
Appropriation Title Full title of an appropriation. Note: An appropriation is a statute made available by Congress that provides the authority to incur financial obligations and to make payments associated with DHHS grant programs.
Authorization Legal authority cited in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) upon which an HHS program is based (acts, amendments to acts, Public Law numbers, titles, sections, Statute Codes, citations to the US Code, Executive Orders, Presidential Reorganization Plans, and Memoranda from an agency head).

The matters in blue remind us that spending isn’t supposed to happen without authorization and appropriation.   Yet look at the “Advanced Search” page and see if you can find those fields.

There’s one link to “Advanced Search” (explore on your own time), and several shortcuts to other menu items, and some pre-planned reports.  Yet I found in a general search, there are plenty of grants missing codes — DUNS code, some missing a CFDA Code (plenty missing a principal investigator; do not yet know if these are specifically block grants only).  Of the principal investigator there really ought to be a first name, last name designation and no title unless there’s a title field.  that’s BASIC.

http://taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearch.cfm

Any feedback on how someone may get to this data via the public access site — I see many fields described which do not show up on “Advanced Search” options — please let me know.  For example, nothing should be paid out which Congress, Executive Order, or some other authority has awarded, right?  But we cannot search on it.  You can do only these types of searches & run some pre-formatted reports.
Read the rest of this entry »

Certain things, in Life, in America, are simply “Foundational”….Central(ized)..

leave a comment »

[Post is about 7,700 words.

On Centralization & Foundations;

plus  (yet another) California-modeled Mandatory $50 class,
Parent Information Program run out of the Arizona Justice System (Maricopa County)
Center for Families in Transition“/founded & run by a family law attorney/mediator/psychologist Pepperdine & other AFCC-style trainings (groupie) with a BA in psychology and a single J.D.)

Also notes a 2007 AFCC Conference in Washington, D.C.,
where a domestic violence organization spokesperson  (BWJP/L. Frederick) collaborates with AFCC (“hey, a grant’s a grant, a job’s a job!”)..

alongside every kind of alienation, marriage/promotion, fatherhood, etc. professional (as ever).

And, a chart you won’t usually run acrossfrom Bentley Systems (who provides serious software support to seriously major world infrastructure (engineering/architecture) projects, details WHO owns most of the GLOBAL world’s infrastructure. Scroll down to see who’s #1, and what does this mean for us seeking justice in the courts?

BUT PRIMARILY:  READ on the development of Foundations/Trusts;

CONSIDER Certain reporters/writers who ended up incarcerated for speaking out.

We should at least consider the life-and-death implications for our grandchildren, our neighbors’ grandchildren, or (depending on one’s age), our own old age.

Next Year (2013) equals 100 years of debt-based currency control & centralized banking, With computer-aided multiplication of “change-agent” corps & data modeling,

the acceleration of technology & nonstop war,

& the ever more blatant state-religion blend,

I sense the pace is picking up… 


I’m still in touch with people who think that by convincing at least SOME legislators about serious problems with Welfare Reform (TANF) matterscausing custodial mothers serious issues in the courts (and pouring money down a black hole of non-accountability — we can fix it.

However, I simply do not associate any more with those who talk about fixing the family court system without addressing, say, welfare reform & fraud, and the religious-state amalgam where right (Republican) and left (Democrat) seem actually to agree on all the critical issues, in other words, creeping fascism.  or Socialism (same basic difference –> state centralized control//oligarchy)

I don’t speak with these because one way to go nuts is to associate and engage in long dialogues (or attempt to reason) with those who already are — the logic and observation have been detached for a chosen cause.   In fact, we are on a spiral going a certain direction, and that direction has been predetermined, globally managed, and most of the variations on the way there are minor in scope.

There are many, many “Change agent” systems around.  In this blog, the primary ones I’ve shown are the development of the family court system, and the largesse to some, deprivation to others, from switching Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to TANF /Welfare Block Grants to states.

I’ve been speaking about the types of issues that I saw dismantle my (and others) rights (or what I though were my rights, and may have previously been), to simply LIVE, including to work, and engage in private relationships without being threatened by someone I offended (by leaving them), or being exploited by those who profit off family conflict.   

However,

…barring divine intervention, or sudden mass enlightenment about these things, …

“Simply living” is about to become an extinct species, for more & larger groups of people than those stuck in the court systems…..or stuck in a lifestyle that, to pay their housing, food & basic bills, requires them to (though income taxes & other taxes) continue to support these abusive institutions, as well as of course the large prison population with its slave labor force, and stock dividends for shareholders, i.e., the CCAs and Maximus, UNICOR etc., corporations of the world.


SO –

I have to talk about some essentials of “Centralization” and not how it’s done, but apparently why it’s done, although the narrower topic is actually:

How Families are KEPT “in Transition” through “Centers for the Family in Transition

Certain people protesting legal/judicial/governmental corruption (in the US, I’m talking) were incarcerated without cause, particularly in institutions for the criminally insane, particularly when some of these have been outspoken critics of certain systems of power, which certainly would be “insane” on the face of it — to go up & speak up against the primary powers of a country, or a globe!

Their stories speak to us…

One that comes to my mind in this century is, of course, Richard Fine (18 months in solitary coercive confinement in Los Angeles County Men’s jail, having been led away from the courtroom in handcuffs.)  Fine — whose story has been almost systematically ignored by certain groups that ought to be a LOT more thankful or his work, not to mention suffering — also got disbarred, and financially injured of course — for speaking out against one of the more corrupt court systems around, that based in Southern California, and in part for its practice of withholding COLLECTED child support from the families and children it was owed to.

And the fact remains that, if arrest records are falsified anyhow, we really don’t know the headcount in the prisons, which point Joseph Zernik (who also brought to light the dual-docketing issue with the electronic court databases, for which HE got rounded up also, I heard — though later released) . . . wrote up…. (here, in tiny print because it’s not main topic today….)

Conditions in Los Angeles County are a Human Rights disgrace of historic proportions, and direct extension of false imprisonments of thousands, documented in the Rampart scandal (1998-2000), which were never reversed ever since. Most published reports regarding the false hospitalization of Richard Fine failed to provide the fundamental facts.  Less than two weeks later, Atty Richard Fine was taken into false hospitalization by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. However, there was no warrant ever issued for the arrest of Mr. Fine. Likewise, there was neither a valid and effectual conviction, nor was there a valid and effectual sentencing. The March 4, 2009 proceeding, at the end of which Mr. Fine was abducted, never appeared as part of the respective litigation (Marina v Los Angeles County – BS109420) chronology – it was – from court’s perspective – an “off the record” proceeding


Then there was the 180 days of Elizabeth Sassower for 26 words she spoke, requesting permission to speak, at an “open” judicial confirmation hearing.  She was born into a dissident family; her mother Doris Sassower also got disbarred in New York, particularly after exposing other illegal activity (party-planned advance trading of judgeships) — which eventually led to the Center for Judicial Accountability, and to my increased understanding of why there is, literally, no real remedy for judicial corruption.  (See Elizabeth (daughter, 2004, six months incarcerated), Doris (mother/disbarred ca. 1991) and George (father)*’s problematic behavior of attempting to use the courts to report on judicial payoffs.  Needless to say, this is not appreciated by the same.)  I guess Richard Fine just did it in 2009, or at least got nabbed in 2009.

*To the Gulag: 
Courthouse Leper George Sassower Takes On Every Judge in Town
“,
Village Voice, June 6, 1989

BUT — Today,  I’m thinking about an earlier institutionalized dissident, one, Ezra Pound,  how he contacted a young man & writer, Eustace Mullins and gave him a job assignment which — lucky for us — Mullins did.  From Wikipedia: (for more active links, see URL):

In his Foreword to The Secrets of the Federal Reserve Mullins explains the circumstances by which he came to write his now famous investigation into the origins of the Federal Reserve System:

In 1949, while I was visiting Ezra Pound who was a political prisoner at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, Washington, D.C. (a Federal institution for the insane), Dr. Pound asked me if I had ever heard of the Federal Reserve System. I replied that I had not, as of the age of 25. He then showed me a ten dollar bill marked “Federal Reserve Note” and asked me if I would do some research at the Library of Congress on the Federal Reserve System which had issued this bill. Pound was unable to go to the Library himself, as he was being held without trial as a political prisoner by the United States government. After he was denied broadcasting time in the U.S., Dr. Pound broadcast from Italy in an effort to persuade people of the United States not to enter World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had personally ordered Pound’s indictment…[15]

After telling Pound that he had little interest in such a research project because he was working on a novel,

Pound offered to supplement my income by ten dollars a week for a few weeks. My initial research** revealed evidence of an international banking group which had secretly planned the writing of the Federal Reserve Act and Congress’ enactment of the plan into law. These findings confirmed what Pound had long suspected. He said, “You must work on it as a detective story.”[16]

Mullins completed the manuscript during the course of 1950 when he began to seek a publisher. Eighteen publishers turned the book down without comment before the President of the Devin-Adair Publishing Company, Devin Garrett, told him, “I like your book but we can’t print it…Neither can anybody else in New York. You may as well forget about getting the [...] book published.”[17]

Eventually the book was published by two of Pound’s disciples, John Kasper and David Horton, under the title Mullins on the Federal Reserve.

**it should be noted Mullins worked at the Library of Congress at this time, and had some help. . .

 Near the end of the book, he said of the Federal Reserve:

The Federal Reserve System is not Federal; it has no reserves; and it is not a system, but rather, a criminal syndicate. It is the product of criminal syndicalist activity of an international consortium of dynastic families comprising what the author terms “The World Order”.

The Federal Reserve system is a central bank operating in the United States. Although the student will find no such definition of a central bank in the textbooks of any university, the author has defined a central bank as follows: It is the dominant financial power of the country which harbors it. It is entirely private-owned, although it seeks to give the appearance of a governmental institution. It has the right to print and issue money, the traditional prerogative of monarchs.

He proposed that Nations were not really governing powers, but rather, that the world was parasitically controlled by this interlock of banks, foundations, and corporations, which acted as a unified force, tending towards World monopoly. He furthermore proposed that this oligarchical apparatus was controlled by corrupt, dynastic families that had accumulated their wealth through trade in gold, slaves, and drugs.

He claimed that as this consortium furthered its monopolistic ambitions, it would seek the establishment of a World Culture, eradicate nationalism, impoverish everyone except themselves, and progressively turn the world into a police state.

This is about 65 years later, right.  Is there serious argument, now, with this worldview?  Or have you been too busy fighting for the favorite cause . . . . or on facebook?  ….

I can’t buy everything the guy wrote (it was the 1950s, there’s some racist stuff in here — but there has been some serious legwork, and (thanks to public access internet, at least), I”m pretty darn thankful Mullins put together at least this much, in a later book, which I hope readers will scan. Or read 7.1 up through “Origins of the Foundation system” and then go to Summary and Appendix I”:


CHAPTER 7: The Foundations

Syndicates for financial, educational and political control

7.1: Rockefeller Foundation
Origins of the foundation system, the Rockefeller Foundation
Syndicates of Control 
Origins of the Foundation System 
The Rockefeller Foundation
7.2: Brookings and Carnegie Foundations
Brookings Institution, Russell Sage Foundation, Carnegie Corp, German Marshall Fund
The Brookings Institution
The Russell Sage Foundation 
The Carnegie Foundations 
The German Marshall Fund
Gatekeepers and Think Tanks 
7.3: The Hoover Institution
Herbert Hoover, wartime documents, and the Hoover Institution
The Career of Herbert Hoover 
The Hoover Library of Wartime Documents
Hoover Institution and Stanford University 
Liberal Fellows of Hoover Institution 
7.4: Mont Pelerin, Ford Foundation and Tavistock
The Mont Pelerin Society, Ford Foundation and Tavistock Institute
The Mont Pelerin Society 
The Ford Foundation 
The Tavistock Institute 
Summary 
Appendix I


As of 2012, and in the course of looking up — things — about the grants system, the courts system, the marriage/fatherhood movement (and its advocates) and having a heck of a self-education in politics & economics, and in the concept of “change-agent” organizations — I have (so far) run across and confirmed connections of the PUSH PSYCHOLOGY//TEST BREAKING POINTS // RUN SOCIAL SCIENCE DEMONSTRATIONS ON THE POPULATION . . . . I’ll call it a “syndicate” . . . and connections to, of the above:   Tavistock (see Nicholas Cummings, Cummings Foundation, American Biodyne, etc.), Ford Foundation (see “MDRC”), Rockefeller Foundation (all over the place), Brookings Institution (see Ron Haskins, fatherhood mentor), and all kinds of think-tanks.  I have confirmed along with all kinds of carving up the United States into functional Regions (Regionalism):  (4/11/1978, from Transcript of an “Illinois Joint Legislative Committee Investigating Regional Government;” state legislators were questioning a “T. David Horton”)

State legislators today, as far as we can ascertain, are totally ignorant of the dangers of Regional Governance, and we have yet to meet one who has read, studied and understands our Constitution. Mr. Horton tells plainly why we should all be making an exhaustive effort to take documentation to our State legislators and convince them of the fact that States are quickly becoming obsolete because of their careless practice of voting for bills which they have never read, let alone written. . .

For example, Figure One, which is a map of these United States combined into ten regions, where state boundaries are deleted but governmental functions are to be performed within these regions – this is a basic violation of the intent and of the express language of this agreement called the Constitution of the United States.

Damage is already being done to our local representative institutions through efforts of intimidation and bribery to take over governmental functions: The stated plan is to intensify the process that is already going on to establish contact directly with local officials and local entities, by-passing state and county government and, in the process, using tax funds, public funds, for the basic purpose of defeating one of the principle objects of all law.

The purpose of law can be summarized this way – to prevent coercion, either by bribery or by force – and the effort that is being made now by the federal agencies defeats this purpose when they say, “you must do what we say or you won’t get this money”.

 HHS divides the US up into regions.  OCSE does also.  Fathers and Families Coalition of America (which corresponds closely with HHS grants) also does. 

A centralized, vicariously-governed system such as they have in Soviet Russia can convert the bread basket of Europe into a starvation nightmare because they are not adopting this basic principle that we have in our free enterprise system, and the reason why local control of local affairs works best is the same reason that the free enterprise system works best – namely, that our local county commissioners or supervisors, when they make decisions and make mistakes, have to look eyeball to eyeball at the people who are adversely affected by those mistakes.  If they can find a solution, they are much more likely to be responsive and put that solution into effect.

Now, …(re:), the Office of Management and Budget Form A-95, we find that if we’re dealing with the federal bureaucracy in any area, they are not solution oriented. If you talk to people, even in LEAA, where I have a certain amount of experience as a District Attorney for eight years in my county, we have had our noses rubbed in that sort of thing too; but if you talk to them with regard to a solution of one of their problems, you might just as well talk to a post.

They are not interested in solutions, and the reason is that they are funded on the basis of having the problem. If you solve the problem, they are out of their funding, and you can’t expect a government official – any more than you can expect a businessman – to go against his own pecuniary interest. And we find that they don’t. That’s one reason why we have a $300 billion-plus federal budget.


FACTS (as I see them….)

Look — half our workforce, at least, and the creative talents and productive energies of the population are being drained — literally — through the system of constant “churning” through an infinite series of program ideas & trade concepts pushed (literally) on us from a centralized, well-funded, and well-organized group of individuals.  MOST of these individuals’ lives circulate around the court system, as judges, lawyers, mediators, GALs, parent coordinators, and the entire supportive bureaucracy to go with them.  GUESS WHO pays for that?

“Infinite” is accurate:   (While there is a finite number of these, on a given day, almost no one counts them, few track them, and no one is preventing the unending creation of MORE of them, which is close enough to “infinite” (literally, without end,) for my purposes.

Next post, if I get there, I’m going to show some more “Centers for the Family in Transition” and suggest that a number of parents (either gender will do) go through all 50 states, county by county, and see what you find.  I bet what you’ll find will be pretty darned uniform in character, and have people who have networked nationally on the character of these outfits…

The Judicial Branch of Arizona / Maricopa County (Parent Information Program Providers page) . . .

Pursuant to Arizona law (ARS§ 25-351: “Domestic Relations Education on Children’s Issues”) the Superior Court in Maricopa County has implemented a Parent Information Program to provide information to divorcing parents, or parents involved in other domestic relations actions, concerning what their children may be experiencing during this emotionally difficult period.

Completion of the Parent Information Program is a requirement for all parents involved in a divorce, legal separation, or paternity case in which a party requests that the Court determine custody, specific visitation, or child support. Parties involved in other types of domestic relations actions, such as modification or enforcement of custody or parenting time, as well as child support matters, may also be ordered to attend the Parent Information Program at the Court’s discretion.

The fee for the Parent Information Program Classes is $50.00 per person payable to the Provider.

Arizona Priority Education and Counseling- [view class list]

Phoenix Interfaith Counseling- [view class list]

Center for Families in Transition- [view class list]

Gee. I wonder where the idea for “Center for Families in Transition” came from …. (Arizona “Starpas.azcc.gov” corporations search results):

File Number Corporation Name Name Type
10410246 CENTER FOR FAMILIES IN TRANSITION, INC. CORPORATION

Street address of Georgelyn Rosenfeld, President was for 4-bedroom home on Scottsdale listed for-rent, but taken off rental.  Oh, it’s a nonprofit, too.  And another Director added 2007 in an address  just sold this past month (8/24/2012)  …House for Rent:

2634 N 87th Terrace is no longer listed. It is shown for comparison and does not appear when searching available listings on HotPads. 
This snapshot of the listing was taken when it was removed from HotPads on Nov 01, 2011.

Originally incorporated (ca. 2002) by An Elizabeth Winter:  Yelp shows same address for her, and it:

Category: Divorce and Family Law[Edit]8655 E Via De Ventura Scottsdale, AZ 85258

What a “Surprise” that a family lawyer/judge pro tem/psychologist-sociologist/mediator should’ve formed a PIP under this name….

Elizabeth A. Winter

(click on logo):
She’s got a B.A. (Psychology/Sociology from AZ State Univ.) and a J.D. out of Tennessee, and other than that, apparently has been sitting through whatever type of training (including at Pepperdine) she could.  Oh yes — and has function as a Judge pro tem, which is “reassuring.”

Attorney, Mediator, Parent Educator with a focus on family transitions

ELIZABETH A. WINTER has been actively involved in the practice of law since 1975 with an emphasis in Bankruptcy and Appropriate{{“appropriate”??}} Dispute Resolution. It is her philosophy that positive change occurs more readily and productively in a supportive and confidential environment. ELIZABETH is a Judge Pro Tempore for the Family Court Division of the Trial Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. ELIZABETH is the only licensed attorney in the state of Arizona who is an approved presenter of the Parent Information Program.  She has presented the Parent Information Program since the program inception. ELIZABETH is admitted to practice before the Federal District Court of the District of Arizona and the Federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ELIZABETH was recognized in the publication Outstanding Young Women of America for two consecutive years and was quoted on her definition of “success” in the publication Who’s Who of American Women.  

(just SOME of the trainings):

Advanced Divorce Mediation!!!:

13 Hour training in 1996 with Allison Quattrocchi, J.D.

(hover for details/quattrochi’s 1981 Family Mediation Center; she trained with John Haynes, J.D. — see below)

Advanced Divorce Mediation:

7 Hour training in 1997 with Joy Borum, J. D.* and Marlene Joy, Ph.D. (*works with Quattrocchi, above)

Advanced Family Mediation:

20 Hour training in 1997 The Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law, CA

Arbitration in Superior Court:

16 Hour training in 1997 with Cochise County Superior Court

Advanced Divorce Mediation:

4 Hour training in 1998 with John Haynes, Ph.D.*

(*whoever he is, Quatrocchi, above, trained with him, too).**

**”

**John Haynes, for whom the award is named, was a pioneer in the field of family mediation, a respected author and practitioner, an international trainer, and the first president of the Academy of Family Mediators.

…This must go seriously back in time, as the link is to an AFCC principal (Peter Salem) getting a “John Haynes” award in 2008.  Peter Salem is an AFCC leader, and get this:

Salem’s recent work has revolved around spearheading organizational collaborations to create reform in family law and dispute resolution processes and systems to benefit children and families. Specifically, he spearheaded (with Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson),** a North American collaboration between family court professionals, researchers and domestic violence professionals. He co-chaired the Family Law Education Reform Project (with Andrew Schepard), a national project promoting the incorporation of ADR and skills building into the family law curriculum. He also directed a project implementing triage systems in Connecticut’s family courts

**who is over at NCJFCJ (Nevada) which is a conference of family & juvenile court judges, and is considered one of four “Special Resource Centers” onviolence prevention by HHS, meaning they get big grants.

2007 AFCC WDC conference — a look at who’s involved tells me they are drinking out of the same trough/s…. and need to diminish and explain away as much “domestic violence” as possible:

Differential Assessment and Intervention in Domestic Violence CasesFamilies who experience domestic violence are not all alike. This simple idea has profound practical, policymaking and political implications. For example, how should professionals who work with families experiencing domestic violence identify significant differences and how can differential assessment be translated into appropriate intervention? Are changes in substantive law and court process advisable? What are the views of various professional com munities and how can all of the stakeholders be incorporated into the ongoing discussion? Join this lively discussion of these important issues.

Hon. Susan B. Carbon, President Elect, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Plymouth, NH

After this, the Hon. Susan Carbon headed over to OVAW where she helps dispense grants to prevent violence from the DOJ.  Understandably, then when a nice AFCC/BWJP collaboration (BWJP representing, supposedly, battered women… as part of ANOTHER of the four special resource centers to prevent violence, as I recall MPDI (HHS grantee).  Contact me if you’re lost (or see taggs.hhs.gov).

(Actually — Loretta Frederick of BWJP is presenting at this same 2007 conference…)

Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D., Co-Director, Domestic Violence Department, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV

Hon. William G. Jones (ret.), Charlotte, NC

Nancy Ver Steegh, J.D., M.S.W., William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN

COLLABORATIONS with this AFCC conference listed as:
  • American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law
  • American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution
  • American Bar Association Section of Family Law
  • American Psychological Association
  • Association for Conflict Resolution
  • International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
  • Maryland Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office
  • Maryland Department of Family Administration
  • Montgomery County Divorce Roundtable
  • Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division, Washington D.C. Superior Court
  • National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
  • National Association of Council for Children
  • Supreme Court of Virginia Division of Dispute Resolution Services
  • University of Baltimore Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC)
People who don’t monitor this organization’s conferences are just going to be, well, “ignorant.”  It has Ron Haskins, Ronald Mincy (Fatherhood/Ford Founation/Columbia), it has Sanford Braver, all kinds of parental alienation proponents (Nicholas Bala of Canada, you name it….), movement to Unify the Courts (CFCC’s), and in general is where a whole lot of strategy appears to take place.   It’s like a record of an engine in motion…  The only people not really presenting are some serious feminists and those aware that children are, indeed, being transferred from fit parents to batterers, and willing to do anything about it — like shut down this organization and it’s networking/marketing/franchise operations that just happen to work through the US Court system!!

Pre-Conference Institute (separate registration fees), May 30, 2007:

9:00am-4:30pm

1. Judicial Officers Institute: Domestic Violence and Differentiation

Recent research identifies different types of domestic violence with different characteristics, risks and outcomes. There is a lack of consensus, however, on how to characterize the differences and the implications of doing so.

ALTERNATELY to all these private (victims & perps not present, nor their voices heard (although the AFCC fairly well speaks for the perps POV) conferences, the “Conciliation Courts” could instead recognize the criminal definitions of domestic violence, and agree to abide by them, simplifying life for the rest of us!  Instead of trying to slice off as much “domestic violence” into the “high-conflict” cateogory as possible and start ordering treatment for high-conflict and parent alienation!)

The morning portion of this institute will describe the current research and focus on the parenting plans and specialized services that may be appropriate for a range of post- separation family situations. The afternoon will be an interactive session that examines the potential implications of differentiating among types of domestic violence perpetrators for adult domestic violence victims and their children. Presented in collaboration with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

  • Loretta Frederick, J.D., Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN
  • Janet R. Johnston, Ph.D., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA
  • Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D., Corte Madera, CA
  • Hon.Victor Reyes, Pueblo, CO

Recognize Johnston (Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition) & Joan B. Kelly (Northern California Mediation Center) from any of my recent posts?**  {{not that they aren’t also AFCC, in fact Johnston was on the Board I believe..}}I hope so!  The BWJP (hover — that’s an HHS site link) deals with “CIVIL & CRIMINAL” justice systems, ignoring the “FAMILY LAW” issues while conferencing with those who run the family law system.  I get so sick of the same personnel, showing up everywhere, and without spokespeople for what’s happening to noncustodial, law-abiding, nonabusive mothers in this extortionist system!

BACK IN ARIZONA, with Ms. WINTER & the CENTER FOR FAMILIES (plural) IN TRANSITION
Here’s the other provider linked to on her site (and listed as a director on the Corp) @2007.  By the way, so far I can’t find any record of it as a nonprofit, although corporate record says it is one.  Not earning anything, like the Judith Wallenstein Centers for the Family in Transition?

My faith is a gift that I received from God in midlife during a time of great emotional pain. After receiving that gift, He led me to His Word, the Bible, to learn about Him and His plan for my life. This statement of faith is some of what I have learned so far.

God created the universe and everything in it. He loves His creation, including man, whom He created in His image, and to whom He gave His son, Jesus Christ, so we can have a relationship with Him. God wants us to love Him and each other. This love includes feelings of love, but His focus is not on feelings, but on attitudes and actions.

Three things are important to Him: 1) how we respond to Him, 2) how we take care of ourselves, and 3) how we treat others. If we are not doing these three things well, He wants us to change. We don’t have to do it alone.

My Mission is to help people do the three things important to God.  (Interesting Bio — see link//addictions, ADHD ) ..

(Doesn’t mention where his M.A. is from, though)  So nice that he’s responsible for funning required classes for all sorts of parents coming through the Maricopa County Court system, regardless of their personal believes….

Then there’s “CONCILIATION SERVICES” after a law passed in Arizona ca. 1962…. I wonder whose idea THAT was….  California did this around 1955, as I recall, but it wasn’t really wanted, so AFCC had to try a little harder to ram it through….

Conciliation Services of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County was established in 1962 after the Arizona Legislature enacted Conciliation Services law (ARS 25-381).
Conciliation Services offers:

  • Conciliation Counseling for parties contemplating divorce.
  • Mediation of child custody and parenting time plans for families of divorce, post-divorce or in paternity actions.
  • Evaluation Services to the court when parents are unable to agree upon a parenting plan.
  • Parent Information Program provides information to divorcing parents, or parents involved in other domestic relations actions, concerning what their children may be experiencing during this emotionally difficult period.
  • High Conflict Resolution Class designed specifically for high conflict parents.**
    • (=from the hyperlink:   “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 [psychoanalysis-style...] 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.”  [[$100/court order, not bad!]]
  • Premarital Underage Counseling for persons under the age of sixteen contemplating marriage

Wonder where that idea for “high-conflict” classes came from, it being Arizona & all….

OK — Let’s ask — WHO would be heavily invested (and why) in keeping a population in constant turmoil, and transferring its energies, wealth (in many forms) to a lot of organizations that don’t even themselves pay taxes, are supported by the public (who dos) and  this includes real estate when people lose their housing through this process also — or elderly parents’ assets are drained supporting adult children’s attempts to keep themselves of their kids safe?   

Well — not only the clients and not only the taxes —  because, in truth the United States of America is one of the largest owners of the world’s (you heard that right) infrastructure, globally speaking.  That’s real estate, resources (energy, food production), minerals, etc. etc.

I WOULD LIKE TO DISPLAY A CHART I FOUND AT “BENTLEY SYSTEMS” WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A PARTNER OF THE PENNSYLVANIA ECONOMY LEAGUE (P.E.L.).

MY INTEREST IN THE PEL IS IRRELEVANT — AND WHO BENTLEY IS, CAN BE LOOKED AT FROM THEIR LINK — BUT THEY (HAVING THE RESOURCES TO KNOW THIS) PUBLISHED A LIST OF THE TOP 500 OWNERS OF GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE.  THAT’S, IN THE WORLD.  THESE ARE GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND, AS WE CONSIDER ALL THE TALK ABOUT THE US DEBT, CUTTING SOCIAL SERVICES, POLICE, SCHOOL ARTS, SPORTS, MUSIC & LIBRARY PROGRAMS, AND BLAMING THE POOR FOR THEIR POVERTY — WHO, REALLY, OWNS THE ASSETS OF THE GLOBE?    HERE’S WHAT BENTLEY SAYS:

Introducing the Bentley Infrastructure 500

The Bentley Infrastructure 500 is a ranking of the top owners of infrastructure around the world from both the public and private sectors that is published annually. The rankings make it possible to readily compare investment levels across types of infrastructure, regions of the world, and public and private organizations.

Bentley Systems has compiled the Bentley Infrastructure 500 to help global constituents appreciate and explore the magnitude of investment in infrastructure and the potential to continually increase the return on that investment. The infrastructure value represented is over US$14 trillion, which is close to the U.S. annual GDP and to the combined annual GDPs of China, Japan, and Germany. Bentley itself is committed to enhancing ROIs through leveraging information modeling in integrated projects to create more intelligent infrastructure on behalf of owner organizations.

Data Results for 2011

Top 10 Owners in the Bentley Infrastructure 500

Rank Organization Headquarters Country Infrastructure Value*
(millions USD)
1 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT United States 308,800
2 STATE GRID CORPORATION OF CHINA China 209,727
3 EXXON MOBIL CORP United States 199,548
4 OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY GAZPROM Russia 180,019
5 PETROLEO BRASILEIRO S.A. – PETROBRAS Brazil 167,777
6 ELECTRICITE DE FRANCE SA – EDF France 143,241
7 NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION Japan 119,098
8 KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS Netherlands 117,060
9 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC Netherlands 116,851
10 WAL MART STORES INC United States 107,878

*As measured by reported net tangible fixed assets.

Top Owners’ Infrastructure
Value by Country
Top Owners’ Infrastructure
Value by Sector
Top Owners (Count)
by Country
Top Owners (Count)
by Sector
See larger image See larger image See larger image See larger image

The Bentley Infrastructure 500 ranks owners according to their reported tangible fixed assets (or other comparable noncurrent physical assets such as buildings or fixed structures, land, and machinery).  Included in the rankings are public- and private-sector entities with financials reported in the past three years (to allow flexibility in varying reporting schedules). The values presented are assessed net of depreciation and amortization and calculated to exclude, where data is available, assets not representative of infrastructure, such as equipment, furniture, and software.


 Here are some more — and note that Catherine Austin Fitts has cited the major port states as major drug traffickers as major also HUD Default Mortgage states (in probably Narco-Dollars for Dummies).  While these are REPORTED assets (not unreported), still notice which states are showing up if I continue the list, and then ask — how did these states accumulate so many assets — and if they have all these assets, then why are they always crying, “we’re broke?” and trying to raise taxes on the public?
11 THE TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY INCORPORATED Japan 106,455
12 BP P.L.C. United Kingdom 105,887
13 CHEVRON CORPORATION United States 104,504
14 ENEL SPA Italy 104,349
15 GDF SUEZ France 104,317
16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA United States 104,107
17 FERROVIE DELLO STATO S.P.A. Italy 103,903
18 AT&T INC. United States 103,196
19 STATE OF TEXAS United States 92,214
20 ENI SPA Italy 90,065
21 STATE OF NEW YORK United States 89,583
22 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Australia 89,212
23 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC United States 87,711
24 GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Russia 87,317
25 CHINA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION China 87,175
26 PETROLEOS MEXICANOS Mexico 85,893
27 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION China 84,625
28 PETROLEOS DE VENEZUELA S A Venezuela 83,457
29 CONOCOPHILLIPS United States 82,554
30 E.ON AG Germany 81,334
31 VALE S.A. Brazil 78,116
32 TOTAL S.A. France 73,443
33 GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY Norway 72,874
34 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION Japan 71,967
35 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE-UNITED KINGDOM United Kingdom 71,576
36 KOREA ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION South Korea 69,498
37 STATE OF FLORIDA United States 67,521

. . .

81 CITY OF NEW YORK United States 41,495
 . . .
83 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (NY) United States 40,703

(just to remind us that an “authority” is a type of governmental entity; and like a government, produces — or shows up somewhere — on a “Comprehensive Audited Financial Report” which has to show CUMULATIVE assets….

87 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY United States 39,934

. (What’s in NC — research triangle international?? )

97 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA United States 36,861
116 STATE OF WASHINGTON United States 31,997
117 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE United States 31,868
118 PG&E CORP United States 31,449

122 CITY OF LOS ANGELES United States 29,880
123 STATE OF MISSOURI United States 29,748

etc.   Just a reminder, the numbers are in US$ millions.  City of Los Angeles (where we got this court system from basically)  ASSETS:  $29,880,000,000….

FYI, How “BENTLEY” would know all this is because of what business they are in:

Bentley is the global leader dedicated to providing architects, engineers, geospatial professionals, constructors, and owner-operators with comprehensive software solutions for sustaining infrastructure. Bentley’s mission is to empower its users to leverage information modeling through integrated projects for high-performing intelligent infrastructure. Its solutions encompass the MicroStation platform for infrastructure design and modeling, the ProjectWise platform for infrastructure project team collaboration and work sharing, and the AssetWise platform for infrastructure asset operations – all supporting a broad portfolio of interoperable applications and complemented by worldwide professional services. Founded in 1984, Bentley has grown to nearly 3,000 colleagues in more than 45 countries and over $500 million in annual revenues. Since 2003, the company has invested more than $1 billion in research, development, and acquisitions.Video: Bentley is Sustaining Infrastructure
From buildings to bridges, transit to utilities, clean energy to clean water,
Bentley is Sustaining Infrastructure. Find out more in this inspiring video
.

…..

Another way of saying this is — if we’re as mothers, or fathers, or families, or individual workers, or . . . .     going up against “The United States of America” in (its own) courts about “our” “constitutional rights” and due process — or trying to go UP through the court system, or DOWN from the child support enforcement system (a nice asset collector and population controller if I ever saw one) — and get JUSTICE — who, really, are we going up against?  (The largest owner of infrastructure & assets on the planet).  It gets down to, seriously, a matter of leverage — not ethics… 
Really, it’s a commercial question.  Jurisdiction is also a commercial question.
I find it REAL interesting today to learn that Steve Wozniak has decided to become an Australian citizen (dual citizenship) and call himself an “Aussie.”
Next question, who owns and who runs the USA?  And that’s, again, “Foundational.”
 

…..In this scenario, we live, and do our business, and MOST of us exchange US Currency (whatever bits of it we have access too) which isn’t real money, but “legal tender” for debt.  Hopefully I don’t have to explain this, it’s not a new concept, it’s just one we don’t think about enough.   Ezra Pound figured it out from a mental institution where he was (improperly) incarcerated long ago, and got a certain Eustace Mullins to go to the Library of Congress and do some research on this.

I have looked at things long enough to decide that this is essentially true, and while I can’t go with every single thesis from Eustace Mullins, enough of it at 2012 makes “hecka” sense, and I say that having read a LOT of rhetoric (as well as been exposed to it), a LOT of tax returns, and seen my own family destroyed in a war over who gets to educate them, based on profiling.  Basically, trying to convince anyone in a struggle or conflict (sometimes a life-or-death conflict, or a conflict against independence in working to feed themselves and their families, without signing away privileges privacy, and eventually offspring) — that it’s in OUR best interest to look at the largest possible systems influencing the basics of our lives, and then to take a HISTORIC look at who developed these institutions and policies.   

It’s like talking to compartmentalized fools (sorry) and I get tired of it, because it’s only these fools (filled up with whichever rhetoric) that are the multitude and enough to make a power differential in the ongoing centralization of life.   One lesson of evolution should be kept in mind — species that were too specialized in function, became extinct when their climate or ecological niche changed….Right now, this includes people who think only in terms of certain work niches, or in certain terms about income, jobs, and the basics of life. We’ve been told to let other masters take care of these issues and no matter how despotic or incompetent these (education, law enforcement, judicial, legislative, medical, etc.) various masters are, or how many deaths they cause — we still don’t conceive (really) of any other way to do this.

I saw a LONG time ago that the family & education systems were joined at the hip by virtue of workforce paradigms, and had vowed to pick ONE of the two to radically change, if possible.  I may have been wrong in choosing the family courts (of the two), but that’s the one I was most affected by and stuck in.   Basically, though, all of this boils down to the economic system.  

By eliminating me from the workforce and from contact with my kids (improperly) this system revealed itself, and — while it made eating, transportation, and personal identity (either as worker, or parent, obviously) a hard thing to maintain, a daily issue — it freed my time up to study this (once I got internet access & a used laptop so that wasn’t stuck fighting librarians for an extra 10 minutes, etc….)

Now my issue is communicating this with people who are already in some form of cult based on language, and/or without starting one either.    

None of the charters of the foundations indicate their real purpose.  They are replete with such phrases as “the well-being of mankind” “the elimination of poverty”, the “elimination of disease, “the promotion of world brotherhood”.  Compassion, caring, charity, these are the watchwords of the foundations.  There is no hint to the unwary of the despotic instincts which drive these “caring” people to promote world wars and world slavery, nor is there any warning to the menials of the foundations that if they falter at any time in their dedication to the goals of the World Order, the penalty is sudden death.

The World Order adopted the Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of materialism, which regards the World as Power, and the World as Reality.  It denies all other powers and all other realities.  It functions on the principle of thesis, antithesis and a synthesis which results when the thesis and antithesis are thrown against each other for a predetermined outcome.

If you can’t see this in the “unified court systems” and “therapeutic jurisprudence” and in the AFCC “collaborations” of marriage/fatherhood & domestic violence (battered women’s advocates formerly) conferences – then you are simply blind. Men are pitted against women, and leadership organized & funded for both of them from the same source! (HHS). Religions is also pitted against secular — but like it’s about to say — the bottom line is, materialism.

At my other blog (The Family Court Franchise System) the links & several article track the prevalence of psychology back through Nicholas Cummings (just look it up) who also brought over a “Balint” family from Tavistock, and worked to mainstream mental health at the primary care level (not that these things weren’t already here….) — meanwhile other forces were working to replace the language of criminal law with the language of behavioral science – to do this (see “technical resource & training” centers set up FIRST at HHS level) someone had to co-opt the communications.  Because most churches are basically (sorry, folks) STUPID and have access to more stupid followers, they apparently didn’t notice, or didn’t care sufficiently (self-preservation of any institution is built-in, basically) that there was a nice Rev Sun Myung Moon behind a lot of this marriage/fatherhood movement (i.e., the Unification Church).  Well, maybe they cared — but not enough to turn down the fantastic resources available through this HHS TANF diversionary largesse (ca. 1996).

There was definitely an “UNFREEZE — CHANGE — REFREEZE” going on, or as Lewin put it, “these – antithesis — synthesis.”   In our lifetimes, too.

Thus the World Order organizes and finances Jewish groups;  it then organizes and finances anti-Jewish groups;  it organizes Communist groups;  it then organizes and finances anti-Communist groups.  It is not necessary for the Order to throw these groups against each other;  they seek each other out like heat-seeking missiles, and try to destroy each other.  By controlling the size and resources of each group, the World Order can always predetermine the outcome.

In this technique, members of the World Order are often identified with one side or the other.  John Foster Dulles arranged financing for Hitler, but he was never a Nazi.  David Rockefeller may be cheered in Moscow, but he is not a Communist.  However, the Order always turns up on the winning side.  A distinguishing trait of a member of the World Order, although it may not be admitted, is that he does not believe in anything but the World Order.  Another distinguishing trait is his absolute contempt for anyone who actually believes in the tenets of Communism, Zionism, Christianity, or any national, religious or fraternal group, although the Order has members in controlling positions in all of these groups.  If you are a sincere Christian, Zionist or Moslem, the World Order regards you as a moron unworthy of respect.  You can and will be used, but you will never be respected.

Please go through the contents I put above (same color background) for Chapter 7 on Foundations.  Understand that among the people best qualified to understand this are people who have (as I and I know others have) watched over time antagonistic parties strategize to cause ongoing “conflict” in one’s life (such as any true-blue-abuser already knows how to do, and it so happens, my family cult/clan/gang, was absolutely expert at – they practice on three generations of MY family line, blasting out of recognizable connections.    If we understand it on a local level like that — we have the wherewithal (although may need to learn some technology, or new language to comprehend the HOW) — to understand it on a system level.
Primary to grasp is the utter ruthlessness, total disregard for law, ethics, consequences, or human life, and political purpose behind this.   I’ve seen it, like I said, in my family.  This doesn’t provide the complete antidote — but it sure saves the wasted energy trying to appeal to some ethics or morality that simply isn’t there!!!
And I suggest that EVERYONE walking into ANY courtroom figure this out real fast.   Two things that are (actually) utterly terrorizing me as we speak are the knowledge that I’ve pretty well outlived my usefulness to my family line (i.e., children are now adults) and the only remaining motive is to silence reporting on the prior outrage/s (and plenty of criminal activity).  
As my normal means of paying my living expenses were constantly disrupted and knocked down while they were being built up, after they were built up, or on the way to getting something going — this is basically economic battering through the courts (and outside them) every bit as much as the physical (and with it, economic) battering of some marriages (including mine) — — I found myself desperately attempting to set up something that the collective family-battering-rams couldn’t demolish before it was sustainable.    It was next to NOTHING to get up to speed after I had a simple restraining order and no physical assaults or imminent lethality IN THE HOME….  It took a mere few years.
When the family law system got jurisdiction (which happened quickly, and as I recall, ex-parte consolidation) — and not having the true political and legal temperature of the times (a little hard to have when one is living with domestic abuse and religiously tight control of one’s schedule, goings & comings, time, transportation and access to finances, right?) (like this includes internet) . . . like so many, I was completely blindsided by the corruption of these courts.  Most people STILL don’t “get it” (or want to).  Behind that utter corruption lies the utter corruption of what’s left of the US Government — as I’m saying (see that Bentley chart, above) the largest owner of assets and infrastructures on the planet.
Eustace Mullins (and the writings from that Foundations chapter are Co. Eustace Mullins) did us a big favor writing much of this up.  I’m not saying I go with everything when he gets off on religious heritage & racism, but the things documented within the last two centuries (1800s/1900s) seem clear enough.
Let me know please if this post was helpful…. And read through that Chapter 7 top to bottom, many names will be familiar!  And they will come up again later, too.

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 26, 2012 at 8:46 pm

While We’re There — the Northern California Mediation Center . . . and ITS corporate records, history, people, etc.

with 4 comments

[ca. 8,000 words.    Significant additions after publishing.

.NCMC   introduced as to corporate filings, some personnel

Post concludes  showing how “parental alienation” indoctrination happens,

is self-perpetuating, and is hostile towards mothers, generally.

And is definitely a marketable scheme [yes, scheme] as well.

See “train-the-trainers” @ public cost mentality.

In midstream, I’m taking (to another post) a basic explanation of what “Corporation” means, FYI]


We might as well talk about the Northern California Mediation Center alongside  The Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition, and right alongside respective corporate and nonprofit filings, fundings, tax returns affiliations and actions.

{{The introduction is a little passionate, but it’s about a dozen paragraphs.  Scroll down if you want to skip them!  I added numbers to make it easier!}}

1.

And the historical development of all the above, from another point of view than the mutual press releases, publications, and in general buzz.    There IS another point of view, and it deserves to be heard and placed alongside the scope of influence available to the networks that have developed around these surprisingly few (but well-published) psychological, psychoanalytic, and legal writers, trainers, speakers, consultants and in short authorities.

2.

TIMEFRAME:  After all in the 1980s Joan B. Kelly, Judith S. Wallerstein, Janet R. Johnston (see last post), some others, started corporations (organizations) to promote and practice their theories (promote their analyses)  in direct response to the “no-fault divorce” and feminism of the 1970s — and have helped move the nation further forward (or back, depending on one’s point of view) towards treating divorce as a crime and the divorcing parent as a criminal, even if the reason for divorce was criminal behavior by one parent towards the other, or the child, or third parties.

3.

In addition, as I have discovered, til one knows the business/corporate ~ government grants & contracts relationships, one doesn’t know “squat” about who’s right or what’s right, or even what’s up.

4.

I would say more — right here, right now — except this post was already published; after thinking about it overnight and the overall scope of the situation here — I have QUITE a bit more to say.  But let this be a start of saying: (particularly to leadership of mothers losing their custody inappropriately, and to those following them uncritically) those that complain about certain professional’s tendencies, influence, and theories (like parental alienation) — shame on you!  Put in the personal time, put your behind down on a chair, in front of a laptop (or wherever else information is found, including where records are kept — and put together a coherent account of the problem, how it developed, WHO developed it (and who tolerated its development) and then what you want to do about it — that actually, for once, makes some sense.

5.

And analysis that omits the entire federal welfare system (HOW much money is that?) privatization of welfare with 1996 welfare reform (Block Grants to States) and the role of, for example, the Child Support System (OCSE) — which information HAS been summarized and identified — is a poor analysis.  You cannot analyze the problems of an entire nation from a single-issue point of view!  Moreover, you cannot organize them without taking into account how the flow of power and influence (which means money) occurs.  In doing this you are going to have to seek out experts above your experience level, and do some hard thinking and reflection also.

6.

(Take it away from a rally to Washington, D.C. and begging whoever’s President to “Do something, Please listen to us, Help us, form a task force, do an audit, start an initiative!”  Or even “Stop marriage/fatherhood funding” (and then failing to properly identify its history and spread, or the scope of its influence).  All this does is suck power from your energy and deliver it to the one place that needs LESS (not MORE) power — Central Control, i.e., the United States (or State level) Executive Branch!   Great example of this:  The Defending Childhood / Children Exposed to Violence initiatives.  I hope someone is happy –because NOT ONE leader in that task force speaks to and represents what has happened in the family court arena.  “Thanks a lot” for heading us further towards dictatorship, fascism, or socialism (pick one — how different are they, really?).

7.

In short, ANY PERSON who WILL NOT CHECK FACTS — this includes CORPORATE/ECONOMIC facts — and develop few skills, learn some tools to do this — and will not analyze one’s friends as thoroughly as one’s chosen “opposing parties” –should shut up, sit down, and look up til things make sense.  So that you could explain it without having to quote everyone else, and be unable to provide a halfway coherent HISTORICAL development of how certain groups gained their influence over so many lifes, and courtrooms.  And then you CONTINUE looking and expanding your understanding — was there something you missed? (an area)  — was there someONE you missed?  Are you prioritizing it efficiently towards the most urgent situation, and then seeking what to do about it — or not?

8.

After all — the idea is complaint and stopping it, right?  How can you stop something you haven’t stopped to analyze– YOURSELF!?!

9.

I did this — my life was brought to a complete stop (all the principle activities) to fight this ridiculous battle, because so much was at stake, and the situation was far, far more extreme than most realize.  ANYONE could overnight be uprooted, lose a child, lose housing, lose work — and without due process, or recourse.

10.

Those ethical, honorable, non-wifebeating, non-child-abandoning, non-child-abusing, nonlitigious, and often nonparent simply PEOPLE, whose work continues to help make businesses, universities (and/or government) whirr and hum  — who are also so sure this won’t be them, are many times contributing to the problem — are actually tolerating and financially supporting an abusive, warlike government that is doing this to its own population.

11.

In other words, from WHERE do we think the power to make life and death decisions in 20 minutes (or, ex parte) over a child’s safety or a parent’s -based on a complex formula of financial incentives, wide discretion by judges, the need of individual states to keep their welfare funding (regardless of the strings that come attached with it) – — comes from, huh???

Most of the above added Sunday 9/23/2012)..  Back to the more narrow topic:

(All right, I know some of that sarcasm — about NCMC/”The J.W. Center.” — wasn’t really called for — but neither do I believe this outfit is, or was):

http://www.ncmc-mediate.org/joan.html

This is a beautifully tailored website to a California Nonprofit that doesn’t just DO business with the family courts, it’s helping direct that business and has personnel (at least currently) that are part of it. They have talked about themselves more than adequately, so it’s time to take a closer look as a consumer.  FYI, a “Consumer” is someone who financially support the (national) family courts, not just individual clients.  If you’re contributing to the economics of the country through taxes (wages, sales, etc.) — that’s you.  Gotcha, right?  Basically anyone not in this system is pretty well contributing to it — and its expansion; where does the money come to pay for the trainings, the salaries, and the services?

1
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CTR (942768875)
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903

Or, as seen through the “Registry Search” site on California Attorney General:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER 045685 Charity Delinquent SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 22, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Another POV on “The Center for the Family in Transition” (and its funders)

with 3 comments

[Blogger Note:  I added introductory paragraphs, and some updates on Aug 2, 2014.

I am currently continuing to write on the improper collusion of the court-reform/ Safe Kids groups who will NOT speak about these matters, with those who originally colluded to set them up, and to set up a variety of professions, for their private benefit and careers (although of course we are to believe this is for the public good) in and around the same courts.  See 6/29/2014 post referring to this one also.  There is valuable information (although in the form of multiple charts of different formats) about some of the key players in the family court system, which as we should know by now, is being promoted and restructured in large part through the vehicle of nonprofit trade associations functioning as systems-change, and PR (propaganda) vehicles, which “AFCC” is.  I think VERY few people have taken a close look, systematically, at how the larger and often the many smaller sets of nonprofits formed around key trade terms put forth by the larger (AFCC, NACC, etc.) groups function, I mean FISCALLY.  

I have done this, and come to understand the “collegial” habit of  certain professionals (whether academics or in the courts) setting up not just one — but multiple — foundations or nonprofits with similar name, and moving the money around i.e., reducing or evading accountability as nonprofits are required to produce for the public and the states they’re incorporated in, not to mention the IRS.  ONLY by looking these details u, can you see the pattern and start to comprehend the process, practices, and I’m going to add, purposes.  It’s hard to argue psychological issues with a PhD or Psy.D. professional convinced they have the expertise (and you don’t).  But anyone can look up and look at corporate filings, tax returns, and start putting this OBJECTIVE data (obtained from supposedly neutral, i.e., government, databases:  Secretary of State and Charitable Registries, plus some IRS or agency grants data.  Those are not “psychological” or subjective sources which can be dismissed so easily as “that’s just in your head,” or “You just said that to get control of the children.”


Exhortation (or if you will, “Rant”) added Aug. 2014.  May also be subtracted later:

I’m plenty aware of trauma.  I’m aware of safety issues.  I am a survivor of violence (all kinds), and am living every day with awareness of the things my children, families, and friends were put through, without due process or even (our case) legitimate causes of action.  I’m also aware that others in similar situation, sometimes VERY similar, ended up, in my own community and others, as roadkill, and around the same times.


HOWEVER, I recommend a complete conversation changeI’ve been recommending people who claim they want to clean up the courts, protect children, and fix broken things, pay better attention to the money trail (I’m not the first), and I have put up simple and straightforward tools to follow it, while using them myself, and developing better understanding.

This requires starting to understand it.  The problem I encounter the most:  People won’t even start!  It’s apparently more fun to follow the crowd, and blog the drama, the trauma, and the destruction.  But without learning even the basics of how custody decisions fit into the larger court-connected corporations context, this IMPORTANT information and “Family Court 101 basics” never makes it into most of the voluminous social media propaganda about the problems!

I have engaged in LOOKING AT COURT-CONNECTED CORPORATIONS AND PROGRAMS for at least 5 years now, personally, on the blog, and networked. It is NOT “rocket science”!!  It might be a little scary (how deep, wide and old the problems are does show up), but once you start,and develop the habit of paying attention,  it’s not even intellectually challenging.  Just get to the basic identifying information on any group, and from there, get a grasp on who’s funding it, and on other practices, such as compliant or noncompliant with required annual filings, tax returns, etc.  GET MORE TYPES OF BASIC (foundational) INFO on the GROUPS AND PEOPLE INVOLVED!  Get the structure of the group.

There’s also a chart on this page of what elements to look up for any particular group.  FIRST, get its identity, locate in PLACE (in the US, a corporation can have offices in many, or even ALL states, but only ONE state can be its “domestic” registration at a time.  Find that and find date or incorporation, and more.  Get a location, get an age, and get some objective information that may or  may not show on a website or in the PR:

There are of course other sources of funding:  For example, governments dedicate sometimes filing fees, special accounts, towards specific purposes.  It can be looked up, often, on the state comptroller’s page.  Find some of the funds, the list of funds, that are being set up to finance domestic violence, marriage promotion, family reunification, compromise of child support arrears, etc., in your state.  Research the basic organizations known about in your state, and the landscape will look quite different!  And of course, include the ones you’ve been hanging out with, regardless of which state they proceed in.  If these groups are mirroring the fiscal (i.e., setting up multiple small or empty corporations — or simply never bothering to file for incorporation) practices of groups they seek to reform, how is that reform going to happen, then?

I know just how resistant people are to acknowledging that their “friendly” groups have engaged in similar practices to the alleged “Bad guys.”  And I also know who (specific groups) has been deliberately dumbing down, derailing and simply ignoring this data, and failing to encourage followers to even THINK about it by failing to mention it.  Meanwhile group leadership systematically uses vague, and inaccurate words to describe major concepts, when an accurate term might lead to further investigation by followers.  This practice of dumbing-down-the-dialogue is insulting.  It comes from an intent to dominate that dialogue, and publish, conference, and be recognized as subject matter experts IN that dialogue.  I find it arrogant, and essentially dishonest.  It discourages open conversations on basic issues affecting the entire country.

This practice delays others getting vital information before it’s too late in their own custody cases, laying down a trail of destruction (custody disasters), which is then used to both intimidate and solicit more followers from ongoing generations of families figuring out too late, what “family court” means for them.

The information has been there all along.  It is up to people who are tired of participation in censored dialogues to figure out how to have different ones on their own.  I handled this a few years ago by dissociation.  I dissociated from the “BMCC” crowd, which also cut across mutually supportive friendships.  However, sticking around for more crazymaking was not an alternative. My decision to dissociate from these conversations freed up time and energies, and resulted in what you can see on this blog; an increased understanding and awareness of system operations, and a more legitimate foundation for activism.  I also learned that even strangers  not even involved in the courts CAN comprehend, when shown, what a tax return of a major grants-getting reform group has to tell them.  I show the numbers on the tax return, sources of income, and what causes the organization is promoting. If they get major grants, and I can show it, I show that.
[end, Aug. 2014 "Intro Exhortation;"]

 



This post is for people following the courts and/or involved in custody matters — it sheds light on one of the more influential (I think) sources of the “doctrines” of the family law personages . . . .

Consider it my “Notes” page after I discovered some off-the-track and oddball facts about some major players’ business behaviors.  It’s not outlined by priority, I switch from “teaching” to “lookups” quite a bit, and simply post, for what it’s worth…

Anyone who still believes the courts are “broken” or keeps repeating this phrase mindlessly needs his or her head examined — which is what the courts are about anyhow — and if you don’t understand this yet, you should by the end of this post!   Too many of the substantial, mandated, and sometimes federally incentivized programs run by (really “through”) the courts, often by people employed as public civil servants in them, or in their administrative sectors (i.e., directors of “family court services,” etc.)  are driven by cult-like mentality.  If you want out of the system, I suggest also — FIRST — quit any OTHER cults you’ve joined recently with bright ideas on what’s wrong with the courts and how to fix them, and who keep you focused on personalities (of judges, mediators, etc.) and psychologies — and not on identifiable facts that YOU can study,  in accompaniment with where to find some facts that are not (like I said), “mindless repetitions” or anecdotal hearsay.  If that shoe fits, take it off, please!

The term “Families in Transition” is Jargon, and it is virtually trademarked for use in the courts.  The term comes from, it seems, ONE individual with key connections to psychoanalysis (Judith Wallerstein, who was married to Robert S. Wallerstein, also a devoted and highly placed psychoanalyst, at one time President of the International Psychoanalytic Association, essentially the inheritance of Sigmund Freud. 

This association was formed shortly AFTER his excommunication (by colleagues) for ca. 1895 presenting “the Etiology of Hysteria” and saying it related to violent sexual and physical assaults on his patients by their caretakers (often fathers or uncles, etc.) from the early 1900s).   In the 1950s, “The Origins of Psychoanalysis” incl. editor Sigmund’s daughter Anna) apparently included censorship of how Freud viewed his own “about-face” after being cold-shouldered by his colleagues.  In the 1980s a man was given access to the Freud Archives and wrote about this, in the interest of speaking the truth, and was again could-shouldered, and taken off the archives also.

For more, see March 5, 2014 post “Suppose I’m Right Here ….What Would You Do When the Lights go on?” Seeing the Wallerstein-Wallerstein connection, and the consistent practice of re-framing reality (truths about person-to-person violence, including parent to child, man to woman, and vice versa), and the origins of the field of psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, get it, the “Psyche” field in general — having been introduced as the bedrock formula for the conception of “FAMILY” and the “FAMILY COURTS” — are essentially crooked?  How can that be cleaned up?  Can it?  Does the propagation of truth versus the propagation of the coverup of the (often ugly) truth matter, or not?  If it does not matter, how can calling something “justice” be applied on top of that foundation?

THIS post looks at the corporate behaviors, and forming of multiple businesses with similar names based on this one phrase, and how these corporations managed their own finances, filings, and accountability to the State.  The track record is pitiful — it’s a slap in the face to the public from people who wish to direct the masses into their expert counseling and interpretations of reality.  Seeing the business filings is a wake-up call.  Failing to sleep it is sleepwalking, a semiconscious and suggestible (?) condition in which civil, legal, and personal freedoms get compromised.  As a survivor of marital violence that was heading for homicide until I got out, I am well aware of how this passive, “I see but it’s not my responsibility” state in any neighborhood or community invites violence and tyranny; including the economic controls and legal constraints the hinder people getting away from it, with small or growing children.

At the end of the “What Would You Do When the Lights go On?” post, I wrote:

SUPPOSE [SUPPOSITION #1] the bedrock elements of:

1. the Founding Families [and their bedrock principles & practices, literally the origins] of: AFCC (Conciliation Court model) Meyer Elkin, Stanley Cohen, Judith Wallerstein, Joan B Kelly, Janet Johnston, et. al.

  AND

2.  the Founding Families [and their bedrock principles & practices, literally the origins] of: the primary professions whose names begin with the four letters “PSYCH” (particularly PSYCHOANALYSIS), including among some of the most respected and decorated and published:  MD’s, Ph.D’s, Psy.D’s at some of the most respected and influential Universities in the USA.  Nationwide (US) and actually now internationally,

are, both of them individually and together, are essentially (in their essence, fundamentally, expressed most concisely) about two things:

1.   “An Assault on the Truth,” (see my “Stunning Validation of Jeffrey Mousaieff Masson” post of Feb. 5, 2013), meaning, a conscious and deliberate attempt by associated professionals to cover up, reframe and rename the primary traumatic experiences of violent physical and sexual assaults upon minor children by their caretakers; and of men upon women, particularly after the 1970s and 1980s when women began to find through separation, an escape from enduring it.##

AND

2. “JOINED AT THE HIP”

In-bred, inter-related, overlapping, self-referencing, common belief systems, simply different FUNCTIONS in service of the same goals, collectively.


AGAIN: [WHO: 1. the Founding families of AFCC-crowd and 2. Founding Families of the psycho-crowd (psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, psychodyamics — “PSYCH” get it?)

##See that post for the overview.  The ascendancy of AFCC and the family courts was indeed accelerated in the last half of the 1900s; AFCC’s own literature takes credit for this and dates the organization back to 1963, although technically speaking (as to business incorporation and business entities) this is a lie; they have been “outed” in the late 1990s and again are now being outed as tax cheats:  private conflict-of-interest professionals working without filing with the state for incorporation properly, and staying so incorporated right from the courthouses.  This has been known in many circles for a while, but minimized in most circles for too long.


Read the rest of this entry »

Planning Professional Niches, Rehearsing Terminology Changes, Profiting from Trainings, — How does AFCC DO this?

with one comment

And dropping nonprofit / for-profit legitimacy along the way. . . . .

(NOTE: I am using a different input computer, so DNK how this will display. For now, this means no difference in font sizes as I can normally do in wordpress). It’s missing half the formatting buttons, not to mention a scroll bar. I suspect it may come up without paragraph breaks either, but we shall see…. Mastering html input to compensate for this is not on the agenda…)

GEORGIA, PENNSYLVANIA, (TEXAS), ILLINOIS — it’s all in an AFCC practitioner’s lifestyle:

Which will include collaborating to figure out which terminologies to use around the family law business — incorporating (where absolutely necessary only), maintaining corporate and nonprofit status (apparently optional, when it comes to doing business — case in point, has any one stopped the parenting education profession at 1242 Market Street 2nd floor, SF yet?, Because its business license in my book –and on the California Secretary of State site — still reads “Suspended.”) Like some of the courthouses in the area, that were closed because of the budget crunch. Perhaps if fewer parents were left alone to work, versus constantly fight for their basic rights, only to be assigned some federal-grants-incentive-program participation — there might be more income tax to spread around, and we’d also (on the sly) buy a few things that produced local sales taxes for the city, too, like clothing, etc.

ANYHOW, this 2001 brochure (among many other things) shows how Parenting Coordination was being planned, promoted, and explicated at least 10 years ago, in AFCC circles. The term “Collaborative Law” was also being presented (see page 1). . .. Which is now all over the internet….
http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/AFCC%20Fa2001.pdf

Please note #1 (topic) assessing and addressing ALLEGATIONS of sexual abuse.

  • Collaborative Family Law
  • High-Conflict Families (the family is labeled, not individuals.  No reference to what the conflict might be about, for example — sexual abuse or allegations of it?)

and an all-time favorite AFCC topic, alienation.

  • The Alienated Child within an Alienated Family System”

finally, the words “domestic violence” are allowed in — in this context:

  • “Domestic Violence, High-Conflict Families, and the Courts.”

These are the groups talking about how mothers coach their kids into reporting abuse — well, here is an AFCC coaching session in how to (re)frame the topics.

Notice the involvement of the NY Office of Court Administration (probably had some AFCC member highly placed in it then, and for sure by now), and the business development plan here:

A “Judicial Leadership Institute” to DEVELOP and IMPLEMENT court & community-based programs.   Help “build model courts” introduce “therapeutic justice” and of course ADR, “family services” and learn about how divorce affects kids from the good guys.  (Gee, domestic relations Judges probably had no idea about that).

The next year’s conference, Aloha!, will be in Hawaii


with the combo of presenters from:  Judges, professional educators, psychiatrists most likely, and a JD or two.  Unsurprisingly, the same type of topics will be covered.

Robert Emery, Ph.D. — directs a University of Virginia School of Law “Center for Children, Families, and the Law.”  This probably complements the one at University of Baltimore School of Law, (CCFC) and a portion of the  California Judicial Council’s “AOC”/CFCC portion of government.  Similar terms in the courts, and the schools of law, promoted and pushed by activist judges, mediators, and attorneys — not demanded by the public…

It’s no accident that AFCC has been so active in schools of law in consultation with existing judges and courts — and to spread the idea of Centers for Families & Children + therapeutic jurisprudence, problem-solving courts, Unified Family Courts, and in general soaking up the purpose of the criminal law system to within the family law system (where it’s denatured, defanged, reframed, and the responsibility for it spread to both parents, whether or not both parents have committed domestic violence or other crimes).     However that’s another topic, how it happened.

About Robert E. Emery, Ph.D. – Divorce Mediation Expert

Robert Emery, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Virginia. He also is an associate faculty member in the Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, and was Director of Clinical Training from 1993-2002. He received his B.A. from Brown University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1982.  He has served or is serving on the editorial board of eleven professional journals, and he has been a member of the Social Sciences and Population grant review study section of the National Institutes of Health (NIH, part of HHS) . . .

Dr. Emery’s research focuses on family relationships and children’s mental health, including parental conflict, divorce, child custody, family violence,

(not “domestic violence,” the whole family (grammatically at least) is responsible.  NOtice that’s the last topic, even though it’s a hot topic and often precipitates: conflict, divorce, and custody battles.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts presented the “Distinguished Researcher” and “Myer Elkin Address” awards to Dr. Emery in 2002.

…Dr. Emery has lectured extensively on his research across the United States and in numerous countries throughout the world. In addition to his research, teaching, and administrative responsibilities, Dr. Emery continues to engage in a limited practice as a clinical psychologist and divorce mediator. He also is the father of five children.**

**how many women are involved in this?  Is there a wife or mother somewhere in the picture?  Surely there must be – look at the schedule; who else would raise them?  Perhaps being such a successful person, his “about me” page might want to give some female a little credit?

Here’s a Robert E. Emery testimonial for a Richard Warshak Book, Divorce Poison, along side some Richard Gardner, etc.  Standard fare in the field; in fact the group Kids First of pennsylvania markets it as I’ve noted before:

“Divorce can be ugly, and in the ugliest divorces, one parent destroys children’s relationships with their mother or father.Divorce Poison offers clear, practical, and even-handed advice on this incredibly difficult problem. The first step? Look inward. Protect your children by finding an antidote for your own poison and by swallowing a little more from your ex.”

–Robert E. Emery, Ph.D.,
Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law,
University of Virginia,
and author of Renegotiating Family Relationships


Other AFCC 2002 (HAWAII) keynote presenter (hardly a surprise) for 2002 was going to be Joan Kelly, Ph.D. Interesting logo at “Mediate.com” — 3 units inextricably bound together, when the process of separation is supposed to include, like, SEPARATION.  Who is the 3rd unit — the court professionals that are going to glue together divorcing parents?  Or does this represent the 3-fold AFCC grouping:  Judge/Attorney/Psychiatrist or Psychologist?

Mediate.com - Complete information about mediation and mediators

Joan Kelly is a Psychologist — not an attorney!  Notice the “parenting coordination” emphasis and two decorations from AFCC.

Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist and former Executive Director of the Northern California Mediation Center in Corte Madera, CA. Dr. Kelly received her Ph.D. from Yale University and her research, writing, practice and teaching over 38 years has focused on children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, using child development research to develop parenting plans, divorce mediation, and Parenting Coordination. She has published more than 85 articles and chapters, and a classic book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. Joan is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research and the Meyer Elkin Awards from AFCC, was a member of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, and has been appointed to an APA Task Force on Parenting Coordination.

Notice the full complement of Joan Kelly products for sale on the link.  Being in the sales and conferencing business is apparently good business; see “mediate.COM”

While I’m at it, I typed in “Mediation” under the registry of charitable trusts (No name of dba came up for the Northern California Mediation Center” showed up under organization name or dba — so I gather it’s a for-profit outfit, perhaps.  However, these MEdiations Centers no longer are, whatever they may wish:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
MEDIATION CENTER Charity Not Registered SANTA BARBARA CA Charity Registration Charity
MEDIATION CENTER OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 091306 Charity Delinquent STOCKTON CA Charity Registration Charity
MEDIATION CENTER OF THE NORTH VALLEY 082863 Charity Revoked CHICO CA Charity Registration Charity
MEDIATION RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. 106201 Charity Delinquent OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity
MEDIATION SERVICES OF SOLANO COUNTY, INC. 078299 Charity Delinquent VACAVILLE CA Charity Registration Charity
1
Corporations search on the 4th one, here brought up 4 more:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1873900 09/29/1994 DISSOLVED ARBITRATION RESOLUTION MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. DAVID W PIES
C3094518 03/05/2008 SUSPENDED ELLIS MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. CHRISTINA L ELLIS
C2249692 06/19/2000 SUSPENDED MEDIATION ARBITRATION RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. STANLEY LAWRENCE REISCH
C2004504 02/13/1997 SUSPENDED MEDIATION RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. BRENDA M. GASPAR
All I typed in was the word “MEDIATION”!
The address on Ms. Gaspar’s organization is an Oakland PO Box, she also shows up owning a nice home in the area, which was apparently sold to another? marriage therapist, who turned it around quickly (within a year).  As it’s not my business to put people’s home addresses up here (when the corporation listing doesn’t) let’s leave it at that.   ANother person by same name had a bank win a judgment against her in Idaho.
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1865067 08/24/1993 ACTIVE MEDIATION CENTER OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ROSALIE GATES
(I searched the street address.  This one doesn’t seem to focus so much on family law situations, but note):
The Mediation Center of San Joaquin County is a not-for-profit organization funded by the county (under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act), income from training services, case development fees, and donations. Services are provided by trained neutrals
And indicates they work with “Superior Court of San Joaquin County” DRPA funding/advisor line/courtroom mediations.
Funny, Rosalie Gates is listed as registered agent, but new Board Member as of 2008:

Please welcome new board member Rosalie Gates, E. A. Rosalie has experience working with nonprofits and overseeing the accounting and financials. We welcome her and her expertise to our Center.

AND hopefully they will resolve their “delinquent” status!


.

This one actually functioned for quite a while.  statement from 2008 IRS form:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1693905 08/12/1991 SUSPENDED MEDIATION CENTER OF THE NORTH VALLEY MICHAEL SHEPHERD

 

( Chico, CA, stil listed on the state site of “Consumer Agencies” under Butte County – search address)(NOT family law related)

However, he is an ADR professional with a solid resume here, and although his primary field isn’t family law, it would seem he might keep the corporate registration current:

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
U.S. District Court, California 1990 U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, 1983 State Bar of California, 1981 U.S. District Court, Southern District, 1974

EDUCATION
Pepperdine University School of Law / Straus Institute For Dispute Resolution 2010
Hastings College of Law,University of California, J.D. 1973
University of Santa Barbara 1968

Mr. Shepherd has tried over 50 civil jury trials including trials in the United States District Court for the Eastern District (Sacramento), Los Angeles County, Santa Barbara County, Butte County, Tehama County, Shasta County, Glenn County, Sutter County, Yuba County and Mendocino County Superior Courts. Mr. Shepherd is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates. He is admitted to practice before all courts of the State of California, the Central and Southern District Federal Courts for California, the Ninth Appellate Federal Court and the United States Supreme Court.

…Upstanding Citizen

From 1988 to 2000, Mr. Shepherd served on the Board of Directors for the Chico Area Park and Recreation District, twice serving as Chair of the Board and also is Past President of the Board of Directors of the Mediation Center For The North Valley, a non-profit corporation involved {briefly??!}}in alternative dispute resolution. In 1995 Mr. Shepherd was nominated for “Citizen of the Year” by the Chico Chamber of Commerce.

Guess just too busy with all the other professional responsibilities and courts…..

(LOOK at all these mediation centers — just imagine how many websites link to groups with suspended business licenses!  North Valley is on this one.  Moreover, with all this mediation going on, shouldn’t the world be less violent by now?)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1664678 05/08/1990 SUSPENDED MEDIATION SERVICES OF SOLANO COUNTY, INC. CARL J DEBEVEC

Address of that MEDIATION CENTER appears to be public facilities of some sort.

Mr. Debevec (courtesy “Mediate.com” as above…..)

Carl J. Debevec



Carl J. DebevecCarl J. Debevec is an attorney practicing general civil law in northern California. His practice includes business, trusts and estate planning, real property, elder law issues and mediation. He is a graduate of the Ohio State University college of law, a former Air Force judge advocate, and holds a post-graduate certificate in conflict resolution from California State University at Sonoma.As an active mediator and trainer, he has chaired the ADR committee for the Solano county Bar Association for 7 years, and was recently named attorney of the year for his work in that program. He has extensive experience in court-referred and community-based mediation and conflict resolution processes, and organized the county bar Dispute Resolution Service, a community-based mediation programstaffed by dozens of dedicated volunteer mediators.

And an upstanding community member: (in fact, it turns out he was a board of directors of this foundation that gave him the glowing recommendation:

Vacaville Public Education FoundationBuilding Community Through Education

Posted on March 16, 2010 by VPEF

debevec@debevlaw.com

Carl has resided and practiced law in Vacaville since 1979. A native of Cleveland Ohio, he is a retired AF reserve judge advocate. He previously served as president of the Vacaville Museum, treasurer of the Solano County Bar Association and worked on the board of the Solano Land Trust. As a co-founder of the Solano Conflict Resolution Center, he is a professional mediator. His support of the Vacaville education community springs from his family: his wife of 40 years, Barbara, is a literacy coach for the VUSD, and his daughters Jenny and Elie are successful alumni of the Vacaville school system.

Speaking of THIS California Public Benefit Corporation, which purpose was to raise money for the school district and preserve some of the educational programs:

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
VACAVILLE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION 4258-2007 Raffle Expired VACAVILLE CA Raffle Registration Raffle
VACAVILLE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION 4258-2005 Raffle Expired VACAVILLE CA Raffle Registration Raffle
VACAVILLE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOUNDATION CT0164604 Charity Delinquent VACAVILLE CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

(of which, incidentally, the IRS shows Carl Debevec is a board member, so it might make sense for the public compliments).

The top two entries are RAFFLES.  Fundraising by raffle-organizations are required to file forms, as well as certifications by the officer of the charity for which they are fundraising that it actually got those funds.  SO this is legitimate.  however, there is no paperwork at all under either of those raffles.

There were some difficulties filing.  I think Mr. Debevec was busy mediating, or he’d have advised them of the regulations about filing, being an attorney himself:

This one — the IRS form shows its purpose is to raise money for the school district to preserve educational programs.  Its main source of REVENUE is a $220K grant — from the school district.  Notice the $6,000 appreciation dinner, $7,000 “accounts receivable”, $12K advertising and promo, and $120 for Corporate FIling fees, if these were ever turned in….not to mention the grants not received yet.

The address of this foundation (sic) is a local sports club:

Direct Contributions – Send checks or money orders to:

Vacaville Public Education Foundation
c/o Millennium SportsClub
3442 Browns Valley Rd., Suite
400Vacaville, CA 95688

The site states:  “The Vacaville Public Education Foundation was formed in 2003 by a determined group of parents, community leaders, elected officials, senior citizens, and businessmen and women. They came together to address the crisis in public education funding that grips California every year and is most severe when the sales taxes and capital gains taxes fall.”  and “In their tenure, they have raised and allocated over $1.8 million for the children of our schools. The money has been used for specific programs in the following general areas: academics, athletics, music, library, health and safety, counseling and the GATE program. They have received over a thousand testimonials from parents, teachers and students about how these grants have made a direct, positive impact on students of the Vacaville Unified School District.

AMONG the board of directors, (according to the site) is someone who should’ve been on top of this charity & raffle registration process, one would think!

Constance Pedron – Corporate Secretary

Board of Directors - Constance Pedron

constance@millenniumsportsclub.com

Constance Pedron has been a resident of Vacaville since 2001. As Vice President, Dir of Human Resources and Chief Technical Officer of Salutary SportsClubs, Inc. (Millennium SportsClub) and is the corporate Administrator for the Millennium Child Development Center.

Constance consults with businesses in Solano and Sacramento Counties in the areas of Human Resource Management and Accounting Management. She has taught employment law at UC Davis Extension providing a solid foundation in current federal, state, and local regulations, emphasizing compliance and maintaining management control. In addition, she is a certified mediator for the Solano County Bar Association, Dispute Resolution Service.

With no children of her own, the community of Vacaville is her family. “The efforts we give today to empower our children in Vacaville will reward us as a community exponentially in the future.”

This “Millennium Child Development Center” (part of a chain) was recently taking over by another international group, per ITS site:

International Child Resource Insitute

child care

ICRI operates and/or oversees six child care and early childhood development centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each center incorporates unique curricula and learning environments, and employs talented and dedicated staff. Our goal is to develop a range of outstanding early childhood centers that are models in their communities, and provide study and learning exchange opportunities for educators from around the world. . . . Millennium Child Development Center – ICRI was recently invited to take over the operation of this center in Vacaville, California and create a model early childhood facility at the site. 

(this board & staff a seriously packed with high-profile people, incl. one with SF Government Ties:

Beyene Negewo

Beyene is the former Ethiopian Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Ireland. He is also a retired Senior Policy Advisor for the City and County of San Francisco, and served as a Senior Advisor to the World Bank on economic development in Papua New Guinea. Beyene holds a Doctorate in Public Policy from Stanford as well as additional degrees in the fields of political science, educational planning and international development. Beyene has more than 25 years of professional experience tackling complex social and policy problems throughout North America, Africa, Europe, and Asia.

(WONDER IF ANY HHS grants behind that one …..)

No relationship, presumably? (searched “millennium Children’s”)

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
MILLENNIUM CHILDREN’S FUND 115820 Charity Delinquent BEVERLY HILLS CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Results of search for ” MILLENNIUM CHILDREN’S ” returned 3 entity records

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2090377 07/21/1998 SUSPENDED INTERNATIONAL MILLENNIUM CHILDREN’S FUND JAMES I. BANG, ESQ.
C2225206 02/16/2000 SUSPENDED MILLENNIUM CHILDREN’S FUND DOUGLAS H PIERCE
C2608199 03/12/2004 SUSPENDED THE NEW MILLENNIUM OUTREACH CHILDREN’S CENTER DESENTRIE ANTHONY ALLEN

However, the INSTITUTE is operational in California

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1085046 07/31/1981 ACTIVE INTERNATIONAL CHILD RESOURCE EXCHANGE INSTITUTE KENNETH JAFFE

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
INTERNATIONAL CHILD RESOURCE EXCHANGE INSTITUTE 045583 Charity Current BERKELEY CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

And it IS filing its charity reports and apparently IRS’s.  Mr. Jaffee is paid $140K, and the goal is “starting children’s programs around the world” with a view to preventing abuse.  Revenuves ca $4.8 million (2009), Program expenses, over $4 million, assets well over $1 million.  Program Purpose and Accomplishments are the same:


Mr. Jaffee got his child development training from Sweden:

Ken Jaffe, President & Executive Director

Ken is the founder and leader of ICRI. He started the organization in 1981 to improve the lives of children and families throughout the world, through technical assistance and consultation, resource dissemination, and the establishment of model projects.

Ken received his child development training at the University of Uppsala in Sweden and his Master’s Degree from the University of California, Berkeley, where he conducted comparative research in international child care and development practices. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from John F. Kennedy University, where he studied juvenile justice and children’s rights. Ken is the author of numerous articles on international early childhood education, child advocacy, program management and work and family policy issues.

Ken served as Chair and member of the California Governor’s Advisory Committee on Child Development for nine years. He has worked extensively on family child care issues and was a founding member of the International Family Child Care Association and the World Forum on Early Care and Education. Ken was the Vice-Chair of a statewide commission to formulate a strategic plan for child care development in California.

Ken has assisted in the improvement or establishment of more than 300 child care, child health and child abuse prevention programs worldwide. He has been a consultant to the Children’s Defense Fund in Washington, D.C., and has advised the governments of Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, China, Sweden and Ecuador on child and family issues. In addition, Ken has presented over 300 keynotes and seminars to policy makers, executives, and non-profit professionals worldwide.

Sweden, unlike the U.S., is a constitutional monarchy; it revised its constitution last round, this “state.gov” site says, in 1975.

Sweden has an extensive child-care system that guarantees a place for all young children ages two through six in a public day-care facility. From ages seven to 16, children participate in compulsory education. After completing the ninth grade, 90% attend upper secondary school for either academic or technical education.

Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave, among other benefits. Parents are entitled to a total of 480 days’ paid leave at 80% of a government-determined salary cap between birth and the child’s eighth birthday. The parents may split those days however they wish, but 60 of the days are reserved specifically for the father. The parents may also take an additional 5 months of unpaid leave.

For curiosity, I typed in “Dispute Resolution.”  After all, Dispute Resolution is such a huge field, and there’s even a county employee (Superior COurt) to promote and coordinate “Alternate Dispute Resolution” to  . . . everyone.  The position has 5 steps, and the highest salary level is $86,000 (below, Classification 444 in SF).

SEARCH ON “DISPUTE RESOLUTION” under California Charities:

I found ONE by this title under charities — the Blumbergs of Mammoth Lake, CA.  Filed in 1990, name change in 1994, and finally in 2011 (this past May) the OAG caught up with them:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF CALIFORNIA 063535 Charity Delinquent MAMMOTH LAKES CA Charity Registration Charity
1

Possibly there is a pattern going on here?

You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information
Full Name: DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER OF CALIFORNIA FEIN: 770131252
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1295640
Registration Number: 063535
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/11/2004
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: P.O. BOX 2535 Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: MAMMOTH LAKES CA 93546
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
0001BA6D Founding Documents
12961879 1st Delinquency Notice
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data

with them and said, “you’re delinquent!”  It appears they NEVER filed a tax return (at least, none up here) as charities are required to.

Kamala Harris’ office is appropriately indignant and threatening (although the amount hardly seems to match the millions  per state held in undistributed child support collections nationwide).  Maybe the founders of this group had nothing to blackmail anyone with, for example, knowledge of what someone else was doing illegal also.  Although I can hardly condone starting a charity and then simply failing to dissolve it on purpose if one has no plans to file tax returns:


and page 2 warning:

I googled “Myron Blumberg” and the city he was in, and found out that as of 2008, he’d passed away, and had had Parkinsons, had been a brilliant attorney.  This still doesn’t explain what happened between 1990 and 2008 that didn’t involve charitable registrations (or from whatever year this became a requirement for California charities).  Perhaps the organization never earned income?  How does this figure with “brilliant attorney?” as described below.

http://understandingpersonalitytypes.com/2008/08/17/memories-of-myron-blumberg,%20parkinson’s-diseases-mammoth-lakes-california-eastern-sierra-jewish-community.aspx

Memories of Myron Blumberg

This morning Jordan and I learned that our dear friend, Myron Blumberg, passed away.

When Myron’s daughter, Deborah, called, I said, “You called to tell me something sad. Didn’t you?”
“Yes,” she said, “My father passed away.”

The news of Myron’s passing was very sad, but not surprising. He had suffered with Parkinson’s disease for many years.

Jordan and I met Myron, a brilliant attorney and WWII veteran, and his wife Shirley, a talented poet and gardener, in 1981, soon after we moved to Mammoth Lakes, California.

So, about some of those MEDIATION GROUPS, above

. . .OF THE NORTH VALLEY

The third one down (North Valley) was in Chico, and IRS forms show it started out with a bang (revenues $200K), then within 3 years was down to $76K.  The public benefit it provided reminds me of the account of the Los Angeles County Judge’s Slush Fund — mediation training was a factor mentioned.  This appears to be small fry, though, compared to others.

FIRST Form 990 filed – REVENUES: (if this is unclear, go to original site).

the public gave them $135, government grants $24K, and business from Government $16K for fees and contracts.  I guess there was a government connection somewhere here, eh?  The government gives and the government revokes your nonprofit status a few years later.  I know people that could live, with a family, on $16K, let alone$24K….

Somehow they managed to spend nearly everything, which again is what nonprofits supposedly DO, right?

1st year of form 990 filed:

2nd year of form 990 filed:

a statement (of which this is just a sample) shows that at least two of the directors were doing Superior Court Mediation:

3 board of directors got $24K salary — although who got how much, omitted.  I guess (despite 3 different addresses) they cooperatively figured out or mediated who got how much, or whether it was a 3-way even split:

Revenues included a City & a County Grant.  Earned revenues included court-referrals, and training fees.

THE MEDIATION CENTER — SANTA BARBARA (not registered yet.  No documents there yet.  Street address searched showed:

J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
ARIAS, OZZELLO & GIGNAC, LLP
1231 State Street, Suite 206 Santa Barbara, California 9310
as attorney for where to file documents in a class action suit for shareholders, regarding a real estate merger.  He shows up under American Arbitration Association (“http://adr.org”) listing.   

MEDIATION RESOLUTION SERVICES  – OAKLAND.

Incorporation?  1997

Taxes filed?  Zero.

Street address not possible to check it says:

(sigh….)  Secretary of State search on “MEdiation” comes up with 189 search results.  I guess, if one took out all the “suspended” Delinquent” and “revoked” one might come up with a number PROBABLY larger than the few listed above as charities.  Of those, how many are stating that they are charities in public, but functioning as non-tax return filing private corporations in reality.  Does anyone care?   I would hope so.  Clearly Mediation is a HUGE field to get into (thanks to decades of promotion by certain parties):

Results of search for ” MEDIATION ” returned 189 entity records.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2991184 06/19/2007 ACTIVE A FAIR WAY MEDIATION & DIVORCE W ROBERT WELCH
C2420517 06/17/2002 DISSOLVED A MATTER OF MEDIATION, INC. FRANCINE SCHLAKS
C3344261 01/19/2011 ACTIVE AARON’S MARBLES MEDIATION, INC. JULIUS JONES
C2931143 09/25/2006 SUSPENDED ABLE MEDIATION AND COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. CHAROLETTA J. RANSOM
C3018080 07/06/2007 SUSPENDED ADVANCED MEDIATION CORPORATION SEAN COLLINSON
C3098214 04/30/2008 ACTIVE ADVANTAGE ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. MICHAEL DILIBERTO
C2460808 08/01/2002 SUSPENDED ADVOCACY AND MEDIATION GROUP INC. RODERICK D GAULMAN
C3061573 01/02/2008 ACTIVE ALAN SALER MEDIATION SERVICES ALAN G SALER
C2614627 05/28/2004 SUSPENDED ALL FOR ONE MEDIATION AND BUSINESS SERVICES, INC ZENDA ABBOTT
C1686037 04/29/1991 DISSOLVED ALTERNATIVE CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION CENTER OF MERCED COUNTY BARBARA THELEN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1811897 12/13/1991 CANCELED INSTITUTE OF MEDIATION & ARBITRATION MICHAEL A. BROOKS
C1478676 03/19/1990 SUSPENDED INSURANCE MEDIATION & ARBITRATION, INC. STANLEY HASSAN
C1586574 05/04/1987 SUSPENDED ISLA VISTA MEDIATION PROGRAM GEOFFREY WALLACE
C3358999 02/10/2011 ACTIVE JEANIE CHA A LAW CORPORATION & MEDIATION FIRM JEANIE CHA
C1919800 01/02/1995 SUSPENDED JENKINS & ASSOCIATES MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. SUSAN OLMO
C1611145 03/24/1988 SURRENDER JUDGES MEDIATION CORPORATION MYRON H MARSHALL
C1061099 12/03/1981 MERGED OUT JUDICIAL ARBITRATION & MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. LINDA H. CROCHET
C2912540 02/13/2007 DISSOLVED KOREAN AMERICAN ARBITRATION & MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. HANNA KIM
C1962924 02/28/1996 ACTIVE LAW & MEDIATION OFFICES OF BARBARA J. KUEHN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BARBARA J KUEHN
C1062290 12/18/1981 DISSOLVED LAW & MEDIATION, INC. PAUL COOKE WILKINS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

(I should point out that probably several of these are small claims, not all in the family law field…..)

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3299178 06/29/2010 ACTIVE LAW AND MEDIATION OFFICE OF DIANE M. GOODMAN, APC DIANE M GOODMAN
C2010728 05/14/1997 DISSOLVED LAWYERS ARBITRATION & MEDIATION SERVICE ROBERT H BOHN
C2528156 11/05/2003 SUSPENDED LOS ANGELES MEDIATION PROJECT, INC. RANDOLPH DOBBS
C3135779 12/02/2008 ACTIVE LYDIA S. GLASS, PH.D., PSYCHOLOGICAL & MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. LYDIA S G;ASS
C3324991 10/20/2010 ACTIVE MANDELL MEDIATION, INC. ABIGAIL JONES
C1244960 04/24/1984 ACTIVE MARIN COUNTY MEDIATION SERVICES BARBARA KOB
C1908994 07/02/1997 ACTIVE MARKUS MEDIATION SCOTT SLATER MARKUS
C1107945 03/31/1982 SUSPENDED MARRIAGE MEDIATION/ARBITRATION CENTER CLAUDE E WHITNEY
C2249692 06/19/2000 SUSPENDED MEDIATION ARBITRATION RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. STANLEY LAWRENCE REISCH
C1276351 05/10/1985 DISSOLVED MEDIATION ASSOCIATES, INC. RONALD L CLAASSEN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2689706 10/15/2004 DISSOLVED MEDIATION ASSOCIATION, INC HOLLY BANAFSHEH
C1583722 03/30/1987 SUSPENDED MEDIATION CENTER GAIL RAPPAPORT
C1865067 08/24/1993 ACTIVE MEDIATION CENTER OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY ROSALIE GATES
C1693905 08/12/1991 SUSPENDED MEDIATION CENTER OF THE NORTH VALLEY MICHAEL SHEPHERD
C2170001 07/02/1999 SUSPENDED MEDIATION CENTER OF THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, INC. JEFFREY MELCZER
C2895761 05/26/2006 ACTIVE MEDIATION LAW GROUP, INC. WMO GREG BENNETT
C1291763 11/18/1985 SUSPENDED MEDIATION MASTERS, INC. RUTH JACOBSON
C2630475 01/24/2005 ACTIVE MEDIATION OFFICES OF CALIFORNIA, PC. UNMANI M SARASVATI
C3368744 03/23/2011 ACTIVE MEDIATION OFFICES OF FLOYD J. SIEGAL, INC. FLOYD J SIEGAL
C2744558 05/01/2005 ACTIVE MEDIATION OFFICES OF LISA KRAKOW, INC. LISA KRAKOW
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1650327 09/29/1989 SUSPENDED MEDIATION PROJECT, INC. BRENDA GOTTFRIED
C2004504 02/13/1997 SUSPENDED MEDIATION RESOLUTION SERVICES, INC. BRENDA M. GASPAR
C2336362 03/15/2001 FORFEITED MEDIATION RESOURCES, INC. ** RESIGNED ON 05/30/2002
C1664678 05/08/1990 SUSPENDED MEDIATION SERVICES OF SOLANO COUNTY, INC. CARL J DEBEVEC
C2387846 01/08/2002 SUSPENDED MEDIATION SETTLEMENT CORPORATION PETER J SEARLE
C1746697 06/29/1994 DISSOLVED MEDIATION SOLUTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION KURT GROSZ
C0508442 05/02/1966 ACTIVE MEDIATION SPECIALISTS, INC. JEFFREY P. PALMER
C1456763 02/23/1989 DISSOLVED MEDIATION, INC. THOMAS P PRITCHARD
C2972559 03/07/2007 ACTIVE MICHAEL ALLEN MEDIATION INC. MICHAEL ALLEN
C1015482 01/19/1981 DISSOLVED MONTEREY BAY RENTAL INFORMATION AND MEDIATION SERVICE MARY JAMES
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Must be professional burnout, working with flawed parents and highconflict families, among other things:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2129651 01/06/1999 DISSOLVED MOSTEN MEDIATION CENTERS CORPORATION FORREST S MOSTEN
C1290492 11/14/1985 SUSPENDED NAPA COUNTY RENTAL INFORMATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES MICHAEL LIVINGSTON
C1244149 04/12/1984 SUSPENDED NATIONAL DIVORCE MEDIATION COUNCIL IRIS HICKS
C0688402 08/29/1973 SUSPENDED NORTH COUNTY MEDIATION ANN BILODEAU
C3168928 10/30/2008 ACTIVE NORTH COUNTY MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. JAMES L FREDERICK
C3370708 04/01/2011 ACTIVE OFFICE OF RECONCILIATION AND MEDIATION, INC. CURTIS MAY
C1041123 04/08/1981 DISSOLVED ORANGE COUNTY FAMILY MEDIATION SERVICE, INC. JERRY SCHIPPER
C1221839 01/20/1984 SUSPENDED PACIFIC MEDIATION CENTER, INC. PHILIP M ROSTEN
C3250618 07/06/2010 ACTIVE PACIFIC MEDIATION PROJECT LEEANNE EAGLESON
C2656383 06/09/2004 ACTIVE PEACE TALKS MEDIATION SERVICES, INC. DIANA L MERCER
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

 

But this main one is still going, Dr. Joan Kelly’s outfit:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1049143 07/10/1981 ACTIVE THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER NANCY J. FOSTER

 

Entity Name: THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER
Entity Number: C1049143
Date Filed: 07/10/1981
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 175 NORTH REDWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 295
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
Agent for Service of Process: NANCY J. FOSTER
Agent Address: 175 NORTH REDWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 295
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903

Events: Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire: collaborative 

Joan B.Kelly, PhD : NCMC:175 North Redwood driveSuite 295, San Rafael; September 19 2011: Civility Matters III (SCBA); September 19 2011: Dept 14 


divorce legal advice healdsburg cloverdale

The Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire (CCRE) is a group of professionals interested in avoiding court battles and power struggles to resolve conflicts. Our group consists of family, probate and civil attorneys, mental health professionals, financial planners and others professionals.
non-traditional nontraditional divorce
Although we are primarily located in Sonoma and Napa Counties our members include professionals from throughout the San Francisco Bay Area.

I find it just “astounding” that among the Board of Directors is also a Kids Turn founder, Jennifer Jackson:

Charity began ? (here we go again — charity site, incorporation site):

Secretary of State site FIRST:

 

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2654097 05/07/2004 SUSPENDED COLLABORATIVE COUNCIL OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE RANDELL J CHEEK

 

 

Entity Name: COLLABORATIVE COUNCIL OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE
Entity Number: C2654097
Date Filed: 05/07/2004
Status: SUSPENDED
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 111 LIBERTY ST
Entity City, State, Zip: PETALUMA CA 94952
Agent for Service of Process: RANDELL J CHEEK
Agent Address: 111 LIBERTY ST
Agent City, State, Zip: PETALUMA CA 94952

 

SUSPENDED!

Perhaps this is why.

 

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.
Registrant Information
Full Name: COLLABORATIVE COUNCIL OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE FEIN:
Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2654097
Registration Number: EX558676
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991
Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:
Date of Last Renewal:
Address Information
Address Line 1: 111 LIBERTY ST Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: PETALUMA CA 94952
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data

 

NO related documents?  Should I be holding my breath on this one?  111 Liberty Street, Petaluma is a VERy busy street, when it comes to therapy and counseling at least two LMFT’s and more….

Do you think we should inform prospective clients?  Because it seems to me they still think they are quite a going concern!

I’m not quite sure what the “1990” issue date means at the Attorney General’s site is (PERHAPS IT’S A COMPUTER DEFAULT?)  Around 2004 (see AFCC article on “Collaborative law, dated 2001, above) they got around to incorporating in California.  So far, no registration of any sort as a charity.  Are they a definitely for-profit concern?  What got their license suspended?

You’ve just “got” to read Randell Cheek’s Curriculum, which is all “Collaborative Practice.”  He’s also been a psychotherapist since 1983.  Among his professional credits are working for/with this organization which doesn’t comply with state corporate or charitable organization laws.  My favorite parts, not including Clinical Supervisor at “St Vincent’s Home for Boys,” Program Director at a Children’s Home, and apparently some Hypnosis work with a David Cheek, M.D. (relative?):

In 2007 “August 14 Legal Ethical Issues in Collaborative Practice, Marin, CA with Karen Hendrickson, JD”

and:

(Conference Presentations) Oct. 2006

CA. Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, (AFCC) Sonoma, CA

Introduction to Collaborative Practice with Catherine Conner, JD, and Susan R. Berg, MFT.

A tribute to Dr. Cheek’s hyponosis work.  Apparently he died suddenly in 1996 of a fatal cancer misdiagnosed as an ingrown hair (??).  How nice the collaborative council of redwood empire, prominent attorneys and lots of therapists, have input, or at least registered agent status, for this corporation in Randell Cheek:

 Doctor David B. Cheek, my very dear friend of many years, passed away three years ago in Santa Barbara, California, where he lived with his wife, Dolores. David had a pimple on his jaw and went it got quite inflamed, he went to a doctor, who told him it was an ingrown hair. Sadly, it turned out to be a fatal cancer and he passed away in a hospice just weeks later. With his death, the world, in general, lost a great humanitarian and hypnosis, in specific, lost a friend, teacher and pioneer. David was a colleague of the late Milton Erickson and a past-president of ASCH, which denounced him because of his advanced thinking. He and Leslie LeCron, who passed away many years ago, made many discoveries, including the use of ideomotor signals and the fact an unconscious person continues to hear and respond at a subconscious level. Despite criticism, David was fascinated with past life regression and spirits (not the liquid type). I learned much at his knee and even had the honor of hypnotizing him at a Texas conference when he was suffering from a painful hip problem. I miss him sorely and often feel his guidance when working with clients.

. . .

Psychoanalysts state that a patient undergoing hypnotherapy becomes extremely dependent on the therapist, with a greater transference developing. It is true that there may be a great dependence initially, but this is of advantage to both the patient and the therapist. As progress is made and the illness or condition responds to treatment, dependence dwindles away. A large part of hypnotherapy is the building of ego strength in the patient. Hypnosis facilitates this and then dependency needs are ended or modified. It could be pointed out that anyone continuing in analysis for three or four years with little progress certainly is displaying great dependence on the analyst.

A little disturbing when it comes to the family law field in particular:

I should stop (adding this the day after initial post) — but it’s too “funny.”  Having their corporate licenses suspended by the Attorney General’s Office hasn’t slowed down this bunch of attorneys, therapists and financial coaches one iota:

EVENTS AND TRAININGS:

  • August 19 2011: FAMILY LAW SECTION PICNIC: Galvin Park (SCBA)
  • August 30 2011: Nuptial Agreements: A Family Law Perspective for Trust and Estate Lawyers (SCBA)
    Peter Rubin, Jennifer Jackson
  • September 16 2011: Child Alienation & Relocation
    Joan B.Kelly, PhD : NCMC:175 North Redwood drive, Suite 295, San Rafael**
  • September 19 2011Civility Matters III (SCBA)
  • September 19 2011Dept 14 12:15-1:15: Supervised Visitation (MHLS)
  • September 23 2011: Non Verbal Communication (SCBA)
  • September 28 2011: Taxation Seminar (SCBA)

! ! !

** Isn’t Joan Kelly worried about her association with such scofflaws? Is this an honorarium, a for-profit appearance, or what?

Mr. Cheek (Randell, not David B., obviously) has some good support to further develop his resume:

Collaborative Practice Trainers

Offering collaborative training for legal, financial and mental health professionals

Margaret L. Anderson, Barbara Bowen, Susan J. Campbell, Randell J. Cheek, Catherine Conner

LIKE, how to overcome a high-conflict relationship with the local attorney general’s office and avoid paying taxes — or registering as a charity?

Under training section, I cannot help noticing there are trainings in GERMANY and HONG KONG.    WHo, exactly is training?

  • List of Conferences, members of Collaborative Practice Trainers as presenters:
3 different entities, probably all of them AFCC members.

COLLABORATIVE DIVORCE SOLUTIONS, INC.

I thought after yesterday’s post, someone might want a sample page of how nonprofits are getting shut down, or at least verbally spanked, from the State’s Attorney General or Secretary of State offices, and why.

I was mistaken in citing a $50.00 fee. Here’s one that didn’t get a $25 fee in on time, and is getting scolded for it. I thought (see “collaboration”) several heads were better than one. Let’s see if we can wrap our head around how this one happened:

Here (as of an informal site which says it’s current as of March 31, 2011):

Collaborative Divorce Solutions, Inc. has a location in Irvine, CA. Active officers include Jan Mark Dudman. Collaborative Divorce Solutions, Inc. filed as a Articles of Incorporation on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 in the state of California and is currently active. Jan Mark Dudman serves as the registered agent for this organization.

Filings: Articles of Incorporation (CA – Active)
State of Record: CA
State Reference ID: 02568651
Registered Agent: Jan Mark Dudman
File Date: Tuesday, December 09, 2003
Active: True
Filing Type: Articles of Incorporation

Source:   California Secretary of State last refreshed Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Company Reports from Dun & Bradstreet

While this organization has maintained its “active” status at both corporation and charity level, it didn’t register as a charity until someone apparently notified the Attorney General, who then wrote a letter dated 12/29/2009 (that means, it existed for six years. Only research — which I’m unlikely to do for this amount –would show whether this group received enough income to half to (by law) file tax returns. Moreover, he/she is probably a divorce attorney). Three months later (finally), it appears the group did register (again, this typifies the history of AFCC as I’ve come to understand it through a number of sources. They belatedly register — IF caught — and then do a number of shape-shifts and corporation changes, often across more than one state. IN other words, they cheat and evade taxes. But want to teach US how to parent!). There was also a Delinquency notice, a bounced check, notice, etc. You can see actual notices on-line, but here’s the list of them:

Related Documents
1058588 First Notice to Register   (12/29/2009)
1058589 Confirmation of Registration   (3/9/2010 confirmed)
1058590 IRS Form 990-EZ 2007  
00000155 Letter of Delinquency 1st Notice  ((9/23/2010, the attorney general respectfully (demands) charity registrations for 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008, and the fees to go with them ($25/year) and mentions that failing to file timely is a violation of Government Code xxyyzz. Anyone want to place a bet whether Jan Mark Dudman is an “esq.”??)
1058591 Return Check Letter   (9/23/2010, the attorney general respectfully (demands) charity registrations for 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008, and the fees to go with them ($25/year) and mentions that failing to file timely is a violation of Government Code xxyyzz. Anyone want to place a bet whether Jan Mark Dudman is an “esq.” who might reasonably have known this?)
00000160 Return Check/Incomplete RRF-1 Letter  (9/29/2010 — “your check bounced” my mistake — see letter, & my same-day correction in Comment to post. They returned the check, not a bank….)
53102 IRS Form 990-EZ 2008  (“besides which, you sent the check without the forms”)
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information

Actually (between bouncing back and forth between screens), I’ve probably not labeled the entries too well — but they are public information. Basically (from the one 990 I looked at), they got $2k contributions and $30K “membership fees.” Program services accomplishments, one sentence basically, is probably boilerplate from an AFCC conference — they offer a “healthy divorce alternative” and divorce coaches, including a financial consultant! Approximately $14K was spent on conferences and trainings (was it fun?) making eventually for $23K deductibles. And the public benefit was WHAT?

(and yes, he is an attorney — B.A. political science, Los Angeles, J.D. Pepperdine.) and your basic boilerplate website, no graphics. Maybe the membership dues provided privileged linking to description of collaborative divorce? And on the site he is listed as Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, which is I guess a dab. Why wouldn’t they just go by “Collaborative Divorce Solutions, Inc.”? because they don’t want to step on collaborative divorce professionals from other areas? Again, here are the 24 attorneys (not including divorce coaches, child custody specialists and financial professionals) that couldn’t collectively figure out that their parent organization they pay ought to register as a charity in this state; dues must be fairly low because it’s bringing in about $30K per year from membership among all these (assuming they all pay up).

Name City Phone Email
Terri Breer Irvine
Bart Carey Anaheim
John Denny Newport Beach
Jan Mark Dudman Santa Ana
John Ellingson Newport Beach
Therese Fey Orange
Barbara Fritz Newport Beach
Elizabeth Jones Irvine
Rosemarie McElhaney Anaheim
Brian Levy Covina
Sara Milburn Irvine
Leslee Newman Orange
Glen Rabenn Seal Beach
Helen Rasner Irvine
Jennifer Webb Newport Beach
Judy Williams Irvine
Delilah Knox Rios Diamond Bar
Sherry Graybehl D’Antony Costa Mesa
Bart Carey Irvine
Brian Levy Santa Ana
Rosemarie McElhaney Irvine
Diana Martinez Chino
Carrie Block Irvine
Suanne Honey Newport Beach

At “collaborative.com” or thereabouts, you can find the group’s own histories. I like to read these, because it gives me an idea whose idea it was. For example, this segment shows me at least one Kids’ Turn organizer was involved (Jennifer Jackson, who I believe on her site takes credit for incorporation the group):

…and then there was the American Institute of Collaborative Professionals
As Collaborative Practice in its many forms began to develop in several areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, it became clear that collaborative practitioners should work together in order to promote and improve the process. [AKA their businesses] The concept was to share what they were learning, to explore the processes that worked and those that didn’t, and to share resources.

Pauline Tesler, Peggy Thompson, Nancy Ross, David Green and Karen Russell began to meet monthly in 1997. They were soon joined in 1998 by Gene Seltzer, Jennifer Jackson, Catherine Conner, Linda Seinturier and James Sheehy. Their vision was to form an umbrella networking organization to serve Collaborative Practice in its many forms.

Initially called the American Institute of Collaborative Professionals (AICP), the group’s activities included local networking meetings, a newsletter meant to be a voice for the collaborative movement (now known as The Collaborative Review) and an annual networking forum. AICP was incorporated in 1999 as a 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation.

… and now we are International
In May of 1999, the first annual AICP networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

HOW NICE!

This coming week, two individual women originally from Texas (but one now from Georgia) are going to be running yet more Parenting Coordination Training sessions — this time in Chicago.

. For quite a pretty penny, not including the hotel stays. I’m sure that for those consuming the courses, the expenses may be tax-deductible, or possibly paid for unwittingly by some county who is also paying the salary of the employee attending.

Here’s that link:

http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/pctraining.html

Just take a look at the page, notice locations, prices, and people. For a jumpstart — and I”m picking on this group this week because it’s THIS WEEK they are training in Chicagoland: Anne Marie Termini & Susan Boyan.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ (pasted from the site) _ _ _ _ _

                 The FIRST and ONLY Comprehensive Parenting Coordination Training Program!

The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) is an internationally recognized leader providing high quality parenting coordination training programs.  Since 1997, the CPI has dominated the field of parenting coordination by creating the only comprehensive step-by-step PC training model. The Institute offers 20-24-26 hour parenting coordination/facilitation training opportunities each year.  A 12-hour advanced training is available for the experienced parenting coordinator. The training programs meet the requirements established by state statutes.  In addition, the presenters are available for custom designed training in your local area.

Susan Boyan, LMFT and Ann Marie Termini, LPC are recognized leaders and innovative trainers.  As skilled parenting coordinators, since 1991 and 1993 respectively, Ann Marie and Susan have facilitated many complex and highly conflictual divorce cases.  They have drawn on their extensive experience, research and interactive approach to prepare professionals for the challenging role of parenting coordinator. 

2011 Basic Three-Day Training Dates/Location
May 12-14:  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | 24-Hour Program | Trainer:  Ann Marie Termini
June 16-18:  Atlanta, Georgia | Trainer:  Susan Boyan
August 18-20:  Chicago | Trainer:  Susan Boyan
September 15-17:  King of Prussia, Pennsylvania | 24-Hour Program | Trainer:  Ann Marie Termini
October 20-22:  Dallas, TX | 24-Hour | Coordination/Facilitation | Louisiana (26-Hour) at Texas | Termini
November 10-12:  Atlanta, Georgia | Trainer:  Susan Boyan

August 18-20, 2011 :  Chicago
Contact:  Susan Boyan ((tel & email contacts….))
Oak Brook Hills Marriott Resort
3500 Midwest Rd, Oak Brook, IL  60523
Reservations:  800-228-9290
Sleeping Room Rate – $129.00

September 15-17, 2011:  King of Prussia (24- hour program)
Contact:  Ann Marie Termini ((tel & email contacts…..))
Dolce Hotels & Resorts – Valley Forge
301 West DeKalb Pike, King of Prussia, PA  19406
Reservations:  1-800-TRY-VFPA
Sleeping Room Rate – $109.00 (room block released August 23, 2011)
Specifically request the rate for the Parent Coordination Training sponsored by Cooperative Parenting Institute
Click here for additional details on the September Training

October 20-22, 2011:  Dallas, Texas (24 & 26-hour program)
Contact:  Ann Marie Termini ((tel & email contacts…))
Courtyard Dallas Addison/Quorum Drive
15160 Quorum Drive, Addison, TX, 75001-4630
(972) 404-1555
Reservations:  1-800-228-9290
Sleeping Room Rate – $55.00 (room block released September 29, 2011)

Specifically request the rate for the Parent Coordination Training sponsored by Cooperative Parenting Institute

Click here for additional details on the October Training

November 10-12, 2011:  Atlanta
Contact:  Susan Boyan
Doubletree Hotel
2061 North Druid Hills, Atlanta, 30329
Sleeping Room Rate – Special $84.00
Specifically ask for KT Edwards at kt.edwards@hilton.com

Click here for Basic Three-Day Training Registration Form

2011 Advanced Training Date/Location
July 22-23:  Atlanta, Georgia | Trainers:  Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini
Click here for Advanced Training Overview | Objectives | Outline
Click here for Advanced Training Registration Form

See below for information on fees, CEUs, objectives and course outline

Endorsements
“The presenter was sensational with an awesome sense of humor and gave great practical examples that brought the content to life! I really appreciated the opportunities to discuss clinical and ethical issues!  Over a long three days Susan held my attention, taught me a great deal, and entertained me!  This was a great experience in every single way!”
Miriam Drummonds, PhD. | Alabama

“The presenter was very knowledgeable, talented and inspired!  She has contributed an invaluable service to lessen the pain of divorce for adults and to increase the emotional health of children through successful co-parenting.”
Mary Dean, MFT | Georgia
“The training was dynamic and extremely informative; excellent use of real world examples  to illustrate the key content.  Susan presents well with an entertaining style that brings the  concepts to life.  I learned so much and would definately recommend this training to anyone interested in becoming a parenting coordinator!”
Tracy Masiello, PhD. | North Carolina
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One incentive to give a good review is the significant upfront $$ investment in training. However, I’ll assume for the sake of argument it was indeed a great training in how to coordinate parents (see PCANH.org handbook for what that’s all about, or my four-part series for the field in general, from a mother’s point of view….)

COSTS:

Training Fees
12 Hours – Advanced Training
Two-Day Training:  $350.00 Full Fee  |  $325.00 Early Bird (3-weeks prior to training date)
Day One Only:  7 CEUs – $185.00
Day Two Only:  5 CEUs – $165.00
20 Hours – Basic Three-Day Training
$450.00 Full Fee
$425.00 Early Bird (3-weeks prior to training date)
24 Hours – Basic Three-Day Training
$475.00 Full Fee
$450.00 Early Bird (3-weeks prior to training date)
26 Hours (Louisiana Requirement | Available at the Texas Training) – Basic Three-Day Training
$490.00 Full Fee
$465.00 Early Bird (3-weeks prior to training date

Refunds, less a $25 administrative fee, will be made for cancellations received three weeks prior to the training date. You may, at any point, designate a substitute to attend a training session. If a session is cancelled or postponed, the CPI will refund registration fees, but cannot be held responsible for any related costs, charges, or expenses.

Pennsylvania Training | 24-Hours – Basic Three-Day Training
20-hours parenting coordination process | 4-hours domestic violence

Domestic Violence from an AFCC-style point of view is likely to include a hefty section on false allegations of it. However, as it’s something which could potentially cost children or adults their lives, it’s reassuring to know that at least 1/4 of the time spent training parenting coordinators at least mentions this. It’s known that the VAWA block has to at least get a token acknowledgment in these circles.

Now let’s go FIND that nonprofit “Cooperative Parenting Institute” if possible — what state is it hanging out in? As advertised above, it seems to span Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania (plus Chicagoland, which Oak Park, IL is part of). I’ll start with Georgia, where Ms. Boyan appears to have been from, at least recently:

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I’ve not met them, it’s just that someone asked me to look up a few things in Georgia, and mentioned having a hard time in particular with Susan Boyan. Being curious (and knowing a few places to look), I simply looked her up. I also seem to remember having run across them, or their work (typical AFCC strategy) in Texas a while back, probably in relation to some access visitation funding…

State of Georgia, “Boyan” (you can search by last name for businesses):

(a handy note on Georgia’s Secretary of State site reminds people that their fees are going down – a flat fee of $250 to file whether for-profit or not-for profit. See this link:

The organization is “Cooperative Parenting Institute.”

From The Georgia Secretary of State site (and better seen on the site, obviously). Also note the Disclaimer. What we see on-line may not be accurate, and as I am not ordering everyone’s certificates of filing what we see is what we get, and I trust if the Secretary of State site is SOMEwhat reliable, it may be taken as an indicator, til further verfication. The indicator here is that “Cooperative Parenting Institute, Inc.” in Georgia, if the same one referred to above, lasted less than three years, and has no names on file tying it to the Boyans:

Please note: The documents displayed on this page are made available solely for the convenience of our customers and may not represent the complete and official record for this entity. If official records are needed, certified copies may be ordered by using the “Order Certified Documents” link on the bottom of the left-hand menu.

Date: 8/21/2011

Current Name: COOPERATIVE PARENTING INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED
Image  Date Document

2/6/2008 New Filing

9/16/2010 Administrative Dissolution

AND (details):

Search Type: Starting With Search Criteria: Cooperative parenting
Search Date: 8/21/2011 Search Time: 17:21
Click on the Business Entity Name or Control No to view more information.
Records Found:1
Business Entity Name Control No Type Status Entity
Creation Date
COOPERATIVE PARENTING INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 08010511
Non-Profit Corporation
Admin. Dissolved
2/6/2008
Records Returned 1 of 1 total 1

However, this nonprofit Cooperative Parenting Institute, which lasted from 2/6/2008 – 9/16/2010 in Georgia (under three years) shows no “Boyan” or “Termini” but only one person, a Mr. Purcell.

Searching (Georgia site) by the name “Boyan,” there are plenty, including BOYAN & BOYAN, Inc.” (noncompliant, currently) but also another Parenting Coordination outfit:

Susan Boyan BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
SUSAN BOYAN BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.

This is the NON-profit (apparently from year 2002 – 2008) at the same street address as the for-profit Boyan & Boyan, Inc.: (perhaps I may reformat this information on another date);

Date: 8/21/2011   View Filed Documents
(Annual Registration History etc.)
Business Name History
Name Name Type
NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC. Current Name
Non-Profit Corporation – Domestic – Information
Control No.: 0207284
Status: Admin. Dissolved
Entity Creation Date: 2/11/2002
Dissolve Date: 5/16/2008
Jurisdiction: GA
Principal Office Address: 2801 BUFORD HWY NE STE T70
ATLANTA GA 30329-2146
Registered Agent
Agent Name: SUSAN BOYAN

Office Address: 2801 BUFORD HWY., SUITE T70
ATLANTA GA 30329
Agent County: DEKALB
Officers
Title: CEO
Name: SUSAN BOYAN
Address: 2801 BUFORD HWY NE STE T 70
ATLANTA GA 30329
Title: CFO
Name: ANN MARIE TERMINI
Address: 2801 BUFORD HWY NE STE T 70
ATLANTA GA 30329

Title: Secretary
Name: HELEANN SHARPIO
Address: 2801 BUFORD HWY NE STE T 70
ATLANTA GA 30329

Article 7 of incorporation states briefly that the corporation is for forming a membership organization of professionals involved in Parenting Coordination and any other purpose lawful for a GA nonprofit. That’s ALL it says (on-line, at least). It’s not that hard to incorporate — pay the fee, and file the report. What I don’t get is why it’s apparently so hard for these groups to STAY incorporated, particularly in states they are operating out of. Notice that while this one dissolved in May, 2008, an overlap (related or not?) in GA called — who is co-sponsoring these ladies’ workshops — called “Cooperative Parenting Institute, Inc.” — was formed, at least until 2010. I can’t wait to find out in what state these workshops are legitimately. doing business… Maybe they are, but I can’t seem to keep pace… Can you?

I figured why not go to the website — for some more advertising, and I guess it’s now incorporated (but as a FOR-profit?) in Pennsylvania: http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/

First, I searched on two good sites for nonprofits, nationwide: Nccsdataweb.urban.org & where they get their information from, called the “foundation finder” (google: 990 finder, it comes up) and nothing under the name came up. A group (by different name) from North Carolina did.

I also just searched the Pennsylvania Secretary of State site, which tells me, nope, not in PA:

Search Type: Exact Match Search Criteria: Cooperative Parenting
Search Date: 8/21/2011 Search Time: 18:30
No Records were found for the search criteria ‘Cooperative Parenting’ on 8/21/2011 6:30:05 PM

May want to bookmark this if you’re from (or interested in) Pennsylvania and want to search their registered nonprofits — like California, it offers several fields to search by, including EIN#.
http://web.dos.state.pa.us/cgi-bin/Charities/char_form.cgi

This group (searched “Cooperative Parenting” only) does not show as a registered nonprofit (charity) in Pennsylvania, if I am understanding the requirements properly. Nor does it show in the national searches. If it is a fictious name, I would just like to know what state the organization is incorporated in (assuming it’s a U.S. corporation) and who are its officers.

Charities OnLine Database

I’m sorry, but your request did not find any selections.
Please choose the ‘BACK’ button and try again.

You entered the following criteria:
NAME: COOPERATIVE PARENTING
If you are a Pennsylvania resident and were solicited by an organization whose name was not found, please contact the Bureau to determine whether the organization has since become registered, is registered under another name, is exempt or excluded from the Act’s registration requirements, or is engaged in unregistered solicitation in violation of the Act. You can contact the Bureau by calling toll-free within Pennsylvania, 1-800-732-0999 or by e-mail. Your name will not be shared with the organization under any circumstances.

(continued from the Georgia site):
— and I’m wondering where it’s legitimately registered NOW — because the two outfits (for-profit, and non-profit) naming one of the trainers, Susan Boyan, in Georgia are as follows (I’ve included the detail screen to show names — possibly “Jack Boyan” is a husband, I DNK — and street addresses. And of course the “Noncompliance” status, a little disturbing in that these are training others how to handle parents in the courts:

Business Name History
Name Name Type
BOYAN & BOYAN, INC. Current Name
Profit Corporation – Domestic – Information
Control No.: 0315327
Status: Active/Noncompliance
Entity Creation Date: 3/12/2003
Jurisdiction: GA
Principal Office Address: 2801 BUFORD HIGHWAY, STE T-70
ATLANTA GA 30329
Last Annual Registration Filed Date: 2/26/2009
Last Annual Registration Filed: 2009
Registered Agent
Agent Name: JACK BOYAN
Office Address: 2801 BUFORD HIGHWAY, STE T-70
ATLANTA GA 30329
Agent County: DEKALB
Officers
Title: CEO
Name: SUSAN BOYAN
Address: 2801 BUFORD HIGHWAY, STE T-70
ATLANTA GA 30329
Title: CFO
Name: Jack Boyan
Address: 2801 Buford Hwy
Ste. T-70
Atlanta GA 30329
Title: Secretary
Name: Susan Boyan
Address: 2801 Buford Hwy
Ste. T-70
Atlanta GA 30329

OBVIOUSLY, I can’t keep this up all day (and have done more research than shows here on related groups) but sooner or later it will show a pretty clear pattern — the AFCC-type groups are apparently so busy running pricey trainings (or, for all I know, reasonably priced trainings — if you’re in the field of running trainings all over the map, and I do mean globally) – – – and lobbying the legislature to change the laws to accommodate their habits, as I caught them doing with both Kids Turn and Family Justice Centers in California, and with Kids First in (as I recall it was Pennsylvania) where the direct service provider name was actually written into the rules of court.

BUT FOR A LOOK — a TEN-YEAR-RETROSPECTIVE — at a typical AFCC conference, I suggest this newsletter from Fall 2001. It was scheduled in New York City. Obviously (see “9/11″) they had to reschedule.

However, in this one article — if you read it cover to cover — you can see that Parenting Coordination is discussed (among AFCC folk) as a “done deal” although it took a few more years to get it forced through Florida. It helped having at least three major AFCC personnel also active in Florida — with each other, a Judge Hugh Starnes, an attorney Shelly (“Sheldon”) Finman, and an educator, Linda Fieldstone. Starnes and Finman share the founding of a nonprofit, Association of Family Law Professionals, as well as helping push for both a chapter of AFCC in Florida (Hugh Starnes shows as a member of the national AFCC Board here, in the 2001 flyer) and so forth. In my articles on Parenting Coordination, I probably covered some of this.

The language of Parenting Coordination — like Parental Alienation — and “False Allegations” (typically anywhere near any begrudging acknowledgement of, say, “domestic abuse” or sexual molestation — and other words like Collaborative Law Practice – show up YEARS ago as planned professional niches for members of this group.

I was looking at some material in the creation of the Unified Family Court System, and so forth, in Florida — it was definitely pushed. I noticed that a current (I think, still) State Supreme Court Justice — Justice Barbara Pariente (herself a stepmother and on second marriage) to be either AFCC< or definitely keynote presenter at their conferences.

I think it’s time we started demanding some of these groups: (1) incorporate properly (2) if nonprofit, file as required at the state level, and maintain current, legal status with both incorporations and nonprofit status and (3) file timely and accurate tax returns so we know that there is NO chance of kickbacks, bribes, or case-steering among their ranks, and (4) that any JUDGES at least, who are required to file financial disclosures — keep theirs current, and be put on notice that citizens are going to start watching.

I have before indicated that I, personally, believe that the most appropriate paradigm for the family law system, despite all the noble proclamations — has to be basically, RICO. it’s a “legalized” form of racketeering. Not only are the laws, and forms of justice consistently and INTENTIONALLY altered AWAY from safeguards of due process (possibly a done deal since the Patriot Act anyhow….)(at least) — but also when we see the individuals staffing the courts, or ancillary services to the courts — cannot themselves keep even the most basic of responsibilities — you want to be a nonprofit? Then REGISTER, FILE your 990, and KEEP YOUR BUSINESS LICENSE CURRENT!

As Cooperative Parenting Institute (whatever CORPORATION this be) shows clearly on its site — it’s a marketing outfit. Here’s some of the product (not including the trainings, above).

CPI offers a wide range of valuable divorce products for parents and professionals such as the award-winning Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective Co-Parenting and the highly praised Cooperative Parenting and Divorce Group Program. To order or learn more, click here.

The founders of CPI co-authored the only complete parenting coordination text entitled The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques. To order a copy, click here.

To view and download “The Divorce Rules” click here.

DISCLAIMER: I’m neither an attorney or accountant, and may be missing some filing sites which might record business names, and/or unaware of particular state’s requirements. For reference (and one can look these up by site) here’s a paragraph on business names from “SBA.GOV”:

A fictitious name (or assumed name, trade name or DBA name, which is short for “doing business as”) is a business name that is different from your personal name, the names of your partners or the officially registered name of your LLC or corporation.

For example, let’s say Mary Smith is the sole proprietor of a catering company she runs out of her home. Mary wants to name her business Seaside Catering instead of using her business’ legal name, which is Mary Smith. In order to use Seaside Catering, Mary will need to register that name as a fictitious business name with a government agency. The appropriate government agency depends on where she lives. In some states, you have to register fictitious names with the state government or with the county clerk’s office; however, there are a few states that do not require the registering of fictitious business names.

Use the following chart to find out the requirements for fictitious name filing in your state and to access more information on the process.

Again, for reference, here is that 2001 AFCC newsletter, with the (egotistical, I say!) motto: “KIDS COUNT ON US!” For WHAT becomes the question — to deplete one or both of their parents assets?

http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/AFCC%20Fa2001.pdf

Things that make you go “Huh?”

Below here is narrative, general discussion only:

How is that more people haven’t been simply reading the AFCC conference brochures, not to mention looking at the AFCC’s own conference brochures, and connecting the dots with their local judiciary, mental helah professionals, and family law attorney activity? I mean, it’s not that hard a roadmap to follow, once one gets the basics. I suppose in part because that’s “just the way it is.”

It is impossible to have in-depth (or even bas-relief) perception of anything, almost, without two viewpoints. Ask any optometrist, look at the difference between predator and prey animals, and eye placement (I’m just speculating on that one, but think about it — humans, eyes face forward, deer & sheep, one on each side). Or simply try going through life with one eye, if you’re normally using two.

People, (people concerned with fiscal crises, or your kids’ safety, or the devolution of due process in the courts year after year) — there have been basic roadmaps laid out in previous years. I’m not the originator of many of these ideas, I simply checked them out and studied them some more, on behalf of sanity and my progeny, and the local communities I’ve been traumatized around and repeatedly lost work in while deciphering the local family court system’s insanity. There’s nothing “insane” about it — it’s a functional system with a specific purpose, which is to bring as many “mental health professionals” into your life as possible, for profit to them and their associates, and possibly for sheer ego.

The “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” has an organizational history that at least appears to have begun in a Los Angeles County Courthouse as a private organization utilizing the public EIN# for YEARS, i.e., as a slush fund. Google “Beware AFCC” or look again at my site (I bring links to others) for a chrono outline. The organization is a tax-evasion setup designed to claim jurisdiction over California’s children (and thereafter, make it national) initially, and set up a system of courts which are neither criminal, nor civil, but “courts of equity” (hear tell) and among themselves, “problem-solving courts.”

A fair translation of that term would be to simply read it, and the reverse the meaning 180%. They are problem-CAUSING courts to the extent they undermine cognition, and counter the deliberate balance of powers built into our justice systems, intentionally. This term holds throughout the system, and with the various entities involved in it. FOr example, “Child Support Enforcement” is sometimes enforcing, and sometimes not — and this is unpredictable. It has however, developed all kinds of ways to track and invade custodial and noncustodial parents lives both (although clearly some people are ahead of the game at evading it), and COLLECTING it. Sometimes.

Child Support Enforcement is supposed to get people OFF welfare — that’s why the laws were passed to set this up. However, I have credible proof and it’s now clear (and in some places legislated) that the purpose of the child support system is to get more people ON welfare, including middle class parents and upper class — not OFF it.. Nor is it only about child support, but about an “evolving” purpose.

One of the funniest things I found recently was a LONG, fine-print, multi-page list of “vexatious litigants.” I had to laugh — I went into these courts (actually, was dragged there) believing I was indeed a litigant — after all, here was the pleading, here was the motion, we had certain laws we wanted enforced, and court orders written. That’s ‘litigation.”

But not so when more closely examined: In fact, throughout the dialogues about the (litigants — who are parents), the talk is constantly about “parenting” and “families.” They do not exist as real people, from what one can read in the conferences, but actually as a sort of “substance” to be manipulated by the handlers, as in “what to do with High-Conflict Parents.”

Who in the world ever used the term “high-conflict” before this group came around? What’s a low-conflict parent, and is that OK? . . . . Guess what — a subdued or dominated person, who hsa become a doormat in a relationship through habit, or for survival — would not be a “high-conflict” parent. The violence and conflict would be internalized; in (her) soul. To this crowd, that’s value = GOOD. However, being too “good” according to unhealthy definitions in place by others can be extremely bad “parenting” behavior, because one of the chief functions of a GOOD parent (MY definition) is to help growing children understand and value highly the difference between true and false, right and wrong, destructive or creative & upbuilding, and of all thing to clearly understand, at least the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL for basic citizenship as an adult. This includes in the financial field.

There is a protective function for a mother OR a father. And there’s a reasoon that the policymakers in this country have pre-determined that these functions are to be allocated by gender, now — which is exactly what the “Fatherhood” movement claims, falsely. It reduces people to their basic biological functions, defining and restricting those — while in clear conflict with the reality of animal, and human life: A mother can protect! The Biblical proverb about beware a mother bear has some reality to it: “Better to meet a bear robbed of her whelps than a fool in his folly.”

I’ve seen such folly (illogic) in these circles for years, of course it grates on me, when this affects my civil rights and my kids’ futures. Once you see the degree of falsehood, pretense, and simple cheating — systemic, not occasional, not incidental — but systemic practices that promote falsehood, pretense, and cheating — one has to determine where YOU (oneself, I mean) stands in regard to it. Are you going to speak up, shut up, or work to obtain some leverage for making a change of direction, even if a slight one.

AFCC members plan their profits ahead of time, from the inherent conflict in the ffamily law system, which they continue to strategize how to change, expand, and alter according to the company plan, clearly stated on the home page, around 1963, 1973, as getting rid of the “old language” of criminal law.

I can even point to a Bay Area (California) practicing attorney, and parent coordination promoter, in fact, who refers to the Constitution (openly) as “antiquated” and suggest it’s time to rewrite it. He (this one’s a “he” but female attorneys do this also) protests how unfair it is that fathers don’t get equal custody more often; the U.S. is far off base in that matter, it’s gone off the deep end (from Iran, was the reference) in compensating. Otherwise, the website involved seems progressive, social justice emphasis, etc. But not in this matter.

By setting parents against each other through the courts ,then distancing themselves as professionals handling these unruly (adult) children called “parents” — and discussing privately how to manage the incredible hostility they come into the courtrooms with — by taming, training, and controlling them, conveniently prolongs parent’s years in the court system — and profits them, and through exactly what most working parents do NOT have after years in court — through MULTIPLE streams of income, and a captive, literally, clientele.

I have finally begun to associate with some women who are NOT Tea Party candidates or conservative Christians (that I can tell) who are smart enough to understand what exactly some of us have in commmon with men who are self-described fathers’ rights activists — while we are sometimes domestic violence survivors, or having children with molestation issues in the courts, or simply under a custody challenge by someone who doesn’t want to pay child support, and has figured out how not to.

I believe we will change this system, and there is some evidence of it. Why? Because “fathers rights” groups who are not on the inner circle (i.e., NOT the “Fathers and Families Coalition” group, hobnobbing with HHS/ACF officials such as David Hansell, or Ron Haskins affiliates, or Child Support-connected groups) and women leaving very abusive relationships, or trying to protect their children from (sorry to be so blunt); rape, molestation, or “lesser” forms of abuse including neglect and assault & battery, who are NOT on the inner track with the multi-millionaire domestic violence professionals on the HHS — AND – – DOJ grants faucets – – we are starting to communicate and learn each others sets of information, not to mention viewpoints.

Basically, for women this is going to mean understanding the child support system, and (I say) the grants system. For men, this means, we will “out” our DV professionals who sold us down the river for one cause or another, but will not listen to you complain about them while pretending there is no fatherhood movement of at least equal force, or that one even comes close to justifying the other.

And we will agree to leave each other’s values aside while dealing with concrete information such as I and others have put out here, and some have gone to jail for it, others been disbarred, and at least one prominent legislator, I am going to say I believe was murdered for it (Nancy Schaefer and her husband. I don’t buy the official version of her death, nor do many people). We are also going to be fearless in demanding an explanation of why something so hostile to justice as “parenting coordination” even exists to start with — we are not dogs, and we exist as separate individuals.

And we (I hope) will start to look into the real estate records, for example, WHO (which corporation,a nd who is on its board) literally owns the real estate in which justice is ttaking place, or allegedly is.

I have begun this, it’s fascinating and the knowledge has made me a more responsible and valuable member of any community, as I will definitely share this skill with others and talk about it.

How in heck can a non-expert understand these systems? Well, Behold, the humble Human….

leave a comment »

??  Some friends of mine asked for a visual on how to keep the players AND organizations AND associations AND fundings straight.  Well, at least they asked me for some diagrams of what I’ve written here.   I’m graphically challenged, but we can visualize systems we do know, to get a grasp on the complex goings on in the courts (and around them) we don’t, so well.

The best way to understand something strange is in terms of something else familiar.  So here we go:

Imagine the human body.  To get from the head to the extremities there are a variety of networked systems, such as for Blood (old, & new)  and muscular activity of course helps.  We know that the heart pumps and that movement of the legs help also.  Also that blood is oxygen rich or oxygen depleted — going through the lungs changes this.

I guess the “heart” of the Family Law System might be called two basic private, nonprofit organizations, (left ventricle, right ventricle — whatever), let’s say for example, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) & the Children’s Rights Council (CRC).   Both these organizations have:

  • Founding members, with often two agendas:  One, declared to the public, Another, which their actions show
  • For example, AFCC is often positioned IN government, i.e., membership includes judges and/or those who train judges.
  • A financial history for these nonprofit corporations.
  • A FUNDING history for these nonprofit corporations — where is the income stream?
  • A chronological growth & expansion history — how did they grow, where are members positioned in society?
  • Areas of special emphasis and a courtesy respect not to overlap too much.
  • Relationships to certain branches of the US Government
  • International / Global aspirations which they are fulfilling
  • A common desire to get access to certain kinds of traumatized children for coaching or rescuing purposes
  • Complementary functions  — for example, getting a contract  (with Government) & fulfilling a contract.
  • Seemingly/allegedly separate organizations with members in common.  This is telltale.
  • A mouthpiece in the firm of professional publication
  • Tend to hang out and self-refers with related associations of professionals in the fields, for example, APA, ABA,AAML, etc.
For example AFCC might be lobbying, teaching, and policy-setting, including pushing for access/visitation centers.   CRC is among the network of Access/Visitation center providers (and the originator of the term).
Another set of related organizations (with some members) may include, for example:
Center for Policy Research (CPR) a NONprofit in Denver — a small, but real influential group, a  Policy Studies Inc.  (PSI) a FOR profit in Denver, also in Oklahoma, where it facilitates the Healthy Marriage project.    If CPR is the brain , PSI is nervous system  CPR is positioned to and gets the contracts (and apparently suggests, evaluates, etc.) PSI fulfils them.  PSI terms itself “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”  Obviously, they are getting contracts with the (US) Dept. of “HHS.”  So the “squeeze” comes from federal funding [and the IRS/Office of Child Support Enforcement (US Gov't, under HHS), for example, would be the muscles.]
A few different types of circulating body systems:

Arterial:

  or if you will or

http://www.nutrientgarden.com/cardiovascularsupport.aspx

But as we know, human bodies have a nervous system, for example, and a lymphsystem.  The lymph system has no pump.   It’s a very important system, though:  “

The lymphatic system is an extensive drainage network that helps keep bodily fluid levels in balance and defends the body against infections. It is made up of a network of lymphatic vessels that carry lymph — a clear, watery fluid that contains protein molecules, salts, glucose, urea, and other substances — throughout the body.

The spleen, which is located in the upper left part of the abdomen under the ribcage, works as part of the lymphatic system to protect the body, clearing worn out red blood cells and other foreign bodies from the bloodstream to help fight off infection.

About the Spleen and Lymphatic System

One of the lymphatic system’s major jobs is to collect extra lymph fluid from body tissues and return it to the blood. This process is crucial because water, proteins, and other substances are continuously leaking out of tiny blood capillaries into the surrounding body tissues. If the lymphatic system didn’t drain the excess fluid from the tissues, the lymph fluid would build up in the body’s tissues, and they would swell.”

{{BEST THING I HEARD TO HELP — Rebounding.  Jump up and down a lot, there’s something about this.  }}

The Human Nervous System. Red is CNS and blue is PNS.

And of course respiratory & digestive systems, i.e, the alimentary canal has sometimes been called the second “brain”.    All of these have to work together, and when one is overstressed, it affects the others, and requires compensation.   The skeletal system. . . . .  Muscular system, etc.

And the organs to go with various systems, i.e., lungs, brain, heart, liver, etc.  Unbelievably detailed, complex and functional, but with similarity of origin (we all started with ovum & sperm.  All that power and those systems from such a tiny start).

(Psalmist, psalm 139, reflecting on this:  “O LORD, You have searched me and known me.. . . Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And 
that my soul knows very well.

Like the human body, the court system (etc., etc.) not only has a static diagram of its various components (like the dry drawings above, as if no movement happened), but it most certainly also has a history.  A moment of conception, when a gleam in the eye happened, and then took action.

However, the family law system, the courts in which family law is practices, is actually a graft.  It grafted in the marriage counselors, the “fixers” the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, mental health professionals, resulting in the HYBRID form called “Therapeutic Jurisprudence”  — where Mental Health Vocabulary meets written statutes,  and after years of association, neither is itself again, or remembers what previously existed.  Unlike, say, basic human reproduction, this set of systems, associations, networks, and laws, was NOT a natural development. It was absolutely sold, promoted, and lobbied for by the very people whose professions depend on the forcing of counseling (and other consumption of products & services) upon parents who separate and disagree on who does what.  And many of its origins can be identified.

  to   

(Drawing of single fetus URL = Wikipedia on “fetal movement”)

(Fetal Growth image URL)

(“The statue of David was started by a different artist, Agostino di Duccio, in 1463. He picked out a rather narrow piece of stone, which was customary for artists of his denomination. If you are an art expert, you can see from the side that this is not a piece that Michelangelo would have picked. It is too thin. The front [not shown] however, did not come out too bad…”)

(This bronze resin sculpture:  woman standing, back may be for sale, see link:  “Zhang Yaxi” )

DIFFERENCES between these system and the Family Law system:

Living things, with nourishment, tend to grow to the point of no return, and have a sort of “set point” beyond which they don’t expand, with certain exceptions.  For example, there are all heights of human beings, but so far, the range doesn’t go beyond 10 feet tall, does it?   There seem to be some inherent limits.  While affected by various things, they have a certain common DNA, overall, and are not going to stray TOO far from this, I believe.

Unnatural, but networking and growing fauna & flora, continue to take over the landscape, strangling previous or healthier indigenous plants.

Unlike human life, which can either reach its term limit through old age, or be shortened any number of artifical ways, Family Law seems to have no inherent “term limit” but is continually expanding; children are born daily.  Many of these children will have divorcing or separating parents.   It doesn’t run into natural boundaries, like skin, or the force of gravity, or lack of balance, in which a too-obese person simply cannot stand up.  It grows by conferences, internet-disseminated information, watered by grants and foundations and institutes, and populated by trainers, professors, and promoters.   While some of these may grow old, they at least replace themselves by coaching from the University level up, (at a minimum).  It will NOT likely run out of clients (barring a boycott — possibly a good idea) unless enough mothers and fathers get smart enough (couple by couple) and simply don’t go through its doors to start with.  The way a family generally “terms out” of the family law system is the children age out, or someone gives up, or someone is killed, or they simply run out of energy & money — in which case, if the children haven’t been removed into foster care yet (for which federal incentives exist), no more use for the family.

By law, any time a couple (married or unmarried) has a custody dispute — my understanding is, the COURT has jurisdiction.  If there are married couples NOT fighting or separating — but a grandparent is upset about visitation, or the couple is not mainstream enough, there’s always the possibility of engaging CPS, which has happened both when parents seek alternate treatment for, say cancer or asthma — or when their children are not in the local public school, and they aren’t rich.

This is likely why one writer (quoted below) titled a piece “Court Cancer Metastasizes.”  Something changed, and began rapidly reproducing.

FAMILY LAW VERSUS REAL FAMILIES / HUMAN BODY:

Thinking about this, there’s a history, an origin, a conception.   Just like a child could be started with a number of motives, or excuses for (insert birds & bees discussion) — the fact is, sperm, egg, fertilized, happens SOMEWHERE (in vitro, out of vitro) and growth.

You cannot understand this system unless you understand at least a few things about the AFCC (as it’s now called):

  • Someone passed a law to enable it.  See “Roger & Meyer,” section, below….
  • The goal included getting people in front of counselors.
  • Mental health perspective was in from the START and has really gotten out of hand now.
  • No matter how I look at this, or others, several people understand quite clearly that what is now the world-famous and highly positioned “AFCC” began:
  • as a private, nonprofit, judges’ association hiding in the Los Angeles County Courthouse and using its EIN# (Tax ID) without accounting for funds properly.  As such it was an insult to the integrity of the judicial system.
  • Seemed to have little conscience about shape-shifting, incorporating in state, out of state, name-changing, and FINALLY getting caught up with and becoming “legitimate” as a nonprofit, supposedly a “new” one.
  • From what I read, no sooner did it finally register legally as a “new” nonprofit (outside California) than the original founder, Meyer Elkin, took over the leadership.  Review at:  “Beware AFCC” from “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org — or read my post, “Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an oxymoron“.  As late as 1979 (one source says) the one form (“Conference of Conciliation Courts”) got suspended by the Franchise Tax Board.
  • AFCC members of course do not see it this way; as I saw yesterday, a woman in Minnesota attended a conference called “Solomon’s Surrogates”

Roger (Alton Pfaff) and Meyer (Elkin):  Dynamic Duo in Family Law

(searched..outside the mutual-adoration of the AFCC circles…)

I found a 1966 TIME article, revealing . . . . . .    it reads:

What the U.S. really needs is something far more drastic: a complete new approach that totally banishes “fault” and all its sleazy consequences. The most sensible solution would be a system that readily grants divorce only after skilled clinicians confirm that a marriage is beyond repair. In many cases, divorce might be harder to get; in all, it would be far more humane.

(Marriage as a sick puppy needing a good vet…..)

While insisting that divorce be made a more rational process, most marriage experts also believe that many of the divorces that now take place can be prevented. One of the most effective, though not yet widespread, ways of helping to prevent divorce is the conciliation court. Eighteen states have already set up more than three dozen such courts, many of which try to mend marriages with the aid of full-time staff psychologists and social workers. The courts have an overall record of intact marriages in 33% of the cases voluntarily brought before them. They try to get the couple to communicate with each other once more, to concentrate on what they have in common rather than what separates them and to analyze for themselves the problems that are interfering with their marriage.

hence the name “Conciliation” as in “REconciliation.”  So much for “irreconciliable differences”!

Psychologists and Social workers still doing this today.

In Toledo, [Ohio] Judge Paul W. Alexander’s much-admired conciliation court averts divorce in 44% of the cases it tackles. In Los Angeles, Judge Roger A. Pfaff’s conciliation court gets 50% of its business from lawyers who refer unhappy spouses even before they file divorce suits. With the aid of eleven highly trained counselors who must have at least ten years’ experience, Pfaff’s court helps more than 4,000 volunteer couples a year, gets 60% of them to make up and sign detailed “husband-wife” agreements that have the force of law. “Divorce courts throughout America are burying marriages that are still alive,” says Meyer Elkin, Pfaff’s supervising counselor. The success of conciliation courts proves that it is perfectly possible to create a rational divorce system that saves as well as severs—if the U.S. wants it

Conciliation court as receiving referral business from divorce attorneys.

Pfaff was the Judge, Elkin the counselor.  Get it?  Oh yes, the 1966 comments:

Mating at Random

Another reason for a more realistic appraisal of divorce laws is a deeper understanding of what causes marital breakups. While sex, money and incompatibility are the traditional reasons for divorce, a mobile and changing urban society has loosened many of the bonds that once held marriage together, depriving men of their absolute dominance, giving women a large measure of economic independence and weakening the sense of kinship (i.e., men’s absolute dominance + women’s utter economic dependence = stronger kinship = good?)

and a nice religious reference (TIME, 1966…)

“The divorce rate is a social symptom of increased respect for personal freedom and for genuine marriage commitment.”

That is a far cry from Christ’s unequivocal condemnation of the Mosaic right of Jewish husbands to banish their wives at will: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

Marv Byer (“Johnnypumphandle.com”) had quite a different opinion of Elkin & Pfaff, especially after spending $100K to help his daughter retain custody.  In his 1998 Tort claim, he calls (the ring of judges) an “underground mafia posing as the City of Los Angeles.”  He says …

and of Elkin & Pfaff:  

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN  (paras. in reverse order)

The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.

But for general purposes the typical “Mutt & Jeff” combo in the family law arena is going to have — at a minimum

  • One Judge or representative from the legal profession
  • One Social Worker, Mental Health Professional, Psychiatrist, etc.
  • At least ONE nonprofit with some typically shady origins, or which the Judge, Social worker (or close cohorts) just happen to have started.

ALSO, (by the way) as Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net describes this dynamic duo:

  • Meyer Elkin, co-founder of AFCC, was also a CRC co-founder. Both organizations are heavily cross-affiliated. 
  • The AFCC runs front companies which develop, implement and evaluate federal facade programallegedly assisting troubled families and children

here is a 1982 Article by Meyer; the abstract shows he wants a complete change to the system.  Note:  His buddy was a judge, but he was a counselor.

Abstract

Challenging the traditional and outmoded approach to divorce, the author, using a systems approach, proposes interrelated changes (the missing links) in the divorce process and related legal practices. {{INTENT TO CHANGE LEGAL PRACTICES}}
The resulting new and interprofessional structure for the divorce experience would provide for a more humanistic approach to divorce,  {{i.e., Elkin & his ilk, not being in the legal field, could thereby get in there…}}
create a system of non-adversarial practices that would enable the law itself to become a more effective support system, maximize client self-determination, redefine the role of the judge and attorney in divorce, and would recognize that parents are forever and families are forever.
The new structure is designed to enable divorcing families to grow with the divorce experience {???} rather than be defeated by it. In his presentation, the author stresses the need for greater interprofessional cooperation between the law and the helping professions, as well as the, need for judges and attorneys to recognize that, in divorce, feelings are also facts and that the search for truth involves both the objective facts and the feeling facts.

That was 1982.  This is 2011.  Would you say that theory has changed yet?    No.  And it’s not going to, either. Because the STRUCTURE and INTENT of this type of court is what it says it is — a search for “feeling facts” and the “parents forever, families forever” being forced.

2004 Summary lists names, organizations, and intersections:

Another summary (from an on-line family law discussion group) dating to 2004.  “Custody Corruption Summary/Liz Richards”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/16472

This is a pretty good read because at the bottom it lists many of the “Associations” (as in of Family Mediators, or of Matrimonial Lawyers, or of Family & Conciliation courts, etc.).  There are some weird characters in the text.  In case the link ever breaks, I’ll also copy it into my url (so it could be read by a “hover” over the link).  This version also begins to incorporate various nonprofit leaders’ government connections, and mentions Fathers Rights.

Now that there is a little introduction here (from same source)

see if you can read 3 paras here, with some of my comments, and understand a few connections of WHO was in various nonprofits, associations, and connected with which arm of the U.S. state of Federal Government.  It will also bring in the “grants” theme:

PARAGRAPH 1:

The A/V Program, began in 1988, with grants to Iowa CRC Iowa Chapter Director and Fathers for Equal Rights, Dick Woods, through the backing of Sen. Harkin, then Senate Chairman for Appropriations Subcommittee for HHS, and Bonnie Campbell, then IA Attorney General, currently Director of DoJ Office for Violence Against Women.

Now, isn’t that interesting!

While the stated objective of the program has been to assist visitation enforcement for non-custodial parents, in practice, the program acts as a kick-back scheme for CRC litigating members and their AFCC affiliated court professionals.

And once one gets in the door, like dust, or fleas, or other not-natural-to-the-habitat flora — they multiply.   We have identified the practice now — and this is how AFCC started — as an UNDER the radar, tax-evading nonprofit slush fund — from what I can tell..  Not to mince words…..

A/V grants are steered {{Grants / Steered}}  to CRC chapter members or their allies. AFCC affiliated judges, attorneys, psychologists and given financial incentive to favor the CRC litigating members who get their civil litigation attorney fees paid from A/V funds.  Gardner, Underwager and other members of the pro-pedophilia psychological movement are used as expert witness for custody and child abuse evaluations.

So far in this post, I didn’t bring up Gardner, or pedophilia or any of that.  However, it’s at the center of the strife along with the money incentive.

PARAGRAPH 2:

Center for Policy Research (CPR), officials, Jessica Pearson (also an original incorporating officer of the AFCC) and Nancy Thoennes, did the evaluations for the (A/V)  and Child Access demo project, developed in associated with Dick Woods, IA – a state chapter director for the CRC.  Wood’s material relies heavily on Gardner’s work and he is known to refer cases to Gardner.

Notice next sentence — this is the CPR/PSI connection and that dynamic duo is Jessica Pearson & Nancy Theonnes (both CPR).  Theya re going to come to one conclusion in their evaluation — but practice the opposite:

While CPR’s Nancy Thoennes, was the author of the federal granted study which discredited PAS and Gardner, both Thoennes and Pearson have been actively involved in the CRC’s promotion of the A/V programs.  CPR conceals all their pro-CRC, pro-Gardner affiliation when making public statements about custody and child sex abuse.  Policy Studies, Inc. (the for-profit arm of CPR) has also been involved in these programs since inception.

{{I believe at one time I saw another CPR member (or founder), “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” working at PSI.  Here is one link:

Jane Venohr
Dr.
Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D.

Since 1984 PSI has conducted cutting edge research in the area of child support. An economist with years of experience dealing exclusively with child support issues, Dr. Venohr will discuss the economic basis of the “income shares formula” and will discuss the assumptions made in guidelines across the nation. She will also discuss the details of the Nebraska guidelines and engage in a panel discussion on joint custody and provide us with better understanding of the joint custody calculation. Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Over the past 10 years at PSI, Venohr has provided technical assistance on the development and revision of child support guidelines for over 30 states. Since completing her doctorate in economics in 1997, Venohr has assumed primary responsibility for all PSI guideline projects.

Well, she “just so happens” to also be CPR.   See?

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Director                         jspearson@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Pearson has 30 years of experience conducting demonstration and evaluation projects dealing with a wide range of social issues including divorce mediation, responsible fatherhood, access and visitation, educational reform, child support enforcement, and self sufficiency. Dr. Pearson has authored many reports and publications on these topics and is a regular presenter at local, state and national conferences for practitioners and policy makers.

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Associate Director         nthoennes@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Thoennes has more than 30 years experience in the design of surveys and data collection forms and conducts large-scale statistical analyses using SPSS. She is a leading expert on child protection and the courts, as well as in the field of child support.

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate      jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

 Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

(Back to “Paragraph 2″ from the FamilyCourtReform group post):

Joan Kelly’s Northern California Mediation Center conducts training courses in PAS, and is a past President of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) another AFCC affiliate.  A/V grants are administered primarily by DHHS-Office of Child Support Enforcement.  Current Director of that Office (since 1993) is David Gray Ross, former Prince George MD judge and CRC regular speaker.  Friends of  Judge Ross say he became an early CRC participant as a result of his own divorce/child support problems and may be a CRC member.

PARAGRAPH 3:  {NOW, it gets interesting — the HHS, Federal Government, gets involved)

The A/V demo project was turned into a mandatory program in 1996, when Ron Haskins, an original CRC official (mis)used his authority as Ways & Means Subcommittee Staff Director, slipped the program  into the final language of the Welfare Reform Bill without the knowledge of most members – even of his Subcommittee. 

Besides the “conflict of interest” theme, how about “abuse of privilege”??  This is what established a $10 million per year program which inserts a “desired outcome” to the family law process, and in the process, some of the means by which this is accomplished will include (in CALIF, for example), can you say Mediation (AFCC is heavily pushing mediation, and many of its members are mediators), can you say “Parent Education” — can you say “Kids’ Turn, Kids First, Children in the Middle, For the Kids’ Sake (Canada)” and so on (and on, and on…..) ???

NOTE:  The A/V program is administered through the Federal Child Support Enforcement agency, “OCSE.”   CPR & PSI real active in child support arenas too (see their sites) and if you google Jane Venohr, she is all over the US presenting on the topic, or has been at least.     Now, here is Ron Haskins  in 2001– no longer HHS, but ovrer at “Brookings Institution,” showing his funding (Annie E. Casey Foundation) and expounding to the Committee he used to be on, about Child Support and this same program… “Hearing on Child Support and Fatherhood   June, 2001”  It has charts, and lots of text.  Just for a looksee….

Besides the A/V program – Judge Gray’s federal OCSE has created multiple clone programs for assistance of non-custodial parents, usually labeled as assistance for family with domestic violence, or disputing families.  Most of these programs are steered to AFCC ring allies in state social services agencies or state courts.  Other information shows the Clinton Administration issued a directive in 1995 ordering all departments of the government to establish fatherhood programs, which also are misused for protecting bad fathers.  CRC leaders solicit membership with promises to obtain custody before judges who are guaranteed to rule in their favor.  The CRC member cases are referred to AFCC judges, who in turn appoint court professionals who are also members of the extended ring.   Lawyers are frequently members of The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) while evaluators, counselors, mediators and supervisors belong to other affiliated groups such as Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) or Supervised Visitation Network.  ["Hence, the word "ring" is appropriate.]

OK, that’s enough for now.  Understanding that there will be:

  • Certain Influential People
  • Purpose — Parents Forever, Y’all need counseling…
  • Generally, a Nonprofit
  • Associations that work with each other often in individual cases.
  • The stage is often set OUTSIDE the courtroom in the Child SUpport offices, or elsewhere..  The 20 minutes of fame in a custody hearing (my state at least) will leave an individual who does not understand some basics of this system distraught, betrayed, immobilized with shock, perhaps, or caught in endless rings of trying to “explain” to a judge (or mediator, etc.)  that they just don’t understand the facts of the case.  (Who said the facts were relevant?  Where’d THAT idea sneak into the counseling agenda?)
What results, collectively, is either a SEMBLANCE of a real court (see Toronto experience, my last post), or a kangaroo court.  This is serious, it’s problemmatic — it’s a lack of an impartial judiciary AND lack of accountability as to whose money went where.  Legislation, and legislators absolutely DO get involved.

GOING BACK TO THE HUMAN BODY ANALOGY:

For what it’s worth — notice that the various diagrams may be about different systems, with different colored diagrams, and different labels — but some things are similar.  Let’s talk about that:

  1. The “vessels” carry fluids.  What are the vessels themselves, and what is the fluid?
  2. The network is continually growing and expanding (consider blood vessels, for example).
  3. What’s pumping the information through and through?
  4. What are the fluids?
A few suggestions — mine, just ways of thinking about it.  First of all, understand that the people involved are taught to think of it as a system, so we might as well, also…. Because it is.
  1. Vessels include:    Associations, Nonprofit Corporations.  Vessels include the INTERNET (by which communications and downloadable information is circulated).  These connections are sometimes funded by “Technical Assistance” grants.  The “Technical Assistance,” from what I can tell, is to set up the structures to carry certain information (fluids).  For example, websites with links and information on them.  For example hiring staff, making connections, and so forth.
  1. Another “Vessel” is a publication.  Can be on-line.  For example, the voice of the AFCC appears to be the Family COurt Review, among other things.
  2. Another “vessel” is established curricula which can then be marketed, i.e.  “Kids Turn” is the nonprofit, but the classes themselves are the material.
  • By “Train the Trainer” sessions, things are disseminated.  The funding is deductible sometimes as Continuing Education (MCLE, etc.).
  • The HeartBeat of the Family Law — AFCC conferences and trainings (associated, state, and annual).  And others
  • WHAT ARE THE “FLUIDS?”
I feel its very helpful to think in terms of ideas — and monies — as substances flowing.  I”m going to say some of the “fluids” are the rhetoric, the terminology of family law.  Other things that obviously flow are funds, finances. and so forth. Grants systems.
This is enough for one post.  If this has been helpful, please comment.     Obviously several elements are missing BUT if you can get a good system of labeling — THIS is an association, THAT is a nonprofit, THIS nonprofit is taking federal grants and foundation monies, and so forth — it will help.
After a time, I noticed the personnel talk so similar that you can just about predict — this is a highly-placed AFCC member.  THAT idea came from San Francisco, THIS one from Los Angeles, THAT one from washington, D.C. — HHS, or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Bush Presidency.
I also forgot to mention the role of the universities and institutes in all this.  An “institute” is likely to be a portion of a university that certain “foundations” said, “study this, I”m going to fund it, we want this policy to be set in motion.”
Really, mastering any field — or language — has a lot to do with mastering the basic jargon.  Then it’s a matter of application.
To cut to the point,. given what I’ve seen (or looked up) in the last few months about the Domestic Violence Field, I believe that people should simply not mention it. Why? any time you burp, f*rt, or drool the word “DV” — it’s going to end up somehow or other being handled by an organization that has been centralized, diluted, and may LOOK like a battered women’s advocacy group — but probably no longer is.  They’ve become large.  It’s going to be about the money somehow, some way and the thing (individually) is to get a grasp of where it is in YOUR case and YOUR county/jurisdiction.
I have often wondered  why the good, decent, ethical, honest judges don’t just “out” the AFCC-CRC Mafia.  I’m not sure whether they’re too busy to understand, or too smart to speak up.  Or they forgot what it meant to have a nontherapeutic judicial proceeding.  Or they have threats on their lives for doing so, which is not inconceivable.
PS.  In a human body, if one set of pipes ruptures and leaks its contents out into another area of the body — particularly an area without its own drainage — serious problems can result.  Consider:  Hernia, or Hemorrhage.    Consider if you gut leaks (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”).  The contents of the alimentary canal shouldn’t be in your body cavities.  If a lung has a puncture, how can you breathe?  If an AORTA has a puncture, you’ll die, pretty much, right?
Well guess what — the US, IRS-enforced currency has cancer — to start with, let alone when more money is being printed.  It’s a permanent debt situation, and Obama is still, like preceding Presidents, recommending more money to areas that few people report on, while talking scarcity in other areas.
But as to the family law system, it began off-center, and it’s has sprung a serious “language” leak.   The language of law is important — it echoes the language of the constitution.  It’s part of the container of the ideas, including the Liberty idea.  If practices undermine the ideas, then the liberty goes.  
If the courts are to dispense therapy and “help” couples so misled as to actually wish to separate  — and this is the case, at least so the professionals imply in the conferences, for example, in how to deal with ‘flawed parents..”  — then they are desiring to function as the HEAD (without taking responsibility for it).
They take charge of the problem-children, i.e., the adults & parents coming to the courts.  They seek to counsel, guide, lead, reform, advise, and therapize.  Right?
That’s the function of the brain.  So here’s what I have to say about this type of attempt to Train others Brains:
(Soundoff:)First of all, it helps to understand the elitism behind the introduction of a multitude of “experts” into the divorce arena.  The language one hears is of a helpless populace, helpless parents, helpless children, and justice that isn’t streamlined and centralized enough.  Baloney!  Phooey!   That’s the wet dream of an underemployed therapist concerned about retirement.  People are not all idiots, helpless, numb, dumb, and so forth — except for those with a membership in a certain set of professional associations that sit in the family court oak tree.   People (both parents & kids) are human beings that are born and raised in a variety of institutions, and now SOME of these have been around long enough that its’ quite possible that the family law itself contributed to major, ongoing, generationallytransmitted problems that will continue to bring the next set of fighting over kids parents into these halls again.(end, soundoff:)
After this, we can go through some basic AFCC Vocabulary.  Another day.  Probably starting with this one:

AFCC Vocabulary, Pt. 1:  “High-Conflict”

Family Law Modeling Behavior — In which Toronto Copies USA.  Why, again?

Toronto Tries the “New” One-Stop-Shop concept: Integrating Domestic Violence and Family Law Cases

with one comment

Just a little break in my relentless pursuit of Minnesotan, Nevadan, and Californian promotions of Justice Centers and other collaborative endeavors, through various nonprofit corporations and with federal support…  Let’s look at One-Stop Shops in Canada.

At a Canadian-Irish Family Law Conference in 2010, the Hon. Geraldine Waldman – – spoke.  Her background:

she worked with many community groups and other organizations engaged in promoting law reform in the area of family law, and in particular in the area of domestic violence. Justice Waldman was appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice in 1991. She has presided in the family court in Toronto since 1998. She is Local Administrative Judge of the North York Family Court and the Chair of the Ontario Court of Justice Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Family Law. Justice Waldman is currently involved in the development of an integrated domestic violence court in Toronto Canada.

(There was one representative from the US, Debra McNabb, Circuit Court Referee from Michigan, speaking on:

Deborah Mc Nabb, Circuit Court Referee – ‘Out of the Mouth of Babes; The Evolution of a Child’s Right to be Heard in Michigan Family Court’

 

Here is a “what and why of the proposed integrated domestic violence court” by this judge.  (IT’s short enough…):

The court is modeled on similar courts operating in several states in the United States including New York, Vermont and Idaho. The court is based on a one-family-one-judge concept. Simply put, both the criminal and family case will be dealt with in one court before a single judge. While one judge will case manage both the family and criminal cases, each will be dealt with separately. The cases are not combined but they do appear before the single judge in sequence

In addition to the usual resources, the court will also have a community resource coordinator who will assist litigants in accessing appropriate resources and may assist in monitoring the litigant’s compliance with referrals.

This very much sounds to me like the courts want to refer clients out to services, and will be developing ongoing relationships with non-judicial, non-legal service providers.  I am wondering whether these are government-supported (and whether there is no profit motive influencing referrals).  I am wondering about the US Models they are basing this after.  I am wondering about the various community resources they say will, in effect, “handle” criminal domestic violence issues in family contexts, and what is their slant. ….  The next paragraph is a pop quiz.  Does any category of professional catch your ear, if you are a regular visitor to my blog (and know what I complain loudly about….)?

The court has been developed over the past eighteen months through consultation with a broad based community board. The board includes judges, family lawyers, criminal lawyers, Legal Aid Ontario representatives, Victim Witness Assistance Program personnel, police, probation, domestic violence victim advocates, parenting skills providers, mental health services, shelters, community organizations such as Mothercraft, Elizabeth Fry, and Family Services Association, court services, and representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

??

Let’s run that by again….. Can you see the AFCC input?  next to the “domestic violence victim advocates.”

The court has been developed over the past eighteen months through consultation with a broad based community board. The board includes judges, family lawyers, criminal lawyers, Legal Aid Ontario representatives, Victim Witness Assistance Program personnel, police, probation, domestic violence victim advocates, parenting skills providers,* mental health services, shelters, community organizations such as Mothercraft, Elizabeth Fry, and Family Services Association, court services, and representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

 

*(under Parenting Skills Providers, a 2004 article, as to Ontario):

Family Court clinics connected to courts in various provincial centres may provide programs for children. Since 1999, each unified family court in the province contracts for four services, including parent education programs. It is not known if any of these programs include children’s program components.

-  Until recently, Toronto’s Family Court Clinic partnered with the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to provide For Kids’ Sake, an intensive therapy-based program for children in distress as a result of their parents’ high conflict separation and divorce. (there’s the AFCC vocabulary….).   

 

 

Oddly, although we know that child protection and domestic violence issues overlap, this court specificaly separates out child protection cases…

IDV COURT: (from court’s descriptive site)

  • The family will appear before a single dedicated judge for both the domestic violence criminal charge and the family (custody, access and/or support) matters.
  • The criminal and family cases will be heard on the same day in the same courtroom.
  • The IDV Court Judge will have more complete information about the family.
  • Having one Judge will enhance consistency between family and criminal court orders. (diluting which one, then? — probably the criminal)
  • The IDV Court Judge will be able to monitor the family. This will increase accountability of the accused and enhance the complainant’s safety.
  • The IDV Court will include a Community Resource Coordinator, who will assist the parties in finding resources and services to assist with their problems.
  • If a party qualifies for legal aid, Duty Counsel will be available for the family cases and, for the accused only, for the criminal cases.
  • The family will have access to family supports and services including Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) matters and court counter services.
  • There will be access to support in the criminal cases including the Victim/Witness Assistance Program (V/WAP),Partner Assault Response (PAR), security, and court counter services.
  • Delays in hearing the family and criminal matters should be reduced.

Well, who pays the Community Resource Coordinator?  And is the relationship with the “community resources” being referred to, untained by conflict of interest?

New court integrates domestic violence and family court cases

Want to bet some of the same language (borrowed from?) the US shows up here?  Like  holistic, non-adversarial, streamlined, calling this an “initiative” and it’s about better serving families?

Let’s see:

The Canadian Press

Date: Friday Jun. 10, 2011 2:38 PM ET

TORONTO — In a first for the Canadian justice system, a new initiative in Ontario aimed at minimizing the hardships for families in crisis is merging some family court and domestic violence cases.

The Integrated Domestic Violence Court will serve people who are dealing with family court issues as well as a criminal charges related to domestic abuse.

Note the word “violence” has already been downgraded to “abuse.” . . . . . . Although somehow a crime / criminal charge is in the mix.

It will run on a pilot project basis in one Toronto courthouse with an eye to expanding in the province if it’s deemed a success. In the works for a year-and-a-half, the court heard its first case Friday.

The province, the judiciary and the many community organizations involved in establishing the court hope it will resolve such difficult issues faster, with less conflict and more affordably with a one-case, one-judge approach.

WHAT other “many community organizations”?  Is it designated in the Canadian Constitution that local organizations set judicial standards, and due process standards?

Faster, cheaper, and one-judge system.  That’s great if your judge is honest & ethical.

“We think that that will lead to a more integrated, holistic approach, a greater understanding of what the issues are in the family, more consistent orders,” said Peter Griffiths, the associate chief justice of the Ontario Court of Justice. (note — click on link, and a link advertising this court shows at top)

Yep, I expected that word “holistic.”  However, if something has “integrity” it’s “whole” (and integer is a whole number, not a fraction, or fracture splinter of one, right?).  “holistic” implies it’s tending towards being “hole” — meaning more likely the “hole” that the process of seeking justice just was dumped into.  What I suspect this is going to mean is, this is where the therapists etc. can get better in, to smooth out the rough edges of, say, criminal charges against a family member.

It can create havoc in the family,” Griffiths said. “The emphasis in this court really is on a more mediated, less adversarial system.

Mediation is an AFCC thing.  It’s their emphasis, overall.  These are definitely buzz-words — more mediation, lower conflict, and the adversarial system.  How can a victim of domestic violence be forced (or reconditioned) to see the perpetrator of it as less than an “adversary”?  THe act of violence is adversarial in nature.  As is seeking custody…

The havoc caused in US (from my point of view) comes from the family law’s clear intent to undermine the criminal law’s effect and impact.  At least this is waht the primary family law association, AFCC, declares on its website as an intent.  Consequently, a person can understand that a crime has been committed, considering the penal code, but should their case land in family court (which is where many of them get shunted to, if children are involved), then it wasn’t a crime, it was a family dispute that requires mediation and access visitation help to the noncustodial parent.  If he’s male….

It can be quite onerous on anyone, let alone the victim of a domestic assault, to have to be involved with two completely separate court cases, said family lawyer Lauren Israel, who was on the project’s advisory committee.

“The clients that this court will be servicing are under tremendous emotional stress and I think that trying to . . . minimize the stress involved in process will benefit everybody,” she said.

Well, if someone has actually been violent towards a spouse or child, and has committed a crime against that spouse/partner or child (or the child(ren) witnessed it) let that person feel some stress, for a change.  Because that behavior is evil.  It’s appropriate to feel stress when one has committed a crime.  If, however, there is a fair legal system and one has NOT committed a crime, then although the tension is equally high, then the truth can come out and one could be exonerated.

However, in this “mediator-involved” system the power goes to the hands of the mediator.  Who owns (pays) the mediator’s allegiance gets the win in court, generally.     that’s hugely stressful on the victim(s) of any real crimes, knowing that their safety and futures depends on a third party’s input (at least as it’s done in the US).

However, more relevant is, who is Lauren Israel?

1998 article tells of a mother jailed for contempt of a court order, though she claims didn’t breach it.  Child support arrears seems to have been a factor. The article is on a site called “Dadscanada.” The mother being jailed has an 18 month old baby with new husband, who had to take off work; the father got custody of the 4 year old while Mom was doing her time….  Attorney Lauren Israel was called in to help the mother

Mom gets 60 days for denying Dad access to their daughter

February 28, 1998, BY PATRICIA ORWEN, in The Toronto Star

….
She, however, maintained she always complied with the order, except when the child – who is asthmatic was sick.

She was jailed Monday after a hearing in a Brampton court. …

Barbosa, who was allowed only a short telephone interview from behind a plexiglass wall in the visitor’s room of the jail, said she fears that both her children will he emotionally scarred by her legal battle with the father and, now, by her jailing.

Tuesday is Britney’s 5th birthday.

“What will she feel when I’m not there?” asked Barbosa, who has always been a stay-at-home mother to Britney. “

Her mother, Nancy Tempelmann, has contacted Toronto family lawyer Lauren Israel.

She has also enlisted the support of the mothers’ right group Mothers Against Fathers In Arrears. [MAFIA]

Dadd says he has kept his child support payments up to date.

When told about the case, Israel said she had never heard of any woman receiving a 60-day sentence for such an offence.

“It’s very unusual,” she said.

More about this new court — it’s not a trial court.  If the accused person wants a trial, they can go back to a “real” court.  This one was based on a model in New York.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said the court is largely aimed at helping women, who are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, but will also benefit children and the family unit as a whole.

“You want to hold offenders accountable for what they’ve done,” he said in an interview. “You want to safeguard victims and families from any future harm, but you also want to resolve the issues that are outstanding as effectively as you can so that families can get on with the future.”

As someone who works with women who are victims of domestic violence, Lisa Manuel said the court is “well overdue.”

“The concept of an integrated court is wonderful because that really meets the needs of women,” said Manuel, the director of the family violence program at Family Service Toronto.

It can be a challenge to physically navigate between the two courts because in some cities they’re not even in the same building, let alone trying to deal with the stress of such situations, she said.

Manuel said she has heard of instances where in order to comply with both a custody order and a restraining order, one parent takes a child to a parking lot and the other parent is waiting at the far end. The child then has to walk from one end to the other so neither of the orders are violated, she said.

The court, which will be held in the courthouse at 311 Jarvis St., in Toronto, is thought to be unique in Canada and was developed based on a model in place in New York. It will also have a community resource worker who can connect families to services that address the issues that brought them to court in the first place.

Who is to say what issues brought them to court?  According to the description:  1.  Domestic violence or “abuse”, and 2.  Custody.  These usually go together, like a knockout punch.  One — defend from domestic violence; Two — have the person just sought protection from seek custody of the children.

Participation in the court is voluntary and it is not a trial court. So if the person charged with domestic violence wants to go to trial instead of pleading guilty, that case would be sent back to criminal court.

In the early stages, cases will be heard in the court every other Friday. Divorce and family property cases will still be heard in Superior Court.

More information, on searching the name of this court.  Apparently there are already “domestic Violence Courts” but this one integratees custody matters also?

DadsCanada claims that the Ontario Legal Aid is funded in part by the Attorney’s Office and a (private nonprofit?) “The Law Society of Upper Canada.” They believe this legal aid is weighted towards females….

From the Attorney General’s site:

Ontario’s Domestic Violence Court (DVC) program is the most extensive DVC program in Canada. It facilitates the prosecution of domestic assault cases and early intervention in abusive domestic situations, provides better support to victims and increases offender accountability.

In a DVC program, teams of specialized personnel, including police, Crown attorneys, Victim/Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) staff, probation services, Partner Assault Response (PAR) program staff and community agencies, work together to ensure priority is given to the safety and needs of domestic assault victims and their children.

An operational DVC includes the following components:

  • A Domestic Violence Court Advisory Committee
  • Specially trained domestic violence Crowns, VWAP staff, and interpreters
  • Specialized evidence collection and investigation procedures by police
  • Case management procedures to coordinate prosecutions and ensure early intervention
  • Partner Assault Response intervention program
  • Expanded training for police, Crowns, VWAP staff, court staff, Probation and Parole staff, and interpreters

There is now a Domestic Violence Court Program in each of the province’s 54 court jurisdictions.

(the “PAR” Partner Assault Response” in the US would be called a “Batterers Intervention Program.”  Described as:

“Partner Assault Response (PAR) programs, a component of Ontario’s Domestic Violence Court program, are specialized counselling and educational services offered by community-based agencies to people who have assaulted their partners.  Offenders are ordered to attend the PAR program by the court.  PAR programs aim to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable for their behaviour.

The 16-week long program gives offenders the opportunity to examine their beliefs and attitudes towards domestic abuse, and to learn non-abusive ways of resolving conflict. 

While an offender is in the PAR program, staff offer their partner help with safety planning, referrals to community resources, and information about the offender’s progress.”

Family COurts, apparently, are separate in Ontario, as described here:

In Ontario, family law matters are heard in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, or the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice, depending on the issue in dispute and where you are located in the province.

Family Court (sometimes referred to as the unified Family Court)
There are 17 Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice locations in Ontario: Barrie, Bracebridge, Brockville, Cobourg, Cornwall, Hamilton, Kingston, L’Orignal, Lindsay, London, Napanee, Newmarket, Oshawa/Whitby, Ottawa, Perth, Peterborough, and St. Catharines.Where the Family Court branch exists, the court hears all family law matters, including divorce, division of property, child and spousal support, custody and access, adoption, and child protection applications. In all other sites across the province, family law matters are divided between the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.
MICOD/AFCC Annual Conference; Custody and High Conflict Families:  Strengths, Challenges and Options, Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.; St. Paul, MN

Under “helping families” in two places, the parallel to educating parents about the impact of divorce on children seems to be here:

NEWS

Brampton and Milton’s family courts are now helping parents better understand the court system and how to help their children when going through separations or divorces.

A local team of justice partners, including judges, Legal Aid Ontario staff, lawyers, mediators and court staff are working together to:

  • Provide mandatory information sessions to help families learn about the effects of separation on children and the options available to them to resolve their disputes
  • Evaluate each family’s situation and recommend the most appropriate services
  • Offer volunteer senior lawyers, called dispute resolution officers, who will help families find less confrontational ways of resolving disputes before appearing in court
  • Provide greater access to legal advice and alternatives to litigation, such as mediation.

These new services began helping families this week. As part of Ontario’s family justice reforms, these two family courts were selected to be the first to help improve family justice and develop new initiatives to help reduce the stress on families. These initiatives in Brampton and Milton will help inform future improvements to court locations across the province.

QUOTES

“These improvements will help families resolve difficult issues faster and with less emotional stress when their relationships break down.”
– Chris Bentley, Attorney General

“Legal Aid Ontario recognizes that there is a clear need to make improvements to our system of family justice, and we are pleased to support these significant steps in family justice reform.”
– John McCamus, Chair of Legal Aid Ontario

Learn about how the McGuinty government’s investment of an additional $150 million in Legal Aid Ontario will help to ensure Ontarians have access to the legal services they need and drive reforms in the family and criminal courts.

And here is from “SLAW.ca” “Canada’s on-line legal magazine”, a writer who actually called the concept a One-Stop Shop.   This is basically the entire post, which raises some good questions.

Edward Prutschi May 18, 2011  (Mr. Prutschi practices as a criminal defence lawyer in an Ontario firm)…

Integrated Domestic Violence Court – One‑Stop Courthouse Shopping

Regular readers of my SLAW column will know that, while I’m an ardent supporter of initiatives that enhance the efficiency of our criminal justice system, I am also a regular critic of how that same system deals with the deluge of domestic-related charges that clog our courts on a daily basis. For these very reasons, a promising new pilot project has recently caught my attention.

The Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDV) has ambitious plans to combine cases from two of Toronto’s busiest courthouses: the criminal courts of The Old City Hall and the family courts housed at 311 Jarvis Street. While shying away from the most complex issues that arise can arise (criminal trials, divorce, family property, and child protection proceedings) the IDV will have authority to conduct case conferences, make temporary orders, and final orders on consent of the parties in family cases for custody, access, and support along with hearing bail variations, conducting criminal pre-trials and accepting guilty pleas.

Numerous potential advantages accrue by hearing the criminal and family cases in a single courtroom before a single judge. First and foremost, the presiding jurist enjoys the benefit of a far more complete picture of the family situation. Allegations of domestic violence can be better assessed and addressed in the context of the underlying (and frequently related) stressors that are part of the baggage of many family proceedings. There is the potential for substantial time savings and reduced court appearances which should translate into reduced legal fees for clients mired in the system. An integrated system also completely eliminates the common problem of inconsistent orders where the family court requires access and contact between the parties while the criminal court bail prohibits it.

At this embryonic stage in the pilot program, a number of important questions remain unanswered. All parties must consent to the process before being transferred to the IDV and approval by the criminal crown attorney is also required. What factors will be considered by the crown in assessing which cases are screened eligible for the IDV? What will be the Crown’s involvement once a case has been transferred? Where will jurists for the new court be drawn from – the family system, criminal courts, or both?

This last question raises particularly thorny issues as many judges within either of the two systems have little or no experience with the contrasting theme. Can a criminal court judge who spent her entire career before being appointed to the bench as a defence lawyer or crown be reasonably expected to understand the intricacies of family support orders? Similarly, will defence lawyers and crowns trust a career family lawyer and family court judge to make appropriate rulings on bail conditions and criminal sentences?

On a practice-management level, it is also unclear whether the IDV anticipates having clients represented by separate criminal and family counsel or whether the expectation is that a single lawyer will be responsible for both legal areas. Clients working on a tight budget (which, if we are not kidding ourselves, will be the vast majority) will be sorely tempted to seek out ‘jack-of-all-trades’ counsel even though they may be better served by experienced counsel with focussed expertise in these vastly different specialities.

While questions abound and bumps in the road are inevitable, the Ontario Courts are to be commended for having the courage to engage in some creative thinking on how to address the complex interdisciplinary problems posed by domestic violence. This is one experiment whose results are worth watching closely.

 

It’s obvious that Canada does study its southern, North American, neighbor for court models (not to mention that AFCC also has Canadian members, conferences, and of course influence).  But for the dubious, here is a paper back in 2004, from the Canadian “Department of Justice” (“Justice.gc.ca”) with French/English links, and it’s called:

 

BACKGROUND PAPER

High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration

2004-FCY-1E

It studies several States in the US:  Idaho (first), Oregon, Washington, California (of course).  It then presents a case for “Parent Coordinators and Enforcement Models” (Under 6.1.5) and mentions Arizona (states in which forced-co-parenting is known to have resulted in family homicides, i.e., Dawn Axsom case), Michigan, and again refers to Oregon, cites Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC, Board member, I think), and citing a paper “Interventions for High-Conflict Families: A National Perspective.”

Everyone uses the term, it seems.  Here, a Lexis-Nexis abstract combines “parent education” “high-conflict” and of course “parental alienation”  Here’s a California “CFCC” (2003) publication, with one article called:

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families: How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court Lyn R. Greenberg, Jonathan W. Gould, Hon. Robert Alan Schnider, Dianna J. Gould-Saltman & David A. Martindale.  (Basically, they are looking ways to prescribe mental health treatment — see?

49 = The authors {some of who are mental health professionals standing to profit from the recommendations} explore the proper role of mental health professionals providing treatment of children and families involved in custody and visitation cases and offer a framework {justification} for judicial officers to use in ordering and assessing appropriate treatment.

This is hardly suprising — the functional purpose of the family law system, from what I can tell, is to take situations involving criminal actions (which are the most highly contested ones), milk the $$ out of it, and make sure that it’s reframed as a FAMILY problem, when at least in the U.S., we are supposedly under a Constitution with some protections for rights of individuals, even if they happen to have given birth or sired children.   Are all criminal codes “off” & less relevant til all children are grown?

Really now — the  constant reference to “parents” or “families” as high-conflict when in fact, the policy of family law to insist (regardless of whether one parent is actually abusive, violent, or has threatened to kill the other parent, kidnap, etc.) that all MUST co-parent or give up their kids to strangers — is what creates the very long-term, chronic stress situations ideally calling for mental health intervention.  “Voila!” and they have just the plan for who…

 

Either way, that article  is a publication of the Judicial Council of California, which has been having its own problems recently, many of them financial.   In fact an Alliance of California Judges assembled itself in 2009, and put out a piece called “who really runs the judicial branch?  The head of the judicial council, Vickrey, was asked to step down by two assembly persons, citing a statewide (computerized) case management system (CCMS) that ballooned from a cost of $260 million (2004) to $1.9 billion…. (Link, here), incl.  ” Czuleger charged that the agency’s “dual bookkeeping and failure to be forthcoming” have made its honesty suspect, while the administrators have shown “a pattern of incompetence continuing to this very day.” and “We need to face the larger truth: our judicial governance structure is broken,” wrote Judge Charles Horan from Los Angeles Superior Court, by far the largest court in California and in the nation as a whole. “Some of our leaders appear arrogant, and others too accustomed to power. Things must change.

Sounds like they got their own “high-conflict” issues within one state’s court system, and the largest in the US, too.  Should I recommend they sit through one of their colleague’s intervention classes, called (well repurposing the title) “People in the Middle” and how stressful this is for the taxpayers?

Anyhow, several Judicial Council of California / AOC / CFCC members (publication above, 2003) are also AFCC members, i.e., high-ranking…..

 

While I’m sure that this paper exists, the term “High-Conflict” and the egotistic insistence on “intervening” with the bad (they have conflict) parents is an AFCC specialty.  I searched the title, above, and found that a MN chapter of AFCC (in July 2010) had a special meeting on it, with invited speaker:  See:   “Intensive Interventions for High Conflict Parents”  The speaker, AFCC Board of Directors, editorial board of “Journal of Child Custody” and co-chair of a Task Force (AFCC-initiatied) developing guidelines for court-ordered therapists.  He is the big draw in this conference, and works out of Palo Alto, CA.  “Parenting Coordination” is under a big push these days (though not the first year it was so) and there was apparently a “special issue” of the journal on Parenting Coordination.

Anyhow, this Dr. Matthew J. Sullivan, is spoke on (or at least the 2010 conference brochure advertised he would):

Dr. Sullivan has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultationin family law cases….

Dr. Sullivan has served on the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination and the American Psychological and American Bar Association working group on legal and psychological interventions with children and families. His website, http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com (type it in yourself, I’m not hyperlinking!)/

Searching the term led also to a woman who’s all about AFCC if you scan the bio below:  Judy Sherwood:  The terms are getting predictable; one could almost throw them up in the air, catch them, re-assemble them at will and come up with the title of a past AFCC conference, such as:

  • AFCC MN Chapter:  Is it Abuse, Alienation, and / or Estrangement:  A Decision Tree – 2009. or,
  • MICOD/AFCC Annual Conference; Custody and High Conflict Families:  Strengths, Challenges and Options, Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.; St. Paul, MN  {{author of Mom’s House/Dad’s House, marketed all over US through courts, etc.}}

Here’s one indicating they are playing the role of a legendary (Biblical) king, “Solomon” who asked for wisdom of God, and reputedly got it, as examined in a famous case where the king had to decided which was the real mother.  He lifted a sword over his head to split the baby in half.  The real mother ceded her rights to let the child live, and was identified, and the child returned to her . . . . . . .  Can you believe it, the analogy is taken seriously here?  The whole theme of the association is to spilt the children in half and call in the referees, for personal profit and prestige, etc…. (and to keep the professional niches going….).

  • Solomon’s Surrogates:  Minnesota Association of Custody Resolution Specialists.   {{Solomon is gone, so guess who volunteers to stand in…how ironic — how narcissistic.  If Solomon, or someone of that stature existed, then there would be fewer family court disasters; he could tell a good (real) mother from a fake one……}}

From what I can tell, this was also probably deductible as continuing education in how to intervene with families, alongside “Advanced Topics in Parenting Consulting.”

Here (OK, OK) is Dr. Sparks’ “Parentingcoordinator.com” site.  Please note — he has no legal training, but is in the “mental health” field, and takes personal credit for pioneering the field of “parenting coordination” across US and of course elsewhere (typical).  Also note, recently inducted into the AFCC hall of fame (board of directors).  Obviously, this practice expands the available areas of practice, regardless of what it does to parents to be subjected to this, year after year:

California Parenting Coordinator.com

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

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

  1. Numerous court appointed roles – custody evaluator, mediator, special master, and coparent counselor and consultant – in courts across California,
  2. Expert testimony in custody situations in jurisdictions across the U.S. Dr. Sullivan provides consultation services to forensic professionals, Family Law attorneys and parents in the context of child custody issues.
  3. Numerous articles, published and trainings provided at numerous national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorceParent CoordinationForensic Consultation and Child Alienation.
  4. Dr. Sullivan completed a year in 2007 providing the California Rule of Court 5.225 mandatory training of over 200 Custody Evaluators in California.

He served on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Task Force on Parenting Coordination and was appointed in 2008 to a joint working group of the American Psychological Association and the American Bar Association to develop innovative psychological and legal interventions for parents, children and families.

Dr. Sullivan is currently the co-chair of the AFCC’s task force on Court-involved therapy. The goals are to provide the first guidelines for this role. He was just appointed to a three-year term of office on the Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s Board of Directors.

Academic Background

  1. A.B. from Stanford, Human Biology with a focus on Neurobiology
  2. Ph.D. in Clinical & Community Psychology from the University of Maryland, 1985.
  3. Palo Alto Veterans Administration internship with an emphasis on Family Systems

Forget the legal part . . . . . . .  . In practice, it’s all about psychology.

*Remembering that a psychologist is often a would-be psychiatrist.  They can’t prescribe medicine, but it helps the ego, I’m sure to continue to use words like “forensic” and see clients as subjects. …  Notice also the co-occurring positions, as good a reason as any that I think the whole dang system ought to be exposed (even to parents with “high conflict”) and boycotted, leaving the practitioners as high and dry as some of us were when we walked in thinking that this had anything to do with law.

Got it?

What I’d recommend doing: simply get a hold of an AFCC list (or join it, is one way) and find out who’s a member in your locale.  Quiz them on a few things (like some of the Bill of Rights).  Find out the businesses in your area taking court-referrals and make sure no judges (etc.) are on the boards that might also have an open case in front of them.  Track the local county funding, payrolls, you name it.  If the state that is being used as a MODEL for how to run a family law (California is definitely one of them) has its own judges saying “who runs the courts in California” and being caught overbilling, double-billing, and a few other things — what does that say of anyone who is copying that model?  Eh???

(And if this doesn’t work, I”ll go sic Ellen Pence on them….)

Get this:  we have “no-fault divorce” which should mean, low-conflict.  But, the professionals basically blame the parents for divorcing.  Then they talk about non-adversarial, and set up a system where the only way to succeed is to exert undue influence on whichever court professional holds the control of your case presently — which is often not the judge, but who the judge is in business with.  Safety, desire to stay alive, or physically emotionally intact (cf  “LIFE in the “LIFE, LIBERTY & PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS” motto) is no excuse for being a bad parent (i.e., has a conflict with the other one).

 

And this from the country whose President did a pre-emptive war, or so.  I mean, think about it?  What’s the issue with Conflict?  You injure me, threaten me, destroy or steal something of mine, of course there’s a conflict, if I’m sentient and not too numb from the last scenario.

.  Keep this up a few years, and more conflict — I will want out.  Now some mental health professionals say, I must stay back in for the kids, and the kids are exposed to the same treatment?  And while we all continue working out “who’s the boss” and which is more important – jumping through court-ordered (capricious) hoops and being potentially labeled a “good” doggie (meanwhile rapidly losing a sense of personal integrity and self-respect), or objecting properly, because of the “conflict” with the mental health theme with the civil rights theme — and lose contact with one’s children.  (And work life). .. . . . .

??  Are you kiddin’ me?

(I may not be saying this too well — in fact, am definitely not — but something isn’t right about the unilateral objection (by mental healthprofessionals) to “conflict.”  What they really mean is unresolved conflicts that cause continuing struggle for dominance, combined with an inability to get free from the situation, or make it into something better, redemptive (etc.)

At some level, it seems they are incapacitating a whole population, focusing on the poor in particular.   Anyone willing to protect something worthwhile is going to run into conflict occasionally.  But they also can then develop some wisdom in how to stop continually running into conflict with the same people.  Typically, this is called leaving the situation, separation.

The family law situation is quite similar to many classroom situations in public schools across the country.  Kids are boxed in together with all different kinds of classmates, with each others’ issues, and no going out til the bell rings.  if the material is too boring (not advanced enough), there are different ways to handle this boredom.  There’s bullying, it’s acknowledged, and multiple problems.  Whereas, in a different scenario, with less force and compulsion, I think that the better sides of people to negotiate their way through life (even educational life) might happen.  Allowing a variety of languages and systems of meanings into the place –r ather than the codified, hierarchical, AFCC-generated artificial vocabulary for real-world situations, which is arranged and agreed upon in conferences, in publications half the litigants couldn’t afford (or don’t know exist), and so forth.

There’s GOTTA be a better way.

 

 

 

(This below relates more to the Canadian incident).

I looked up “Domestic Violence Advisory Committee” hoping to find Lauren Israel, family attorney.  I didn’t so far, but I did find that each DV court has a DVAdvisory Committee.  Here is one, and an article on The tendency to use “gender-neutral” language to describe violence against women.

It was prepared by two professors of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (one male, one female, both Ph.D.s)

Shifting Public Policy Direction: Gender-Focused Versus Bi-Directional Intimate Partner Violence

Transforming our Communities

A Report Prepared by

Walter S. DeKeseredy, Ph.D.
Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Walter.dekeseredy@uoit.ca

Molly Dragiewicz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Molly.dragiewicz@uoit.ca

March 2, 2009

©Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2009.

Introduction

Popular conceptions of violence as gender-neutral are increasingly becoming “common sense” in Canada (Minaker & Snider, 2006, p. 755). However, gender-neutral discourse distorts research on woman abuse, violence against same-sex partners, and on violence against men. The move to gender-neutral or bi-directional language is not merely semantic. Rather, it reflects an intense political struggle to typify violence against intimate partners that has serious pragmatic implications. Indeed, the endorsement of terminology effectively advocates certain responses to violence and abuse and precludes others.

“Prior to the 1970s, there was no name for violence against women by their husbands or partners (Denham & Gillespie, 1999, p. 6).

Although there has been episodic concern with various types of violence against women in Canadian history, women physically abused by male intimate partners and acquaintances were not of interest until recently to social scientists, practitioners, politicians, and the general public. It was, after all, only 40 years ago that an exhaustive bibliography on wife beating could be written on an index card (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002). Since then, predominantly because of feminist efforts, many residents of Ontario and other Canadian provinces are paying considerable attention to the various harms women experience during and after intimate relationships. One of the key results of this extensive work has been the reduction of some persistent injurious myths (e.g., only poor women are beaten). Yet, at the same time, some prominent researchers, journalists, and even some well known Canadian politicians continue to attract much publicity with arguments that include other highly problematic conceptions about the nature of violence against intimate partners.

What Martin D. Schwartz and Walter DeKeseredy stated 16 years ago still holds true today: “Right now, there is an important battle being waged over the nature of women’s behaviour and its role in woman abuse” (1993, p. 249). For example, while many people from different walks of life continue to use terms such as “woman abuse,” “violence against women,” and “male-to-female violence,” there are also many people who fervently oppose these names and contend that we should use gender-neutral terms like “family violence” or “intimate partner violence” (IPV). Their rationale is heavily based on some Canadian national survey data, which, at first glance, show that violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is sex-symmetrical. Of course, there are government agencies and community groups who also favour the labels “family violence” or “IPV” because they claim that these terms are more inclusive (Denham & Gillespie, 1999). Regardless of the reasons why people use gender-neutral terms, such language suggests that violence results from ordinary, everyday social interactions in the family or other intimate relationships that have gone wrong and that women are just as responsible for the problem as men (DeKeseredy, 2009; Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1996, Kurz, 1989).

Over the past 40 years, there have been significant shifts in the generally accepted definitions of woman abuse, and there have been passionate disagreements along the way. Even the term used here, “woman abuse,” is relatively recent. Before 1970, in Canada and other Western industrialized countries, there was no name for violence against women by their husbands or other intimate partners. Then, in the 1970s, feminists and others began to talk about violence against women and created the first emergency shelters for abused women. In the early and mid-1970s, women working at the community level used the terms “wife beating” and “wife battering” to describe the problem (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997; Walker, 1990). The term “battered” was borrowed from legal references to “assault and battery.” “Wife beating” referred to the way in which women who had been physically abused by their husbands might describe their own experiences.”

(ETC.
)

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Let’s Get Honest, The Emperor Has no Clothes (Foundations, “Nonprofits” and Your Constitution…)

leave a comment »

I thought it was time for a nice, short-winded

Post.  These are re-posts..  This is a pot-pourri, which pretty much also describes the feeding grounds of most courts these days…

(1)  Want to understand the courts? Read this: It’s “Foundational.”

(LINK is to my April 2010 post, “The Love of Money Spells Trouble,” which starts with a lead-in to Phoebe Factoids:)

Follow the trail!  Not your reptilian mammal brain!   Guess what reptiles are:  Cold-blooded.  They adapt to the environment.  Human beings are mammals.  They should be a little more independent.

Money is fine as a means to an end.  As an end itself, it tends to blind, and it gets pretty cold-hearted when that’s the end, forget the means…..and civil rights…

Despite all the hot-button, gut-wrenching, paper-selling issues in the news headlines, and on this blog, I consider my Phoebe Factoids post one of the most relevant.  It talks about what happened to two men who looked at the books, found them cooked, and some of the strategies to shut them up and shut them, their professions, and most especially, their story, down.

And I also noticed another link on this post, quoted here:

CPS Corruption and Human Trafficking Exposed in San Luis Obispo

Republicans Sam Blakeslee and Able Maldonado have teamed together for a child charity in the greater San Luis Obispo area named “The Family Care Connection”. While promoting this charity both politicians refuse to review corruption in the local CPS office.


Legislation gives states incentives under Title IV-E to increase the number of children adopted out from foster care.

OK?  Got it?  See yesterday’s post.  See life. Run, Jane, run.  See Spot jump.  Kids . . . $$ . . . Kids . . . . $$

Title IV funding provided to local CPS offices is being used for capturing and adopting out children. However, not all of these children are abused or neglected. Many children who are taken by CPS are not at risk or in any danger thus our Government is creating a form of “child trafficking”. Children are becoming a very “profitable commodity”.

This author is talking about the RICO aspect of current practices, and trust me, some legislation backs up some of those practices.  Beyond the legislation, are the loopholes that directs money to nonprofits where people steering that money also have a vested interest IN the nonprofits, or, are even employed by them.  For example, in CA, there’s that “First 5″ funding — for kids, right?  But somehow, it, too had scandal following the use of taxpayer funds…

Under section 1962(b) of the RICO Act it unlawful for a person to acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Since a RICO claim cannot be made in the absence of criminal activity many parents are being unjustly prosecuted in kangaroo courts so that children can remain in the “system”. Almost half of the children taken by CPS are being adopted out using this technique. Assemblyman Blakeslee and Senator Maldonado’s actions are protecting this practice by not responding to innocent desperate parents who have sought their assistance from improper removals by overeager Social Workers. These politicians have turned a blind eye to the CPS practices and to the children and families who are being abused by the CPS system they support.

Assemblyman Blakeslee’s office claims they have no involvement withCPS procedures, yet has contacted them when children from the “Family Care Network” are at risk of escaping foster care. Senator Maldonado thinks some parents are “terrorists” if they seek his help. Some children have chaperones with them at all times so they don’t try to run away to return home to their loving parents. The benefit of these unethical practices include: increased funding, full staffing, and support of their share of over 1.6 billion dollars would be lost if this corruption were exposed. This does not include the block grants exceeding 200 million dollars annually and other incentives. In a recent publication supported by Senator Maldonado and Assemblymember Sam Blakeslee The Family Care connection is asking people to write to Governor Schwarzenegger to speak out against a budget slash of 5% in foster care funding; while knowing the author of this article has been seeking their assistance for close to 6 months.

The standard practices of CPS offices throughout California and other states have been under scrutiny for the last several years. Since President Clinton placed into effect The Adoption Safe Families Act block grants have increased the number of children who are in the system. The state pays extra incentives for adopting out children over the age of 9 years old and additional funds if they require mental services or have other special needs. As a result of these block grants almost 50% of all children in CPS’s care are between the ages of 13-19 years old. Every day 36 children an hour are taken by CPS throughout the United States. In California alone more than 20% of all children are in foster care.

This is an industry, which has grown by huge proportions and must be reined in. The Gestapo type tactics currently being used by County and State agencies to increase revenue from federal sources may provide jobs today for the local economy but is having a negative impact on many levels. Good families are being torn apart and children are dying under the State’s care. When CPS takes children in error they rarely return them right away. The families are subjected to endless classes and programs whether or not they are guilty. The parents suffer great financial hardships because they are forced to retain expensive independent legal counsel. Many families lose their jobs and their homes trying to get their children out of the system. Some attorney’s are working in collision with CPS and help keep children in the system because it’s profitable, but most will agree that CPS is in fact corrupt.

Common practices of CPS agencies include: Not investigating before removing a child, taking children into state custody based upon here say, taking children from school without a “Protective Custody Warrant”, manipulating the Court system in criminal cases against the parents who are improperly prosecuted, obstruction of justice, fabricating documents, omitting facts, coercing minors, deception, isolating children from their parents, breaking bonds, traumatizing children, negative therapy, and placing children in unsafe foster homes. Children are not being evaluated right away by a doctor or seeing child advocates such as CASA. Social workers have been known to go on “witch hunts” against parents, influencing doctors, and ruining parents medical files. Many CPS agencies work in collusion with therapists who give parents false “mental conditions” which is used against them in court. Family court is “secret” so there is no jury or fair trial. Children are being heard in Judges chambers so many testimonies cannot be documented on Court record.

PLS.  NOTICE THIS:

Many judges who rule on family court cases also sit on the boards of phony nonprofit organizations created to generate state adoption/foster care grants via federal funding. San Luis Obispo CPS has politicians heading non-profit organizations and Judges hosting “Adoption Saturdays”. California’s 2003 Little Hoover Commission Report said up to 70 percent of children in foster care should never have been removed from their homes in the first place. Children who complain about foster care or beg to go home are either placed on psychotropic medication and are sometimes sent out of State. California’s website for children up for adoption can be found at: www.adoptuskids.org

Dr. Moore who is the National Director of legislative affairs for the American Family Rights Association is heading up chapters under the NAACP. Children’s rights organizations, parents, and independent non-profit agencies are also joining in the fight against CPS corruption and human trafficking. Senator Nancy Schaffer recently passed a new law that went into effect in Oklahoma and we in California are hopeful that our state will soon follow.

Senator Nancy Schaffer is now history — and HERS needs to be told, as well….  Her work isn’t, just her physical body, and her husband’s.

(2)

“The Profit in Non-profits and two men in Georgia — Lessons from Phoebe Factoids

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga

Charles Rehberg, a certified public accountant, and John Bagnato, a surgeon, are two ethical, humble and honest guys who stumble across financial information showing that Putney Hospital has $2.6 billion in cash and transferred millions to offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

. . .

June 17, 2009 | Issue 700

Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato stands outside Puntney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.  (PHOTO above)

NOT-FOR-PROFIT hospitals are actually for-profit hospitals, according to the new documentary Do No Harm. Rebecca Schanberg, who produced and directed this insightful film, tells the story of the two men who blew the whistle on Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Ga.

{{READ the whole link….}}

Rehberg and Bagnato discover that the hospital charges the uninsured more than the insured and aggressively hounds and sues patients who can’t pay. As a result, thousands of patients have had their wages garnished, leaving many of them destitute. This is how hospital executives get rich–on the backs of poor, uninsured patients.

Guess who knows plenty about that?  Certain families stuck in the court system…

And then, just like in a John Grisham novel, things get legal, ugly and scary. Rehberg walks out to the parking lot after work one night, and a vehicle pulls up and blocks his car. Two men jump out, identify themselves as FBI agents, call out his name and say that they have been investigating him. The men–who in reality were no longer with the FBI–say they work for Putney and ask him to get in their car and go to a meeting. If he cooperates, they promise the hospital won’t file a lawsuit against him.

. . .Sound like a threat to you?  Don’t you just “love” it when some [.... fill in the blank] threatens you?

Wisely, Rehberg doesn’t get in the car. As they leave, he’s warned, “If you’re not smart enough to do this for yourself, you should for your wife Wanda and your lovely family.” A bodyguard is hired to watch over Rehberg’s family.

Bagnato receives suspicious e-mails and phone calls from someone who hangs up every time he and his wife pick up, and the lock in his front door falls out.

The scare tactics and intimidation don’t work, and Bagnato and Rehberg hire Dickie Scruggs, the famous lawyer, who filed a class-action lawsuit against the tobacco companies and won one of the largest settlements ever.

Putney Hospital lawyers go on the offensive and file a lawsuit for $66 million against Rehberg. Next, the two men are indicted on trumped-up, ludicrous criminal charges of burglary, assault and harassing phone calls. Eventually, the charges are dismissed.

When someone gets inbetween the cash flow and the recipients, then the fangs come out, and we see who is really concerned about WHAT.

The word “nonprofit” is a tax designation.  Get it?  It’s a TAX designation, meaning this group pays LESS taxes, and others who do, pick up the tab if it comes to social services… “NONprofit” basically means, the US favors this set of organizations, as opposed to the poor sucker wage earners hoping to make it to retirement without being outsourced….  I’m not saying all wage-earning is bad; work is honorable, and the products and buildings we use are many of them valuable.  However, not enough people are talking about the alternatives to “jobs” just as our Presidents are not likely to talk about the very real alternatives to paying IT to educate everyone’s kids who can’t escape to something better, and calls that “Education” and “No Child Left Behind” and “Race to the Top,” when it’s nothing of the sort, on all three counts.  It’s a set of incentives to reform the landscape through re-setting values in the schools.

The tax, courts, child support, prison, and educational systems (from daycare on up) are interdependent.  They couldn’t function without each other.

So the question becomes, who’s in the driver’s seat?

I have answered that to my satisfaction, after full-immersion “baptism” in this system, and the answer is, primarily, the foundations…

JUST EVEN GOOGLE “Foundation and family law” and you will come up with something interesting.  Here’s one in Texas, talking about itself:

Legislative Mission
Founded in 2001, the Texas Family Law Foundation’s mission is to improve the family law practice and jurisprudence of the State of Texas. Since its inception, the Foundation’s involvement in the legislative process has increased, but the Foundation really took on the leadership role for family law policy in Texas during the 2009 Legislative Session.
The Foundation’s successes to date include:
  • Passed multiple bills proposed by the Family Law Section, including the bill that repealed “economic contribution” and a family law omnibus bill which included reforming the parent coordinator laws, possession and access issues, and military deployment.
  • Defeated and repaired numerous bills potentially damaging to family law and neutralized issues that would have been very dangerous to Texas families and the people that represent them.
  • Becoming the go-to source for legislative staff and members on family law questions.
  • Foundation analysis of over 300 bills filed in the Texas Legislature.
  • Volunteer cooperation with our professional lobby staff to monitor each and every committee hearing on legislation affecting your practice. Read first-hand accounts from three of our volunteers:
  • And most importantly, establishing a reputation of competence and reliability with Texas Senators, Representatives and their staffs. See what some of them had to say about us!
The Foundation’s leadership and volunteers work with our lobbying team to maintain an active presence at the State Capitol to protect your clients’ rights and your practice. While you represent your clients at the courthouse, we represent them at the Capitol. We also represent you by:
  • Monitoring changes in statutes and regulations and alerting you of any potential effects on your practice.
  • Communicating the importance of your issues to elected officials.
  • Shaping family law practice and jurisprudence in Texas.

2007 marked a new beginning – for the Foundation and for Texas Family Lawyers! Join now and help us grow!

Many people, though they hear the words, don’t know what a Foundation is, or its purpose.  For those who are clueless (except that watching Television, one can notice several PBS shows may be supported in part by them):

For example, from “Creating a Family Foundation” (2006)

(“GP Solo:  Law Trends & News:  Estate Planning.”):

An initial inquiry should address the client’s vision for this new foundation. Will it seek contributions from the public or be funded by one family? Does the client wish to retain control? Private foundations best suit clients who plan to fund the foundation themselves and control its operations. Although this article focuses on the formation and operation of a private non-operating foundation, several alternatives to a private foundation may be a better fit for an individual client. An understanding of the client’s intentions and goals for the future can help the practitioner properly advise the client and guide the client to the appropriate vehicle for its philanthropic vision. These alternatives include private operating foundations (created to directly carry on one or more charitable activities), supporting organizations (organized and operated to support one or more public charities), and publicly supported charities (which must meet specific support tests to maintain favorable public charity status). Another consideration is for the client to establish a donor advised fund with a community foundation. With a donor advised fund, a donor has the ability to recommend the charitable recipients of its fund without the burdens associated with the administration of a private foundation.

The client should be advised that the private foundation requires ongoing monitoring and administration and that many transactions between the donor and the foundation will be prohibited. Despite the restrictions, the advantages of the private foundation make it attractive to the wealthy client. The most important advantage is the degree of control the client can exert over the foundation.

Foundation, Fund, Nonprofit:  Community, Charitable, etc.  — these are legal and business terms that more of us ought to understand, because a good deal of these foundations and funds can put a politician — or a policy — in place.  There seems to be no question that some were very active in plummetting (propelling?) Senator Obama in Chicago to President Obama in Washington, D.C. — and many of them deal with real estate, also.

Wikipedia “foundation”

foundation (also a charitable foundation) is a legal categorization of nonprofit organizations that will typically either donate funds and support to other organizations, or provide the source of funding for its own charitable purposes.

This type of non-profit organization differs from a private foundation which is typically endowed by an individual or family.

(AND:)

Foundations in civil law

The term “foundation,” in general, is used to describe a distinct legal entity.

Foundations as legal structures (legal entities) and/or legal persons (legal personality), may have a diversity of forms and may follow diverse regulations depending on the jurisdiction where they are created.

In some jurisdictions, a foundation may acquire its legal personality when it is entered in a public registry, while in other countries a foundation may acquire legal personality by the mere action of creation through a required document. Unlike a company, foundations have no shareholders, though they may have a board, an assembly and voting members. A foundation may hold assets in its own name for the purposes set out in its constitutive documents, and its administration and operation are carried out in accordance with its statutes or articles of association rather than fiduciary principles. The foundation has a distinct patrimony independent of its founder.

Foundations are often set up for charitable purposes, family patrimony and collective purposes.

FOUNDATIONS get things done, yet can get it done without directly tying “whodunit” to the results.  A foundation has no “shareholders” (meaning, they don’t control, either).  It may hold assets in its own name, meaning, protects wealth for whoever funds it (etc.)

OK, now let’s look at some of the players in the Family Law / End DV Field:

  • Family Violence Prevention Fund

It took me a while to understand, this is a FUND.  It can do whatever the hell it wants to, including promoting fatherhood while claiming to prevent “family” violence and eliminating, almost, the discussion of mothers in policy talk, in accord with who’s FUNDING the fund and which grants it can get from HHS (believe me, that’s plenty…).

It has no obligation to actually stop family violence, or even address accurately its causes, help victims of domestic violence, or address RICO in the courts.  I used to get more upset about it, til I realized that money rules, and it does what the (> > > >) it wants to, including continuing to talk the same talk, while women are getting blown away, or kids ending up on life support after OTHER grants to the family courts ensure that Bad Dads as well as Good Dads have access, and pay off the California Judicial Council (which receives this particular grants series) to make it happen, thereby corrupting the concept of law and evidence in the family law arena (if it was indeed there to start with).

And, this it has done, and a lot more.  For example, here’s they are doing best practices for a “domestic violence” court with others, including “Battered Women’s Justice Project”…

Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Guidelines and Best Practices

Supposedly this is a good thing.  I happen to disagree, along with others, but here’s the PDF reasoning:

. . . The court is a crucial part of this system, bearing the ultimate responsibility for case outcomes. Moreover, the court has the opportuni- ty to leverage this interaction in many ways: it can address the needs of the many vic- tims coming through its doors, providing them links to services; monitor the behavior of perpetrators and mandate them to appropriate interventions; and use the authority of the judge to demonstrate publicly the commitment that the system has to end- ing domestic violence. In recent years, the domestic violence court has emerged as an innovation with the potential to make the most of this opportunity for improved court response.

The domestic violence court, in which a specialized caseload is handled by dedicated judges and court staff and linked to key partners, such as victim advocacy groups, has been receiving substantial interest from policymakers, judges, court administrators, and agencies involved in domestic violence cases.. . .

((one can speculate as to many reasons why))

The court also can build on an extensive collaboration with agencies and community-based organizations, in an effort to strengthen the entire community’s response to domestic violence.

((and steer federal funding to them, yeah . . . . . ))

What’s so great about a “domestic violence” court?  It’s kind of lost on me…

Sources I’ve read, and my experience tells me, that a “domestic violence court” is not even a good thing to start with.  For example, see, JusticeWomen — in Northern California:


Someone asked for a feminist analysis of domestic violence court.
Here’s ours:

Our DV Court, a Deceptive, Dangerous Sham

Our domestic violence court has been designed as a showcase judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers.

s in many other counties, our domestic violence court was established in response to intense criticism of our criminal justice system’s handling of domestic violence cases. Also, as in many other counties, our domestic violence court is a sham, an elaborate dog-and-pony show designed to dupe the public and to preserve the dumping of victims, as much or worse than before.

Here are the defects of domestic violence court as set up in our county and many other counties around the country:

  • Like many domestic violence courts, ours only deals with misdemeanor cases. Defendants come into the court at arraignment and must enter a plea of “guilty” or “not guilty”. At this initial point, dv court is no different than any other court. The similarity ends there. If the defendant enters a plea of “not guilty”, the criminal case is immediately kicked out of dv court and sent back to a standard municipal court for adjudication. If the defendant pleads “guilty”, the dv court then sets a schedule for the now convicted perpetrator to report back again and again to the dv court for monitoring and supervision of his probation.

n other words, dv court doesn’t really function as a court at all. It doesn’t decide guilt or innocence in domestic violence cases, doesn’t weigh evidence, examine witnesses, prosecute defendants, doesn’t undertake the rigorous search for truth that is the core work of a court, and it doesn’t conduct trials. In dv court, except on rare occasions, the victim’s voice and testimony isn’t heard.

Our dv court is nothing more than an inflated probationary baby-sitter for convicted defendants. Granted the dv court has the power to throw the guy in jail if he doesn’t abide by the conditions of his probation. But overall, our dv court has been designed as a judicial ghetto for dv cases, and, like all ghettos, it’s been stripped of its most essential functions and powers. Precisely those functions and powers which victims most need to be wielded on her behalf.

This eviscerated dv court ghetto, like many other dv courts, has the following disastrous consequences for victims and their cases:

  1. When the defendant pleads “not guilty”, and the criminal case is reassigned to a standard municipal court, the cases are handled back in muni court by a junior prosecutor and by muni court judges who are now more unfriendly to these cases than before there was a dv court. In addition to their previous virulent biases against dv cases, these judges are now also resentful at being strapped with cases they feel should be being handled in the dv court. So even worse than before, these muni court judges have a tendency to get rid of the dv cases as quickly as possible – all too frequently by outright dismissing the cases, no matter how strong the evidence, no matter how egregious the offense, no matter how long the criminal history 

  2. Not surprisingly, it took defense attorneys in our county less than five minutes to figure out what dv court meant for their clients, the domestic violence defendants. Defense attorneys began immediately explaining to their clients ‘how sweet it is’. Plead “not guilty”, they strongly advise their clients, get your case moved back into muni court, and you’ve got a great chance of walking free. In fact, the gutted functioning of our dv court has assured that the most intractable, hard core dv offenders have the greatest chance of going free.

Domestic violence courts are not taken very seriously, all round.  They are revolving doors that spin people off right into the family law case, and that RO is going to come off pretty soon anyhow.  If it does NOT come off, and the woman is still alive (and has children), sooner or later the case will be consolidated with a divorce or dissolutiona ctions — and require, guess what — a CUSTODY plan — and there you have it.  Down the assembly line to the “it’s not violence, it’s just high-conflict” mentality of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence, like fish waiting to be flayed, gutted, and eaten by the fishermen.  Grants money goes to the headcount, business as usual.

if it stays on, seems like she can’t require it to be enforced anyhow — there is no such “right” created even by the presence of “mandatory” arrest policies.  See my blog, “What Decade Were These Stories?” and “Luzerne County…”  Jessica Gonzales (kids dead through unenforced order, despite her pleas and warnings:  THREE) tried, resulting in the city suing her, “Castle Rock. v. Gonzales,” then quoted by others to say the same thing:  tough luck!

BUT — FVPF is indeed a a FUND (a donor-advised one?  Probably, though I don’t know).

But FVPF can do whatever it feels like doing — because it’s got the prominent voice through prominent funding.  If they line up with the status quo, more funding.  Is this group likely to blog what I blog, and JUST a few others?  No way — it’d be cutting off the hand that feeds it.

Its programs — though I’d bet that a chunk of funding does indeed come from the VAWA stream, meaning stopping violence against WOMEN — don’t even mention women, except if they’re immigrant — in a heading, and sure as hell not “mothers” against whom much violence is directed, and which status (having a child with an abuser) makes women more vulnerable in many ways.  Here’s the list of “PROGRAMS

It is a Non-profit, Private, Non-Government Organization, per TAGGS:

Recipient:

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
Address:
383 RHODE ISLAND STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103-5177
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: SAN FRANCISCO
DHHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

And, no matter how big the budget crisis, it’s getting its funding from the Feds to put out whatever its Non-Profit, Private Self feels like, and to neglect causative issues behind domestic violence and death to kids through the courts (or, trafficking through the courts) for the life of its funding — there is no law against this, from what I can tell:

From HHS to FVPF: $4,528,812 in 2010

(note year of support indicates ongoing grant)

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue
Date Amount This
Action 2010 90EV0377 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 2010 90EV0377 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0401 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 $ 250,000 2010 ASTWH090016 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 $ 1,500,000 2010 CCEWH101001 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 $ 1,600,000 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

ASTWH — whatever that is:  “DISCRETIONARY”

ward Number: ASTWH090016
Award Title: FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN -EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
OPDIV: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DHHS/OS)
Organization: OFFICE ON WOMEN’S HEALTH (ASH/OWH)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Got it?  Train and Technically Assist, Talk and Conference….

And another one:

Award Number: CCEWH101001
Award Title: FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
OPDIV: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DHHS/OS)
Organization: OFFICE ON WOMEN’S HEALTH (ASH/OWH)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Incidentally, this one appears to have started out small (like $31,000) and then — the very next year, $1.5 million.  Now you tell me what that’s about!  But this is how it sometimes works…

Now, however good, or bad, that “model” is, here comes GLASGOW, copying it, much the way (?) The UK began copying the one-stop, fast-food, made-to-order “Family Justice Centers,” a.k.a. a certain attorney’s (Casey Gwinn) personal retirement program, the second one (or is it vice versa?) being up in ALameda County, for which I had to post “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys.”

Here’s Scotland’s “Domestic Abuse Court Pilot Program” report (2007..)

Scottland.gov.uk, yep:

Evaluation of The Pilot Domestic Abuse Court

Description This presents the findings of the 2 year evaluation of the pilot domestic abuse court in Glasgow.
ISBN (Web Only)
Official Print Publication Date
Website Publication Date March 29, 2007

Next »

Listen

Reid Howie Associates
ISBN 978 0 7559 6562 5
This document is also available in pdf format (808k)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Here’s a 2000 California Analysis, same idea — Domestic Violence Courts — and guess who’s writing it?  The same groups that are receiving the access/visitation funding:  CFCCs

CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & THE COURTS PROJECT STAFF

DIANE NUNN

Director

SUSAN HANKS

Supervising Court Services Analyst Coordinator for Special Services

BONNIE ROSE HOUGH

Senior Attorney

ISOLINA RICCI

Assistant Director

(and marriage/family therapist of 30 years)

{{Right here is the AFCC/PAS-Gardner/Co-Parenting, KIDS TURN, etc. connection.}}

Ms. (or Dr.?) Ricci’s Lecture series seems to include a time with Kids’ Turn (known to be an Access/Visitation Grants recipient through this very same organization — California Judicial Council, AOC, CFCC, which GETS the grants, and you can go right on the court side and see that Kids Turn is a recipient, and marketing a curriculum (internationally) which just happens to benefit from the A/V funding law…

 

March 16-17, 2007
Wisconsin Fatherhood Conference
Keynote Speaker, Workshop Leader
Madison WI

Great to know that this person is going to represent the interests of battered women and abused children, and their legal rights, while a keynote speaker at the fatherhood conference, a HUGELY-funded (and paternalistic) movement known to be CONTRARY to those rights and deleterious to mothers & children’s health….  This is who is presiding over the great recommendation of “Domestic Violence Courts..”

 

 

Los Angeles, April 26, 2006
Honored Guest, 25th Anniversary of Mandatory Mediation
Annual Statewide Educational Institute
Center for Families, Children, and the Courts
Administrative Office of the Courts, State of California

(MANDATORY MEDIATION IS PROVEN WAY TO GET CHILDREN INTO CUSTODY OF A BATTERER, AND MANY DV ADVOCATES HAVE PROTESTED THIS.  IT HAPPENS TO BE HOW I LOST MY KIDS, WITHOUT REAL EVIDENCE, CAUSE OF ACTION, LEGAL BASIS FOR DOING SO.  RUN IT THROUGH THE MEDIATOR.  AND THE GRANTS TO THE COURTS FACILITATE THIS).

and:

 

October 28, 2006
Invitational Workshop
KIDS TURN Faculty and Affiliates
The “Business-Like” Relationships: Helping Parents Set Boundaries and Build Skills
Corte Madera, California

(KIDS TURN was the brainchild of a judge or attorney around 1987 and is a prime promoter of PAS theory to explain away legitimate abuse claims.  It’s also a nonprofit that benefits from the whole setup….).  ….

 

Here’s a March 2005 CANADIAN publication recommending Isolini Ricci’s book right alongside a 1985 Richard Gardner book, pamphlet titled “High-Conflict Parenting.”  The section describing kinds of abuse vaguely suggests that one should “report to the authorities” the following behavior:

under:  “ANGER, ABUSE, POWER AND CONTROL

Intimidation includes threats to hurt or kill children, pets, or friends. Making a partner watch as children or pets are abused and not allowing him/her to intervene is another form of intimidation. In addition, this behavior includes the destruction of property, controlling what the other partner says, making the partner account for every minute or every action, threats to hurt anyone who helps the partner, threats to claim the partner is an unfit parent, and threats of suicide. These behaviors should be reported to the authorities.


BUT, oddly, not THIS — which is likely (as it is in the U.S.) a misdemeanor or felony crime, and could result in death if it escalates, and is categorized (at least THEORETICALLY) as “crime.” . . . .

Physical abuse includes pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, punching, kicking, breaking bones, knifing, shooting or use of other weapons; locking someone out of their home; abandoning someone in an unsafe place; and murder.

Those are NOT “report to the authority” behaviors in this “High-conflict” parenting manual citing Gardner and Ricci?  I’m “so glad” to know that the “Domestic Violence Courts” are under such watchful eyes as this person.

Here she is, 2010, at another AFCC conference (see my page on the AFCC and the foundations of family law), more business as usual healing broken relationships, and helping “change” the language of the law from caling crimes, crimes…. and reframing them as “conflict” and hence BOTH parent’s faults and requirement to somehow, “get over” for the sake of their children.

Rather than understanding that for the sake of the children, if it’s gotten that violent or abusive, already, the best thing is SEPARATION and go get the perpetrator some help WITHOUT using the kids as bait…

2010 Tenth Annual Texas AFCC Statewide Conference
October 15 & 16, 2010
University of Houston Law Center, Houston, Texas

Children Caught in the Conflict:
A Multidisciplinary Perspective
Featuring Keynote Speaker – Dr. Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.,
Author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House books
Presenting “Co-Parenting Today: The Professional’s Toolkit” 

Isolina Ricci, Ph.D, the author of Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Parents and Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids, is a licensed marriage and family therapist with 35 years experience in the fields of divorce, custody, co-parenting and mediation. Many of her pioneering concepts have now become accepted standards. For 14 years she headed the Statewide Office of Family Court Services for the California Administrative Office of the Courts serving all family court mediation and child custody services. She received her doctorate from Stanford University and has been honored by the Academy of Family Mediators and the International and California Association of Family and Conciliation Courts with their most prestigious awards for outstanding contributions and achievements.

That’s why we have no shortage of kids getting put on life support, kidnapped, or put into the  foster care system as protective parents take their roles SERIOUSLY, and by protesting this, make plenty of “business as usual” for such people.  See my last post.

She is the Director of CoParenting Today providing consultation, co-parent counseling, publications, and professional training where she integrates research on the brain, impulse control, resiliency, and motivation in her work. The audio book, Mom’s House, Dad’s House for Kids and a workbook for co-parents will be published in Fall 2010.

When this is the mentality behind “stopping violence” (and it’s being financially rewarded, and prestigious speaking conferences also), I have to say, it’s time for a little financial investigations, right?  And not to be cowed by the family alw system that set itself up to do precisely this — keep business COMING for the family law therapists, and income GOING for the parents, particuarly custodial mothers who, if contested in the courts, there exists a set of federal “facilitation” to help them lose their kids in the name of “Father knows Best”….

As a citizen, I can demand quite a bit from any nonprofit receiving public funding.  However, I cannot particularly stop the family foundations from spouting off on what they think is good for the rest of us.

Just a little reminder:

Pennsylvania ex-judge convicted of racketeering in ‘kids for cash’ kickback scam

Pa. judge guilty of racketeering in kickback case

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM | ASSOCIATED PRESS | Feb 18, 2011 7:19 PM CST in US

A former juvenile court judge who sent large numbers of children to detention centers was convicted Friday of racketeering for taking a $1 million kickback from the builder of the for-profit lockups, in what prosecutors said was a “kids for cash” scheme that ranks among the biggest courtroom frauds in U.S. history.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella, 61, left the bench in disgrace two years ago after he and a second judge, Michael Conahan, were accused of using juvenile delinquents as pawns in a plot to get rich. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has dismissed 4,000 juvenile convictions issued by Ciavarella, saying he sentenced young offenders without regard for their constitutional rights.

Federal prosecutors accused Ciavarella and Conahan of taking more than $2 million in bribes from the builder of the PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care detention centers and extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the facilities’ co-owner.

A federal jury in Scranton convicted Ciavarella of 12 counts, including racketeering, money laundering and conspiracy, but acquitted him of 27 counts, including extortion.

The AFCC has run and organized the family law arena to just about guarantee a ripe area for kickbacks in ordering the mediation, supervised visitation and parenting education series of grants to the courts, in order to “facilitate” noncustodial parents “access” — and in the process, any board members, originators, or other profiteers from some of the NONPROFITS that PROFIT from this, have access to both parent’s funding and federal funding, it seems.  (See my last post on double-payments).  How did this get rammed through?  Well, it’s kinda FOUNDATIONAL –

Like, Annie E. Casey, Scaife, etc.

Got it?  “Discretionary” (i.e., up to you, presumably within SOME guidelines…)

 

 

I’m beyond 6,000 characters, so that’s it for today, folks.  Next post, more on AFCC (compare with today’s reflection on some of their keynote speakers’ topics…)

 

American Spring

Solidarity. Unity. People.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family --and "Conciliation" -- Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Legal Schnauzer

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family --and "Conciliation" -- Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

ExposingTheRecord.org

Advocates for Change: Tell us about your JUDGE, ATTORNEY (pretender), or CPS...

Cold,Hard.Fact$

On Governmental Cashflow, CAFRs, and Economic Coups

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 298 other followers

%d bloggers like this: