Let's Get Honest! Blog

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

Author Archive

Bush Faith-Based Initiatives in the Hands of Obama: 2 good reads from the Rockefeller Institute for Government

with one comment

(This post is not as orderly as I wished; the topic bothers me — a lot, not sure if this is PTSD, or a growing alarm of the situation I’m reporting on.  Take it or leave it)

The 2 good reads are the first and last entries from the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute for Government’s

I list them again below, after a long intro and far below my complaints about the Arizona-based, GOP-laced, Bush-connected Godzich family’s “NAME” group.

There is very poor oversight into use of these marriage promotion funds, and front groups have already been discovered, plus an obsession with opposing same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

If readers can be a little more tolerant (than the usual large dose of tolerance needed to plow through these essays) — I believe the information is timely, relevant, and very disturbing to the future of this country.   I have some familiarity with the brands of religiosity involved here — as a domestic violence in the home survivor who then took it to the family court, only to meet the same types of churchiosity running the place that failed to do anything about the violence to start with.  When I say “churchiosity” I am talking about a willingness to undermine legal rights when it comes to deeply-held religious sectarian beliefs.

The Bachmanns (Michelle, and Dr. Marcus, who runs a Christian Counseling Center, Bachmann & Associates Incorporated, out of Minnesota) are making fools of themselves (but don’t seem to have noticed) in the public recently.     A teenager from Cherry Hill, NJ even invited Michelle to an open debate, based on her inability to keep her facts straight when talking history, or for that matter, constitution.

And The Bachmanns are teaming up with a group called The FAMiLY Leader out of Iowa (Bob Vander Plaats), giving me the perfect excuse to do some follow-up.

As it turns out that the Registered agent for The FAMiLY Leader (Chuck Hurley) is also the contact for a Focus on the Family-oriented “Family Policy Center” in Pleasant Hill, Iowa– I have an excuse to do a post.  In fact, my consciences urges me to repeat — loudly — a call to some “Damage Control” on what’s been done to our government.

For example, check out “Federal faith-based grant agency lacks oversight, transparency” — by the Iowa Independent:

Federal faith-based grant agency lacks oversight, transparency

By Andy Kopsa | 09.16.10 | 6:24 am

An obscure branch of the federal government responsible for distributing millions of tax dollars to religious organizations is drawing criticism for poor oversight over how federal grant money is spent and an overall lack of transparency. Good-government advocates warn that without rigorous transparency, the likelihood for corruption, ethics violations and unconstitutional spending of tax dollars is high.

Photo: Lori Howard, iStockphoto

The Administration for Children and Families(ACF) is a sub-agency of the Department of Human Services. The programs administered by the ACF which are most often utilized directly by religious organizations — Healthy Marriage, Abstinence Only and The Compassion Capital Fund — cost more than $255 million alone in 2008, according to themost recent annual report on file.

To critics of these programs, this amounts to a dangerous recipe for potential abuse, thanks to the political activities of many of the groups receiving funding.

The Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) received more than $3 million in federal funds to pay for a marriage-mentoring program. The program, called Marriage Matters, is not to be a third-party contractor but rather a trademark of the group. IFPC has garnered headlines for its opposition to same-sex marriage, including public allegations that homosexuality poses a greater public health risk than second-hand smoke.

The Iowa Family Policy Center’s acceptance of federal funds, coupled with its religious political agenda, prompted the ACLU of Iowa to announce it would investigate whether the funding violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In South Carolina, the Palmetto Family Council, a local affiliate of the Family Research Council (FRC), was awarded $1.2 million through Healthy Marriage and Abstinence Only grants from 2004 to 2009. According to its blog, the “top priority” for the group in 2006 was South Carolina’s anti-gay marriage amendment.

AND

Religious groups receive federal funding despite anti-gay political activity

Posted by Matt Comer on Thursday, March 31, 2011 · 3 Comments

The American Independent’s Andy Kopsa reports on what has been a substantial problem for years: the dispersement of federally-funded grants — some to the tune of millions of dollars — to religious organizations engaged in anti-gay political activity.

Kopsa, who has significantly covered this topic before, reports: (see above quote)

. . . .

(NORTH CAROLINA FAMILY POLICY center and STate of North Carolina):

On her personal blog, Kopsa also records other organizations receiving federal funding:

Rocky Mountain Family Policy Council received at least $55,000 for services through federally funded abstinence education program WAIT Training in Colorado.  WAIT recently changed its name to The Center for Relationship Education.WAIT had its share of problems when it became known they had endorsed and assisted Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa of the disgusting “Kill The Gays” bill – hereand here.   {{which I blogged}}

The Georgia Family Council is listed as recipient of the Georgia Department of Human Resources $960,000 Healthy Marriage waiver.  However, when I called the state of Georgia they claim to have no record of this.

{{in other words, where did the money go?}}

Such federal funds have also been administered to North Carolina government, though a quick scan of available financial documents revealed no immediately apparent connection with the North Carolina Family Policy Council.

This “North Carolina Family Policy Council” describes itself as  “Defending Traditional Values”

Welcome to the North Carolina Family Policy Council  

“We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization

serving to provide research and education on public policy issues that affect the family.”

First order of business?

RESEARCH AND ISSUES

The Harms of Same-Sex “Marriage”
Peter Sprigg talks about the findings of recent national surveys on the issue of marriage, and a new documentary from the Family Research Council that highlights some of the harms of same-sex “marriage” on families and children. (July 9) listen

Let the People Vote!
The General Assembly cannot ignore these top 10 reasons why North Carolina can no longer postpone letting the people vote on a Marriage Protection Amendment. more

Oh, so “nonpartisan” for sure….

As an independent 501(c)(3) research and education organization,{formed 1992}  the North Carolina Family Policy Council is supported entirely by the generosity of our donors. We are engaged in a battle to retain the Judeo-Christian values that are the foundation of western civilization. These are the same values which supported the establishment of the United States and which are embodied in the Ten Commandments and in the founding documents of our nation.

In addition to diverting funds or adding funds under Title IV to produce more marriages (or better fathers) there is also it seems Title V for more abstinence education, STILL — I thought we were kind of done with that!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 restored a total of $250 million in federal funding over the next five years for abstinence education programs, giving states access to $50 million per year through the Title V program. As we reported earlier this week, North Carolina was one of 30 states to apply for Title V funding this year.

In addition to funding for programs that exclusively teach abstinence, DHHS also announced that it is awarding $155 million in teen pregnancy prevention grants to “states, non-profit organizations, school districts, universities, and others” under two funding programs, the newly-created Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program, and the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP). 

I am not an LGBT advocate by primary interest.  I’m heterosexual, always have been to the best of my knowledge, and I loved becoming a mother –but the double-whammy of the spiritual justification of assault & battery began almost immediately, shortly before VAWA was passed to protect women in this situation — and yet know one seemed to know about it!    The struggle has totally transformed my relationship with (well, everything — but most particularly in the wider sphere — churches.  You couldn’t drag me back in there except on an architectural tour, no offense to some nice people in many of them.  I will not support that system!)

Bush has made a mockery of our government, and I really do think that Jeff Sharlett has a better handle on it than some, in “The Family,” and gives a better rationale as to how come Hillary Clinton could endorse the Children’s Rights Council right alongside ultraconservatives.  The connection was on the particular style of “religion” plus powerbrokers.   Republic moderate Laidig in 2006 — speaking this time of Michelle Bachmann and her breed — the article spoke of how conservative Christianity and a particular type of Christian opportunism went very well hand in hand.  (No, I don’t follow Minnesota local politics — was looking somethine else up).

This is your article — Bachmann Background — informative, and 8-pager.

 

Crazy like a fox:

Catch the technique, plus the electoral district advantage:

BACHMANN’S WILLINGNESS TO stake out the fringe might be electorally counterproductive if were it not for her unique constituency.

Minnesota’s oblong Sixth District is shaped somewhat like a giant slug devouring—or excreting, depending on where your sympathies lie—the Twin Cities metro. The gerrymandered perimeter encircles a population that is 96 percent white with a high rate of church attendance. With a median income of around $57,000, the district is fairly wealthy, yet modest enough to retain an anti-“elitist” streak. In short, it’s exactly the kind of place Sarah Palin might call the “real America.” Property that just a decade ago consisted of endless farmland is now dotted with strip malls and mega churches. It’s precisely this exurban growth that renders the district more right-leaning than even the most rural of areas outstate.

“That’s because people in the exurbs tend to be tax-stressed,” says Steve Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College. “The cost of commuting, the cost of housing, and so forth make them very tax-sensitive, and that tends to drive voters in the direction of anti-tax candidates.”

Minnesota’s Sixth, in other words, is reliable GOP territory. That grants Bachmann a long leash when it comes to her rhetoric. Like a queen on a chessboard, she’s able take her argument in pretty much any direction, no matter how absurd.

Think about it:

Bachmann, in other words, is a fundraiser’s wet dream. The process works like this: 1) Bachmann spouts something spectacularly insane on national television, which reverberates inside the mass media’s echo chamber; 2) a simple fact-check by someone with access to Google reveals her to be completely full of it, thus intensifying the backlash; 3) the GOP’s fundraising apparatus disseminates mass emails framing the Bachmann-directed hostility as yet another example of the leftist media trying to destroy what remains of the Real America, and how will you explain that to your grandchildren when they’re in the internment camps?; 4) conservatives’ wallets open.

 

Sounds like a fatherhood technique as well.  The rhetoric is inane!  It drones on endlessly, probably short-circuiting rationality with propaganda and short-circuiting the process of discourse by the sheer foolishness.   Perhaps that’s  not accidental either.  It disables the opponents…That, plus the funding…. and next thing we know — it’s entrenched in all branches of the government (the Rockefeller publication seems to be talking about this — and HOW Bush pushed it).

 

The Chosen One

Michele Bachmann’s recipe for success: Christian piety and not-so-Christian opportunism

G.R. Anderson Jr.

published: October 04, 2006

She is absolutely a cold, calculating person,” says Gary Laidig, the Republican she unseated en route to the state Senate in 2000. “It’s always the same with her on campaigns: Nobody really knows who she is, and she just comes across as this petite, attractive soccer mom. And that’s it. But the fact is, she’s part of a group that is absolutely determined to take over the Republican Party. It’s that wing of the party that’s very much in step with people like Norm Coleman and the Taxpayers League. And the fact is that they know how to run races. Good races, too. From getting delegates to hitting phone banks, they cover it, and Michele’s part of that.

“At the end of the day, her politics are like this: Everyone will have a gun, nobody will have an abortion, no one will pay taxes, everyone will go to church, and there won’t be any more pinko liberal teachers in school.”

After graduating from Anoka High School in 1974, Michele Amble enrolled at what is now Winona State University. There she became interested in politics, she told the Star Tribune in a January 1, 2005 story, when she wandered into an American government class.

She also met Marcus Bachmann, who was majoring in social work. According to news and blog accounts, the two connected because they were both born-again Christians. Soon after she graduated with a degree in political science and English, the couple married, in 1978. As she has told the story more than once, the two were staunch Democrats who worked on Jimmy Carter’s first presidential campaign. Eventually, she became disillusioned with the Democratic Party. The couple soon moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Bachmann enrolled in the Coburn Law School, a Bible-based institution affiliated with Oral Roberts University. According to one version of her résumé, she earned a Juris Doctorate at Coburn in 1986, and post-doctorate degree from William and Mary Law School in Virginia in 1988.   …

On the campaign trail, Michele Bachmann has said her husband grew up on a family dairy farm in western Wisconsin. According to a brief biography that ran in the Forest Lake Times when Bachmann and Associates opened an office there in March 2005, he earned a master’s degree in counseling from Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia, a school then affiliated with Christian Broadcasting Network pitchman Pat Robertson. Bachmann later was awarded a doctorate in clinical psychology from an institution listed as Union Graduate School on his clinic’s website, an apparent reference to Union Institute in Cincinnati, though nothing on either of the Bachmanns’ public résumés suggests they ever lived in Ohio.

Last November, the Bachmanns attended a “Minnesota Pastors’ Summit” at Grace Church in Eden Prairie. Some 300 religious leaders participated in the event, which was organized by the conservative, antigay Minnesota Family Council. Michele Bachmann was there to lead a session on the gay marriage amendment, while Marcus offered a presentation titled “The Truth About the Homosexual Agenda.”

[This is a background portrait.  It’s revealing….

Laidig, on how he was profiled, taken off guard in the election:

Gary Laidig was running for re-election to be District 56’s (MN) state senator in 2000. Laidig, then a 28-year incumbent of state House and Senate seats representing the area, recalls being surprised to encounter Bachmann (who by this point had added the title “Dr.” to her name) and a number of people from her church at a Woodbury School Board meeting in the late 1990s. She stood up and started denouncing the school’s academic standards, and took exception to the national and local school-to-work programs.

Still, Laidig didn’t think much of it: “It dawned on me that this [education activism] was her new gig, but I never thought she was going to run for my seat.”

But that’s exactly what happened. Laidig believes, in retrospect, that he was one of a number of moderate Republicans targeted by elements of their own party as vulnerable candidates in the run-up to the 2000 races. “And it became a different kind of party,” he says. “Suddenly all of these religious litmus tests were going on, and they were getting support in the churches. My father was a very conservative minister, and very politically active. But never once did he bring the pulpit to politics, and he never brought politics to the pulpit.”

On April 1, 2000, the GOP held its endorsing convention for the District 56 Senate seat. Laidig was immediately put off when he saw a number of new delegates—churchgoers. He also realized that they were against him, calling him “a Republican in name only,” despite his 30 years of service to the party. To his surprise, he had an opponent—Michele Bachmann—and was caught off-guard. Bachmann won the endorsement on the first ballot. (The two went on to face off in the primary, which Bachmann won.)

“It hit me like a tsunami,” Laidig says. “I heard the rumble out there, but I never thought the wave would come.”

BE PREPARED…. not necessarily for President Bachmann, but someone of the same mindset may stand a chance.

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives & lack of transparency at the HHS/ACF…

Consider another section from the 2010 article by Andy Kopsa (with the “Church/State” street sign photo, above).

President George W. Bush announced the creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives after he took office in January 2001. Separation of church and state advocates were outraged when President Barack Obama elected to continue the program under the name Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

The day after taking office, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive agencies calling for new vigor in fulfilling the public’s need for transparency and openness in government. But for all the authority allotted the ACF, there remains considerable mystery surrounding how grant money is awarded and spent.

This is what I keep pointing out, complaining about 45 CFR 303.109, 2(b) particularly.  One person — Secretary of the HHS (Currently Ms. Sebelius) has the power to approve or deny special demonstration research projects — and the states — that’s THE states (Arizona, California, Florida, Texas — all of them, and the US territories) have to assist if they want the funds.  The HHS is dog-training the U.S. states to produce the desired results.  If they are good dogs, they get more treats.

Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of New York, said, “I have started using the opening line ‘the promise of transparency is illusory’ in all my Freedom of Information Act requests because it is.”

Amiri has filed more than a half-dozen Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the HHS in the last few years. In a recent case, Amiri waited 8 months for a partial FOIA response from the ACF and is still waiting, two years later, for a complete report.

I remember Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net, similar problems.

According to the Freedom of Information Act, governmental agencies are required to respond to a FOIA request within 30 days.

We can’t sit and wait [for a FOIA] while money is continuing to be spent unconstitutionally, so we sue,” Amiri said. “We [ACLU] have the ability to sue for the information we need, but what about the average citizen? They aren’t going to be able to sue in order to get what is already supposed to be public.

The Iowa Independent had a similar experience during its investigation of Iowa Family Policy Center. {{{The Bachmanns are connected with this group. and this group is at least emotionally and theologically (see “anti-gay” among other things) connected with Focus on the Family. I’ll show in a future post}} After filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the ACF regarding IFPC, The Iowa Independent waited four months for a partial response and was forced to file a second request – called a reconsideration — for information that was omitted. The ACF has only three full-time Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) specialists on staff, which creates staggering wait times for fulfillment of information requests.

ACF spokesman Kenneth Wolfe never responded to dozens of e-mails and phone calls requesting comment regarding award payment schedules and specifics on the role of the ACF in policing faith-based awards. Wolfe was also asked if a so-called clawback provision exists as a way for the government to recoup money spent inappropriately by faith-based and other grant recipients, another question that was ignored.

These requests for information were included in a certified letter mailed to former Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Carmen Nazario, and then hand delivered to Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families David Hansell after Nazario stepped down in July. Again, the agency failed to respond.

The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families is a politically appointed position.

(David Hansell waxes eloquent on behalf of HHS when it comes to promoting responsible fatherhood and courting “Fathers and Families Coalition” (I think it was; an AZ-based group).

But I do find it interesting that those who are are pretty up on the same issues I’ve had to look into regarding abuse of women and the deprivation of basic constitutional rights through this ongoing Church-State collaboration.  There is a sinister, authoritarian side to this — and it ain’t pretty, and it DOES keep leading back to George Bush, sorry to say.

(See my Independence Day +3 post for reference):

If you think children grow up fast, we ain’t seen nuttin’ yet when it comes to the transformation of the United States of America under the hands of religious zealots saying, aw heck, let’s re-arrange government — I, as President, think it’s good for the; let’s overcome legislative and constitutional barriers to getting those billions into the hands of religious organizations ,including some that put out schlock like THIS:

Men Are from Dirt, Women Are from Men

- Curriculum & Study Guide

Price: $19.80
List Price: $22.00 Savings: $2.20

As this site shows (“My Marriage Store.com/StoreFront”) NAME’s Marketplace has a profit motive for sure, as does AFCC, which practices the same habits — only it gets to have judges order people to participate.  These only “encourage” them to — but pay the religious group to set up the infrastructure.

“NAME” stands for “National Association for Marriage Enhancement” — isn’t that a cute acronym?

ABOUT us page:

About NAME

Churches around the world are realizing that there is an answer to a serious problem—the breakdown of the family. Homes are being reunited, marriages are being restored, and childraasdfasden (that’s their typo, not mine….) are being spared the terrible ravages of divorce.

NAME Centers are springing up all over the nation to fill this huge need created by broke homes** and generational vices. Churches implementing NAME Centers train couples to mentor other couples. This is done utilizing NAME’s unique training and certification system to prepare couples to biblically counsel other couples. These couples become the core of the local NAME Center.

As a result, churches are experiencing a decrease in divorce rates, less burden on the pastor for counseling, and strong, faithful families committed to the ministries of the local church.

Visit www.nameonline.net to learn more.

**I’m sure they meant “brokeN homes” — meaning not a two-parent family with both biological parents in there.  However many homes are “broke” (financially) and part of why is how much is being poured into goals like these — paying churches to prevent divorce on the theory this is going to stop poverty because married men like to pay child support better.    (Jesus:  “the poor you always have with you…”)

.

Click on NAMEONLINE.org and you get this, which i”ve blogged before, I think:

NAME - National Association of Marriage Enhancement

It helps all these “Communities”  — click on Government (a nonprofit formed primarily to get the government grants writes about how it’s going to help governments?) — which links to an article from The Washington Times (Unification church mouthpiece), and all about the $250,000 “Marriage Mobile.”

For Small Groups
Check out our variety of resources that we have for small group studies!
Read more
For Churches
Find out what NAME can do for your church!
Read more
For Governments
The following article appeared in Washington Times as The President’s Healthy Marriage Initiative was being written into law in Congress.
Read more

The challenge occurs in trying to reach those unmarried couples during those critical premarital months.

Entities with credibility in low income areas will be required to reach out to those couples. With that in mind, NAME, the National Association of Marriage Enhancement, has announced a test project: “The Marriage Mobile.”

A $250,000 dollar renovation project into a 50 ft. semi trailer truck into a mobile counseling center and workshop classroom is designed to try to meet that need. By taking a state-of-the-art video projection, mobile classroom and counseling center to certain low income areas for several weeks at a time, followed by marriage skills workshops and seminars in the area, NAME hopes to reach and educate that target population group during their critical decision-making times.

…  This is far “better” than taking the same $250,000 and giving ___ local families $5,000 each for some of their own creative projects to help get off welfare or just past poverty level…. even if this includes single-working-mother-headed homes.  They are monitored closely — if they are receiving Food Stamps, they can only buy certain things (lest they might be horrible cigarette, nonfoods (papertowells), or health-food (vitamins, fish oil, etc.) addicts, or (horrors) spend the amount one day on bus fare instead.   Or if they are receiving child support — their own child support (for Title IV-D families) can itself be redirected to helping the father of the family get an edge in any custody or visitation hearings, possibly helping him obtain custody — and job training skills.   ….  It makes SO much sense to instead give religious organizations the grants because surely (since they love their God and are altruistic — and already have some structures going) we need not monitor grants recipients so closely as — say — poor people.  Or well to do people having marital problems which ALSO would qualify under access/visitation funding, or this type of marriage-promotion funding, I’ll bet.

NAME has been a pioneering force in marriage skills training as part of welfare reform. In Arizona, the first state to appropriate part of their federal block grant funds to strengthen marriages…

Hardly surprising — Dr. Leo Godzich, who with his wife runs NAME — has personal (a relative) very strong connections with the state GOP and with the Bush White House at the time.  In fact, the Bushes are practically “all in the family” as this article called “The GOP’s New Godfather” relates.  The “godfather” in question is not a Godzich, but Doug Wead — however, check it out:

The GOP’s New Godfather

By Ward Harkavy published: September 02, 1992

In Doug Wead’s dining room, there’s a photograph of George Bush cradling Wead’s son Joshua. On August 24, there was a Bush son in Doug Wead’s living room.

Neil Bush, the son who has had to pay $50,000 for his part in the collapse of the Silverado S&L in Denver, was treated like a high priest of free enterprise during a private reception there. That evening, Neil was scheduled to appear at a private fund raiser for the state GOP. (I got him to come in,” says Wead.) First, however, Neil Bush stopped at Wead’s house off Shea Boulevard in Scottsdale for an even more private meeting with Wead and friends.
The guest list included several Arizonans …

The presidential son is getting a pretty good deal, too. On shaky ground here in the States because of bad publicity over the Silverado thing, he’s been doing business lately with John Godzich, Arizona’s GOP finance chairman. Godzich proudly told the little gathering at Wead’s house that Neil spoke before 25,000 of Godzich’s people in Paris in June. (Back-scratching note: Doug Wead also spoke to Godzich’s troops overseas around that time. Six months earlier, John Godzich got to sit on the dais next to “Humanitarian of the Year” Ronald Reagan at Doug Wead’s “National Charity Awards Dinner” in Phoenix; Neil Bush was one of the speakers.)

Godzich urged the gathering at Wead’s house to “put your money where your mouth is” by supporting the GOP. “I’ve put as much money as I can into the party–I gave $50,000 to the party in May,” he told the other guests. “I’ve been a defender of free enterprise for a long time. You have to defend it–or lose it.”

When [John -- Dr. Leo's older brother] Godzich speaks, people generally listen. Though relatively few people even in the GOP know much about him, 42-year-old John Godzich is a huge presence in the District 6 race. 

His younger brother Leo, 33, is an associate pastor at Phoenix First Assembly of God Church, well-known among the Valley’s religious right for leading the opposition to Phoenix’s gay-rights ordinance. (Leo Godzich was profiled by Philip Martin in the May 20, 1992, issue of New Times.) Another Godzich brother, Dan, 30, worked for Wead in the White House and now is on the Wead campaign staff. But John Godzich has the strongest ties to Doug Wead.

Wead first registered to vote in Arizona on January 27, 1991, exactly the same day as John Godzich. Wead shares offices with Godzich, lives in his former house, is married to one of his former employees and works as a consultant and motivational speaker for Godzich. To the ire of many Republicans, Wead was the only congressional candidate who got a prime seat on the dais during a springtime fund raiser for John McCain that starred Barry Goldwater and George Bush. The seat came courtesy of a $50,000 check by John Godzich to the party’s financially ailing building fund.

So, who is John Godzich? Seven hundred French people who were learning to say “yee-hah” at a Rustler’s Rooste steak fry on August 15 on South Mountain certainly know him.  They’re part of the 24,000 active distributors in Groupement Europeen de Professionnels du Marketing, John Godzich’s multilevel marketing network. The past fiscal year, says Godzich, the company did $130 million of business.

John Godzich was born into a Polish family displaced by World War II. He grew up in a French mining area, the second of five boys in a family that always dreamed of moving to America and finally did in 1962. They lived in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and John went to school at New York University. After dabbling in leftist politics, he says, he wound up working as a translator for the State Department. He eventually got into Amway and returned to France to build a marketing network of his own.

Now he shuttles between France and Arizona, where he has an 8,000-square-foot home on Easy Street, east of Apache Junction. It’s got a built-in chapel.

Now for little brother – – and this was back in 1992:

Pastor Tommy Barnett was correct when he told the packed house at his huge church on Cave Creek Road on August 16: “First Assembly is Phoenix’s French Connection!”

The door greeter at Phoenix First Assembly of God, which Barnett often refers to as “America’s fastest-growing church,” said, “Bonjour.” Associate pastor Leo Godzich gave the opening prayer in French before saying it in English. After “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the church orchestra and choir performed the French anthem, “La Marseillaise.” In the church lobby was Wead campaign material. Sitting on the dais was John Godzich.

After Barnett’s sales pitch (Give like you’ve never given before! Let us pray in the name of Jesus!), he told his audience, “We’ve got some international visitors, some French businessmen and women. Let’s give them a hand! . . . Let’s give them another hand! . . . Let’s give Jesus a hand!”

The church’s huge choir gave a rah-rah chant for the French guests.

After the collections were taken, the frenetic, raspy-voiced Barnett delivered a sermon, with John Godzich standing next to him as interpreter. Their images flashed across two huge TV screens suspended above the altar as Barnett told the crowd, “He wants you to have your own desires! The desires of the righteous shall be granted! He wants us to be prosperous!”

Imagine Yves Montand translating for Jimmy Swaggart.

other close ties to Bush through Doug Wead (who helped out disgraced Neil Bush, as we see above) –

Godzich, says Wheeler, also heads Groupement Europeen de Professionnels du Marketing, an Amway-style, multilevel marketing company of 60,000 to 70,000 distributors. The Godzich-Wead ties are firm: Younger brother Leo Godzich was the incorporation agent for Wead’s company.

They also have a nice personal assistant:  here’s her LinkedIn description:

Cherie Varrichione’s Experience

Personal Assistant to Founders Dr. Leo and Molly Godzich

National Association of Marriage Enhancement

Nonprofit Organization Management industry June 2010 – Present (1 year 2 months)

Scheduling appointments, management of conferences and travel and meetings arrangements, as well as co-ordination of all demands, screen incoming calls, review and reply to emails, review documentation, send mail, schedule reservations. Anticipate needs and take care of them before they are ask. The list is longer, but the joy of serving for the betterment of Marriage and Healthy Families are all mine!

This HHS/OFA 2006-2011 ($250K/year) grant description says the target is “Phoenix Area couples”  but the Godziches are world travelers when it comes to marriage conferences, including helping an Ugandan big-wig with his “kill the gays” legislation, and opposing same-sex marriage, etc back at home.

Organization Description: NAME, founded by Dr. Leo Godzich, has over 12 years of experience in providing marriage enhancement services to couples. There are currently 116 NAME Centers in the United States and 44 in other countries. NAME also hosts an annual International Marriage Conference and is partnering with the Phoenix Dream Center. To date over 22,000 couples have attended NAME conferences and seminars.

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Hispanic Healthy Marriage Demonstration Project will provide marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs to married couples

This “table of contents” is a certain segment of the “Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government” (at  SUNY, in Albany, NY), who visited my site recently.

RECOMMENDED :

Taking Stock: The Bush Faith-Based Initiative and What Lies Ahead

[PDF]
“Taking Stock” details the Bush administration’s efforts — both successful and unsuccessful — to advance its Faith-Based Initiative, and considers the initial signs indicating what the Obama administration will keep, and what it will change.
David J. Wright, June 11, 2009

American Congregations and Social Service Programs

[PDF]
A look at the social service work done by American congregations around the country and the environment in which they operate.
John C. Green, December 2007

Comparative Views on the Role and Effect of Faith in Social Services

[PDF]
A comparison of faith-based and secular service providers, including three case studies analyzing the differences in: drug treatment programs in the Puget Sound area, homeless housing programs in Michigan, and parenting programs in Mississippi.
Steven Rathgeb Smith, John P. Bartkowski, and Susan Grettenberger, 2006

The State of the Law 2008: Legal Developments Affecting Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Organizations

[PDF]
Examines legal developments that affect partnerships between government and faith-based organizations during 2008.
Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, 2008

Getting a Piece of the Pie: Federal Grants to Faith-Based Social Service Organizations

[PDF]
Examines the direct recipients of discretionary grant awards made by the federal agencies expressly part of the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative.
Lisa M. Montiel and David J. Wright, 2006

The Policy Environment for Faith-Based Social Services in the United States: What has Changed Since 2002? Results of a 50-State Study

   [PDF]
An update to the 2003 report, which looks at how the federal Faith-Based and Community Initiative has influenced state actions.
Mark Ragan and David J. Wright, 2005
RECOMMENDED:

The Expanding Administrative Presidency: George W. Bush and the Faith-Based Initiative

[PDF]
Examines the steps taken by the Bush administration to promote and implement the Faith-Based Initiative, detailing changes in federal rules, bureaucracies, funding, and public outreach.
Anne Farris, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright, 2004

I simply recommended the first and last (chronological) on the page, and am reading them both myself.



Written by Let's Get Honest

July 10, 2011 at 9:20 pm

Independence Day + 3: Police Have No Duty To Protect, says lawsuit after lawsuit….

with 2 comments

I am getting tired of this blog’s cumulative format.   Am planning a different kind of blog, that should be more useful to both men and women in the family law courts, without antagonizing either.  It will be less reporting / narrative and more tools.

Because all the toolkits and technical assistance for special resource centers are great for disseminating information — among professional advocacy groups at least — but they do not stop bullets.  And they do not say why, when this happens, a family law case went south resulting in a family wipeout, or another parent completely eliminated from the children’s life.

The  best people to explain the systems which do this is NOT the people on the take — or on the legitimate grant system — from the same systems!   It’s important to read their reasonings, self-descriptions, and literature, but not necessary to accept their analysis.   

I study grants on certain topics or certain companies related to family courts — and I know I have barely scratched the surface (because to study them properly requires database search tools and time I don’t have.  I also know — quite well – -that neither TAGGS nor USASPENDING.GOV are completely accurate or, for that matter, complete.  For example, one should be able to search by DUNS#.  However, many database entries of groups with DUNS#s — have none in TAGGS and wouldn’t be pulled up by such a search.   One should be able to search by name, but there are some remarkable misspellings of the words “responsible fatherhood” and “initiative” in TAGGS, and enough of them I wonder why.  Most people can spellcheck, or if an error has been found, correct it, right?  Why have these errors gone on for years?

IF RESTRAINING ORDERS ARE UNENFORCEABLE, WHY ARE THEY STILL BEING ISSUED AS A SOLUTION TO VIOLENCE?  IS THIS REASONING APPLIED IN DIPLOMACY BETWEEN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND THE U.S.?    – – – – NO!    There’s reasoning, debate, diplomacy, sanctions, and/or war.  It is always a matching of strength to strength.

 

Here’s a statement from Catherine Pearce, then of OVW, as to what is being done — it is a summary, from 2009, before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary:

 

 

STATEMENT OF
CATHERINE PIERCE

ACTING DIRECTOR
OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HEARING ENTITLED
“THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT”

PRESENTED JUNE 10, 2009

Introduction

Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Senator Sessions, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Catherine Pierce, and I am the Acting Director of the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). I am here today to discuss both the great strides forward that we have made in the fifteen years since the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was enacted and the many challenges that still lie ahead of us in our efforts to combat violence against women.

Support for Community Efforts to End Violence Against Women

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) administers financial support and technical assistance to communities across the country that are creating programs, policies, and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

 

This is an honest description of what’s being done — creating “Programs, policies and practice” AIMED at ending these things….  After listing many of their programs (worth a read!) and how $3.5 billion had been spent since 1995 on this).  it is, in fact, a programs, policies and practices-creator, a.k.a. virtual business incubator.

For example, in the six-month reporting period from January to June 2008 alone, OVW discretionary program grantees reported that:

  • Nearly 115,500 victims were served;
  • More than 228,000 services (including shelter, civil legal assistance and crisis intervention) were provided to victims;
  • More than 3,500 individuals were arrested for violation of protection orders; and
  • 261,622 protection orders were granted in jurisdictions that receive funding from OVW’s Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program (Arrest Program).

In addition, subgrantees receiving funding awarded by States through OVW’s STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program (STOP Program) reported that, in calendar year 2007:

  • More than 505,000 victims were served;
  • Over 1,201,000 services were provided to victims; and
  • More than 4,700 individuals were arrested for violations of protection orders.

These funds not only help the victims who receive services; they are used by OVW grantees to change the way that our criminal justice system responds to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Again, the raw numbers show the far reach of VAWA funding:

  • During the three-and-a-half year period from January 2005, through June 2008, OVW’s grantees reported training nearly 875,000 individuals, including 142,339 law enforcement officers, 15,380 prosecutors, and 24,159 court personnel.
  • During the four-year period of 2004 through 2007 combined, STOP subgrantees reported training about 1,138,000 individuals, including 347,382 law enforcement officers, 25,715 prosecutors, and 37,775 court personnel.

Scroll down — down — still further down past all the programs and wonderful things OVW has done and is doing, and read the astounding proclamation, about 1/4′ below the bottom of the web page, as to the scroll bar) — and we learn that:

Addressing Domestic Violence Homicide

OVW recognizes the need to focus future efforts on the prevention of domestic violence homicide.

Amazing that this isn’t the TOP priority, throughout, given that this is where the movement started stop it!

Research has identified several risk factors associated with increased danger for women in violent relationships.

Yes it has — and this risk assessment was out as far back as 1999.   I’ve read’em.  Now, they are marketing risk assessment to family law professionals (Border & McLaughlin) and Barbara J. Hart ,who authored some of the earlier risk assessments (which are still ignored routinely when it comes to custody matters) is now doing webinars with BWJP, from  Maine.

These include an abuser’s threats to kill or harm her, himself, or their children; unemployment; forced sex; and the presence of a gun. Advocates, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and the courts {{WHICH COURTS?   BECAUSE, IT’S 2011, and CERTAIN COURTS WILL NOT DO THIS YOU KNOW WHICH ONES I MEAN!) must take aggressive steps to plan for a victim’s safety when any combination of risk factors is present.

MUST THEY?  The Police have no duty to protect, judges are immune from prosecution for damages incurred while ruling as a judge (Luzerne County PA, even when they were convicted of violation of RICO outside it!). Family law judges have wide discretion, and there are no sentencing guidelines for family law as there are for criminal law.  We may want all these entities to “plan for a victim’s safety” but is there a legal way to force them to?  Probably not.

By the time abuse escalates to homicide, we know that someone in the family, the neighborhood, or the perpetrator’s or victim’s workplace is aware that something is terribly wrong.

Yes, but these other entities — family, neighborhood, employers — probably all pay taxes and believe it’s the courts and the police’s duty to protect at some level.  They cannot take on the entire situation, and in fact a woman out of the San Diego “Family Justice Center” even sued its head for requiring her to function as a domestic violence counselor/advocate (and much more) at work — her work was clerical in nature, not social work.

OVW will continue to partner with other Federal agencies, the research community, criminal justice organizations, and advocacy groups to develop innovative responses with the hope and intention of preventing future domestic violence homicides.

The only kind of thing one can prevent is something in the future; why add the word “future domestic violence homicides”?

While I am glad that the OVW and these groups “hope and intend” to prevent domestic violence homicides (to save women’s lives who have been targeted for it), who, really, can translate their hope and intention to actual lives saved?  The evidence sited above talks about restraining orders issued, people trained, people served.

Research indicates that a victim of domestic violence is more likely to suffer a fatal injury if a firearm is present in her home.** For that reason, OVW has recently focused our efforts on the federal firearms provisions that prohibit firearms possession by persons subject to qualified restraining orders and convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence

**That’s IF the aggressor is in her home.   Now let’s talk about whether restraining orders actually restrain and whether women should rely on them.  They come with disclaimers, I know — but they are still being sold and pushed.  Because if these restraining orders (#1) don’t protect, really; (#2) aren’t enforceable, really (and this post will prove why they aren’t); you cannot DEMAND any police officer arrest for a violatino of a restraining order; and if — much more vital (#3) the next step in separating from any abuser one has children with is a visit to the local family law courthouse — that restraining order IS going to come off, and probably sooner rather than later.  Why?  The Family law system is run by AFCC; AFCC is father friendly and mother hostile, no matter how the posturing continues.  If you want to challenge me on that, and have read at least the last 2 months’ posts, then submit a comment with an intelligent question, and I’ll point to the evidence..

Prohibiting them from owning or possessing firearms is a deterrent, probably (depending on the person), but are we talking only statistics, likelihoods, or — when it comes to individual lives — absolutely saving them.  I happen to believe that any $3.5 billion program that creates ore programs should have to prove LIVES SAVED, not PEOPLE SERVED.

If a determined person with a restraining order on has ONE friend with a gun, that person could then use the gun to shoot the intended victim.  Or use something else.  Why is there no recommendation to teach victims self-defense at least in their own homes?  I even did a 10-year survey of DV homicides in (I forget whether PA or MN) — and the woman who deterred a restraining order violation, her home — with a gun — she LIVED.  Many of the others did not.  Incidentally, she shot the man. She did not rely on the police exclusively and I’ll bet she knew the legal ramifications of having a gun in the home.

NO –  This is not the way to “end domestic violence’ it is the way to continue creating programs, policies and practices that aim at, hope for, and intend to end domestic violence, including “future homicides.”  Take the “aim at, hope for, and intend to” standard to any other sphere of life — medicine, lifeguard, emergency room personnel, or say, teaching kids to read — and is it good enough to justify more money for more ongoing programs, when they haven’t succeeded or even proved to have made a  dent?  No, that standard is not good enough.

 

What we (particularly women) need to know:

Perhaps THE most important thing any woman with a restraining order on and who has children with the restrained person in her household needs to know is that it does NOT necessarily increase her safety more than for a few days.  She also needs to know who she is dealing with — and that while her instincts are for HER and her kids’ survival; the institutions issuing the restraining orders instincts are for THEIR own organizational an dinstitutional survival, in the long term.

She NEEDS to know that Castle Rock v. Gonzales got to the US Supreme Court and was turned back, and is now being cited by others for immunity when parents with dead children try to get some accountability for why the police wouldn’t do something about a violated restraining order, or children not returned in time from visitation in the context of previous death threats.

She needs to change her center of balance and where she looks for the power to stay alive and keep her kids alive and well. 

She needs to also know about the family law system — and that means, AFCC professionals, case-steering, case-prolonging, adding professionals to the case unnecessarily — and the role of the child support system as leverage.   She needs to completely understand that these courts consider themselves therapy-dispensers FIRST and law & evidence SECOND (if then).    She needs to know that it’s unlikely a judge will be held accountable for a bad decision – and what tools there are (instead, legally) to hold them accountable, for example, continuing to preside on a case when a conflict of interest says they should have recused themselves.

 

I mistakenly thought I could, with court order in hand, go to police (when we were exchanging children there) and expect them to enforce a VERY clear order.  “Law enforcement” — right?    On that one, I lost custody of my children; they lost a mother involved in their lives (and all prospects of any child support, in this particular context) and it STILL hasn’t been brought out exactly who all was involved.  Officers enabled my husband to violate a standing custody order in the context of prior reported threats to kidnap, which information I had turned in and reported, and sought protection from — very recently and more than once.   That one refusal to enforce by the officers involved led to a swift degradation on the father’s side of any idea that he was at all accountable to these court orders, and mine that anyone was around who might help me – if judges and mediators wouldn’t.   This was long before I knew about “Access and visitation.”

 

WHY SUPPORT ALL THESE “FAMILY” and “PROTECT” INDUSTRIES WHEN WE KNOW BOTH POLICE AND FAMILY LAW JUDGES HAVE SUCH WIDE DISCRETION AS TO MAKE ORDERS UNENFORCEABLE, AND WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES IF INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO ENFORCE?  DOES THAT MAKE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE, is it COMMON SENSE?  OR JUST SOME MYTHS WE HAVE BEEN FORCE-FED; WITHOUT ANALYZING THEM?

 

 

Both Domestic Violence and Fatherhood are now full-fledged industries.  They are not as large, I think, as the Child Support Collection Industry, but they are mainstreamed.  The Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have not yet ONCE, to my knowledge, even actually blogged, publicized or “outed” what is happening with funding on the other side, and allegedly opposing their initiatives – – – i.e., the “fatherhood” grants,  but even more relevant, I have yet to see a mainstreamed domestic violence nonprofit actually “out” the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts along with Children’s Rights Council; put it in a historical context, and recommend others talk about this, or do anything about it.

The Court professionals (addition of mediators, evaluators, psychiatrists, parenting coordinators, attorneys, judges, etc., etc.) have many associations — several interrelated with each other — but the primary one to bring on the mental health specialists was indeed Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (CRC), with help from the Children’s Rights Council (CRC).  These then helped from groups at the judicial level in California and maybe another state or so, called “CFCCs” — Center for Family & Children in the Courts.”  Some law schools also have CFCCs (for example, University of Baltimore School of Law).  These are other industries of trainers; they are constantly training young blood in how to handle difficult parents, or high-conflict families — while profiting from the conflict they help stir up elsewhere in the system by very unfair rulings.

 

Bottom line:

We are still not equal under the law (men and women) in practice, and both sides feel slighted.   Yet somehow (see “wingspread conference”) both DV experts and FR experts feel free to conference together and NOT question the Duluth model, i.e., that a “Collective Community Response” (CCR) _- which of course they are ready to spearhead — will indeed stop violence.  This model should be questioned in terms of what proof it has that it is saving lives.  Saving lives should be NUMBER ONE in any response to violence, and after that, I’d have to say, stop anyone from raping and molesting kids.    What men and women SHOULD have in common is an understanding that it’s best for ALL of us if there is no favoritism in the law –but as both law enforcement and Congress are so dominated by males (and Congress by white males, specifically) and is basically a male institution — there remains a problem if police will not interfere, arrest, and judges not prosecute when there has been a domestic violence incident.

 

Remembering the Distant Past:

The people who wrote our constitution were under few illusions about the depths to which human nature could go (and we know many owned slaves, and tolerated slave-trafficking).  I posted the articles on the Irish Slave Trade in the 1600s yesterday remembering also that these were years of turbulence around who got to dominate the religion of the land as well.  The Puritan religion was fierce, and Cromwell claimed to be backed by God in his abuses to counteract the abuses of the king.  The king protested the pope.    Religion entrenched in government IS the worst, because of human capacity for hate, and to abuse power.  It is pure unmitigated control — control of the military, the monetary, the food, and obviously the information.  Also, may I add control of the children– the next generation.

Religion plus greed is not bad combination, and while some heirarchy is need to get things done in life, too much in government means too much government.     And of course, we are there and beyond there already.

 

Remember Castle Rock v. Gonzales

I also posted on this, around the series talking about Luzerne County; I believe the post was called “What Decade Is This?”

 

2005 — a New York Times article reminds us that there is NO duty to protect between officers and a specific person, even a specific person with a restraining order in a state with a mandatory arrest policy!

From a NYT article:

Justices Rule

Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty

to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that “you shall arrest” or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a “property interest” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court’s precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.


A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a “property interest” in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that “such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property.

Yes, it is clear that children are not property — or IS it?   But listen to the reasoning from Scalia and from the dissenting justices:

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, “a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.”

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said “it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states’ solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases.” Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990’s, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

“The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado’s law,” the dissenting justices said.

 

 

 

The sites which come up under “no Duty To Protect” tend to be about the 2nd amendment, right-to-carry and sometimes from the mouth of law enforcement.

I think these are good reality-checks.   We have a Supreme Court which enabled the Gonzales children to die, needlessly, with impunity to the police who refused to do anything until the Dad showed up firing — at the police station; which was too late for the girls.  A case in Pennsylvania involving a violent policeman  / husband also showed he was getting worked up to kill someone — but never got the restraining order til the last minute, and almost never spent a night in jail, no matter what he did to his wife.  (I blogged it).  Finally, he shot a hole in his wife’s chest (shortly after restraining order, and subsequent release) and she tried to get some justice for her kids — financial damages (the man killed himself afterwards.  In this case, I am wondering if some medication was not related…..).  She couldn’t — why?  They cited Castle Rock v. Gonzales (Burella — I blogged this one).       I also reported the NJ Toms River case where the woman shot had also done all the “right” things — and she was a DFYS employee — but he got released suddenly, and she died.  And I looked at the domestic violence funding for NJ, too.

 

So, I am NOT telling anyone what to do (not being a lawyer or in law enforcement myself), but I feel it relevant to point out — the Police have no duty to protect — and most of them know this.  There are still heroic police all over who give their lives, including in some high-profile domestic violence shootings.  On the other hand, like in other sectors of humanity, there are corrupt police who themselves assault women and engage in bribery & extortion, putting a blot on the reputation of the honest ones.

Here’s a little ore information — and you can look up the same information.  The police have no DUTY to protect YOU, no matter what court order you have.  They also have no duty to enforce any standing family court order, nice as it might sound.  If you are going to then file contempt of court orders and require some kind of sanctions within the family law system, good luck, if you are female.  I personally feel it’s more important (if it came to community action) to figure out who has conflicts of interest surrounding the courtroom with related nonprofits taking grants money — or court-ordered business.  More than that, figure out if your judge or commissioner is AFCC.  If they are, then you know approximately what to expect in the courtroom.

When mediation has been PRIVATELY (as to tell both sides of the divorcing or separating parents) advertised and funded as one way to increase noncustodial parenting time — and this is obvious by now — then to force a CUSTODIAL parent into mediation is unfair and wrong, and potentially a setup.  Same for the supervised visitation and counseling industries.   Who does supervised visitation help the most?  Why should it even be there — to further empower the supervisors and who they report to? 

 

Use it or Lose it.  The duty to protect yourself (and your kids) lies with YOU — in all the ways that a monarch would usurp control (religion, safety, food & water, education, controlling your children).  The communal duty, seems to me is, to the extent you can, understand how your community is run, and get out of sleepwalk mode where necessary.    Seems to me, as we do live in the internet age, we have also a duty to develop some skills to figure out how our taxes are being spent.

When I was being assaulted in my home and asked repeatedly for help (various people & institutions) it took a LONG time to know about a restraining order option or that that behavior was criminal.  Years to find out.  Thereafter, in the family law courts, none of the helping information gave the most relevant help.  They gave other kinds of information, but when you got right down to it, if your problem (and the family law system IS the problem….) didn’t fit in the precise category they were funded for, too bad.

When a family leaving an abusive relationship has to utilize Title IV-D funds, they are set up from the start, via the child support system.  There is a flag on their case that could be used to obtain more funds (not for them,but for the programs) and control over child support is OUT of that parent’s hands.  I didn’t even file a child support order at any time in my case.  Many women don’t — the county filed it on their behalf.  This seems good up front — but not when one considers that the grants administered by the OCSE are fatherhood and marriage-promotion friendly.

I knew I wanted to just not need child support, and was en route to doing so, but what I didn’t know was how the restraining order and fatherhood and child support and welfare industries work — and work together, without giving the clients enough information to make intelligent decisions on when to dis-engage.  Once you are in, it is HARD to get out.

 

OK, enough of my dialogue, and more of some others, on the topic:

 

Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals.    Self-Reliance for Self Defense – Police Protection Isn’t Enough!

by Peter Kasler

All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of “Officer Friendly” to the very last time we saw a police car – most of which have “To Protect and Serve” emblazoned on their doors – we’re encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn’t always been that way.

Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens – even in large cities – were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded “standing army.”

England’s first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens’ right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.

Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:

    Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol.

[1]

Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today’s society. Police and Sheriff’s departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department “dropped” [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]

It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

THE POLICE KNOW THIS.  IF YOU DO NOT, THEN YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY REFUSE TO ENFORCE.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.” [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged “special relationship” between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had “specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,” [7] but failed to remove him from his father’s custody.

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a “special relationship,” concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” [8]

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a “special relationship” existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a “special relationship” to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a “special relationship” can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California’s Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: “Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.”

…..

 

HAVE I GOT YOUR ATTENTION NOW?  THINK ABOUT IT . . . . . WHY should everyone be getting restraining orders, and why should Duluth groups be training the nations’ police, judges, etc. — what’s right, when they know — but many of us do not — that no duty to protect exists, and not “special relationship” exists either?  California has THE largest court system in the country (we’re a big state) and we ought to know about SEctions 821, 845 & 846 (which I never heard of, til now), and then question what a District Attorney from Alameda County is going to Washington (with the team) for, to promote “Family Justice Centers”?  Why not just have self-defense absolutely required for high school graduation, and require also that all kids understand their 2nd amendment rights and all laws regarding guns? ( That sounds facetious, right? )

Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco’s violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she’d be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn’t notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.

In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff’s 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: “What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?” Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.

But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman’s estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief’s. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren’t at all rare.

In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because “the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather.” [15]

 

From Police Chief Magazine.  I am providing the reference and I suggest we READ — understand — and then move on with life.  It’s a good awareness to have.  It seems (from this article) that the exceptions to the duty to protect exemption are either when a special relationship exists (i.e., a person is in custody and thus unable to protect themselves) OR there is a state-created situation (a very direct one) which makes the situation worse than it was before.  Example given– when a drunk patron was thrown out of a bar in sub-freezing temperatures, with only jeans & T-shirt; forbidden to re-enter the bar and (naturally) forbidden to get in his truck.

The Police Chief, the Professional Voice of Law Enforcement

(ironically, this article comes from Colorado; its date is unclear):

Chief Counsel

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, Centennial, Colorado

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.

Special Relationship
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without “due process of law.”2 In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.”3 Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, “even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.”4

Those pronouncements came in a case where the Court held that there was no substantive due process violation by caseworkers when a child, formerly in department of social services custody, was returned to and later beaten by his father. Caseworkers had received complaints about the father and may have known that the child was in danger. In analyzing the facts, the Court noted that there was no special relationship between Social Services and the child, as the latter was not in its custody. The Court further noted that the state had not created the danger or done anything to place the child in more danger.5 The harm to the child was inflicted not by the state but by the child’s father. “The most that can be said of the state functionaries in this case is that they stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them.”6

When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists.

 

The next logical question is, the purpose of the restraining orders.  They give the OPTION to arrest for violation, but not the DUTY to arrest — if no legal remedies (consequences) are possible for failure to arrest, then in reality, no duty to arrest exists.  Again, the FAMILY law venue is not a “torts” or “breach of contract” venue — it seems to be a very, very strange hybrid with wide berths for judges’ discretion and a lot of tension, because of this, for anyone foolish or unlucky enough to engage.

 

ALL citizens should know this, including nonviolent, healthily married families with responsible fathers (and mothers) in the home — because it affects the community, and it affects your bottom line.  By requiring a nonviolent parent time after time to “mediate” with a violent one, and then letting that mediation industry run the courts because they are “clogged” makes no sense.

At another level, the Castle Rock Case was determined in part by who is on the Supreme Court:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/default.aspx

 

 

Among recent opinions the most recent on the site involved a juvenile male who had sexually molested a younger male (3 yr age difference) for over 2 years on an Indian reservation.  I am not reading the entire thing; this deals with his release:

Another one, Los Angeles County v. Humphries deals with a couple who was charged as child abusers, exonerated, but they couldn’t get their name removed from the list.  There is a disclaimer for these electronically posted “Slip Opinions.”

 

OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA v. HUMPHRIES ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–350. Argued October 5, 2010—Decided November 30, 2010

The Humphries (hereinafter respondents) were accused of child abuse in California, but were later exonerated. However, under California law, their names were added to a Child Abuse Central Index (Index), where they would remain available to various state agencies for at least 10 years. The statute has no procedures for allowing individu- als to challenge their inclusion in the Index, and neither California nor Los Angeles County has created such procedures. Respondents filed suit under §1983, seeking damages, an injunction, and a declaration that public officials and petitioner Los Angeles County had deprived them of their constitutional rights by failing to create a mechanism through which they could contest inclusion in the Index. The District Court granted the defendants summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment required the State to provide those on the list with notice and a hearing, and thus respondents were entitled to declaratory relief. The court also held that respondents were prevailing parties entitled to attorney’s fees, including $60,000 from the county. The county objected, claiming that as a municipal entity, it was liable only if its “policy or custom” caused the deprivation of a plaintiff’s federal right, Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658, 694; but a state policy caused any deprivation here. The Ninth Circuit, inter alia, found that respondents did prevail against the county on their claim for declaratory relief because Monell did not apply to prospective relief claims.

 

SUPREME COURT MEMBERSHIP AND BIOGRAPHIES:  (mostly from its site, some supplemental is linked).

Pretty much:  Harvard, Princeton, Yale, some Stanford….

(note:  Princeton only went co-ed in 1969? ??)

The Supreme Court of the United States

Members:

Chief Justice of the United States

JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. (from Indiana; Harvard, 2 kids, Bush appointee @ 2005)

  • From Oyez Project (“Supreme Court media“) His swearing-in marked the first addition to the Court in more than 11 years – the longest stretch without a new member since 1823. And at 50 years old, Roberts became the youngest Chief Justice since John Marshall took the bench in 1801 at the age of 45. This combination of factors – the age of the other Justices and Roberts’ relative youth – suggests the potential for substantial influence on the Court for many years to come.

    Roberts grew up in Long Beach, Indiana, where his father worked as an executive for Bethlehem Steel. In high school, he was captain of the varsity football team and also wrestled, sang in the choir, co-edited the student newspaper, took part in drama productions, and served on the student council Executive Committee. These activities, combined with a strong academic record, earned him a spot at Harvard University, where he majored in history and distinguished himself academically, graduating a year early with highest honors. During the summers he worked at a steel mill back in Indiana to help pay his tuition.

Associate Justices

ANTONIN SCALIA  (Harvard, Georgetown & a Univ. in Switzerland, 9 kids, Reagan appointee @ 1986)
ANTHONY M. KENNEDY (Stanford, London School of Economics, Harvard, 3 kids, he’s from California; Reagan appointee @ 1988)
CLARENCE THOMAS (Conception Seminary- A.B., cum laude, from Holy Cross College, J.D. from Yale, divorced with one child, Bush appointee @ 1991)

RUTH BADER GINSBURG (from Brooklyn; Cornell, Harvard, Columbia Law, 2 kids, Clinton appointee@ 1991)

  • Note:   a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980

STEPHEN G. BREYER (from SF; Stanford, Magdalen College, Oxford, Harvard Law; 3 kids; Clinton appointee@1993)

  • as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force; visiting law professor for overseas, Australia and Rome, active teaching a Harvard as well before Supreme Court appointment.

SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. (from Trenton, NJ; — No School Pedigree is on the blurb, but it’s Princeton/Yale — career track mostly federal level, Bush appointee@ 2006)

  • From USPolitics (I looked his undergrad) Alioto, the 100th US Justice, was confirmed on a 58-42 Senate vote and sworn in on 31 January 2006. He is the second conservative Bush nominee to be confirmed (to) the US Supreme Court….As a Judge, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was considered staunchly conservative, based on his court opinions, and is sometimes compared with Justice Antonin Scalia (his nickname is Scalito
  • His was the sole dissent in a 1991 decision overruling a Pennsylvania law which restricted abortion. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court decisioin (6-3) with O’Connor co-writing the majority opinion with Anthony Kennedy and David Souter
    (Oppponents:)
    It is sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America, instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor.” – Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).

    “President Bush would leave the Supreme Court looking less like America and more like an old boys’ club.” – Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

    .

SONIA SOTOMAYOR (from the Bronx, attended Princeton, Yale; Bush nominated her to US District Court (S. NY); Obama appointee@ 2009)
ELENA KAGAN (from NYC; Princeton (summa cum laude), Oxford (M.Philosophy), Harvard Law School (magna cum laude),

From 1995-1999, she was associate counsel to President Clinton; Obama nominates to Solicitor General, Obama appointee@ 2010)

Retired Justices

SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR

DAVID H. SOUTER
JOHN PAUL STEVENS

The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. The number of Associate Justices is currently fixed at eight (28 U.S.C. §1). Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, §1, of the Constitution further provides that “[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

•  Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court

 

Mission

The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal in the nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The Court stands as the final arbiter of the law and guardian of constitutional liberties.

(The Chief Justice administers the oath of office to the President of the United States to uphold and defend this constitution…)

 

LIFE

LIBERTY

PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Self-defense, self-supporting (at least not being supported from Washington, D.C.)

and self determination.

 

This cannot happen when we all continue to believe common myths (such as the duty to enforce) and refuse to rein in the uses and abuses of the tax system.

The basics of our Constitution includes deterrents to abuses of power.   Submission only goes so far — for people, or within marriages — as a justification for giving up freedoms.  Worse is when next generations forget what they never had, including children who were punished by removal from a parent who stood up against violence in the home by being transferred to the home of the local bully.  This also includes BOTH fathers and mothers (all of us) allowing a $4 billion/year industry (enforcing child and family support) to go unchecked even after it’s incidents of fraud – and settlement of the — are running into $30 million a pop (Maximus).  Or — another failure to protect — Jaycee Dugard case, part of its settlement was $20 million, I heard (state of California kidnapping victim.  She got out by fortunate coincidence after 18 years of captivity!).

 

We deserve better than fatherhood rhetoric, or preventing future violence rhetoric.  We deserve better than lives so stressed and such tight time schedules that we cannot inquire after where our local government is spending its monies — by actually looking at it (writing FOIAs or tracking vendor payments by cities, counties) and so forth.

 

If you read only two things, read the Peter Keslar article and the “Police Chief Magazine” article — they are priceless.

 


 

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 7, 2011 at 2:18 pm

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why:

with 3 comments

Understandably, this torrent of text with missing paragraph breaks can be very irritating to read.  But for those who do read, or skim, I believe I have made the point that AFCC members flock together, consult together, and set policy together.  Generally speaking any policy that comes out will  somehow, somewhere, contain the words “Parental Alienation” “High-Conflict” and  usually to go with it, “treatment” or “solutions” etc.

The solution is generally going to require counseling or the services of a psychologist, counselor, mediator, psychiatrist, therapist or other mental health expert.

  • First, positioning member (this is long done, and ongoing) high in government, particularly in the court system.
  • Programs are pretty much pushed from the Top Down while proclaiming they are actually grassroots demand . . . .
  • Running conferences — all over the place, but noticeably in real nice places that most of the people they are talking about (in the conferences, i.e., parents) have little chance of reaching (or affording hotel & airfare for)– such as Honolulu, with an after-trip to Cuba, or other cool places.  As well as the Contiguous US conference circuit, ongoing.
  • Pushing the services of psychologists and psychiatrists, including Ph.D.s in the same to remedy the majority of life’s problems.
  • This of course is easier to push when you also have judges in the mix willing to sign a few court orders forcing treatment.
PsyD Ph.D.+ JD = AFCC tactical lobbying unit.  
  • Taking advantage of Federal Grants and teaching membership how to do the same, whether from HHS or DOJ.
  • Strategically forming nonprofit corporations to contract, or subcontract with whatever the grants are for.
  • Skillful involvement of Child Support Service (OCSE) weaponry** to target participants in certain programs, like parental education, in particular.
  • Co-opting the Battered Women’s Movement and diluting it through “collaboration.”  (HHS grants system helps motivate this behavior).  For example, when Battered Women’s Justice Project combines with Association of Family & Conciliation Courts to study the problems with Custody.
(I have to pause to post this one, just for the sheer joy of the language and the confidence it inspires in me, personally, to know that it’s a Canadian sociologist ethnographer who is going to be heavily involved in a projected funded by US Taxpayers about significant problems they have encountered with criminal behavior (battering) and the failure of the LEGAL system to address this.  When in doubt, call in a sociologist, right?):

CUSTODY PROJECT

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.

Read that one aloud nonstop, three times (one quick breath only per time) and try to deduce the meaning.   Separate and examine each phrase and try to locate in time & space, and clearly label what they are referring to.

BWJP and Praxis staff  have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates.  The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents.  The goal of this analysis, which draws heavily from the Praxis Audit Process of institutional ethnography, is to develop concrete recommendations for producing safer, healthier outcomes for children and their battered and battering parents.**

Commentary:

Yes — rather than, say, accountability, let’s go for making sure the battering parents as well as the parents and children battered are safe.   This is equally important, right?, to protecting both perpetrators and their victims, whether the other parent, or children.

Since when did the safety of a person who beats on or abuses another person rise in equality to the safety of the person attacked?  Does this happen throughout the criminal law system as well?  Is battering no longer a criminal matter, but a “family” matter?  After all, the name of BWJP is “Battered Womens Justice Project.”

Any project to “produce an outcome” should be most concerned about the processes involved to get there — which is where the “Justice” part supposedly enters in!

TO figure out how to do this, assemble experts from BWJP — a group that has so far not reported (at all) on the AFCC– and the AFCC, and another family court oriented group, NCFCJ. AFCC judicial members and others are notorious for switching custody to batterers on the basis of parental alienation, a theory derivative of some incest-friendly psychologists (Gardner et al.) and promoted by an organization founded by them.  This sad/bad custody-switching habit spawned by AFCC (it wasn’t battering; it was parental alienation, and your mind needs adjustment, Mom; GREAT idea. . . .) has itself spawned another set of nonprofit groups who like to complain about it (but not address AFCC’s role or the fatherhood grants system’s role, or for that matter, the role of the child support system in funding the operation).   There already IS a framework — and these organizations are IT!  So the same organizations are going to “frame” (or rather REframe) the problems they have helped create?  — AFCC, as a primary agent, and BWJP at this point, I’ll have to call a decoy.   Who, really is being “framed” here?

The first meeting of the National Workgroup was held in November 2009 to lay the groundwork for this two-year, OVW-funded project.**  The National Workgroup met again in May 2010 to begin exploring the role of auxiliary advisors, the mechanics of the work that they perform, the reports that they produce, the ways in which the institution receives, interprets and acts on those reports, and the safety implications that flow from those complex institutional processes.  Canadian sociologist, Dr. Dorothy Smith, a world renowned expert in institutional ethnography, facilitated the May meeting.

**How appropriate this is OVW funded.  Susan Carbon of OVW was formerly involved with the NAFCJ.

OVW head is Obama Appointee:
Photo of Susan B. Carbon

Meet the Directors

Susan B. Carbon is the Director of the United States Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). Ms. Carbon was nominated to this position by President Barack Obama on October 1, 2009 and confirmed by the United States Senate on February 11, 2010.

Her bio indicates prior work in Family Law, NH, and — well here it is:

Director Carbon also served as President of NCJFCJ [A FAMLY LAW NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION] from 2007 to 2008, and was President of the New Hampshire State Bar Association in 1993-94.

Comment:  The egregious custody-switch on the basis of mother alienated the children was a New Hampshire case.  Looking into this case was what led me to the Parenting Coordination Group of NH (because personnel in that case, besides being AFCC, one was also a co-founder of the PCANH.org group.  I found out about the group by simply googling the person’s name:  Benjamin D. Garber, Ph.D.  The handbook of this group illustrated hostility towards mothers and the nuts and bolts of HOW to introduce parental alienation into a report and recommend punitive action (such as removing the children from the mother; in the sample report, the mother involved was a nurse, an RN — and the thesis was that she was incapable of assessing input around her! )  This doesn’t reflect on all of New Hampshire, but it sure does catch my attention that the head of the OVW was President of the NH State Bar long ago.  Well, I guess, very long ago….

Director Carbon has also worked with the (1) Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) on two of their major initiatives conducted at the Wingspread Conference Center, the Family Law Reform Education Project (FLER Project), and Domestic Violence and Family Courts, dealing with differentiation of domestic violence in cases of child custody  . . . . Director Carbon served as faculty for the (2) National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence—a partnership of (3) OVW, (4) Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, and (5) NCJFCJ.

These groups are already overlapping and somewhat inbred.  To call it a partnership as if there were different viewpoints involved is inaccurate.

This is the relationship:

  • OVW is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Gov’t, Dept. of Justice:  it distributes and allots grants.
  • Futures Without Violence (formerly FVPF) and NCJFCJ are both nonprofits with board of directors that receive grants.
  • Susan Carbon in 2007-2008 was President of NCJFCJ; now she is heading up the OVW, appointed by Obama.
ONE thing they have in common, that I noticed by looking at the grants system, is that FVPF and NCJFCJ were among the largest recipients of TAGGS grants around; plus also DOJ grants.  Look ‘em up yourself; they are (with the Minnesota Program Development Inc., under which BWJP & Praxis seem to fall) head and shoulders above the others in grants receipts.  They consider themselves the leaders and resource centers in these fields, and have been.  I don’t agree with the direction they have led, but as to influence, it’s true — they are leading.  Thanks to a whole lotta funding and connections.
  • AFCC doesn’t need so many grants because it gets its business directly from the courts; its membership include many highly-placed judges and other professionals in the family law system.  Also, these judges can by court order (and they do) direct business to other members who run nonprofits, i.e., the Kids’ Turns (the whole gang — see my posts) and Hannah’s Houses (Susan Griffin) & Little Angels (Viola Stroud) of the family law system.  So they are less in need of direct grants to exist and do business.  HOWEVER, they do get grants, including from family foundations.
  • Almost anything, these days, can be an “INSTITUTE.”  It could be a set of hyperlinks to (new or old) information on a web-page already hosted by a nonprofit.  It could be any entity that repeatedly hosts or sponsors a series of seminars, including webinars, sold — or run for OVW grantees.  It could be from a University, or it could be electronically organized.  It’s JUST a term to lend it more authority and solemnity, but until one actually examines what happened, what is involved that solemnity and authority shouldn’t be granted simply because of the word “institute.’

AFCC are not themselves “courts” — but an association — a private, nonprofit (which means tax-exempt; it doesn’t mean, no profits!) organization attempting, successfully, it seems — to change the “old” language of criminal law (i.e., crime = wrong, stop it, there are deterrents, such as sentencing and possible incarceration and fines for violations of the  state Penal Codes, including the parts of the penal code that call domestic violence a misdemeanor or felony; or that call assault & battery, child-rape, kidnapping and contempt of court orders — wrong) into, there ARE no individual rights — parents do not exist AS individuals except as we evaluate and analyze (and/or therapize) them.  What the law calls “crimes” the AFCC calls and treats as a family squabble, and criminalizes BOTH participants if one cannot get along with the other.  AFCC EXISTS to change the legal standards, and along with the law.  As an organization WHAT IT DOES is “reframe” issues according to its agenda.

And no fool who actually consistently reads some of the conference material can ignore that the “discredited psychological theory” called “Parental Alienation” is central to AFCC philosophy.  Also central are elements such as constantly mentioning “parental alienation and domestic violence” in the same breath as though they were equal, and as though both were as real as each other, rather than one being a criminal act (habit) and the other being a “thought-crime.” (actually, it’s a projected upon the perpetrator “attitude-crime.”)

Precisely my point.  “FVPF” (major player as far as grants recipient s ) got a facelift, but as I have blogged it gets substantial fatherhood-type funding, which is reflected in their concept that fatherhood is somehow a “tool” with which to stop domestic violence, and should have an institute on how to do this.  THis is why I look at WHO is running what, and WHO is paying for it.
Praxis International Duluth MN $500,000.00
Praxis International Duluth MN $3,500,000.00
Family Violence Prevention Fund (Now “Futures without Violence”) is definitely on good terms with the OVW:

Family Violence Prevention Fund San Francisco CA $1,500,000.00
Family Violence Prevention Fund San Francisco CA $125,000.00
Family Violence Prevention Fund San Francisco CA $900,000.00
Family Violence Prevention Fund San Francisco CA $916,000.00

(link simply leads to the organization’s website)

I searched “AFCC” on this site and came up with:

[PDF] NANCY A WELSH Resume
 and Efficient Resolution of Family Cases,” 44th Annual Conference of the
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Washington DC, May 30 
http://www.adr.gov/events/resume-nancy-welsh.pdf-2010-08-25- Text Version

Among this woman’s, a Law Professor at Fairleigh Dickinson (PA) credentials is:

Presenter, “Mediating with High Conflict Families,” ABA Section of Dispute Resolution and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ Symposium on Family, Family- Business and Intergenerational Disputes, Philadelphia, PA, February 1, 2002.

and

Presenter and moderator, “Balancing Client Self-Determination and Efficient Resolution of Family Cases,” 44th Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Washington D.C., May 30 – June 2, 2007.


USDOJ: Office on Violence Against Women: Meet the Director

 Director Carbon has also worked with the Association of Family and Conciliation
Courts on two of their major initiatives conducted at the 
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ovwdirector.htm-28k- Cached


[PDF] 
Judge Susan B Carbon Official Bio
 Ms. Carbon has also worked with the Association of Family and Conciliation
Courts on two of their major initiatives conducted at the Wingspread 
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/susan-carbon-bio.pdf-2010-09-16- Text Version

(etc.)

HERE is a report summary (dated April 2008) from the Wingspread Conference.  Note, the Johnson Foundation funded it and “Wingspread” refers to the conference site in Racine Wisconsin (Wisconsin is home of main? AFCC nonprofit, although it has chapters in other states).

Report from the Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts

  

by Clare Dalton, Nancy Ver SteeghThanks to the Association of Conciliation Courts (www.afccnet.org) for permission to republish this important report.April 2008

Although domestic violence is commonly recognized as a serious and widespread problem, there is a surprising lack of agreement about its nature, causes, frequency, and appropriate legal treatment. Researchers and practitioners who work in the field come from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds and have historically viewed domestic violence from different and sometimes competing perspectives. These differences have historically been fueled rather than resolved by research, which has employed a variety of definitions and methodologies, and, unsurprisingly, generated a variety of findings, some flatly contradictory. Acrimonious exchanges among both researchers and practitioners has tended to focus attention on contentious issues and left little room for cooperation.

Given this history, the convening of the Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts is a remarkable accomplishment in itself. Recognizing that the membership of their respective organizations represented some of the contrasting perspectives described above, leaders from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) began meeting in 2004 with the hope of opening a productive dialogue about domestic violence for the ultimate benefit of children and families. As discussion progressed the two groups sought an invitation from the Johnson Foundation to hold a jointly sponsored working conference on child custody and domestic violence at the Foundation’s Wingspread facility.

The Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts took place in February of 2007. It brought together a working group of thirty-seven experienced practitioners and researchers** {{not listed — anyone specifically representing the parents -fathers & mothers — or children’s points of view, for example, adult children who had experienced the family court system and aged out of it}} to discuss ways to meet more effectively the needs of families experiencing domestic violence.

This agenda is already framed in AFCC terms, not “Battered women’s justice” terms.  It is talking FAMILIES and NOT the rights of man (and woman).  The topic of conversation should be fairly enforcing the laws (this is what judges are to do).  How appropriate it is to discuss “meeting families’ needs” when the voices of the families involved is not even invited to (or alerted about) the conference — except in that most practitioners and researchers have SOME family experiences of their own.

When the DV advocates sought to compromise and collaborate with the AFCC, which runs the family law system (and the NCJFCJ being a significant influence on it, and a conference of judges in the system themselves, we are talking about self-evaluation and self-monitoring, which rarely works.   To the extent the DV movement held this conference, without addressing information that has been out since 1993 (NAFCJ.net and elsewhere) and 1999 (Marv Byer plus Richard Fine caught the AFCC with its pants down), repeated and published in 2002 (California Now Family Court Report traces the origins of the family law system and the AFCC to a Los Angeles Judges in effect, slush fund!) – – – the DV movement is playing deaf, blind, and dumb to some serious infractions on the Constitution, Bill of Rights and any concept of equality under the law.  Of course it has been doing this through the Duluth group for years before.

Family law litigants should not have to go years of trauma and custody-switches based on unproved allegations; lose contact with their own children through attrition, trauma, and handing the kids over toe people who have proven unable to comply with court orders . . . . .   and then years later discover that this was because in 1994 or thereabouts, Congress decided that the nation was experiencing a fatherlessness crisis and had dedicated grants to correct it, enabled through the child support and TANF systems!

The participants included members of the domestic violence advocacy community;** family court judges and administrators; lawyers, mental health, dispute resolution, and other professionals working in the family court system; and academics from the fields of law and social science. Recognizing that much can be accomplished when professional groups communicate effectively and work in concert, the conference organizers planned for a frank and wide-ranging discussion of issues related to current practice, policy, and research. At the most fundamental level, communication about domestic violence has been hindered by the fact that different professional constituencies use that term somewhat differently, and use different language to identify and analyze the range of behaviors encompassed by their particular definitions. As a result people who work in the field receive different and sometimes inconsistent messages about how to help families. Therefore, a major goal for the conference was to begin to develop a common vocabulary for, and a shared understanding of, the ways in which domestic violence manifests, and its implications for families. Other goals for the working conference included an examination of the capacity of the court system to support family safety and wellbeing; identification of ways to improve the case handling process; and consideration of how limited resources might be allocated to and among cases in which domestic violence has been identified or alleged. Given the complex and challenging nature of these aspirations, a final goal was to generate, and seek commitment from conference attendees to support, specific ongoing projects growing out of the conference agenda.

Such as more conferences and projects.

Yeah, right — the prevalence of the word “families” and the absence of ANY word referring to individuals – and as citizens of any state and the U.S., people as INDIVIDUALS have legal rights under those constitutions.  if a family member or members choose to consistently break those laws and impinge upon those rights, then there are consequences.  One of the worst infractions of any law I can think of is to take a committed marital relationship (forgive me for focusing on this one, but marriage is a legal contract; it has some legally binding factors) which also constitutes a fiduciary relationship  — and begin to assault, undermine, steal from, and deprive of basic conditions for life — within the family.  Or, to USE one of the minor children for personal sexual or other gratification.  These are EXACTLY the kinds of cases where, if anything, criminal law should take precedence above family law, when they are in conflict.

And these are exactly the kinds of cases that AFCC — as an organization — and the family law system — as a system — seeks to reframe, from the viewpoint of social science and personal relationships, not individual rights.  The origins of this system incorporate mental health professionals, counseling and a stated attempt to prevent divorce, when people come to the court in order to get divorced, and/or separated without ending up on the street.

ver Steegh and Dalton are AFCC leaders.  AFCC  = PAS promoter. PAS-promoter = reframing domestic violence, shifting the language to “allegations” and characterizing the parental alienation (when it comes to reporting parent, or custodial parent of a self-reporting child) as worse than the domestic violence.

Parental Alienation - Keeping Families Connected Logo

Parental Alienation – Keeping Families Connected

Resources to identify, battle and recover from the devastating affects 

Resources to Help Your Children Recover From
Parental Alienation and High Conflict Divorce

http://www.keepingfamiliesconnected.org/ParentalAlienationResources/children-divorce.html

AFCC is also a book-selling enterprise from its founders; newcomers can jump on board because the network is so widespread:

This site (mediate.com, another AFCC theme) is every other word is “parental alienation.”  That’s called PR — marketing — vocabulary saturation.  Occasionally a “high-conflict” (another favorite vocabulary word) is on there.  These words function as road-signs.  For example, “high-conflict” derails the conversation about who has conflict with what.   The same rationale was used about 500 years ago by a British (Catholic) Monarch to justify the “divine right of kings” — because struggle for dominance disturbs the realm.  WARSHAK markets forced reunification packages and the theory that if a mother won’t share, sole custody should go to the father.  he also markets materials to help a father’s attorney convince the MOTHER’s attorney to persuade her to back down, under threat of losing the children!

THat’s your basic AFCC.  It IS “parental alienation” and parental alienation does NOT go two ways.  it does NOT, allegedly, apply, if the perpetrating father then takes the children to punish someone for “outing” the violence, or other lawless behavior — and gets sole legal and physical custody.  BECAUSE of this and because of who invented it (and why — Gardner!) I have to reject “parental alienation” wholesale.  Because of what it represents in the courts.

Unexpected Legacy of DivorceWelcome Back PlutoI don't want to choose

AFCC has many mediators in their constituency.  mediation is a key theme.  Mediation (including mandatory) is ALSO an identified means to get more noncustodial parenting time, per the access/visitation grants as practiced in California (home of AFCC, originally).  These grants systems are part of the marriage and FATHERHOOD movement.  Battered Women’s advocates used to strongly protest the use of mediation in domestic violence cases because it severely compromised the victim parent; it was forcing her to negotiate with someone who had committed serious crimes against her, and possibly even threatened to kill, or tried to.

AFCC = pushing mediation as a solution to “HIGH-CONFLICT” etc.

Here’s Nancy Ver Steegh, who helped write this review, above:

Nancy Ver Steegh


Nancy Ver SteeghNancy Ver Steegh is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, where she teaches family law, domestic violence law and policy, and alternative dispute resolution. Her publications include articles about child custody and domestic violence, mediation and domestic violence, children and domestic violence, and mandatory divorce education. She is the coauthor of two family law books, Work of the Family Lawyer and Family Law: Examples & Explanations. She is a frequent presenter at national conferences and is a member of the board of editors of the Family Law Quarterly and the Family Court Review, as well as serving on the board of directors of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She has prior experience working as a legal aid lawyer representing victims of domestic violence and she has trained police, prosecutors, and judges nationwide. Professor Ver Steegh earned her J.D. from Washington University School of Law and her M.S.W. from the George Warren Brown School of Social Work.
For such a person to be teaching so much domestic violence, working legal aid for women expecting HELP to get separate from it, and for her to be training police, prosecutors and judges on this — and also being a director of AFCC — is a conflict of interest. Notice the “mandatory divorce education.”  The AFCC membership write the divorce education books, design the curricula, open nonprofit groups to receive business from the “mandated divorce education” and these groups funds are NOT properly accounted for.  She has a J.D. but she IS a social worker at heart, apparently.
In a search for “ver Steegh parental alienation” (this site quotes her, too), here’s an interesting quote apparently from the Dalton, above — citing NCJFCJ.  The cite from Ms. ver Steegh shows that as far back as 2005 she was already “differentiating” types of domestic violence (you can search at the link):

http://www.njep-ipsacourse.org/Custody/ParentalAlienationSyndromeC.php

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges bench book also notes that there is no scientific or legal basis for admission of parental alienation. Further, it cautions:

“The discredited ‘diagnosis’ of ‘PAS’ (or allegation of ‘parental alienation’), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be ‘alienated’ have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.”
For Ms. Dalton to actually believe that PAS is indeed a discredited diagnosis and simultaneously be among the leadership of the largest PAS-promoter association around — is a conflict of terms and it seems to me, inherently dishonest.  let’s practice what we preach, OK?
In the same place (this appears to be a slideshow, part of a course) another learned person considers HOW PAS gained credibility when it has none:

Professor Carol Bruch, in her thorough essay, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children: Getting it Wrong in Child Custody Cases, considers how the “syndrome” has gained currency in the courts, despite the absence of scientific validity, and provides useful perspective on the issues (Bruch,Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children (278KB), 2002).

She is a learned person (Professor) so I clicked to see if she mentioned AFCC, at all.  She did — ONCE — in a fineprint, footnote 67, which is here:

In May 2001, for example, a national conference on Conflict Resolution, Children and the Courts included both a half-day institute titled ‘The ABC’s of High Conflict Families and Alienated Children’ and a panel devoted to ‘Restoring Relationships Between Alienated Children and their Parents.’ AFCC 38th Annual Conference, 9-12 May 2001. The July 2001 issue of Family Court Review contains a symposium on AC. As described by the editors, the purpose is ‘to review the psychological and legal difficulties with Parental Alienation Syndrome … and to develop a more complex and useful understanding of situations in which children strongly and unexpectedly reject a parent during or after divorce.’ Janet R. Johnston and Joan B. Kelly, Guest Editorial Notes, 39 FAM CT REV 246, at p 246 (2001) [hereafter Johnston and Kelly, Ed Notes]. In their joint article for the issue, Johnston and Kelly argue for a new formulation that would distinguish alienated children ‘from other children who also resist contact with a parent after separation but for a variety of normal developmentally expectable reasons (including realistic estrangement from violent, neglectful, or abusive parents).’ Ibid, summarising Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston, The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome, 39 FAM CT REV 249 (2001) [hereafter Kelly and Johnston, The Alienated Child].

I can’t keep up with all the AFCC Board members, by memory (easy enough to check), but I will that Janet Johnston has been one of them.  Joan Kelly is one of the originals in promoting the mediation solution.   Obviously, they conference and publish together.
The key in that situation (in blue) is that it’s going to be an AFCC member, or member of one of the professions they promote, that will be ordered and paid for the privilege of assessing whether the child is alienated because, for example, he/she doesn’t like being molested or degraded/mistreated — or whether there was no such mistreatment (and a PSYCHOLOGICAL evaluation is going to detect this?), meaning, the child’s distaste for the other parent was brainwashing (alienation) by the parent.
The article starts thus:

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children – getting it wrong in child custody cases􏰀

Carol S. Bruch􏰀􏰀

This article examines mental health and legal responses when children resist visits with noncustodial parents. In Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children, it finds a lack of rigorous analysis that endangers children. The author concludes by suggesting better ways to evaluate new theories from the social sciences. Citation conventions are based in part on The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Harvard Law Review Assoc, 17th ed 2001).

INTRODUCTION

As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences.

What fueled that enthusiasm, I wonder?  And what is social science THEORY doing in the courts?

This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 that became widely used (sometimes in a form called Parental Alienation) despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar discussion of more recent proposals concerning Alienated Children (AC), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.

In about 20 fine-print pages in a scholarly publication (Child and Family Law Quarterly) — that the average court litigant will NEVER see (unless like me, they catch wind of what’s up, and research it as they can, on-line) — this author does not ONCE mention the AFCC organization as a causative factor to acceptance of PAS in the body of the paper.
Which is why “SCHOLARS” are not going to change this system, which is not based on reason, but on common practices and common conferences deciding what the best practice should be.
That was 2002. This is 2011.  In San Francisco Weekly, March 24, 2011, “the Snitch” reported on PAS.   The reports didn’t mention AFCC either.  No one seems interested in HOW these things happen, and in who is promoting them.
(I could say more, but not today, on the NCJFCJ).  This conference shows me that the language has already been changed.  As the word “DV professional” can now include anyone associated with this organization, including someone on its Board — It would seem that in this matter, the AFCC language won out, and it did so the minute the conference was called in an attempt to reconcile their languages — what about the language that the REST of us read, when we are engaging in court or custody actions?
If it is to be changed by practice, we are to be informed.  THAT — and not meeting in Racine, Honolulu, Orlando, and all over the map to get the game plan together which then will be enforced without proper notice upon parents — is how to protect entire FAMILIES from abuse by the head of the household.
(This post is an earlier draft, partially completed.  A more complete presentation would show more about the relationship of NCJFCJ to the OVW, and mention a NCJFCJ Board of Directors or prior board of directors who also heads up a major health provider in Arizona.  I have some of this material in my email and will attempt to post in a bit).
For example (I lifted this from one of my own comments on an SFWeekly article on parental alienation, which also failed to note the AFCC factor.  This comment spoke about Dr. Philip Stahl, and calls attention to the positions from which he speaks.  I have a post in draft on this person; we might as well know:
http://www.sfweekly.com/2011-03-02/news/family-court-parental-alienation-syndrome-richard-gardner-pedophilia-domestic-violence-child-abuse-judges-divorce/5/

Article — 9 years after Carol Bruch’s speculations, SFWeekly has made little progress in identifying the who’s who of PAS promotion:

California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody
By Peter Jamison Wednesday, Mar 2 2011

(this is a comment.  There were over 1,700 comments on this site!)

The PAS is the wallpaper — it is not the scaffolding. I blog on the scaffolding and the foundation at familycourtmatters wordpress com, FYI. So do several others, who are not on the federal grants stream, the referral business from the courts stream, or the “I have a Dream” book-marketing teams appealing to parents (mostly moms) who have lost their kids through having PAS thrown at them, and many times, the children became “alienated” because of this — but no $$ benefit attached, so THAT “alienation” is not addressed in the court.Such as Dr Stahl:
(from ‘parenting after divorce (com)’):
“Take Dr. Stahl’s online CE courses at the Steve Frankel Group.”Philip Stahl, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic) is a psychologist licensed in California (#PSY 10272), Michigan (#6301001615), and Arizona (#3843). Dr. Stahl lives in Maricopa County Arizona, though his work takes him all over the country. Dr. Stahl is a practitioner, author, and teacher, specializing in HIGH CONFLICT** families of divorce. He has served on numerous committees and task forces designed to improve the quality of work in his field. He teaches judges, attorneys, psychologists and other mental health professionals about issues affecting families and children. His expertise is accepted in courts across the country.”

{{**….Bio page makes it clear, this includes parental alienation. “High-conflict” is code for AFCC. It’s like their battle cry…. BIO page, bottom, reads like this: “His articles have been on parental alienation, ethics, child custody evaluations, psychological testing, and high conflict.” Notice that “parental alienation” comes before ethics, and of course wrapping it up with high conflict, which is always bad, even if it’s one parents conflict with criminal behavior, or court order violations, by the other……}}

“If you are a professional, you will probably be interested in his training, either at conferences or for ongoing continuing education. Dr. Stahl specializes in training judges, presenting workshops to judges in Arizona, California, Virginia, Utah, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, and other states.

{{He is on the faculty of National Judicial College and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (“NCJFCJ”). If he’s on the faculty of a national council of judges (major player in custody court system) and he teaches PAS, are we still puzzled why it is frequently named in custody hearings?}}

Most recently, Dr. Stahl, along with several co-faculty, has developed and begun to teach a course titled Modern Divorce Advocacy through the National Institute for Trial Advocacy. As an approved provider of continuing education for the American Psychological Association and an approved provider of legal specialist education (family law) for the California Bar Association, Dr. Stahl also provides ongoing training and continuing education workshops for psychologists and attorneys. See the links to training for more information on past and future trainings.”

Good work, if you have the connections.
“Both Days of Workshop – Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $340.00

Friday Workshop Only – Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $250.00

Saturday Workshop Only – Registration faxed or postmarked before 7/17 $120.00″

He teaches PAS.
It is my intent that organization which are still showing up confused and puzzled as to how & why PAS continues to be promoted and used as an excuse to order a custody-switch in the family law system will have no place to hide while they continue their high-profile posturing and speculation on this.
NCJFCJ and AFCC, I can understand.  BWJP is, however, portraying itself as helping “Battered Women” get “Justice.”   Perhaps BWJP should review what the process of justice is, at its core level.  And that does NOT include setting policy and making decisions, selling out women in order to get what IT determines are good results.  That behavior is no different than the AFCC behavior.   They wish to be policy-setters, and have become this simply because they control the flow of information among those who control the courts.
While Dr. Stahl appears to have gone straight from his college education(s), just about, into AFCC, and not had a career interruption since — note the price of the workshops — and has been publishing on PAS for over a decade — what about the many parents who have lost work, and contact with their children wrongfully, through his and his friend’s policies and re-definition of standards?  This is NOT the legislative process, the judicial process, or the enforcement process envisioned by the people who wrote our Constitution.  They sought OPPOSED the divine right of kings and SUPPORTED the “rights of man.”  To support the rights of man means, this government belongs to the people, and those people are not to be treated as troubled children needing help, therapy, and sage advice.  They are to be basically left alone in their homes and businesses unless they are a public menace and have committed IDENTIFIABLE IN LAW crimes against society (and divorcing is NOT a crime against society, nor is arguing with one’s spouse.  Nor is LEAVING one’s spouse, with children, when there has been a serious danger and injury to onesself and/or the children a crime against society!).
The Wingspread Conference had, it said, only 37 people, and it had the support of a wealthy foundation.
Many policies — such as the “Fragile i” concept –have wealthy supporters:  Here’s just a sample:

Just Get Me to the Church…”: Assessing Policies to Promote Marriage among Fragile Families

by

Ronald B. Mincy

Columbia University

Chien-Chung Huang

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey November 16, 2001

Prepared for the MacArthur Network Meeting, Evanston, Illinois, November 30, 2001

We are grateful to Marah Curtis for computational assistance. Support for this research was provided by the Ford Foundation . The Fragile Families Study is supported by grants from NICHD, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Public Policy Institute of California, the California HealthCare Foundation, the Hogg Foundation, the St.David’s Hospital Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, the Fund for New Jersey, the Healthcare Foundation of New Jersey, the Foundation for Child Development, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Kronkosky Charitable Foundation, the A.L. Mailman Family Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, St. Vincent Hospitals and Health Services in Indianapolis, and the Bendheim Thoman Center for Research on Child Well-being.

Almost everyone is in on the game; and the game is — the families themselves are the pawns on the chessboard.  The study is a coalition of chess-players debating about the next move.  Foundations are tax-exempt organizations…  Pawns are expendable….(Chess it seems being taken from medieval/feudal symbolism:  King, Queen, Rook, Knight, BISHOP — all have more freedom of movement except the King.   Anything can be expended to protect the king, and who “checks” or captures him, wins the game.  The Queen is the most powerful mover on the chessboard, but the game is about the king.
From the position of a veteran of the family courts (and a domestic violence survivor — we survived, no one was killed although the weapons were in place to do it, and that was the direction the “marriage” was headed til I stopped it, temporarily, with the restraining order, forcing the abuser to figure out another way to exercise abusive and destructive control, which was found in this venue…..)
Sample from abstract (this is a draft, and this is all I’m going to mention — it’s typical):

Abstract

This article examines alternative approaches to encourage family formation among fragile families, including higher cash benefits, more liberal acceptance of welfare applications, more effective child support enforcement, and efforts to increase education and employment of low-income parents. We examine these approaches by refining and expanding previous work on a generalized logit model of the mothers’ actual family formation outcomes, in a hierarchy that includes father absence, father involvement, cohabitation, and marriage. Refinements involve measurements of family formation that make our results more comparable to other studies and new controls for previous fertility with the father of the focal child and with another partner (multiple partner fertility).

The comment to yesterday’s (huge) post mentioned the Irish Slave trade, and Cromwell’s unbelievable pillaging of the Irish; they were cheaper (free) at the time than African slaves.  Eventually, some of the masters got “smart” and started breeding the irish women slaves with the male African slaves.  They are able to do that because the situation was, indeed, slavery.
This type of “fragile families” talk has the same mentality!  They might as well be breeding and farming people, as “encouraging family formation” here.  The only obstacle to this — currently — is the 15th amendment to the United States Constitution.  Slavery is not legal; and one class of people are NOT breeding material to produce workers, or for that matter, ANYTHING, for another class.   But that is exactly the concept here.     The people they wish to “form families” did not create the institutions they were raised in — more likely, the types of people and mentalities of these same chess players, policymakers — were of the same class that created the failed and demoralizing institutions that produced “fragile families.”
Here’s another sample:

Multipartnered Fertility and Depression among Fragile Families*

Kristin Turney Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar University of Michigan

Marcia J. Carlson Associate Professor of Sociology University of Wisconsin-Madison

November 12, 2010

*Direct all correspondence to Kristin Turney, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 109 Observatory, 3642 SPH Tower, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. Turney’s work on this project was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholars Program. Carlson’s work was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) through grant R01HD57894 and through core funding to the Center for Demography and Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (R24HD047873). Funding for the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study was provided by NICHD through grants R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations (see http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/funders.asp for the complete list).

What is the purpose of these studies, really?
When they start talking “multiple-partner fertility,” you know someone has truly gone off the deep end. Is there not some other occupation for these scholars?  How would these scholars (both women, this time) like to be grouped with a mass of people and characterized by THEIR fertility output and studied as to what emotions it engendered in them?  What’s more depressing is to learn of these debates.

Compare:   (follow up to the Irish ethnic cleansing of the 1600s….)  I’m including because the discussion above is talking about people as though they were cattle.  It reminded me of what happened to the Irish and African slaves in the West Indies during the reign of Cromwell.
This quote appears to be from a descendant of some of those slaves, a Cavanaugh that traced his forebears back to Barbados, and asked, what were they doing there?  It’s fairly detailed; skim for content, and at the bottom, it talks about the breeding program, based on differential between irish slaves (cheaper) and African (had to be bought and adapted easier to the climate).  Let us ask some SERIOUS questions about what kind of business these foundations and the US Government helping finance them, are in — when they talk about fragile families, promoting healthy marriage and fatherhood, and why its best for the country to tweak the legal system with the child support (& tax) systems so as to produce the desired outcome of a low-income father IN every child’s home, or at least in a job financing that child’s home.

Race and HistoryNews and Views

Irish Slavery

Posted By: Jim Cavanaugh
Date: 28, May 05, at 9:50 p.m.

Irish Slavery
by
James F. Cavanaugh
junglejim@btl.net

There are a great many K/Cavanaughs in North America who trace their ancestry back to a Charles Cavanaugh, who arrived in Virginia, with a brother or cousin named Philemon Cavanagh (Felim or Phelim), on or about 1700.

what were the Cavanaughs doing in Barbados in the first place? The answer takes us down a revolting path wandering through one of the most insensitive and savage episodes in history, where the greed and avarice of the English monarchy systematically planned the genocide of the Irish, for commercial profit, and executed a continuing campaign to destroy all traces of Irish social, cultural and religious being. As the topic was politically sensitive, little has been written about this attempted genocide of the Irish, and what has been written has been camouflaged because it is an ugly and painfully brutal story. But the story should be told.

Transportation and Banishment

If Queen Elizabeth I had lived in the 20th Century. she would have been viewed with the same horror as Hitler and Stalin. Her policy of Irish genocide was pursued with such evil zest it boggles the mind of modern men. But Elizabeth was only setting the stage for the even more savage program that was to follow her, directed specifically to exterminate the Irish. James II and Charles I continued Elizabeth’s campaign, but Cromwell almost perfected it. Few people in modern so-called “civilized history” can match the horrors of Cromwell in Ireland. It is amazing what one man can do to his fellow man under the banner that God sanctions his actions!

During the reign of Elizabeth I, English privateers captured 300 African Negroes, sold them as slaves, and initiated the English slave trade. Slavery was, of course, an old established commerce dating back into earliest history. Julius Caesar brought over a million slaves from defeated armies back to Rome. By the 16th century, the Arabs were the most active, generally capturing native peoples, not just Africans, marching them to a seaport and selling them to ship owners. Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish ships were originally the most active, supplying slaves to the Spanish colonies in America. It was not a big business in the beginning, but a very profitable one, and ship owners were primarily interested only in profits. The morality of selling human beings was never a factor to them.

After the Battle of Kinsale at the beginning of the 17th century, the English were faced with a problem of some 30,000 military prisoners, which they solved by creating an official policy of banishment. Other Irish leaders had voluntarily exiled to the continent, in fact, the Battle of Kinsale marked the beginning of the so-called “Wild Geese”, those Irish banished from their homeland. Banishment, however, did not solve the problem entirely, so James II encouraged selling the Irish as slaves to planters and settlers in the New World colonies. The first Irish slaves were sold to a settlement on the Amazon River In South America in 1612. It would probably be more accurate to say that the first “recorded” sale of Irish slaves was in 1612, because the English, who were noted for their meticulous record keeping, simply did not keep track of things Irish, whether it be goods or people, unless such was being shipped to England. The disappearance of a few hundred or a few thousand Irish was not a cause for alarm, but rather for rejoicing. Who cared what their names were anyway, they were gone.

Almost as soon as settlers landed in America, English privateers showed up with a good load of slaves to sell. The first load of African slaves brought to Virginia arrived at Jamestown in 1619. English shippers, with royal encouragement, partnered with the Dutch to try and corner the slave market to the exclusion of the Spanish and Portuguese. The demand was greatest in the Spanish occupied areas of Central and South America, but the settlement of North America moved steadily ahead, and the demand for slave labor grew.

The Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.

The Confederation War broke out in Kilkenny in 1641, as the Irish attempted to throw out the English yet again, something that seem to happen at least once every generation. Sir Morgan Cavanaugh of Clonmullen, one of the leaders, was killed during a battle in 1646, and his two sons, Daniel and Charles (later Colonel Charles) continued with the struggle until the uprising was crushed by Cromwell in 1649. It is recorded that Daniel and other Carlow Kavanaghs exiled themselves to Spain, where their descendants are still found today, concentrated in the northwestern corner of that country. Young Charles, who married Mary Kavanagh, daughter of Brian Kavanagh of Borris, was either exiled to Nantes, France, or transported to Barbados… or both. Although we haven’t found a record of him in a military life in France, it is known that the crown of Leinster and other regal paraphernalia associated with the Kingship of Leinster was brought to France, where it was on display in Bordeaux, just south of Nantes, until the French Revolution in 1794. As Daniel and Charles were the heirs to the Leinster kingship, one of them undoubtedly brought these royal artifacts to Bordeaux.

In the 12 year period during and following the Confederation revolt, from 1641 to 1652, over 550,000 Irish were killed by the English and 300,000 were sold as slaves, as the Irish population of Ireland fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Banished soldiers were not allowed to take their wives and children with them, and naturally, the same for those sold as slaves. The result was a growing population of homeless women and children, who being a public nuisance, were likewise rounded up and sold. But the worse was yet to come.

In 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!

But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others. Cromwell then fought two quick wars against the Dutch in 1651, and thereafter monopolized the slave trade. Four years later he seized Jamaica from
Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.

On 14 August 1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering that the Irish were to be transported overseas, starting with 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to Barbados. The infamous “Connaught or Hell” proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654, where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands and relocated west of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. Those who have been to County Clare, a land of barren rock will understand what an impossible position such an order placed the Irish.

. . .

With no place to go and stay alive, the Irish were slow to respond. This was an embarrassing problem as Cromwell had financed his Irish expeditions through business investors, who were promised Irish estates as dividends, and his soldiers were promised freehold land in exchange for their services.

Typical despot — selling things that don’t belong to him, resulting in death to others.

To speed up the relocation process, a reinforcing law was passed on 26 June 1657 stating: “Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught or Co Clare within six months… Shall be attained of high treason… are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas… those banished who return are to suffer the pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy.”

Remind us of anything that happened in the New World, to date?

Although it was not a crime to kill any Irish, and soldiers were encouraged to do so, the slave trade proved too profitable to kill off the source of the product. Privateers and chartered shippers sent gangs out with quotas to fill, and in their zest as they scoured the countryside, they inadvertently kidnapped a number of English too. On March 25, 1659, a petition of 72 Englishmen was received in London, claiming they were illegally “now in slavery in the Barbados”’ . The petition also claimed that “7,000-8,000 Scots taken prisoner at the battle of Worcester in 1651 were sold to the British plantations in the New World,” and that “200 Frenchmen had been kidnapped, concealed and sold in Barbados for 900 pounds of cotton each.”

Subsequently some 52,000 Irish, mostly women and sturdy boys and girls, were sold to Barbados and Virginia alone. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were taken prisoners and ordered transported and sold as slaves. In 1656, Cromwell’s Council of State ordered that 1000 Irish girls and 1000 Irish boys be rounded up and taken to Jamaica to be sold as slaves to English planters. As horrendous as these numbers sound, it only reflects a small part of the evil program, as most of the slaving activity was not recorded. There were no tears shed amongst the Irish when Cromwell died in 1660.

…Cromwell representing the Puritan mentality; some representative!

Slaves or Indentured Servants

There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service. It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers.

However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves. There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits.

Now, while the degree (I think….) of abuse and slavery doesn’t compare, how about the practices and mentality.  WHO is profiting from these Fragile Families Studies the most?  Certainly not the “fragile family” members…… It’s those doing and commissioning the studies.  The question should be asked, WHY — (see list of foundations) — do these foundations need to keep up with the supply of cheap labor for the corporations and companies that produced the wealth to start the foundations to start with?
Breeding more slaves — were these “fragile families?”

The planters quickly began breeding the comely Irish women, not just because they were attractive, but because it was profitable,,, as well as pleasurable. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, and although an Irish woman may become free, her children were not. Naturally, most Irish mothers remained with their children after earning their freedom. Planters then began to breed Irish women with African men to produce more slaves who had lighter skin and brought a higher price. The practice became so widespread that in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” This legislation was not the result of any moral or racial consideration, but rather because the practice was interfering with the profits of the Royal African Company! It is interesting to note that from 1680 to 1688, the Royal African Company sent 249 shiploads of slaves to the Indies and American Colonies, with a cargo of 60,000 Irish and Africans. More than 14,000 died during passage.

Following the Battle of the Boyne and the defeat of King James in 1691, the Irish slave trade had an overloaded inventory, and the slavers were making great profits. The Spanish slavers were a competition nuisance, so in 1713, the Treaty of Assiento was signed in which Spain granted England exclusive rights to the slave trade, and England agreed to supply Spanish colonies 4800 slaves a year for 30 years. England shipped tens of thousands of Irish prisoners after the 1798 Irish Rebellion to be sold as slaves in the Colonies and Australia.

There were horrendous abuses by the slavers, both to Africans and Irish. The records show that the British ship Zong was delayed by storms, and as their food was running low, they decided to dump 132 slaves overboard to drownso the crew would have plenty to eat. If the slaves died due to “accident”, the loss was covered by insurance, but not if they starved to death. Another British ship, the Hercules averaged a 37% death rate on passages. The Atlas II landed with 65 of the 181 slaves found dead in their chains. But that is another story.

The economics of slavery permeated all levels of English life. When the Bishop of Exeter learned that there was a movement afoot to ban the slave trade, he reluctantly agreed to sell his 655 slaves, provided he was properly compensated for the loss. Finally, in 1839, a bill was passed in England forbidding the slave trade, bringing an end to Irish misery.

From another source called “Tangled Roots” with a yale.edu address:
http://www.yale.edu/glc/tangledroots/tr08.htm
Tangled Roots Logo

Barbadosed

Africans and Irish in Barbados

During the 1600’s, African slaves and Irish natives shared a common fate on the island of Barbados. Slaves first arrived on the island in the 1620’s with the first white settlers and continued to be brought there as the need for labor created a new market for the international slave trade. By 1645, the black population on the island was 5680, and by 1667, there were over 40,000 slaves on the island. In the early years of the colony’s growth, Barbados also became a destination for military prisoners and Irish natives. Oliver Cromwell “barbadosed” Irish who refused to clear off their land and allowed other Irish to be kidnaped from the streets of Ireland and transported to Barbados. Those who were barbadosed were sold as slaves or indentured servants, to British planters. They lived in slave conditions and had no control over the number of years they had to serve. The number of Barbadosed Irish in not known and estimates very widely, from a high of 60,000 to a low of 12,000.

Both groups suffered in harsh conditions and joined together to revolt against British settlers.

And yet another:
Richard Ligon, who witnessed these things first-hand and recorded them in a history of Barbados he published in 1657, stated:“Truly, I have seen cruelty there done to servants as I did not think one Christian could have done to another.”(5) 

According to Sean O’Callahan, in To Hell or Barbados, Irish men and women were inspected like cattle there, just as the Africans were. In addition, Irish slaves, who were harder to distinguish from their owners since they shared the same skin color, were branded with the owner’s initials, the women on the forearm and the men on the buttocks. O’Callahan goes on to say that the women were not only sold to the planters as sexual slaves but were often sold to local brothels as well. He states that the black or mulatto overseers also often forced the women to strip while working in the fields and often used them sexually as well.(6)

The one advantage the Irish slaves had over the African slaves was that since they were literate and they did not survive well in the fields, they were generally used as house servants, accountants, and teachers. But the gentility of the service did not correlate to the punishment for infractions. Flogging was common, and most slave owners did not really care if they killed an easily replaceable, cheap Irish slave.

While most of these slaves who survived were eventually freed after their time of service was completed, many leaving the islands for the American colonies, many were not, and the planters found another way to insure a free supply of valuable slaves. They were quick to “find solace” and start breeding with the Irish slave women. Many of them were very pretty, but more than that, while most of the Irish were sold for only a period of service, usually about 10 years assuming they survived, their children were born slaves for life. The planters knew that most of the mothers would remain in servitude to remain with their children even after their service was technically up.

WHY did the English do this?  Well, you tell me.  Perhaps this is why:
THE IRISH SLAVESAt the beginning of the 17th Century (1600s), in the reign of James I of England, England faced a problem: what to do with the Irish. They had been practicing genocide against the Irish since the reign of Elizabeth, but they couldn’t kill them all. Some had been banished, and some had gone into voluntary exile, but there were still just too many of them.

So James I encouraged the sale of the Irish as slaves to the New World colonies, not only America but Barbados and South America. The first recorded sale of Irish slaves was to a settlement along the Amazon in South America in 1612. However, before that there were probably many unofficial arrangements, since the Irish were of no importance and details of how they were dealt with were not deemed necessary. 

In 1625, the King issued a proclamation that all Irish political prisoners were to be transported to the West Indies and sold as slave labor to the planters there.

Kings could and did do that.  This is why we need FUNCTIONAL constitutions and rule of law.
In 1637, a census showed that 69% of the inhabitants of Monsarrat in the West Indies were Irish slaves. The Irish had a tendency to die in the heat, and were not as well suited to the work as African slaves, but African slaves had to be bought. Irish slaves could be kidnapped if there weren’t enough prisoners, and of course, it was easy enough to make Irish prisoners by manufacturing some petty crime or other. This made the Irish the preferred “livestock” for English slave traders for 200 years.In 1641, one of the periodic wars in which the Irish tried to overthrow the English misrule  in their land took place. As always, this rebellion eventually failed. As a result, in the 12 years following the revolt, known as the Confederation War, the Irish population fell from 1,466,000 to 616,000. Over 550,000 Irishmen were killed, and 300,000 were sold as slaves. The women and children who were left homeless and destitute had to be dealt with , so they were rounded up and sold, too.

But even though it did not seem that things could get worse, with the advent of Oliver Cromwell, they did

So we see that in both this century and previous centuries, religion mixed with leadership and law-making to produce ongoing profits, including the slave trade, by categorizing ALL humans as equal, but SOME humans more equal that the rest.  What to do with these sub-human humans of course had to be discussed separately by the super-human humans, and as ever, economics plays a serious factor.
But instead, when confronting this, people are trained and coached not to “cause conflict” and of course do NOT look at the profits motive as to why the injuries, mistreatments, and mayhem (I’m referring to domestic violence issues treated in the family law system) still prevails.   And do not question the religion of one’s superiors, even when it’s questionable.

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm

Thomas Jefferson’s last letter, 1826: “[This] form of self-government which RESTORES the free right to unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion”

with one comment

The U.S. Constitution On-Line

(images& transcript below from:  http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara4.html)

Thomas Jefferson was too ill to make the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, so he wrote this letter to express his regrets, support, and vision for the new nation, and from it, the world.

Yes, certain people couldn’t vote then and weren’t in the original plan.  But as it says below,

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains. . . . . 

He understood the power of ideas and knowledge.  It took one hundred years more for women to be able to vote, they were excluded as a gender from the first round of expanded voting rights

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th amendment granted African American men the right to vote.

“15th Amendment”

To former abolitionists and to the Radical Republicans in Congress who fashioned Reconstruction after the Civil War, the 15th amendment, enacted in 1870, appeared to signify the fulfillment of all promises to African Americans. Set free by the 13th amendment, with citizenship guaranteed by the 14th amendment, black males** were given the vote by the 15th amendment. From that point on, the freedmen were generally expected to fend for themselves. In retrospect, it can be seen that the 15th amendment was in reality only the beginning of a struggle for equality that would continue for more than a century before African Americans could begin to participate fully in American public and civic life.

African Americans exercised the franchise and held office in many Southern states through the 1880s, but in the early 1890s, steps were taken to ensure subsequent “white supremacy.”

**I’ve been told that this is the first place the word “males” occurs in the Bill of Rights / Amendments.  Was there already an understanding that if women, too, were granted more liberty, the sky would fall?

It is always going to be a fight to obtain and retain liberty.  Sleep at your own risk.

And remember these sentiments:

Timely, Eloquent Expression  — from 1826,

on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman)

Monticello, June 24, 1826

Respected Sir-

The kind invitation I receive from you, on the part of the citizens of the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day. But acquiescence is a duty, under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to control [age/infirmity]. I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. [para.break added here...]

That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington and its vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me the gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself, and those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly attachments.

Th. Jefferson

A few points:

SUBMISSION OR THE SWORD — THEY CHOSE, even if it seemed then a “BOLD & DUBIOUS” choice.

THE UNBOUNDED EXERCISE OF REASON AND FREEDOM OF OPINION — this form of Goverment is to RESTORE those qualities.

this is the natural state of mankind, they declared . . .   by contrast with:

MONKISHIGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION PERSUADE (MEN) TO BIND THEMSELVES

The word “monkish” speaks loudly — he is talking about religion.

Below, because it came up as part of Richard C. Weightman’s identity, I have some texts on freemasonry.  Weightman and several other founders were freemasons.  I already knew that several were Deists, and that the “Enlightenment” was a factor previous to this constitution.   My (basic) site says:  “By the 1700s, the Freemasons had evolved from a trade guild into an organization of men with a very distinct philosophy. They favored religious tolerance over the strict dictates of the Catholic Church, and they enjoyed intellectual discourse with their brothers.”

Although the Freemasons were very pleased with the society they had created, not everyone shared their enthusiasm. Both the government and the church were suspicious of the organization’s secrecy and liberal religious beliefs. In 1737, King Louis XV banned the Freemasons in France. A year later, Pope Clement XII forbade Catholics from becoming Freemasons on penalty of excommunication, and the Portuguese government made Freemasonry punishable by death

Most religion is forced on people; it has to be; reason doesn’t persuade them to adopt it  freely for masses of people.  Those who have altered or liberalized the religious-state dominance were often persecuted and outlawed.   Despite Jefferson’s claim above that SELF-GOVERNMENT (individual and in association with others) leads to both SECURITY & BLESSINGS, traditionally, it goes the other day.

In the 1600s, and of course previous centuries in England and elsewhere, being of the wrong religion could result in torture & death, far later than most of us believe.  Born in 1494 , at the turn of the 16th century William Tyndale, fluent in EIGHT languages, was martyered at age 39 in Belgium where he’d fled to continue translating the Bible into English: 

William Tyndale

Tyndale holds the distinction of being the first man to ever print the New Testament in the English language. Tyndale was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, English, and German) that it was said one would think any one of them to be his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language”, (even more so than William Shakespeare) as so many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in our language today.
The Bible we have today in English is in great part based on his, despite frequent later revisions.

Tyndale was a theologian and scholar who translated the Bible into an early form of Modern English. He was the first person to take advantage of Gutenberg’s movable-type press for the purpose of printing the scriptures in the English language. Besides translating the Bible, Tyndale also held and published views which were considered heretical, first by the Catholic Church, and later by the Church of England which was established by Henry VIII.** His Bible translation also included notes and commentary promoting these views. Tyndale’s translation was banned by the authorities, and Tyndale himself was burned at the stake in 1536, at the instigation of agents of Henry VIII and the Anglican Church.

While Henry VIII wanted the Anglican church for personal / royal reasons, this didn’t put him above chasing down heretics such as Tyndale:

** Obviously influenced by the Reformation & Martin Luther, he set out to translate the Bible into English; he had to flee England to do so.  John Foxe describes an argument with a “learned” but “blasphemous” clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, “We had better be without God’s laws than the Pope’s.” Swelling with emotion, Tyndale responded:
I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spare my life ere many years,
I will cause the boy that drives the plow to know more of the scriptures than you!
Sounds like he kept the promise.     I doubt, were he alive today, he would subscribe to any cult of the experts.
This man was passionate, gifted in languages, and prolific — and a martyr by age 39.  His commitment is in the same vein as those who fought the war for independence, and who drafted the Constitution, and his story is part of their heritage, including the religious wars and, literally, exercising — though as a fugitive — the “Freedom of the Press.”  Take some minutes to browse, because this theme of exercising freedom of religion in times where heresy could result in death — leads up to Isaac Newton, John Locke, and Ben Franklin, Jefferson & Friends.  Which TYPES of freedom are most important; material only?

(Tyndale’s) literary activity during that interval was extraordinary. When he left England, his knowledge of Hebrew, if he had any, was of the most rudimentary nature; and yet he mastered that difficult tongue so as to produce from the original an admirable translation of: the entire Pentateuch [1st 5 books of the present Bible], the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, First Chronicles, contained in Matthew’s Bible of 1537, and of the Book of Jonah, so excellent, indeed, that his work is not only the basis of those portions of the Authorized King James Version of 1611, but constitutes nine-tenths of that translation, and very largely that of the English Revised Version of 1885.

In addition to these he produced the following works . . . [probably not of interest to this audience....]

All these works were written during those mysterious years, in places of concealment so secure and well chosen, {{speaking 8 languages probably helped him blend in …!}} that neither the ecclesiastical nor diplomatic emissaries of Wolsey and Henry VIII., charged to track, hunt down, and seize the fugitive, were able to reach them, and they are even yet unknown. Under the idea that the progress of the Reformation in England rendered it safe for him to leave his concealment, he settled at Antwerp in 1534, and combined the work of an evangelist with that of a translator of the Bible.

The Betrayal and Death of William Tyndale

Tyndale was betrayed by a friend, Philips, the agent either of Henry or of English ecclesiastics, or possibly of both. Tyndale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden for over 500 days of horrible conditions. He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. Tyndale was then strangled and burnt at the stake in the prison yard, Oct. 6, 1536. His last words were, “Lord, open the king of England’s eyes.” This prayer was answered three years later, in the publication of King Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”.

I also suspect (though won’t research today) that given who he was and how much time he spent in the scriptures, translating them from Hebrew & Greek (not Latin), he probably was not too big on the Trinity.  Again, for those less interested in doctrinal matters, it’s also accuracy & political matters.   After all, a young man (39 yrs old) was sent to jail (over a year), tied to a stake, strangled at the stake til dead, and then his body was burned.  You KNOW there’s some religious fervor in such behavior somewhere.  This is why we NEED that First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be preserved, and we NEED judges that respect that constitution.

Trinitarians (obviously I”m not one) are big on using John 1:3-4.  The word was with God in the beginning, Jesus was the word, ergo Jesus = God, or at least with him in the beginning, not just born of Mary.

This site The Historic Translation of John 1:3-4, while obviously it has a point of view, it is a one-page synopsis of the translations of the English Bible, and some history in translation battles, including Queens that banned printing it in England, leading to people relying on another version — it also talks about whether translation was from the Latin (not known by common people at this time, hence the province of Catholicism) or Greek (which Wycliff didn’t have, but Tyndale, later, did.)  This has in part to do with how one translates pronouns!

Our English Bible gradually developed over the last six hundred years.  John Wycliffe is credited with the first English translation of the New Testament which was completed about 1380 C.E.  Until that time the Word of Yahweh was locked up in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people.  The Latin Vulgate translated by Jerome about 400 C.E. was the standard Bible used in the Catholic Church.

. . . for about 1,000 years……

Wycliffe’s translation is based upon the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek.  It is therefore a “version of a version.”  In Wycliffe’s version, John 1:3-4 use the word “him” in reference to the “Word” of verse 1 and is a translation of the Latin “ipsum” and “ipso” (he, she, or it).

. . . . so it would be Trinitarian…..  The holy spirit is a person in the Godhead, Jesus is a person in the Godhead, and the Father is a person in the Godhead.  (Blurred boundaries, much?).    From this site:

The next great English translator was William Tyndale.  He was an excellent Greek scholar who had access to the Greek text of Erasmus which Wycliffe did not have.  The hand of the Almighty was upon Tyndale as He used him to give us our first English translation based upon the Hebrew and Greek.  His New Testament was published in 1526 and revised to its final state in 1534.

Tyndale’s translation of John 1:3-4 reads,

John 1:3,4 – All things were made by it, and without it, was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.

As you can see, Tyndale used “it” instead of “him.”   “It” is a translation of the Greek “autou” meaning he, she, or it.  What this tells us is that Tyndale did not read Messiah into the “logos” or “word” of verse 1 and he was not influenced by the Latin Vulgate or Wycliffe.

The IT/HIM chronology according to this summary rests, with a few historic interjections on the state of Bible translations and the fate of those who translated them.  Clearly, the Catholic church did NOT appreciate being questioned:

  • ca. 1380 Wycliffe, from Latin (all he had to translate from….)– “HIM”  
In 1408 — The Third Synod of Oxford  ” banned unauthorized English translations of the Bible and decreed that possessionof English translation’s had to be approved by diocesan authorities….(Even after his murder, he was hated and condemned by these church authorities; 7 years later:)  At the ecumenical Council of Constance, in 1415, Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury, as “that pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who invented a new translation of the scriptures in his mother tongue.” By the decree of the Council, more that 40 years after his death, Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift river.Around 1454 Gutenberg printed an edition of the Latin Vulgate Bible on the first moveable-type printing press. With this new printing technology books could now be printed faster and cheaper than ever before, a fact that Protestants soon took advantage of. Within a hundred years there was a virtual explosion of Protestant Bibles coming off the new presses.  (oh-oh!)
  • 1526 Tyndale, from Greek “IT” - -
  • 1535 Coverdale, Tyndale contemporary & friend,  first complete Bible in English, some from the Latin some from Tyndale:   “HIM.”  
  • 1537 (John Rogers’?) “Thomas Matthew” version mostly from Tyndale & Coverdale — “IT”  Popularized as the “Matthew’s Bible.”
 King Henry VIII (reigned 1509–1547) requested Myles Coverdale and Sir Thomas Cromwell to supervise its creation for use in the Church of England.
Thomas Cranmer (1489–1556), first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury.  (splitting off  in order to start one’s own church, certainly one’s own Protestant bishops & clergy are also necessary….)
1539 — The GREAT BIBLE — 21,000 copies printed, authorized, chained to churches (to avoid theft) and read aloud for those who were illiterate.
  • 1539, the Great Bible — “The first edition was prepared by Miles Coverdale.  For some reason Coverdale decided “it” was more correct than “him”  and left John 1:3-4 as it was in Matthew’s translation, “it” instead of “him.”  — COVERDALE switches (or leaves prior version)“IT”

The Great {it was large!} Bible was the first authorized English version and was ordered to be placed in every church.  (just a little reminder:  England was then, is now, a monarchy — and has an official state religion, including today.  Today it is the Anglican church.  It’s less dangerous now to confront this authority than it was then, obviously.  Instead, England is struggling in the courts with how to handle Islamification — do they allow sharia law? etc.).

 A bit more on this one:

Coverdale’s “Great Bible”, called that because of its size, was published in 1539 and had over 21,000 copies printed in seven editions in only a single year. Working under the patronage of Thomas Cromwell, Coverdale had submitted his Bible via the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, and it was published with the authorization of King Henry VIII, whose likely motivation was the realization that the Bible was an effective means of combating papists. Amazingly, at the end of the book of Malachi were the initials W.T., covering half a page, standing for William Tyndale. Beginning with the second edition, the Great Bible included a preface by Thomas Cranmer, and so it is also called Cranmer’s Bible.

British History 101 (not my long suit!):  CRANMER became clergy as a younger son out of necessity; later was attracted to some Lutheran tendencies, married a barmaid who died in childbirth, he went back to school & became a priest? in 1523; was noticed by the King and went to Rome to argue the case to allow this king to divorce.  He was sent to Germany to learn about Luther, became interested in the Reformation (and a certain reformer’s niece) 1533, becoming Archbishop  of Canterbury, he had to conceal his own marriage.  Once his appointment was verified, he quickly nullified the king’s marriage and in short, helped King Henry VIII form the Church of England, including multiple divorces and marriages.  Despite his political connections, the winds changed, and he was later killed under a Catholic Queen Mary.

The Great Bible or Cranmer’s Bible
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheGreatBibleorCranmersBible.aspx  The Bible in Englyshe. London: Richard Grafton and Edward Whitechurch, 1540. Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress  Call number: BS160 1540

“The availability of an English Bible caused controversy during Henry’s reign. He grew concerned about the consequences of allowing the lower classes to read the Bible and later placed restrictions on its editions and uses.”   {Seems like all rulers are concerned about the behaviors of the lower classes, and letting them get too educated on the legislation or religious institutions that are ruling them… This includes USA, today….This concern about behaviors and morals is notably less urgent when it comes to said “upper” classes)…

  • 1543.  “Govt says to religion:  Let’s get organized and authorized.”… it seems that as to John 1:3-4, the “IT’s” held sway for a while….

The English parliament in 1543 passed a law forbidding the use of any English translations other than the “Great Bible”. Tyndale’s New Testament was specifically prohibited, and later Wycliffe’s and Coverdale’s Bibles were also banned. It was decreed a crime for any unlicensed person to read or explain the Scriptures in public. Many copies of Tyndale’s New Testament and Coverdale’s Bible were burned in London, though ironically, the authorized “Great Bible” contained the work of both men.

What was the fear?  Exercise of unbounded reason and expression of opinion by the common man?

POINT:  another way to clamp down and control information is to restrict it to only certain licensed “professionals” — here, clergy…I’m not talking about the practice of medicine here,

Fahrenheit 451, in 1546:

1546   A woman was tortured and burned at the stake, and the king’s decree went out, including the book ban of English books and on certain imports which would encourage pernicious behavior.   The site speaks for itself: (hover on link for a sample) of “A Proclamation for the abolishing of English Books, after the Death of Anne Askew, act forth by the King, AD. 1546, the eighth day of July”…”Anne Askew, daughter of  Sir William Askew of Lincolnshire, was charged with heresy and despite a sustained and brave defence (writing her own replies to charges, defending herself before the King`s Council and corresponding with the Lord Chancellor etc) was inevitably found guilty. She was tortured on the rack in the Tower, and refused to accept an offer of the Kings pardon. She was burnt at the stake in 1546,

The king’s most excellent majesty understanding how, under pretence of expounding and declaring the truth of God’s Scripture, divers lewd and evil-disposed persons have taken upon them to utter and sow abroad, by books imprinted in the English tongue, sundry pernicious and detestable errors and heresies, not only contrary to the laws of this realm, but also repugnant to the true sense of God’s law and his word, by reason whereof certain men of late, to the destruction of their own bodies and souls, and to the evil example of others, have attempted arrogantly and maliciously to impugn the truth, and therewith trouble the sober, quiet, and godly religion, united and established under the king’s majesty in this his realm; his highness, minding to foresee the dangers that might ensue of the said books, is enforced to use his general prohibition, commandment, and proclamation, as followeth:

The benevolent ruler knows what’s best for his people, hence, a nationwide book ban, hand them over!, starting with……Tyndale….

First, That from henceforth no man, woman, or person, of what estate, condition, or degree soever he or they be, shall, after the last day of August next ensuing, receive, have, take, or keep in his or their possession, the text of the New Testament, of Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s translation in English, nor any other than is permitted by the act of parliament made in the session of’ the parliament holden at Westminster in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth year of his majesty’s most noble reign; nor, after the said day, shall receive, have, take, or keep, in his or their possession, any manner of books printed or written in the English tongue, which he, or shall be, set forth in the names of Frith, Tyndele, Wickliff Joy, Roy, Basil, Bale, Barnes, Coverdale, Turner, Tracy, or by any of them . . .

Whatever it was that angered them, it came from Tyndale.  Ironic, because the authorized Great Bible had a lot of Tyndale’s material anyhow.  I imagine some of them had to do with translating “Ekklesia” more as “called” than as “church”….  
1556 — AFter Edward VI comes the Catholic Queen known as “Bloody Mary” Cranmer tried for treason, forced to publically recant Protestantism; when he was executed, allegedly (this site) he stuck his hand, with recantation, in the fire, and recants his recantation of Protestantism:

  • Under Queen Mary the printing of the English Bible ended and its use in the churches was forbidden.  This gave rise to a version completed in Geneva. 
    The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first Bible to have numbered verses, each set off as a separate paragraph.  This Bible became the “household Bible of the English-speaking nations.”  It held that position for about 75 years.  It was Shakespeare’s Bible and that of the Puritans who settled New England.    It was an “IT” translation of John 1:3-4. Once again, the translation of John 1:3-4 follows Tyndale’s example, “it” instead of “him.”

  • Queen Elizabeth (I) eventually reinstated the order that a copy of the Bible be placed in every church and she encouraged its reading.
One queen forbids the reading of the Bible in English, and as of 1543 it’s a crime to even expound the scriptures in public (Monopoly, much?).  King Henry VIII, while approving of divorce, was not above a few book-burnings himself, or having heretics tortured or burned.      Another queen COMMANDS Bible reading, in English.   All of these are leading forward to America and a Constitution which — til George Bush, 2001, and some Fatherhood proponents around 1994, panicking at the rebellious and fertile un-married wimmen — says ENOUGH! !      !!!!

Since there were not enough copies of the Great Bible, the bishops themselves made a new revision known as the Bishop’s Bible.  It was published in 1568. It was used mostly by the clergy, not being very popular with the common people.  It, too, renders John 1:3-4 using “it,” not “him.”

I’m sure in other respects it was likely Trinitarian enough and supporting translations validating ecclesiastical authority enough which probably Tyndale’s wasn’t.

In 1582, the Roman Catholic version of the New Testament was completed and known as the Rheims New Testament.  It was the result of a battle between Papists and Protestants, the former believing the Latin Vulgate to be the standard upon which all translations should be made.  It was the work of Roman Catholic scholars based on the Latin.  They chose to render John 1:3-4 using “him” as did the previous versions based on the Vulgate.  The “HIM” is back in favor (pre-existence of Jesus Christ, something in my ignorance? I can’t imagine any Jewish tradition validating or even considering for the future Messiah…)

From that point on, all future versions, beginning with the King James version of 1611, used “him” instead of “it” in their translation of John 1:3-4. As you can see, the ["IT"] translation of John 1:3-4 is not without historic and linguistic foundation; and the authors from above (“torahofmessiah.com”) conclude:

To say the “logos” of John 1:1 is a reference to Messiah is to read him into the text.  Roman Catholic scholars had to do this in order to support their unscriptural trinity doctrine.  If Messiah did not pre-exist, the trinity doctrine would collapse, it being based upon the belief that all three members of the “godhead” were co-eternal.  Since Messiah only pre-existed in Yahweh’s plan of salvation and not literally, the trinity doctrine is without foundation.

This is true, but my point is that if men had not been courageous and committed enough in the 1500s, 1600s (and earlier), the Isaac Newtons and John Locke’s (below)…..figured out how to survive without getting burned at the stake or otherwise killed for non-Trinitarianism,  and influenced the likes of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et. al., the TORAHOFMESSIAH person/s wouldn’t be able to sit here and breezily stick this up on the web.  Again, technology such as internet HELPS, but it is NOT totally beyond control of power brokers and (see US Patriot Act) can also be used against the First Amendment principles and against the commoners on the roads of life.    There is a Tyndale Society, and some say his translation & printing of this English Bible contributed to the formation of Protestant England and the concepts of individual rights stemming from it, in essence making that country “a people of the book.”  (…Tyndale’s Bibles and the Emergence of the English nation-state)

One person struggling with why Tyndale had so little to say on this topic noted:

The Trinitarian Covenant (Ralph S. Ferrell:  “Little Known Facts About William Tyndale’s Theology: The Trinitarian Covenant and the Fall)

Tyndale did not write a theology and only by extracting and collating from his writings everything he wrote about each doctrine was it possible to formulate his theology. There was one important gap in his writings—that is the Trinitarian Covenant—although there are some statements that are part of it. However, it was the only solution that made sense (sic), and made a coherent whole with the rest of his theology.

and then, trying to validate his OWN attempt to grasp the concept (Note:  the word is not in the texts):

When I first thought about the Trinity I could not see the validity of any of the explanations meant to help us understand the concept of Three Persons and One God. I could only make sense of the Trinity if I looked at it as a family. The family name is God, and in that family there are three Persons— the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit—but it is one Family. Although Tyndale does not have much teaching about the Trinity his stress on the family and his theology of the covenant makes me think he would not disagree with that definition.

(link is to a Church of England (i.e., Anglican) website proclaiming “Church Society exists to uphold biblical teaching and to promote and defend the character of the Church of England as a reformed and national Church. The Society is strongly committed to the supreme and final authority of the Bible as God’s Word written.”  Logo reads, “for Bible, Church & Nation”)

So what’s that got to do with us, and Independence Day?

I bring this up, including for atheists & agnostics, because those now in on the grants system, “HEALTHY FAMILY” promoters, where they ARE religious, come from traditions that would agree with this.  It’s all about Family — see? isn’t God himself one big happy family — father, son holy spirit?  Anything else is contrary to nature, and must be heretical — like the feminazis, etc….  Just to be aware of it.

Here, for our reading amusement (?) is a Catholic version of what a bad boy, and priest, Tyndale was — and how even “his own bishop” didn’t approve his translation.  From “CatholicCulture.org”:  Obviously, this is a different point of view:

“Swarming with textual corruptions . . . . .

 Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of Scripture at that time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Laws had to be enacted to force people to buy them. (??)

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed,** and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

**unscathed, i.e., by the scandalous ideas of the Reformation, including that common folk could be trusted to read the Bible without expert clerical help….

Wow.  This is starting to sound like our AFCC’s protest at “conflict.”  Above all, nothing “high-conflict” — such as the Reformation! — (Martin Luther — see Martin Luther King, Jr. named after him!) should be allowed to disturb the tranquil holy family and it’s domination over the squabbling flocks….

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and went to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas.

His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas   [Note website author converted to Catholicism at Easter 2000 and writes from North Carolina.]

Well, choose your sources.  The man spoke 8 languages and his translation stands, basically today, or he was just one bad, rebellious, priest and upstart… Part of his offence to King Henry VIII appears to have been opposing his divorce.  Wikipedia:  

While a number of partial and complete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, particularly during the 14th century, Tyndale’s was the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. This was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and the English church and state. Tyndale also wrote, in 1530, The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII‘s divorce on the grounds that it contravened scriptural law (.. and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal court)


THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE PRINTING PRESS HELPED HIM CHANGE POLITICS.  THOSE WHO CONTROL THIS ARE ALERT TO SUCH CHALLENGES


OTHER HERETICS (non-Trinitarians): — Isaac Newton & Locke:
.

   ISAAC NEWTON (1643-1727) rejected, as did John Locke,  what even now, 2011 mainstream Christian belief in the Trinity; as late as his time, in England, failure to acknowledge this was punishable by imprisonment.  I wonder, did Thomas Jefferson?  As an example of such thought processes as rejected this orthodoxy, Newton:

…an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher and alchemist,1 regarded by many as the greatest figure in the history of science. In optics, he invented the reflecting telescope and argued that light is composed of particles. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of calculus. Newton’s laws of motion and universal gravitation are taught in every physics classroom. He said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.”

…”Newton wrote to John Locke, who was a kindred spirit in the dangerous area of anti-Trinitarianism, the subject treatises on the “corruptions of Scriptures.”7

Re:  corruption of scriptures; many people (moreso, atheists and agnostics) do know — whether or not they often think of it — that the mainstream Christianity of today was a factor of (among other things) wars over control of the Roman empire.   Heretics were simply ousted.

John LOCKE (1632-1704) influenced the Americans who wrote the Constitution and lived during treacherous and turbulent times, before and after him — over religion.  In the century before him, men had begun to translate the Bible into various languages, including English.  Tyndale had to flee England to do so, translating and publishing on the run, he was caught in Belgium and killed.   Kings were being beheaded, Cromwell ran a Puritan “military protectorate” — Locke himself fled England during the reign of King James II.  Catholic, Anglican, Puritan — it could spell life, or death to the common person.

A schoolchild’s version of “Life in England under Cromwell, who had signed the death warrant for King Charles.   A military background and a Puritan, this exemplifies the worst? of theocracy.  The article implies that his burial, withother kings and queens in Westminster Abbey, had to be escorted by thousands of soldiers lest the common people do violence to his body.  King Charles the II later had his body dug up, tried for “regicide” and trashed….

1645 The New Model Army created. It was lead by Sir Thomas Fairfax and Cromwell was appointed a lieutenant-general in it. The New Model Army fought the Royalists at the Battle of Naseby in June
1647 In June, after failing to reconcile the king, Charles I, Parliament and the army, Cromwell puts his full support behind the army.
1648 Cromwell’s army defeated the Royalists at the Battle of Preston in August. In December, Cromwell pushed for a full trial of Charles I who was to be charged with treason
1649 January 30th, Charles was executed. Cromwell’s signature was third on the death warrant. The Council of State of the Commonwealth replaced the monarchy.
1650 In June, Cromwell was appointed Captain-General of the Commonwealth
1653 Cromwell dissolved the Rump Parliament. In December, Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector of the Commonwealth
1654 Cromwell sent a naval force to the West Indies which seized Jamaica
1655 In May, the process started of dividing England into groups of counties under the command of a major-general. Their task was to enforce local government

A(nother) dark blot on British history, Puritan — this is the sanitized version too, no doubt:

He was a highly religious man who believed that everybody should lead their lives according to what was written in the Bible. The word “Puritan” means that followers had a pure soul and lived a good life. Cromwell believed that everybody else in England should follow his example.

One of the main beliefs of the Puritans was that if you worked hard, you would get to Heaven. Pointless enjoyment was frowned upon. Cromwell shut many inns and the theatres were all closed down. Most sports were banned. Boys caught playing football on a Sunday could be whipped as a punishment. Swearing was punished by a fine, though those who kept swearing could be sent to prison.

Sunday became a very special day under the Puritans. Most forms of work were banned. Women caught doing unnecessary work on the Holy Day could be put in the stocks. Simply going for a Sunday walk (unless it was to church) could lead to a hefty fine.

To keep the population’s mind on religion, instead of having feast days to celebrate the saints (as had been common in Medieval England), one day in every month was a fast day – you did not eat all day.

He divided up England into 11 areas; each one was governed by a major-general who was trusted by Cromwell. Most of these generals had been in Cromwell’s New Model Army. The law – essentially Cromwell’s law – was enforced by the use of soldiers

.NOW HEAR THIS!  I’ll SAY IT AGAIN

HHS STAFF REGIONS, USA:

Regional Offices

Regional Offices


OPERATING DIVISIONS “OpDiv” when it comes to searching grants:

Operating Divisions:


That’s MANY areas of life to be control of.  Under ACF comes the OCSE, Office of Child Support Enforcement:

ACF:

David Hansell

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

David Hansell
Acting Assistant Secretary Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

David Hansell is the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Mr. Hansell most recently served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at ACF from June 2009 to July 2010. From 2007-2009 he served as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), the state agency charged with oversight of support programs and economic assistance for low-income New Yorkers. From 2002-2006, Mr. Hansell served as Chief of Staff of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA). From 1997-2001, he was the Associate Commissioner for HIV Services at the New York City Department of Health, and subsequently served as Associate Commissioner for Planning and Program Implementation.

Prior to his government experience, Mr. Hansell served in a range of positions at Gay Men’s Health Crisis, including Director of Legal Services and Deputy Director for Government and Public Affairs. From 2000-2006, he was an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the New York University Wagner School of Public Service. He has also been a consultant on health policy and social services issues to a wide range of governmental and non-profit organizations.

Mr. Hansell is a graduate of Haverford College and Yale Law School. Among other honors, he is a recipient of an Outstanding Public Service Award from the New York County Lawyers’ Association, and a State Leadership Award from the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty.


Mr. Hansell is very active in promoting the fatherhood organizations and grant systems, Iearned about him reading about the grants:




the site lists Services, including the “Healthy Marriage Initiative”

"...Finally, preliminary research shows that marriage education workshops can make a real difference in helping married couples stay together and in encouraging unmarried couples who are living together to form a more lasting bond.  Expanding access to such services to low income couples, perhaps in concert with job training and placement, medical coverage, and other services already available, should be something everybody can agree on..."

:

Under here:  Listed as “

clicked, leads to the Logo:   “Take Time to be a Dad Today”  (Suddenly the “marriage” part, the only part under which the females/mothers — who don’t get a separate noun or pronoun — could be inclusively included, vanishes. What’s labeled “Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood — on clicking — is now about fathers, only.  Where is the “motherhood.gov” if it’s a “Marriage” matter?  Are we, as mothers, not a special-interest group too in a positive sense? )  

 Fatherhood.gov – National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse

MARRIAGE MANAGEMENT — by the Federal Government here, HHS — acting secretary and secretary being TWO individuals — REGIONAL MAP:

Regional Map of ACF Healthy Marriage Grantees

I cannot drag the map icon — but (as with above map) it has broken down the United States into ten (10) Marriage Grantee Regions, several states per region.  Oddly, the list below omits to list the Region V (great lakes area) states.  Please click and see.

Marriages are being centrally administrated, with the U.S. broken into larger chunks — not 50 states, but 10 regional areas.

Fathers & Families Coalition’s Close Association with HHS/ACF and Mr. Hansell (2011)

I can’t drag the spiffy logo from the private nonprofit Arizona-based “Fathers & Families Coalition of America” but here is David Hansell, March 2011, San Francisco, sucking up to this organization (marriage takes two, remember?  Where has he addressed women’s groups?) and, on behalf of the Federal Government here, promising them goodies.  LOTS of goodies:

Message from David Hansell, Acting Assistant Secretary, Adminstration for Children and Families

Keynote Speech
March 9, 2011 | San Francisco, CA at the 12th Annual National Fatherhood & Families Conference

Subject: Message from David Hansell

To:       ACF Colleagues

From:   David Hansell

Last week I was in San Francisco to address the 12th annual national fatherhood and families conference.  I thought you may be interested in reading my remarks:

We meet at a time of great transition both in this country and in the rest of the world.  Sometimes it’s a challenge just to maintain your equilibrium.   In view of this, your conference theme strikes me as particularly apt. ***  In this moment of transition, we certainly need to renew, restore, rebuild and reflect on our commitment to strengthening families and supporting fathers.  
Over the next couple of days you’re going to be hearing from some of my ACF colleagues and a panoply of service providers who are very involved in a range of programs to promote responsible fatherhood.   ….Our entire mission is about reducing poverty and empowering families to reach their goals.


*** I (as a mother) think it’s particularly INapt — when by “Families” is obviously meant, Mostly Fathers….That is a RELIGIOUS conception, created by Govt-sponsored research, reminds me of 15th century England fine-tuning which versions of the Bible were acceptable for the current monarch’s purposes, and clobbering anyone who disagreed, burning their books, and/or them, and blustering against the upstarts, squelching free debate and “unbounded reason.”

There must be something “in on it” for the administration as well as for the fathers’ groups, for such a busy person to fly out to SF to acknowledge a private nonprofit which expresses its beliefs that strong Dads = strong families, and fights women’s rights to say NO! to abuse, including economic abuse and other kinds.  Which gets paid in some states to TRAIN the child support professionals.

Normally, grants applicants go to the grantsmaker.  Here is the grantsmaker organization (HHS/ACF) flying across the continent (DC to SF, California) to present and recruit people into these grants programs.   

Our programs touch fathers and strengthen families even when they’re not specifically called fatherhood programs

In otherwords, like Puritan England under Cromwell’s public-forced religion, all areas of (grants) can be made “fatherhood-promoting.”  

…Of course, it’s well established that children need the emotional and financial support of two parents.** At this point, there is ample evidence that families fare better economically and socially when fathers are engaged in their lives. Stable parental relationships confer many benefits on children:

**it’s well-publicized (and US taxpayers have paid for the publicity) which is not the same as well-established.  This type of dogmatic statement needs to e re-examined in the light of successful individuals who did NOT have the support of two parents, but found their support and succeeded stunningly well in life.

So here, in March, 2011, he says this to a bunch of fatherhood practitioners gathered in SF.  This is the conservative, traditional, anti-feminist activists.  Writings of fathers’ groups often complain about child support machinery and about how the “nanny state” has usurped their roles as men and heads of household.  Yet when it comes to sucking some more of the government nanny’s teat, they’re quite ready and in fact it seems to me this west-coast coupling between HHS and FAF was a very rewarding one – there was even some afterglow, as posted on the FAF site above.

Two months later (links above) Mr. Hansell talks about recruiting parents from the LGBT community, meaning either two fathers (men) or two mothers (women) could be involved and function well as parents.   In other words, which philosophy IS it?  Or is this just switching promotional rhetoric for the audiences at hand?  If they REALLY believed that a kid needs a father, then why promote adoption for two women?  If they are really LGBT tolerant, why are they running around to solicit business from one of the less tolerant nonprofits around with an agenda?

Children who live with two biological or adoptive parents do better academically and in relationships with their peers compared with children from one-parent households;

This is repeated like a catechism throughout the land, often without cites.   Half the cites or more end up being sponsored ones, anyhow.   Even if it WERE true, is this the area that the federal government should be addressing?  How about reducing and ELIMINATING the fraudulent practices by privatized child support companies (maximus, etc.) until it’s GONE and no one dares steal from kids again — and THAT will definitely help single-household kids do somewhat better.  Besides, it’s the right thing to do — we shouldn’t be paying taxes and having our gov’t hand them over to crooks in the private sector!

Then he switches back to Fathers– not just “parents.”

The two main ACF components involved in fatherhood are the Office of Child Support Enforcement ["OCSE"]and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. ["TANF"]  OCSE’s able leader, Vicki Turetsky, will address you tomorrow and Dr Charles Sutton from OFA is on the panel today.  In line with ACF’s great emphasis on interoperability among our programs, Child Support and TANF are working closely together to make sure fathers have every possible opportunity to contribute to their own and their families’ well-being

I’m happy to report that top-level support for responsible fatherhood is alive and well.  Congress recently not only provided $150 million for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, but it also made several significant changes in the law:

·         Previously, funding for fatherhood activities was limited to a third of the total allocation; now fully one-half can be used for fatherhood. That’s an increase of $25 million for fatherhood programs.

The Fiscal Year 2012 budget includes several new legislative proposals that reflect the President’s emphasis on supporting responsible fatherhood.  It includes new investments of $305 million the first year and $2.4 billion over ten years for a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative, as well as continued funding for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood program.

My main point being that with programs of this extent, the US is divided up by this federal department into “priority areas” and “demonstration areas” and administration of them is given to those on the “right” track with this theme — trusted allies.  Cromwell’s 11 counties reminds me of this also.  The difference being, the control is less visible when it’s administered via internet and via existing programs (child support, TANF) which are not supposed to be gender-biased.

HERE is Mr. Hansell’s 2010 eloquent testimony — in front of a House Ways and Means subcommittee — on the Responsible Fatherhood Programs, and why, despite the economic downturns MORE money should be appropriated and delegated to them.

Testimony of
David Hansell 
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Before the

Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee
Ways and Means Committee
United States House of Representatives

On
Responsible Fatherhood Programs

June 17 , 2010

Chairman McDermott, Mr. Linder and Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of responsible fatherhood programs in increasing financial support for children and strengthening the ties between non-custodial parents and their children.  We recognize the Subcommittee’s long-standing interest in strengthening America’s families, including Congressman Davis’s leadership on responsible fatherhood issues. ** All of us know that children need the emotional and financial support of both parents.  In the best of circumstances children are raised by their parents in a healthy, supportive environment, and never experience disruptions in their parents’ emotional and financial support. *** Unfortunately, all too often children do experience these disruptions through divorce or separation of their parents, or because their parents never formed a stable family in the first place.

**yes, Congressman Davis of the famous let’s crown Rev. Sun Myung Moon in a Senate building fame; a non-US Citizen (right?) whose organization the Unification Church is known for:  tax evasion, money-laundering, and being a CULT and who originated the concept “Parents Day,” seeing as this man and his wife claim the one-upped Jesus Christ and channel dead U.S. Presidents for advice…  Congressman Davis has done many other things, I’m sure they are wonderful, but that action (plus continuing to push for fatherhood funding) do tend to call his judgment into question, in my eyes at least.  The Unification Church’s $$ are also, as I understand, strongly tied to ultra-conservative right-wing Christians and the Heritage Foundation.    

***Who says that children cannot learn from how their own parents handle conflict, including if it challenges for periods of time, the emotional and financial support?  They learn by example; watching parents overcome can help children learn how to overcome.  Moreover this address under-plays the severity of abuse in the home by one parent towards another, which is ONE cause of why the marriages or partnerships aren’t sustained.

Many statistics underscore the importance of addressing fatherhood in America:

  • In 2007, 40 percent of all births in America were to unwed women (1)
  • 1 out of every 3 children in America lives apart from his or her father (2)
  • 1 out of every 4 children in this country, and 1 in 2 poor children, participates in the child support program (3)
  • In 2008, 43 percent of children living in single mother families were poor (4)

President Obama, who grew up without his father, has spoken eloquently about the critical importance of responsible fatherhood.

More properly, “President Obama, who grew up without his father, whose mother raised him, has spoken eloquently about the critical importance of responsible fatherhood.”  MORE TO THE POINT:  as President of the United States, President Obama is sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, including the rule of law.

The fatherhood and marriage grants bend those laws by funding one side of a custody challenge (the father’s side) and by failing to disclose to the other party that they are.   The access and visitation grants system is offensive to the principles of government because it allows ONE person — head of the HHS — to approve (and requires them to approve)demonstration social sciences projectson populations entangled in the custody, child support, and welfare programs.  These grants are then further expanded into the “Section 1115 waiver” programs for MORE social science projects on the same populations.  (See my recent post on “90FD” grants).

Section 1115 Waiver“:

Section 1115 Demonstration Projects
These grants provide matching Federal funds for demonstration projects that expand and improve the operation of child support programs. The projects are funded as follows: 29% Federal grant award; 5% matching State funds; and 66% Federal Financial Participation (FFP) through the IV-D child support enforcement program. The projects are authorized by Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Although varied, each of the projects approved in FY 2005 emphasizes the importance of healthy marriage to the child’s well-being; the projects also attempt to achieve increased paternity establishment and child support collection rates.

The purpose of the OCSE is by its name to be “Child Support Enforcement.”  However these projects instead emphasize “healthy marriage” (which we know in practice is heavily “fatherhood,” and as HHS leader Mr. Hansell said in 2011, for FY 2012, up to HALF (up from 1/3rd) of healthy marriage funds could now be focused on healthy fatherhood, specifically — whatever that is).   And they also “attempt to increase paternity establishment and child support collection Rates.”  The enforcement is only “attempted” but the marriage promotion, that WILL happen because it’s good for kids.  Better than, say, child support enforcement.   The budget for child and family support enforcement nationwide, is often (combined, over $4 Billion).  So to — for these projects – fund 665 of them from that allotment, seems to me a bit “over the top.”

2005 1115 Grants

  • Maryland Department of Human Resources (Baltimore, MD).
    “Baltimore Healthy Marriage Project.” Maryland’s Community Services Administration and Child Support Enforcement Administration have partnered with the Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development (CFFWD) in Baltimore to implement a project that is intended to strengthen the relationships of low-income, unwed parents. This will be accomplished through the provision of eight-week training seminars for unwed parents with young children and based upon a culturally-appropriate curriculum developed by CFFWD entitled “Examining Relationships and Marriage with Fragile Families.” Project Period: August 8, 2005 to July 31, 2008.

Interjection — this 2007 article (looking up that CFFWD) from a similar group declares that there are more single Dads, in part because of more “flexible court system” — meaning, Dads are getting custody (and presumably, mothers then paying the child support instead).  Yet still, the child support system is indeed oriented towards fathers through these federal programs…..

More growth in single Dads than single Moms last decade.”

By Yeganeh June Torbati, The Baltimore Sun

In taking over the day-to-day care and supervision of his child, Jordan has joined the increasingly large ranks of single fathers in Maryland. According to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the rise in the number of Maryland families led by single fathers in the past decade outpaced the rise in single-mother families for the first time since at least 1970, as far back as the state data is available.

Does Mr. Hansell know this yet?  If this is true in other states, are any of them going to adjust the fatherhood rhetoric and yearly appeal for more $$ to promote it?

There are now about 47,200 single-father households in the state, an increase of nearly 6,000 over 2000, or 14 percent. The number of families led by single mothers increased by about 5,000 over the past 10 years, or 3.2 percent.

This is likely because of the favorable conditions which the fatherhood movement, including President Clinton’s Fatherhood memo, the revision of TANF to allocate funding to promote fatherhood, and the fathers-rights group which AFCC actually has become, compromised of many judges, switching custody to fathers to counter alleged “parental alienation” by the mother — which I have already proved in the recent 4-post series, that the field of “Parenting Coordination” is poised to practice.

Though just 22 percent of single-parent households in Maryland are led by men, the data suggest more parity than ever before. Experts attribute the change to a more flexible court system where joint-custody arrangements are far more common, and to broader career options for women.

Have career options for women really changed that much from 1997 – 2007?

(End “Interjection” to Section 1115 explanation…..)


Section 1115 Waiver Projects

These grants provide matching federal monies for demonstration projects that expand on current child support programs. The projects are funded using the child support formula grant matching rate of 66% Federal and 34% State or private non-IV-D funds; the projects are authorized by waiver provisions of section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Though varied, all projects emphasize the importance of healthy marriage to a child’s well-being, as well as financial stability, increased paternity establishment, and child support collection.

So, Mr. Hansell is waxing eloquent in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, (one of its subcommittees) last June on this topic, and probably is again this past June, 2011.

(Yada, yada, yada).  I remember the June 2010 events because some noncustodial mothers were alerted less than a week in advance that this bill was up for passage — and we managed to get some of our PROTESTS against this funding in  just under the wire.  Actually for some reason I happened to notice it and send out an alert.  Why wouldn’t any of the many activist groups for mothers who like to complain about the “fathers rights’ movement have noticed, or mentioned this, I wonder? Are we just supposed to pretend this grant series does not exist?

Many of the people testifying for more money were already on the grants faucet.   It’s tough times, so we need milliion$ more to help parents EMOTIONALLY support their kids:   (“Economic downturns, such as the one we are now experiencing, make it even more difficult for parents to provide the emotional and financial support that their children need.  “)  Because we all know that single-households headed by Mothers are poorer (wage discrepancies have anything to do with this?  Or the fact that they can’t do creative solutions to the childcare situation?) (Put them in Early Head Start programs where they can be taught more about fatherhood, I guess).

Back to CROMWELL’s ENGLAND, SCHOOLCHILD web version:

Cromwell believed that women and girls should dress in a proper manner. Make-up was banned. Puritan leaders and soldiers would roam the streets of towns and scrub off any make-up found on unsuspecting women. Too colourful dresses were banned. A Puritan lady wore a long black dress that covered her almost from neck to toes. {{REMIND YOU OF SHARIA LAW YET/ BURQAs?  Just one step away?}} She wore a white apron and her hair was bunched up behind a white head-dress. Puritan men wore black clothes and short hair.

Cromwell banned Christmas as people would have known it then. By the C17th, Christmas had become a holiday of celebration and enjoyment – especially after the problems caused by the civil war. Cromwell wanted it returned to a religious celebration where people thought about the birth of Jesus rather than ate and drank too much. In London, soldiers were ordered to go round the streets and take, by force if necessary, food being cooked for a Christmas celebration. The smell of a goose being cooked could bring trouble. Traditional Christmas decorations like holly were banned.  {{AFTER ALL< THIS WAS THE RIGHT RELIGION, RIGHT???}}

Despite all these rules, Cromwell himself was not strict. He enjoyed music, hunting and playing bowls. He even allowed full-scale entertainment at his daughter’s wedding.  {{TYPICAL HYPOCRITE…}}

Despite being a highly religious man, Cromwell had a hatred for the Irish Catholics. He believed that they were all potential traitors willing to help any Catholic nation that wanted to attack England (he clearly did not know too much about the 1588 Spanish Armada). 

During his time as head of government, he made it his task to ‘tame’ the Irish. He sent an army there and despite promising to treat well those who surrendered to him, he slaughtered the people of Wexford and Drogheda who did surrender to his forces. {{i.e., trucebreaker – great person to have running a government}} He used terror to ‘tame’ the Irish. He ordered that all Irish children should be sent to the West Indies to work as slave labourers in the sugar plantations. He knew many would die out there – but dead children could not grow into adults and have more children.Cromwell left a dark stain on the history of Ireland.

By the end of his life, both Cromwell and the 11 major-generals who helped to run the country, had become hated people. The population was tired of having strict rules forced onto them. Cromwell died in September 1658. His coffin was escorted by over 30,000 soldiers as it was taken to Westminster Abbey where he was buried. Why so many soldiers? Were they there as a mark of respect for the man who had formed the elite New Model Army? Or was there concern that the people of London, who had grown to hate Cromwell, would try to get to the body and damage it in some way ?

There will come a time when the US gets tired of the Marriage-mongers, too and sees them for what they truly are — hypocrites, cronies on the federal faucets, and people trying to impose a state religion on everyone, but not at their own expense — at others’.   Not having a rational religion, they have to FORCE it on poor people to start with, and on others through deception.  I believe that if mothers and fathers got their act together (mothers need to learn more about the child support factors; fathers need to deal with the fact that we vote, and do NOT tolerate being beaten up to keep us in submission, and both mothers and fathers need to be diligent about what people ALLEGEDLY helping their gender are REALLY doing with the loot (the grants and fees, etc.) and confront it, demanding honesty.

If women in Saudi Arabia could protest the no women driving alone law — what courage does that take?  — we, if we value UNBOUNDED REASON AND FREEDOM TO EXPRESS (and live out) OPINION — we can burst of the chains of MONKISH SUPERSTITION we have allowed ourselves to be bound by!  Among the “MONKISH SUPERSTITIONS” is that those in authority always know best what’s good for the rest of us — and again returning to the more heretical viewpoint that — quite honestly — they DON’T!   They are in no way innately superior in person, reason, logic, temperament, ethics, or anything.  And as such, they have not right to continue changing the forms of government away from anything which would keep such people in check.   

    

Cromwell was buried in Westminster Abbey. This is where kings and queens were buried. His son, Richard, took over leadership of the country. However, Richard was clearly not up to the task and in 1660 he left the job. In that year, 1660, Charles II was asked to return to become king of England. One of Charles’ first orders was that Cromwell’s body should be dug up and put on ‘trial’ as a traitor and regicide (someone who is responsible for the execution/murder of a king or queen). His body was put on trial, found guilty and symbolically hanged from a gallows at Tyburn (near Hyde Park, London). What was left of his body remains a mystery. Some say the body was thrown on to a rubbish tip while others say it was buried beneath the gallows at Tyburn. His head was put on display in London for many years to come.

VOLATILE & TURBULENT TIMES INDEED, and AROUND RELIGION, TOO…..  In 1660, John Locke would’ve been 28 years old.  He grew up in these times.

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher, medical physician, epistemologist,8 political philosopher, Christian and friend of Isaac Newton.

Now I am going to talk about John Locke, because he influenced the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

“Real men don’t eat quiche,” and some very notable men have rejected mainstream religion as practiced today, and in prior centuries, as practiced then — INCLUDING as practiced, thanks to OFCBI, in many of the Faith-Based and Community Organizations” on the federal grants faucet which our former president George W. Bush saw fit to get all inclusive about in 2001, and which are now central to the fatherhood & marriage movement.   Amazingly, I have been learning, tis movement has even grown rapidly and worked to suck any “Domestic Violence” issues under its wings, including in legislation now pending in the U.S. Senate, HR. 2193 Julia Carson Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood.  The solution to domestic violence is now often portrayed as marketing more fatherhood trainings.  Responsible fathers don’t beat up their spouses, therefore, rather than establishing and enforcing the criminal sanctions against this criminal behavior, the theory is — go for relationship and marriage training instead.  That is what the grants and the alliances tell me.    Two opposing sides collaborating to change the discussion into promoting relationships….Sure, right….

So I hope you see why I am taking time to put forth the question of Religion and how a FORM of our constitution — only — MUST be understood and agreed upon IF we wish to retain “the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of expression” mentioned in 1826, in America, 50 eyars after the Declaration of Independence from a British King who was interfering with this!  Enough people must agree to this to be willing to DO something about it, and respond when it’s been encroached upon.

I assure us associations such as the “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” (AFCC)  and its related “Children’s Rights Council” are indeed asserting their moral superiority based on gender and assumed mental/.emotional superiority.  When you get right down to it, this is what most offends me about the whole deal.  People have been literally hoodwinked into letting their own wages be used to promote personal religion and beliefs through their own governments (local, federal).   “Fatherhood” is a rhetoric about ONE HALF (or just less) the population, but sold to all of it, and billed not to the top tier, but the lower (middle/lower) classes of society, meaning wage-earners.  Those strongest adhering to it seem to be working in (a) government posts; (b) for university-based institutes privately and publically funded to produce literature justifying more of this.    The closer I look at the literature, the legislation being pushed, and the associations running these programs, the less respect I have for them.    

Centralizing monetary systems like this, and giving appropriate information & control to those only at the top, and ‘Technical assistance” grants to keep those already so positioned at the top of the heap — are going to lead, like MONKISH SUPERSTITION — back into slavery.   Meanwhile, the public welfare programs are then outsourced to private profiteers, whether or not they are repeatedly caught in fraud or some very “egregious” practices.

As to LOCKE:

Locke, as a political philosopher, fled to the Netherlands from 1683 to 1688 to avoid the rule of (Catholic) King James II. Upon his return to England, after King James II was dethroned, he wrote the “Two Treatises of Government.” His writings influenced the American Revolutionaries, such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence. “He believed that in a natural state all people were equal and independent, and none had a right to harm another’s “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke also advocated governmental checks and balances and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have a profound influence on the Constitution of the United States and its Declaration of Independence.”9 John Locke also wrote, “The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures” in 1695 and “A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul” in 1707. John Locke, a man of reason, was a devoted believer in the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures, as was Isaac Newton.

John Locke and Isaac Newton both lived through turbulent and dangerous religious times.

A little more on “LOCKE” whose father was an attorney, and as it happens, a Puritan.  The link is from Temple University:

The Life of John Locke (1632-1704)

John Locke was born on August 29, 1632 and lived through one of the most tumultuous periods of English history. Locke was a child and teenager during the English Civil War, in which Parliamentary forces battled King Charles I over matters of taxation, political power, and the true religion.

Locke’s father was a small landowner and attorney in western England. The father fought with the Parliament and had Puritan religious views. Locke’s family was well-enough off to send him to Oxford University, where he was “ever prating and troublesome and paid little attention to his lecturers.”1 He read a lot, though.

John Locke was a young man in his late twenties when the Puritan leader Oliver Cromwell died in 1658 and the Anglican Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660. After his studies, Locke went on to be a professor of philosophy at Oxford from 1661 to 1664.

In 1667 Locke became the physician, adviser, and friend of the English statesman Anthony Ashley Cooper, the First Earl of Shaftesbury. Through Shaftesbury, Locke held a number of minor government posts and was embroiled in the continuing political and religious turmoil.

In 1669, Locke had the opportunity to write the constitution for the proprietors of the Carolina Colony in North America. Though the plan was never implemented, Locke’s political philosophy would latter become the intellectual blueprint for the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution.

…Locke is recognized not only as an important political philosopher but also as the founder of empiricism, which eschews intuitive speculation and sees sensation and experience as the root of all knowing.

When religious truth is settled by force, wars — then there is no liberty.  Hence, Jefferson et al. drafted a FORM of government, the Declaration of Independence giving the basis, and the Constitution, its further form.  THE FORM IS ESSENTIAL.  These men knew all about where religious fanaticism could take a country:

The religious and ethnic variety within the Colonies & America, noted here:

Large numbers of persons not of British stock inhabited the original Thirteen Colonies. Though often only seen on the frontier, some Native Americans already lived under the protection of various colonial governments. African-Americans, both slave and free, lived in each of the colonies. Within both racial groups, considerable ethnic and tribal differences further added to the cultural complexity of British North America. Swedes, Dutch, German (“Pennsylvania Dutch”), and other non-British Europeans composed significant portions of the populations of Middle Atlantic states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Catholics concentrated in Maryland, while Jews and French Protestants preferred the major seaport cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston. Within the British population, important cultural differences existed. At least four groups, each with a distinctive “folkway,” thrived in America. Roughly centered around one of four major Protestant denominations, Congregationalism, Anglicanism, Quakerism, and Presbyterianism, each group had its own dialect, architecture, family system, marriage customs, sexual mores, child naming conventions, child care beliefs, educational institutions, dress, favorite foods, attitudes towards aging and death, sports and leisure activities, and socioeconomic practices.

LOCKE’s Two Treatises of Civil Government, and context:

Locke’s Two Treatises of Civil Government were published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 brought William of Orange and Mary to the throne, but they were written in the throes of the Whig revolutionary plots against Charles II in the early 1680s. In this work Locke gives us a theory of natural law and natural rights which he uses to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate civil governments, and to argue for the legitimacy of revolt against tyrannical governments.

Locke wrote on a variety of other topics Among the most important of these is toleration. Henry VIII had created a Church of England when he broke with Rome. This Church was the official religion of England. Catholics and dissenting Protestants, e.g Quakers, Unitarians and so forth, were subject to legal prosecution. During much of the Restoration period there was debate, negotiation and manuevering to include dissenting Protestants within the Church of England. In a “Letter Concerning Toleration” and several defenses of that letter Locke argues for a separation between church and state.

By allowing abusive and domineering rhetoric and theory to commandeer the grants and favors system (Federal to States) as to “fatherhood,” and also to structure the workforce centrally along with this (i.e., Center for Fatherhood and Workforce Development….) is to permit various forms of intolerance and tyranny — it is a form of state religion, and it is wrong.  I am a Christian, but I am NOT in favor of combining church with state, especially mainline traditionalized beliefs about family, reproduction and the role of women (barely mentioned as to nouns when it comes to the marriage movement) — when it comes to funding.

A quote from Locke:

“…he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it…must of necessity find another rise of government, another original of political power…”
—from The Second Treatise of Civil Government

He is saying, there has to be another way than brute force.  This includes as to religion. ….

a TIMELINE of (some) political ideas late 1500s – late 1700s  reminds me that I forgot to mention Galileo.  Click or hover over cursor.

Galileo was facing the Inquisition for asserting, with Copernicus, that the universe did not revolve around the earth — rather, the earth revolved around the sun.  There were plagues in 1592 and the Bubonic Plague in 1665, killing 68,000 Londoners….Shakespeare was around (d. 1616), King James dissolves Parliament (twice) and publishes the “King James Bible” 1611; 1615, Galileo on trial with the church; 1620, the Pilgrims head off for America; 1629, King Charles dissolves Parliament, it doesn’t meet for the next 11 years; 1632, John Locke born; 1633 Galileo forced to recant!; 1642 – Civil war, Galileo dies and Isaac Newton is born; 1649 – Charles I beheaded, England becomes a Commonwealth; 1653-1658, Cromwell becomes and expands his power as “Lord Protector” til his death (1658); Cromwell’s son lasts one year, and by 1660, England is a Monarchy again (Charles II, the king who exhumed Cromwell? if I remember which person this was right..  Maybe it was CRANMER…)   1665 plague….1668-69, Isaac Newton designs a reflecting telescope (age, 26), and South Carolina accepts? Locke’s constitution; 1678 now it’s Catholics being persecuted and they can’t hold office in Parliament.1684, Locke flees England;  1687: James II promulgates Catholicism and ‘Divine Right’. Receives Papal nuncio. Newton [age 45] publishes Principia Mathematica 1688: James II forced to abdicate and flees to France. Protestant William of Orange invited to England by seven prominent English Lords – ‘Glorious Revolution’ and first constitutional monarchy. 1689: Parliament confirms James II’s abdication and proclaims William and Mary King and Queen for Life. Locke’s Two Treatises of Government; 1696: Locke and Newton collaborate in establishing new coinage for England; 1701: Act of Settlement provides for Protestant succession in English monarchy. 1704: Death of John Locke. 1707: Union of England and Scotland; 1715: First Parliament of George I. Jacobite rebellion in Scotland to restore absolute monarchy; 1727: George I succeeded by George II. Quakers demand abolition of slavery

Locke’s treatise on government was in direct response to Filmer’s treatise on the divine right of kings, supposedly justified from the Bible (God having given Adam dominion over the earth).   Even so late as the late 1600s, this idea was published (on-line summary):

For Filmer, the right of a king to rule goes back to the Old Testament.  God gave the Earth to Adam, to hold as a representative for God on earth.  All property rights and political authority over the earth and people derives from Adam’s original grant from God, and Adam’s original right of dominion over earth and its people (as a representative for God) has been passed on and subdivided as an inheritance to rulers and kings.  So these rulers and kings are God’s representatives on earth, basically appointed by him, to rule over the parts of his Creation.  Thus, the divine right of kings.  A king’s power, therefore, has nothing to do with the consent of the people.  The king’s authority comes from God, allegedly.

This passage (1598; James I on the Divine Right of Kings also) reminds me of some of the “Fatherhood” rhetoric, in attitude and intent:
Introduced, “James I Stuart (1598). Championed the doctrine of “Divine Right of Kings.” This oppressive political theory contributed to the exodus of the Puritans to America in 1630, and resistance to it was the ultimate goal of three revolutions: 1) the Puritan Revolution of the 1640s, 2) the Glorious Revolution, and 3) the American Revolution.

THE TREW LAW OFFREE MONARCHIES:

OR

The Reciprock and mutuall duetie betwixt a
free King and his naturall Subiects.

AS there is not a thing so necessarie to be knowne by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the forme of gouernement established among them, especially in a Monarchic (which forme of government, as resembling the Diuinitie ["Divinity"] , approcheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning haue agreed vpon; Vnitie ["Unity"]  being the he perfection of all things,) So hath the ignorance, and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude blinded by them, who thinke themselues able to teach and instruct the ignorants, procured the wracke and overthrow of sundry flourishing Common wealths; and heaped heauy calamities, threatning vtter destruction vpon others…

The AFCC version of this, applied to a couple, is that they were a “high-conflict” (i.e., bad) family.  In this worldview, the cause of conflict is less important than that protest or conflict exists to start with.  Same mindset — it must be “fixed” the people must be “coordinated” in their parenting plans, etc.

This other section, so strikingly reminds me  in sentiment and INtent, of the fatherhood rhetoric.  It’s basically saying the same things — what we all really need is great fathers.  Only this happens to be a Catholic King urging his entire country to recognize that monarchy is by Divine Order, and good for them:

1598, from a King:

By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation: And as the Fatherof his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and vertuous gouernment of his children; euen so is the king bound to care for all his subiects. As all the toile and paine that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profite and weale; so ought the Prince to doe towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconuenients and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his owne person presse to preuent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction vpon any of his children that offendeth, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pitie, as long as there is any hope of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend in that measure. And shortly, as the Fathers chiefe ioy ought to be in procuring his childrens welfare, reioycing at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their euill, to hazard for their safetie, trauell for their rest, wake for their sleepe; and in a word, to thinke that his earthly felicitie and life standeth and liueth more in them, nor in himselfe; so ought a good Prince thinke of his people.
Compare, from Whitehouse.gov.  Notice that it’s “President Obama” will directly do this and that, and protect, help educate, feed, and comfort America’s children, including presumably (at the time), MINE.    The concept of a Congress doesn’t even enter the picture, or any reference to the Constitution / legislation:

Invest in Education

President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5. Next, President Obama will reform and invest in K-12 education so that America’s public schools deliver a 21st Century education that prepares all children for success in the new global workplace. Finally, President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.

It is not President Obama’s job to revise and transform the nation’s schools, nor was it George Bush’s job to start the idiotic “No Child Left Behind” rhetoric.   However, heavy contributions from teacher’s unions to Obama’s campaign (some, I know I blogged) would indicate he should continue to talk as though this country had ONLY a public education system, no private, no parochial, and of course don’t mention the non-charter-style actual homeschooling parents.

Strengthen Families

President Obama was raised by a single parent   and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.

[[President Obama was raised by a woman -- a single MOTHER -- can't he even call his own mother a "mother"??] ]
President Obama attended Columbia and Harvard Law School, was a Senator in Illinois and is now President of the United States.  What a resounding “failure” of a person, as a result of having no Dad in his life.
When in Chicago, he was taken under the wing of several powerful political figures, along with Michelle, some of who are now in Washington.  While an Illinois Senator, he was in part on the campaign trail for the Presidency.  He had help with real estate from a local criminal figure, including one who, who contributed to his campaign & was later jailed for for activity — Tony Rezko, who also contributed $120,000 (or several other figures get cited, dep. on sources) to the Obama campaign for Senate.  Hillary Clinton? allegedly called Rezko a slumlord;

Obama came back from Harvard to a job with the law firm representing Rezko interests; the accusation about slumlord ownership is true.  His swift ascendancy to Senate and Presidency comes from Chicago, the land of “the Machine.”  In this context, empathy for poor single-parent (no Dad) children might have been better exhibited in Illinois by refraining from doing business with crooks and slumlords, where some of the kids these fatherhood programs are to help, would have been living in the first decade of the 2000s.

If anyone ought to be supportive of single mothers, instead of barely mentioning the and jumping on this other bandwagon — this President ought to be.  Instead, as with prior Presidents, he is “empathizing” with father-absent households and patronizing them, and us.]]

If the President and First Lady would’ve been doing their jobs — which is to uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws, rather than undermine it through these fatherhood programs, more single-parent families would’ve known how to deal with the child support, or if so need be, TANF systems and the family law systems.
Also from Whitehouse.gov; here is President Obama’s Fatherhood Day Proclamation 2011, or the bottom part of it; is he Father to our nation, now as well?

My Administration has made supporting fathers and their communities a priorityLast year on Father’s Day, I announced the President’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative, a nationwide effort to support organizations that foster responsible fatherhood and help re-engage fathers in the lives of their children.  We have bolstered community and faith-based programs that provide valuable support networks for fathers.

(“We have,” through funding and collaboration, in other words, continued the undermining of the separation of church and state that Tyndale, Locke, Jefferson, and others understood was critical to government and which they from first-hand, recent, experience, understood could take a nation down fast.)

We are also promoting work-life balances that benefit families, and partnering with businesses across America to create opportunities for fathers and their children to spend time together.  And military leaders are joining in our efforts to help families keep in touch when a dad is deployed overseas, so the fathers who serve to protect all our children can stay connected to their own.

While ourselves living off one type of income, we have helped design for the lower and middle classes, another form of income which we believe is better for them, and will promote, using monies provided us through the IRS and other investments.   We acquire wealth and learn to run businesses and investments, but decree that the rest of y’all should forget about that and be regulated through our institutions to work primarily as employees, so we can have better control through wage garnishments, child support, etc.  Rather than stewarding and accounting for the wealth obtained from U.S. citizens ourselves, including but not limited to a huge system of grants and cronyism throughout all levels of government (including down to the local courthouse and child support agency) – – — we will continue that system, but try to tweak it enough so that parents who have been separated, we will bring back together again.   et cetera

On Father’s Day, we celebrate the men who make a difference in the life of a child, and we pay tribute to all the fathers who have been our guiding lights.  In the days ahead, we recommit ourselves to making fatherhood, and the support men need to be fathers, a priority in our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 19, 2011, as Father’s Day.  I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

(OK, so this outrageous post needs to be split into 4 parts of about 4,000 words each…..)

Fast forward to Jefferson’s 1826 letter, from top of this post, FORM COUNTS!

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman)

THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT, allowing EXERCISE OF REASON & FREEDOM OF OPINION — is a signal to BURST those (self-imposed) CHAINS.

“the mass of mankind were NOT born with saddles on their back, nor a favored fewbooted & spurred”– is a palpable truth.   “Palpable”  – obvious; so obvious as to be 

1. Able to be touched or felt.
2. (esp. of a feeling or atmosphere) So intense as to be almost touched or felt.


ROGER WEIGHTMAN:

Who was Roger C. Weightman?  Well, Jefferson was writing him as the Mayor of Washington, but Wikipedia’s summary shows he was a printer,  a soldier in the war of 1812 who was caught by the British invading Washington, a businessman, alderman and eventually mayor of Washington D.C., a banker, and a (disturbingly), a freemason….  FYI;

Roger Chew Weightman (born, 1787 – died, February 2, 1876) was an American politician, civic leader, and printer. He was the mayor of Washington, D.C. from 1824 to 1827.

Weightman was born in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1787, moving into the new capital in 1800 and taking an apprenticeship with a local printer. Weightman bought the printing business in 1807[1], making him a congressional printer. He maintained a number of shops on Pennsylvania Avenue, about ten blocks from the White House, from about 1813 onward.

In August 1814, Weightman (by now a First Lieutenant in D.C.’s Light Horse Cavalry[2]) was apprehended by the British troops descending on the White House during the Siege of Washington, a battle in the war of 1812, and made to march with them to the Executivxe Mansion. Admiral George Cockburn taunted the upstanding Washingtonian, forcing him to choose a souvenir (albeit one of no monetary value) to remember the day the American capital was defeated[3].

After serving seven one-year terms as an alderman on Washington’s city council, the council elected Weightman in 1824 to serve out the remainder of the late mayor Samuel N. Smallwood‘s term. In 1826 he ran against former mayor Thomas Carbery; four years prior, Weightman had run against Carbery for mayor and lost by a narrow margin, but had then pressed the matter in court in a legal battle that lasted until the end of Carbery’s term. In 1824, Weightman won more decisively by the use of blustery promises and insults against his opponent. One handbill from the era reads,

NOTICE EXTRAORDINARY. R.C. Weightman, a man of known liberal principles; all those who vote for this gentleman at tomorrow’s election, will have general permission to sleep on the Benches in the Market House, this intense warm weather. May the curse of Dr. Slop light on all those who vote for Tom Carberry[4].

During his time as mayor, Weightman headed the 1825 committee for the inauguration of John Quincy Adams, then the following year chaired the national memorial committee for the president’s deceased father and his successor Thomas Jefferson[5].

In 1827, Weightman became cashier of the Washington Bank, and resigned his position as mayor. He would run again, unsuccessfully, against Walter Lenox in 1850. In the years following his mayoralty, Weightman would be curator of theColumbia Institute; a founding member and officer of the Washington National Monument Society; Grand Master of the Freemasons of the District of Columbia; chief clerk, and later librarian, of the United States Patent Office; and a General in the Union Army during the Civil War — not to mention the center of Washington’s social activity.[1]

In addition to his busy social and professional life, Weightman was a noted and generous philanthropist — generous enough that his sizable fortune had dwindled to very little by the 1870s, when Weightman was living on his pension as a soldier and employee of the Patent Office. However, upon his death in February, 1876, his funeral was one of the best attended and most remembered of the era.

FREEMASONS, in re:   Authority, Theocracy, Heirarchy, (and what else, excluding women):

Not the main topic today, but as these founders WERE freemasons, I will weave it in here, without taking any stand on conspiracy theory or none, or whether the group is “Satanic” or philanthropic, “Godly” etc.   I’ll only look at two (superficial, granted) sources; the interest in the early American ones being that one could see their predecessors in Europe setting themselves against the VERY heirarchical Catholic church, and spurned by it.  Now that gets interesting…

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/awards-organizations/freemason.htm

George Washington was one. So were Benjamin Franklin, Paul Revere, and Henry Ford. All of these illustrious and influential men were Freemasons (or Masons) — privileged members of the world’s oldest and largest fraternity.

Though it boasts 5 million members worldwide, the Freemasons are an enigmatic society. Freemasons say they are nothing more than a brotherhood of like-minded individuals who meet regularly for spiritual and intellectual enlightenment. Conspiracy theorists see them as a secretive underground movement bent on world domination.

In this article, we’ll take a look inside the world of the Freemasons. We’ll discover where they originated, separate the truth from the conspiracy theories and find out what really goes on during their rituals.

Legends of Knights and Kings
Ask five different people for the origins of the Freemasons and you may get five different explanations. Some say they descended from the ancient Druids. Others link them to the Isis-Osiris cult in ancient Egypt. Still others claim they were an order of Jewish monks called the Essenes, who formed in the 2nd century B.C.

According to some Masonic scholars, the Freemasons trace their roots to the building of King Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem in 967 B.C., an event which was described in the biblical Book of Kings. In the story, the builders of the temple were the original stonemasons, and the forefathers of today’s Freemasons. The legend centers on the master builder—a man named Hiram Abiff—who claimed to know the secret of the temple. One day, three men kidnapped Abiff and threatened to kill him if he didn’t reveal that secret. When he refused to talk, Abiff was murdered. After learning of the killing, King Solomon ordered a group of Masons to search for Abiff’s body and bring back the secret of the temple. The men were unsuccessful, so the King established a new Masonic secret. His secret is believed to be the word “Mahabone,” meaning “the Grand Lodge door opened,” which is now the password used to enter the third degree of Masonry.

@@Now, let’s talk about their pre-Declaration of Independence era matters:

MANY of the people involved in structuring this country were freemasons, and/or Deists — and not traditional Christians, although many believed in a Supreme Deity, and some believed probably in Jesus Christ.    Considering what had occurred in England in the 1500s and 1600s, it would be obvious (especially given Locke’s influence) that there would be a desire to protect against a monarchy, a theocracy, or any state religion.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin are all quoted, and were clearly NOT traditional Christians — in this article:

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, “Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom.” Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

Treaty of Tripoli This document, signed by President Adams in 1797, in Article 11, declared that the US was not a Christian nation.

“The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, “the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.”

Listen up — and lay these men alongside the likes of Isaac Newton, John Locke, I am going to speculate, William Tyndale (he wrote nothing on the Trinity, and spent the most energy of his brief life in translating scriptures from the Greek & Hebrew), Joseph Priestly — and others.  These were committed men, they were rational, reasoning men — and they were DEDICATED men.  But they were not religious in temperament and certainly not carried away with their own religion, but if they wished to “enshrine” anything in the Constitution, it was that NO MAN should be ruling another’s conscience as to religion, or to as Jefferson said in 1826, assume the belief that they were innately born “booted and spurred” to ride the rest of humanity, for its own sake.   Although they did not stop slavery in their lifetimes, they wrote a reasoned document and form of government REJECTING the “divine right of kings” — which would eventually be used to do so.

If anything was going to be enshrined in this document (I mean, now not the Declaration, but the Constitution and various Amendments) it would, along the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence follow the “Laws of nature and nature’s God” — to assure that Congress would NOT make any law to establish a religion.

We have come VERY far away from this in the series of financial bounties and grants administered through the HHS and the DOJ to promote certain derivatives of religion, and to allow the Executive Branch of government to of its own accord, employ the carrots and sticks approach to exactly what the founders did NOT want the government to mess with — their private lives, and their homes and families.

Thomas Jefferson

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, “You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

John AdamsJohn Adams

John Adams

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. …  He was no Calvinist, and he wrote of this government:

“In his, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

“The United States of America have {{note the plural — “the states….have, not the US “has.” }} exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

James Madison

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

I will PERSONALLY validate that one, when it comes to any intervention in wife-beating, or even expressing opposition to it, in the time period before I legally evicted [filed in court, and through a court order] my husband for that habit, and years of them and making what was to be a marriage, a hell — and doing so in the name of his version of the Christian God the entire time.

Benjamin Franklin

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, “My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them;the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist.

In an essay on “Toleration,” Franklin wrote:

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.”

By “primitive Christians” he may have been referring back to the Nicene Creed, i.e., third century A.D., I DNK.

Thomas Paine

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. “

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “

As this site (i’m quoting here) has a passage from Joseph Priestley, lamenting that Mr. Franklin was not a believer, here is Wikipedia on Priestly’s work — which Jefferson cited as influencing him…

Summary

An History of the Corruptions of Christianity, published by Joseph Johnson in 1782, was the fourth part of 18th-century Dissenting minister Joseph Priestley’sInstitutes of Natural and Revealed Religion (1772–74).[1]

Dissenters broke off from the Anglican Church… (click on the link for more).

Priestley’s major argument in the Institutes is that the only revealed religious truths that can be accepted are those that also conform to the truth of the natural world. Because his views of religion were deeply tied to his understanding of nature, the text’s theism rests on theargument from design. Many of Priestley’s arguments descended from 18th-century deism and comparative religion.[2]The Institutes shocked and appalled many readers, primarily because it challenged basic Christian orthodoxies, such as the divinity of Christ and the miracle of the Virgin Birth. Priestley wanted to return Christianity to its “primitive” or “pure” form by eliminating the “corruptions” which had accumulated over the centuries. The fourth part of the InstitutesAn History of the Corruptions of Christianity, became so long that he was forced to issue it separately. Priestley believed that the Corruptions was “the most valuable” work he ever published.[3]

Schofield, Priestley’s major modern biographer, describes the work as “derivative, disorganized, wordy, and repetitive, detailed, exhaustive, and devastatingly argued.”[4] The text addresses issues from the divinity of Christ to the proper form for the Lord’s Supper. Thomas Jefferson would later write of the profound effect that Corruptions had on him: “I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, and Early Opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them . . . as the basis of my own faith. These writings have never been answered.”[5] Although a few readers such as Jefferson approved of the work, it was generally harshly reviewed because of its extreme theological positions, particularly its rejection of the Trinity.[6]

This unusual summary of Priestley’s life & works (purple print) has an unusual url:  “islam4all.”

Priestly’s Birth, Parentage, Brought up with Anti Trinity Thoughts:

Joseph Priestly was born in the little hamlet of Field (England) head six miles south-west of Leeds in 1733.  He was the eldest child of a domestic cloth maker. His mother died when he was six years old.  At home he was given a strict Calvinist upbringing, but at school his teachers were dissenting ministers, that is to say, priests who did not agree with all the doctrines of the Church of England.  With a view to becoming a minister, he became well-grounded in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.  The Elders of the Quakers refused to admit him, as he did not demonstrate sufficient repentance for Adam’s sins.  (:      The universities refused to accept anyone who did not subscribe to all the doctrines of the orthodox church.

Hard to get work with unorthodox beliefs….

Instead, he was sent to a well-known academy where the teachers and students were divided between the orthodoxy of the established church and the “heresy” of belief in One God.  Here he began to doubt the truth of the fundamental dogmas of the Christian church in earnest, especially that of the Trinity.  The more he studied the Bible, the more convinced he was about his own views. The writings of Arius, Servetus, and Sozini left a profound impression on him. Like them, he also came to the conclusion that the scriptures provided meager support for the doctrines of the Trinity and Atonement. The result was that on completion of this studies he left the Academy as a confirmed Arian.

He was appointed as an assistant to a minister on the salary of thirty pounds per annum. When it was discovered that he was an Arian, he was dismissed. ….   He used to visit London during the vacations, and it was on one of these visits that he met Benjamin Franklin for the first time.  In 1767 he came nearer his old home, becoming the minister in Mill Hill in Leeds.  He stayed there for six years.  In Leeds, Priestly printed a number of  tracts and soon became well-known as an outstanding and authorative spokesman of unitarianism.  In his spare time, he began to study chemistry with considerable success. He won recognition from the Royal Society, and in 1774 he made his crowning discovery of oxygen which made him famous.  In the research which followed, he discovered more new gases than all his predecessors had done before him. However, he was more interested in religion than in physical science and regarded these discovries as a theologian’s pas-time. In his personal memoirs, he passes over these achievements in the space of about a page.

Priestly not only affirmed the humanity of Jesus, but also denied the immaculate conception.  He thus laid the foundation of the new thinking which resulted in unitarianism becoming like a voyage in a boat without a rudder riding on a turbulent sea.  (smile…. It is alive and well, now….) A sense of direction is totally missing in the movement known as Unitarian Universalism.  This denial of the immaculate conception led to a “totally unnecessary and bitter controversy that did more harm than good to those who affirmed the Divine Unity.” {I added the quotes} A similar movement had contributed towards the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror.  These events on the other side of the Channel had unnerved many people in England.  The orthodox church made it appear that the teachings of Priestly would result in the same kind of tragedy in England.  Countless insulting and threatening letters began to arrive at his doorstep, and his effigy was burned in different parts of the country

On July the 14th 1791, a group of people were celecrating the anniversary of the fall of the Bastille in a Birmingham hotel.  A mob, whose leaders were the justices of the town, gathered outside and, thinking Priestly was taking part in the celebrations, smashed the hotel windows. Dr. Priestly was not there. The mob then went to his house which, Priestly writes in his memoirs, was “plundered and burnt without mercy.”56 His library, his laboratory and all his papers and manuscripts were destroyed in the fire.  Priestly, who had been forewarned by a friend, barely escaped with his life.  The next day, the house of all the important Unitarians were burnt, and in the two days which followed the mob began to burn the houses of those people who were not professed Unitarians, but who had given shelter and protection to the Unitarians who had been made homeless.  During this time the people of Birmingham were in a panic.  All the shops were closed, and people cried out and wrote on their houses “Church and King” to escape the fury of the mob.  It was not until the army was called in that the rioters melted away.

 It was now too dangerous for Priestly to remain in Birmingham, and he left for London in disguise.  

In 1794, Priestly sailed for America with Bengamin Franklin.  There they opened some of the first Unitarian churches in and around Philadelphia.  In the years that followed, the situation in England became more relaxed.  In 1802, Priestly’s old congregation opened a chapel, and Bilsham, a leading Unitarian, was invited to preach the opening sermon.  Priestly, however, was content to remain in America where he died in 1804.
Can we envision then, why our founders might have “found” it so important to put restraints on the religious fervor and look for another form of government that did NOT permit imposition of a religion on the rest of society, although neither did it forbid religion??? Benjamin Franklin knew Priestly.

 Joseph Priestly’s main contribution to the unitarians in England was a comprehensive argument, both historical and philosophical, in support of the Unity of God.  It was drawn from the Scriptures and the writings of the old Christian fathers, interpreted by reason, and rigorously applied to the religious and political problems of his day. “Absurdity supported by power,” he wrote, “will never be able to stand its ground against the efforts of reason.58  Of all his religious works, the most influential was his “History of the Corruptions of Christianity”, written in two volumes, in which he sought to show that true Christianity, embodied in the beliefs of the early Church, was unitarian, and that all departures from that faith were corruptions. The book infuriated the orthodox and delighted the liberals in both England and America.  It was publicly burned in Holland.

“DePhlogisticated Air” – and what the American Chemical Society thinks of Joseph Priestly:
When Joseph Priestley discovered oxygen in 1774, he answered age-old questions of why and how things burn. An Englishman by birth, Priestley was deeply involved in politics and religion, as well as science. He emigrated to America when his vocal support for the American and French revolutions made remaining in his homeland untenable.

The American Chemical Society, the world’s largest scientific society, designated Priestley’s Pennsylvania home a National Historic Chemical Landmark in 1994. 

Priestley (1733-1804) was hugely productive in research and widely notorious in philosophy. He invented carbonated water and the rubber eraser, identified a dozen key chemical compounds, and wrote one of the first comprehensive treatises on electricity. His unorthodox religious writings, and his support for the American and French revolutions, so enraged his countrymen that he was forced to flee England in 1794. He settled in Pennsylvania, where he continued his research until his death.

But the world recalls Priestley best as the man who discovered oxygen, the active ingredient in our planet’s atmosphere. In the process, he helped dethrone an idea that dominated science for 23 uninterrupted centuries: Few concepts “have laid firmer hold upon the mind,” he wrote, than that air “is a simple elementary substance, indestructible and unalterable.”

In a series of experiments culminating in 1774 — conducted with the kind of equipment on display in his Pennsylvania home — Priestley found that “air is not an elementary substance, but a composition,” or mixture, of gases. Among them was the colorless and highly reactive gas he called “dephlogisticated air,” to which the great French chemist Antoine Lavoisier would soon give the name “oxygen.”

It is hard to overstate the importance of Priestley’s revelation. Scientists now recognize 92 naturally occurring elements-including nitrogen and oxygen, the main components of air. They comprise 78 and 21 percent of the atmosphere, respectively.

This is what happen when “UNBOUNDED REASON” meets Unbridled Religion.  The unbridled Religion is going to stir up some mobs, burn down some homes, burn in effigy, burn books, and sometimes burn people who don’t “tow the line” — whatever that line happens to be at the time.  Good luck to anyone in England between 1590 and 1690 — who survived the plagues and religious wars — trying to figure out which way the wind was going to blow NEXT.   Just for the record, in this extended post showing how dangerous it was to be non-Trinitarian (whether Catholic, Protestant, Puritan, or Whatnot) in European 1600s & even 1700s.   Before that, the danger was translating the Bible into one’s own tongue and stirring up the natives with dangerous, unauthorized ideas……
Now — as I keep harping on — we are entering more dangerously religious times, and this time the technology to spread ideas is not the printing press so much as the internet.  ALWAYS watch what the U.S. Government is doing with this technology; at least keep an eye on it.  Remember, there is still a Patriot Act in place, and information goes more than one way.
But most particularly, as I showed a few posts ago — when we have a nationwide call to down-home “American” fatherhood values and among the grants recipients is a mega-church pastor from Arizona (Leo Godzich) who actually wrote a book called:  “Men are from Dirt, Women are from Men,” then hopped over to Uganda to support the “kill the gays” leadership; and when another one (Dr. Ballard) turns out to be — (double check, this is by recall) a 7th Day Adventist who explains his religious beliefs that the problem with “The Fall” was that Eve was allowed to separate from Adam’s side, and such independence brought on the curse on mankind – – – and we want THIS kind of mentality driving issues surrounding divorce and custody? ??
Anyone that is going to attempt to use those scriptures to justify dominating others is probably twisting them, badly — and should be rejected as a ruler.  Even the 1598? treatise to his subjects on the Divine Right of Kings (above) — following the excerpts I posted — went to the prophet Samuel’s description of Israel asking for a king, instead of just dealing individually with their God.  The passage lists in every detail how a king would tax them, oppress them, take their young daughters and take their young men for war; how they would be sorry.  It talks about economic slavery to come.    It clearly says that to demand a king is to reject their own God — and let’em do it, they asked for it (don’t take it personal).
The Trinitarian dogma was imposed centuries ago not by consensus, but by force and in the context of Roman Emperors and a struggle for authority, even as the Anglican Church came from a British King’s need for an heir — not from personal convictions.   It is no different today.
I am not personally a Deist (and obviously cannot become a freemason — I’m female!).  But I thank God that enough people a few SHORT centuries ago were wise enough to put a lid on the authority of religion in a FORM of government, and dedicated their lives and their fortunes to it.  I know this post may be offensive to some religious sorts, or sound too theological to the irreverent, irreligious sorts of people.
However, when we become too stressed and too burdened for any real public debate on existing policies that COMPLETELY undermine several (not just one) of the Bill of Rights; when we do not examine WHAT is being done with our taxes, and most particularly, when we think that institutionalized religion — or institutions that virtually enforce a state religion (but don’t quite call it that) — are innocuous and an acceptable part of the landscape, we have forgotten what principles our countries were built on.

ALL rulers and leaders understand the power of the press, the PR factor the educational systems and who controls the finances and the legal systems.  That’s their job.  IN AMERICA — it is OUR job, who are not such leaders, to keep them in check, and keep them on target.

How soon we forget what others died for.

The invention of the printing press (Gutenberg) and the eventual translation of the Bible into the common language eventually enabled, practically, the challenge to the Catholic church regime; eventually that pen proved mightier than the swords — but a lot of people still died in the struggle.  There are different technologies and systems of control today — let’s be aware of them and use them along the same lines.

One of the major issues , as I understand it, was PrOPErtY and the right to own it, and the right to the fruits of one’s own labor (John Locke used this reasoning to counter “the divine right of kings”).   The IRS system counteracts this.   The system of allowing churches as nonprofits, and nonprofits as favored entities in government, based on the alleged services they are providing (see “Phoebe Factoids” article on nonprofit hospital system in Georgia!) — is contrary to ownership of the fruits of one’s labor.  So is that child support system, as it is now. It’s irrational, illogical, temperamental, PRIVATELY managed for profit, huge in scope, and full of fraud.  It’s also having funds diverted for Non-Constitutional purposes such as designer families.

 

I acknowledge that Domestic Violence field, like fatherhood field, is now a mainstream industry, and increasingly the family courts are a “privatized” industry.  Some serious thinking has to take place in how to change this, and a willingness to say to the entrenched personnel — “Don’t take it personally but this will not work for this country anymore.  Join the job market your systems have repeatedly put the rest of us in.”

A centralized economic system with policy being set in closed-door (or, far-off) places — takes control out of the individual’s hands and repeatedly oppresses the spirit and will to produce, create, and build.  Why should parents — either gender — continue building and producing and creating when the system which is going to transfer wealth away from their kids, and/or themselves — is so fundamentally dishonest and capricious?

And then, years later (in my case) — the cause of this is indeed “monkish ignorance and superstition”    ???

 

(NOTE  — on July 5th, I expanded this post; may take it down in a few days if it looks too embarrassing).

Yep, still Around — the  are — like so many of the programs I blog on, and many other religious, allegedly –

making the world a better place

It is a society restricted to men; the first requirement is a Y chromosome:   About Us

How to become a Mason

Membership is open to men age 18 and older who believe in a Supreme Being and meet the qualifications and standards. Men of all ethnic and religious backgrounds are welcome.

One of Masonry’s traditions is that we do not solicit members. Men must seek membership on their own initiative.

They promote:   “Ethics, tolerance (except of female membership), personal growth, philanthropy, family & freedom.”

Under “freedom”:   Masons value the liberties outlined in the U.S. Constitution and continually promote freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship a Supreme Being in an individual way,** and other important liberties. We believe it is our duty to vote in public elections and to exercise all of our liberties within proper bounds.    (**those who don’t believe in one, obviously wouldn’t qualify for becoming a mason.)

Under “family”:   We strive to be better spouses, parents, and family members. We are committed to protecting the well-being of members and their families, especially when they are in need.  [why not just say "husbands, fathers & grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins" etc.?]

Mission:  Masonry is the world’s first and largest fraternal organization. It is a body of knowledge and a system of ethics based on the belief that each man has a responsibility to improve himself while being devoted to his family, faith, country, and fraternity.

= = = = == =

I have spent my Independence Day mostly on this post.  I’m happy enough to (although there were other fun things to do) because these IDEAS are important and critical to survival — individually and certainly collectively.

I didn’t finish looking up the heirarchy of the Masons — there was a section indicating some of the Americans  came over me to get out from underneath the thumb of some Grand Lodges.  But my curiosity was caught by the concept that the ‘freemasons” themselves were standing against the Catholic Church, and overall, the background of some people that led up to Thomas Jefferson et al. EVEN THOUGH they owned slaves, the IDEAS helped eradicate this — IF enough of us will continue to be dedicated to these goals.

The corruptive influence is the constant training and education.  The exaltation of “mental health specialists” to privileged status in the courts (and elsewhere) has to be STOPPED.  It is simply the supposedly nonspiritual endorsement of a specific worldview; and we always need room for heretics.  There are indications we already ARE a “gulag nation”we are the world’s largest jailro adn the jails are overcrowded, and the prison industry privatized (see 5/19/2010 or 2010, Corrections Corporation of America) I cannot subscribe to such practices.

= = = = = = =

The Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for reference:


Written by Let's Get Honest

July 4, 2011 at 8:57 pm

105th Congress,ff. — Congressional Record — How many times can one say “father,” “fatherhood” & “fatherless” in one minute?

leave a comment »

Congressional Record
105th Congress (1997-1998)

In describing the AFCC, I saw that Mike McCormick of ACFC was presenting a workshop, alongside a PAS Parenting Coordinator AFCC Board Member  Matthew J Sullivan, Ph.D. and The Hon. Robert A. Schnider, long-timer from Los Angeles County who retired in 2008.

I t hought to look up the 1998 & 1999 resolutions on fatherhood in the U.S. Congress.  Here’s some of the record from Thomas.gov:

Congressional Record article 659 of 1000House of Representatives – June 12, 1997;

Congressional Record, [Page: H3723]        Printer Friendly Display – 1,471 bytes.[Help]

someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.
􏰁
FATHERHOOD PROMOTION TASK FORCE
(Mr. MCINTYRE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from North Carolina, it is a high honor to serve the people in the House. Yet an even more important role in my life is that of being a father. As I approach my 14th year of being called ‘‘Dad,’’ we must all realize that fathers do make a difference in the home.

The statistics speak for themselves and are staggering. Four out of ten children in America will go home to- night without a father. The time a fa- ther spends with a child averages, one on one, only 10 minutes a day. Violent criminals too often are males who have grown in a home without a father. As leaders of our country, we must do bet- ter.

I urge my colleagues to join the Con- gressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. We will explore ways to challenge fathers to that type of commitment, not just another law or another government program, but encouraging fathers to fulfill the calling that they have in their lives.
The future of our country lies in the hands of our children. Through this task force, we will ensure that those hands are properly prepared with persistence and purpose and ready to lead. Please join us in this important mission that we not fail.


PROMOTION OF FATHERHOOD IS CRITICAL

(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we ap- proach this Father’s Day, many of us are fortunate to reflect upon the positive influence of our own fathers and to feel the sense of joy that comes from being a father. We understand that the experience of having a father is critical to shaping our lives, and we know that there are numerous studies that have been done that point out that loving, committed fathers help children get a better start in life.

FIRST, it’s for what it does for them personally to be a father, SECOND, it’s for helping children get a “better start in life.”

According to the Journal of Family Issues, interaction between children and their fathers improves the child’s early mental development and physical well-being. We know that children who grow up with committed fathers are less likely to get involved with gangs and drugs and turn out to be better parents themselves. That is why the Book of Proverbs tells us to train the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

A group of Members in this House have joined together to form the Fa- therhood Promotion Task Force for the purpose of examining Government poli- cies to ensure that those policies pro- mote, encourage, and support families. Every child deserves the love and care of a responsible adult, and the pro- motion of fatherhood is critical to our future.

􏰁

REDUCING THE TAX BURDEN ON FATHERS

(Mr. NEUMANN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his re- marks.)

Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Father’s Day, and I would like to start by paying tribute to my father, who has done such a great job in help- ing myself and my brothers and sisters in getting to where we are in our lives today. Certainly, without his support as we were growing up, we would not be here and would not be able to be doing the things we are doing here today.

I also have to think about in the so- ciety that we live in how many fathers are forced to work two jobs because of the large tax burden. And I have to hope that the work we are doing out here this week in Washington, working to reduce that tax burden on our Amer- ican families by providing a $500 per child tax cut and by providing a college tuition tax credit, let us hope that that work and that effort that we are going through this week out here in Washing- ton will somehow allow our fathers to not have to work that second and third job out there in America so that they can in fact spend more time at home with their families and spend more time with their children, providing them the guidance to make this a better nation in the long term for everyone.

818 . REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS IN RAISING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN (House of Representatives – June 09, 1998) 
This one is long.  I am going to post it here:

WORDCOUNT “fatherhood”– 31 occurrences; “fathers” – 31 occurrences (including title), mothers (plural) ONE occurrence;  “father” – (over 100 occurrences)

Fatherhood Promotion – 9 matches + Promotion of fatherhood – 1  – 10 total.

Families – 10 occ (incl. single-parent & two-parent, 1 each).  Family – 11 matches; Children – 62 matches; parent/s — 11 matches.

“absent” — 11 matches.  “VIOLENCE” — not found.  “Abuse” – 1 occ, only with “alcohol abuse” and attributed to fatherlessness:

“Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency”

“fatherless” – 5 times.

MOTHER

[Page: H4249]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 417) regarding the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 417

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;

Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;

Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average depression report having a close relationship with their father;

Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

It would be nice to see that reference.

Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was absent;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe `it is important for children to live in a home with both their mother and their father';

Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;

Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50 percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;

Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes have not seen their father in the last twelve months;

Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families;

Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;

Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;

Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;

Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

Whereas President Clinton has stated that `the single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes to so many other social problems’ and that `the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out of wedlock births in this country';

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was formed in February 1998;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively involved in the rearing and development of his children;

Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;

Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;

Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate will be participating in this event; and

Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

(2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;

(3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family environment; and

(4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) and the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez) each will control 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

[Page: H4250]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 417 expresses the importance of fathers in the rearing and development of their children. This is a bipartisan measure and has the support of both the majority and minority leaders.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to move this resolution forward. Perhaps the committee selected me to move this forward because I am a recent father. Elizabeth Jenkins was born into our household last fall on October 23, and Ellie, as Ruthie and I have been calling her, is the source of unending joy for me and for my wife, and I share that joy with all of my colleagues who I know are also fathers, and it has meant a great deal to me.

I hope today by this resolution to be able to share some of the sense of joy and importance of fathers in rearing our children, because it should be alarming to all of us that half of the children born today are likely to spend half of their childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent. We should be especially alarmed when study after study shows new evidence of the negative impact of an absent father on children.

I would like to highlight one study in particular, a recent study that was released last October by the Department of Education’s National Center of Education Statistics. This study, entitled `Father’s Involvement in Their Children’s Schools,’ found that a father’s involvement, whether in a two-parent family, a single-father family, or a nonresident family had a very positive impact on the children.

Specifically, this involvement increased the likelihood of their children getting mostly A’s in schools, reducing the likelihood of their having to repeat a grade, and reduced the chance of being suspended or expelled from school. These associations remained even after controlling for other factors, such as the parents’ education level, household income or the mother’s involvement.

The fact is, a strong father’s presence can improve both fetal development and infant development, promote physical well-being, and increase the ability of children to get along with each other. Conversely, the lack of a strong father figure presents an increased likelihood of delinquency and criminal behavior when the child is grown.

Social scientists are not the only ones who realize this. …

Maybe not, but they & psychologists, sure are the primary ones (along with religiously oriented leaders) i promoting it!

A 1996 Gallup poll found that nearly 80 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Americans, believe the most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the resulting lack of the involvement of that father in the rearing and development of their children.   (??)

Last year the leadership recognized this as well, and, with that leadership, they appointed a Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion led by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). This congressional task force was formed, along with a similar task force in the Senate, as well as one by the national Governors.

One of the main goals of these groups is to highlight the importance of fatherhood, to explore the social changes that are required and to ensure that every child, every child in America, is raised with a father who is committed to that child, who will be actively involved in the rearing of that child and be involved in the development of that child.

On June 15, the National Fatherhood Initiative will hold a summit. It is a National Summit on Fatherhood here in Washington, D.C. *** The purpose is to mobilize a response to the problem of absent fathers. It will mobilize this response in several of the most important sectors in our community, the most powerful sectors in our society, including the public policy sector, private and public social services, education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community.

For the record, the National Fatherhood Initiative, is a nonprofit formed in 1994 INAPPROPRIATELY, with a CONFLICT OF INTEREST  — when one of its originators was at HHS.   THis is well- known by now, but the outfit continues to receive federal funding and trains the trainers.  It’s in full swing.

This resolution that we have before us today was first introduced to the House by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and others who want to express support for such a summit. This resolution goes on to state that the House of Representatives, one, recognizes the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of the children; two, it urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children, to be actively involved in rearing the children and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children; and, thirdly, it encourages each father to devote time and energy and resources to his children, recognizing that children need not only material support, but, more importantly, the love of both parents, who provide an affectionate family environment.

I would also note that during consideration of this resolution by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) was unanimously accepted by the committee. This amendment added a clause urging the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who failed to fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support. I note that this amendment and modification is entirely consistent with the Deadbeat Fathers Punishment Act of 1998, which passed the House in May by a vote of 412 to 2.

In closing, I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and all the members of the Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, the majority and minority leadership and others involved for their efforts in this area. I urge my fellow Members to support this important resolution as we bring it to the House floor today, and, hopefully, we will have a unanimous vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), on the birth of his first child. The committee selected him because he was a new father, I guess they selected me because I am an old father, being the father of 5 children, the grandfather of 14 children, and the great-grandfather of 2 children.

I can tell the gentleman that he has got a lot to look forward to, especially when those children just before his eyes grow into adults, get married, and have children of their own. That is the greatest time, because you get to take your grandchildren and spoil them and send them home to their parents to run their parents crazy.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution and this topic, the importance of fathers in the raising and the development of their children, is extremely important. The role of the father in the family has been one of the more prominent issues to gain public attention in recent years.

Too many of our children are growing up in families which do not have the benefit of a father. In fact, the percentage of children growing up in a home without their father nearly tripled between 1960 and the early 1990s. Today, over 24 million American children are living without their biological fathers.

Most importantly, fatherless homes have a devastating impact on our children. National research tells us that without a father, children are four times as likely to be poor, twice as likely to drop out of school, et cetera. Fatherless children also have a higher risk of suicide, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and delinquency.

Clearly, the important role that fathers play in the development of their children cannot go unnoticed. Unfortunately, the issue of absentee fathers is not restricted to those who do not pay child support, or `deadbeat dads,’ as they are commonly referred to. Many fathers are tragically caught between their duties at work and their responsibilities to their families. The problems encountered by today’s families are not limited to deadbeat dads. Today’s families are also hampered by dead-tired dads, who want to be there for their children but do not have the time.

In closing, I want to say I am encouraged by the work of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force. Their efforts, throughout this resolution and other activities, have begun to center attention on this very important issue. I believe this resolution sends a strong message which all Members should support. I certainly do.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[Page: H4251]  GPO's PDF

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the author of this resolution.

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today to reiterate the importance of fatherhood in this country. As one of the cofounders of the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, I am pleased to recognize the significance of this resolution.

Today, Members of Congress will commit to promoting the role that faithful, dedicated fathers play in the development of our young people and, indeed, of our Nation; and, how timely, for it is again that time of year when we honor our dads. In two Sundays, we will celebrate Father’s Day, a day to acknowledge the special place which dads hold in our hearts, and recognize dad’s role as father, husband, teacher, provider, care-giver, and friend.

Although every American has a father, not every American has a dad, one whom they know, love, spend time with and trust. Because of this fact, our country has suffered.

The United States is now the world’s leader in fatherless families. This has taken its toll in our society, when you need no longer talk about the Dan Quayle versus Murphy Brown debate. And we have a litany of statistics supporting the position that a family unit with mother and father is an ideal environment for our children.

The realities are staggering. Four in ten children who go to bed tonight will sleep in a home in which their fathers do not reside. Overall, nearly 2.5 million children will join the ranks of the fatherless this year. This is a sad commentary. We must each be committed to bringing this to an end.

But this is not just about fatherlessness. We as a society must work to elevate the importance of fathers who value their commitments. Men across America struggle to be good dads. Many of us are co-laborers in this struggle. This is why we as elected officials must be the ones to lead by example, to take up the bully pulpit in order to effect change in this spirit of this country.

Through the events of the Congressional Fatherhood Promotion Task Force, we have sought to heighten the discussion of responsible fatherhood and emphasize the importance of fatherhood in neighborhoods and in community forums across the country.

Working with the National Fatherhood Initiative, we are looking forward to the National Summit on Fatherhood next Monday. Leaders from across the country, from the highest levels of government here in Washington to sports figures such as Evander Holyfield, Michael Singletary and entertainment celebrities such as actor Tom Selleck, all will gather to honor the role of the father and to turn our momentum to action. We will gather at the J.W. Marriott next Monday for this fatherhood summit. All Members of Congress have been invited to take part in this event, and I hope many of them will come.

The time has come for fathers to take hold of and be proud of their role as dad. In the words of filmmaker John Singleton, `Any boy can make a baby; it takes a man to raise a son.’ The choice to place children above others is a noble one, and one which we as a society must recognize and reward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In doing so, together, we can commit to promoting an office above all others in this country, that of the father.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the comments of the testimony that heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield recently gave to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education and Workforce.

[TIME: 1430]

He said, `I, Evander Holyfield, did not meet my father until I was 21 years of age. I missed the advice, the guidance, and time that only a father can give. However, thanks to my mother, Annie Laura Holyfield, and my coach at the Warren Boys’ Club in Atlanta, Carter Morgan, I was given the faith, determination, and perseverance that helped make the boy into the man and father I am today.

`Perhaps the absence of my own father, but the presence of a strong and moral father figure in my childhood has helped me realize how important fatherhood is. In fact, being an active and caring father to my sons and daughters is just as important as being the three-time heavyweight champion of the world.’

The man became a three-time heavweight champion of the WORLD, thanks to his mother and the involvement of a father figure, a coach at Boys Club, and he says, himself a good father.  That’s success!   And this is used to justify that (because such people would rather have had their own fathers around) millions of US$$ should make sure others do NOT have this chance to prove themselves (nor do their mothers) but instead society should be re-arranged to put Dads back.

His wife spoke, and, finally, they said this: `As father and mother to our children, even with the time constraints of our careers, we realize the importance of quality time with our children. Not only is this our obligation as parents, but it is also one of our greatest sources of joy. We especially stress the areas of faith and education with our children. We love them; and loving children requires not just good intentions and feelings, but also time and attention.

`We reiterate our strong feelings about this important issue. And with God’s guidance and help, we will do our part in encouraging and elevating the status of fatherhood in America.’

Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) has 17 1/2 minutes remaining.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority leader.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding to me.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for this resolution, also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), and others who have worked on this, the gentleman from California (Mr.Martinez), and others on this side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) who care about this issue.

The life of a child, it goes without saying, is so critical and so important. Nobody can replace a father in the life of a child, nobody. Fathers are role models, and they are teachers, and they offer, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania mentioned in his comments by Mr. Holyfield, they offer the most important ingredients that a child could have in their childhood: love; guidance; encouragement; discipline, which is so critical, it would carry with a child throughout his or her life; wisdom; and, yes, inspiration.

Mr. Holyfield just witnessed that someone DID replace the role of a father for him, resulting with the care of his mother, in success and his own becoming a successful father also as an adult.  How does this justify the fatherhood resolution?    Because a grown resoundingly successful man raised by a single mother would have preferred to have his Dad there?

Fatherhood is a responsibility, perhaps one of the greatest responsibilities, in a man’s life. It is also one of the greatest joys that a man can have, along with the bumps along the way in raising a child, the joy of having the input, giving the love, providing the guidance, providing the inspiration, the encouragement when it is needed. These are all so very important in a child’s development.

And only Dads can give this, not mothers.

Mr. Speaker, America needs strong families, and America needs strong fathers. This resolution has been long in coming, and I am so proud of the fact that Members have decided to raise this issue to a higher level in the country today.

Congress recognizes the important role fathers play and honors fathers for their contribution. So it is with great pride that I rise today to thank my colleagues for offering this resolution, for recognizing fatherhood, for setting aside a day in which we can, as a community, come together and recognize the great values that emanate from fatherhood.

We sometimes talk about a lot of different issues in this institution, and we sometimes forget some of the very basic fundamental bedrock issues on which the others are built upon. Fatherhood is one of them. I am just very happy to be able to share some thoughts on this today.

I thank my colleagues for their leadership in this, and wish the event that will take place much success, and wish those who have put this together and who are trying to make sure that fatherhood is respected in this country and is honored. I thank them for their efforts.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

And finally . . . ..

Congressional Record article 921 of 1000         Printer Friendly Display – 1,583 bytes.[Help]

FATHERHOOD (House of Representatives – June 12, 1997)

[Page: H3722]  GPO's PDF

(Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the fathers who do it right. A good father should first be a good husband and show his children by example the love and respect that their mother should receive. A father is one who is there, who quietly and faithfully sees needs and fills them. From diapers to bicycles to homework to growing to adulthood, fathers must be powerful forces of leading by quiet example.

Fathers keep things strong and solid, but they keep it simple. My father set an example for hard work. He came home for dinner. He stayed with the family in the evening, but he had his own business to build and he went back to work late and would work until midnight and then be back home. He set an example.

My father helped me through college, the first to my knowledge in my whole family tree, to get a college degree.

When I married, my wife’s father took it on himself to stock our kitchen and our pantry with its first set of food and supplies for us. Simple but significant.

[TIME: 1015]

I hope and pray that I will be as good a father to my five children as my father has been to his five children and someday my two sons will be to theirs. Fathers like it simple. So to mine and all of ours, I simply say, thanks, Dad.

AND IN THE SENATE< QUITE A BIT OF ACTIVITY:

S. 1364:
106th Congress
1999-2000

A bill to amend title IV of the Social Security Act to increase public awareness regarding the benefits of lasting and stable marriages and community involvement in the promotion of marriage and fatherhood issues, to provide greater flexibility in the Welfare-to-Work grant program for long-term welfare recipients and low income custodial and noncustodial parents, and for other purposes.

19 cosponsors along with Evan Bayh of Indiana:

This one didn’t get passed into law.  For the record, Title IV was amended in 1996 along the same lines.

7/14/1999–Introduced.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
- Title I: Public Awareness and Community Involvement in Fatherhood Issues
- Title II: Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 1999 – Title: I Public Awareness and Community Involvement In Fatherhood Issues – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to States and territories to:
(1) develop and carry out media campaigns promoting the formation and maintenance of married two-parent families, strengthen fragile families,** and promote responsible fatherhood; and
**this term ties directly to some studies with wealthy foundation backing, which have helped certain people’s reputations and careers in this field.
(2) obtain donations of media access necessary for such campaigns.
Requires the Secretary to contract with a fatherhood promotion organization (meeting certain requirements) to:
(1) develop and distribute a media campaign to interested States, local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations; and
(2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities to promote and support responsible fatherhood by making available to other States information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
Amends SSA title IV part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) (TANF) to mandate block grants to States to provide support to responsible fatherhood efforts of local governments, public agencies, and private nonprofit organizations. Authorizes appropriations.
Title II – Removal of Burdensome Federal Restrictions
Yet, Gol-dang those burdensome federal restrictions.  See my commentary on “Section 1115 Waivers” or read them direct, yourself.
Amends SSA title IV part A with regard to TANF grant recipient requirements, custodial and non-custodial parent requirements, in-kind donations, additional use of TANF funds, and a TANF bonus to reward a State’s effort to encourage the formulation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Amends SSA title IV part D to give States various specified options to: (1) pass through directly to the family a portion of child support collected, including amounts collected pursuant to a continued assignment; (2) disregard child support received in determining a family’s eligibility for, or amount of, TANF assistance; and (3) use amounts collected by a State as child support, and otherwise payable to the Federal Government, to provide fatherhood services (especially to low income non-custodial fathers) encouraging the appropriate involvement of both parents in the life of any of their children.

How would women & mothers stand a chance in this scenario — especially if they didn’t happen to be reading the Congressional record or on familiar terms with their local legislators?  They are scandalized for receiving welfare, and some welfare funds are going to be redirected to encourage the fathers to get back in?  When some of this single-parent household relates to violence by those same fathers, or neglect?

Cosponsors of this were:

Cosponsors:
This bill never became law.  This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Last Action:   Jul 14, 1999: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.

108th Congress try — by Evan Bayh, 2003, this time had these  co-sponsors:
Cosponsors:
Cosponsors:
Same general idea, only focusing on getting demonstration & evaluation projects going — by forcing the Secretary of HHS to run them:
3/12/2003–Introduced.
Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2003 – Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to direct the Secretary to award grants to eligible States and entities to conduct demonstration programs to promote responsible fatherhood.
Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to contract with a nonprofit fatherhood promotion organization to: (1) develop and distribute a media campaign that addresses the issue of responsible fatherhood to States, local governments, public agencies, and private entities; and (2) develop a national clearinghouse to assist States and community efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood by disseminating information regarding media campaigns and programs instituted by States using grant funds under this Act.
IT cites the same tired old rhetoric — and note, is requesting to legislate that this rhetoric is spread around, but good, including:

6) Children who live without contact with their biological father are, in comparison to children who have such contact–

(A) 5 times more likely to live in poverty;

(B) more likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom;

(C) twice as likely to commit crime;
(D) twice as likely to drop out of school;
(E) more likely to commit suicide;
(F) more than twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs; and
(G) more likely to become pregnant as teenagers.
Is anyone still around in Congress to ever question this material?

(7) Violent criminals are overwhelmingly males who grew up without fathers.

They are for sure overwhelmingly male.  Growing up without fathers is ONE factor, poverty may be another, having witnessed violence by THEIR dads BEFORE they became ‘fatherless’ may be another actor.  Lousy schools, too.  I am the child of a parent whose father abandoned the family, and my father did not assault or to my knowledge abuse.  Had that father stuck around, her probably would have, and not stepped up to the plate and had the successful professional career he did, supporting his own family starting as a young man.  I would have had far less chance of making it to college with an abusive grandpa having raised my own father.

That a House of Representatives which is overwhelmingly male should vote this in and consider its viewpoint acceptable for the whole population, is hardly surprising.   Read on and recoqnize that as these speakers recognized that men from single families often DO succeed, and sometimes become world champions at one thing or another (i.e., Lance Armstrong did all right, too) – — they ALSO recognize there is a tie between Domestic Violence / abuse & poverty of households headed by women.  Perhaps these voters should think more about stopping abuse of women by MARRIED or INVOLVED men, and there might be fewer households like these.   Of COURSE violence is related to poverty — one can’t continually work while being beaten at home, sooner or later something has to give!

(8) Between 20 and 30 percent of families in poverty are headed by women who have suffered domestic violence during the past year and between 40 and 60 percent of women with children receiving welfare were abused sometime during their life.

This right here ADMITS that domestic violence and abuse impoverishes women (not to mention the fact women are typically paid less per hour) — which leads to poverty in 20 to 30% of poor families, but 40 to 60 % of welfare families have reported abuse.   How much stronger can one speak to stop the abuse?
And yet this solution still maintains that the REAL cause of poverty and violent crime is ABSENCE of a male, a father, in the home.
….”

(13) The promotion of responsible fatherhood and encouragement of married 2-parent families should not–

(A) denigrate the standing or parenting efforts of single mothers or other caregivers;

(B) lessen the protection of children from abusive parents; or

(C) compromise the safety or health of the custodial parent;

Our Constitution didn’t even provide for the Department of Education; it’s become such a politicized institution who even remembers when there was none?  This Dept has a  background as does our so-called “public” school system.   When the Dept. of Health and Human Services (I think even a more recent creation than the Dept. of Education) goes this far off the deep end, we are going to be drowning in debt with or without having to purchase our currency from a PRIVATE professionalized bank called the Federal Reserve, and pay interest on it.   Just as — seems to me — the judicial system is now outsourcing its business to private contractors in all kinds of fields – fatherhood, therapy, parent education and sometimes even rearrangements of itself, as in the hybrid Family Justice Centers and other outfits.
Why should ALL of us have to sponsor the personal vision of a FEW fatherhood-obsessed members of the US in their Congressional function when they cannot, as leaders, seem to comprehend that being primarily men, they have limited understanding of the experience of being a mother in this country.  This legislation literally undermines key agencies of government AND the legal system when it comes to family courts.   What this is REALLY about is certain males concerns that they are going to lose their function in society, or get out-bred by supposedly inferior-status populations.
If our legislative bodies had more women participants (senators, representatives) there’d be a better understanding of the experience of motherhood (single or two-parent) and what contributes to crime and violence in the home — after all, mothers give birth to, nurse (if they can) and in many ways shepherd children through the school years; they are also the predominant sex in educational / teaching positions (if I”m not mistaken), which may also account for why it’s among the lowest paid professions around, per the recent Georgetown study on pay scales of college graduates by what field they are in.
More, from this one (which didn’t pass in this version):

‘(7) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008 for purposes of making grants to States under this subsection.

The Access Visitation grant series (similar purposes) was already in place as of 1996 at $10 million/year.  This sought $20 million MORE….

‘(b) GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES TO CONDUCT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS-

‘(1) AUTHORITY TO AWARD GRANTS-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall award grants to eligible entities to conduct demonstration programs to carry out the purposes described in (a)(2).

This is requesting authorization to run demonstration projects on people.  As such, I object — past tense (too late), but if it came up again, I still object.  This is not what HHS is for!
Cosponsors for another one, 107th Congress – 15 people; year, 2001-2002

2011, same old behaviors:

HR 1135 still says TANF / Food stamp purposes includes “healthy marriage.”  Guess they don’t want too many unclaimed poor females and unclaimed poor males running around.  Note:  This doesn’t apply to RICH unclaimed females and/or males — see gossip rags, see even behavior of Obama appointee on responsible fatherhood’s behaviors:

Congress further finds that it should also be the goal of the food stamp program to increase employment, to encourage healthy marriage, and to promote prosperous self-sufficiency which shall mean the ability of households to maintain an income above the poverty level without Government services and benefits.’.

 

Seeing as the healthy marriage idea has made it harder for some people to LEAVE abuse and support themselves, and their families, I suggest we scrap the idea and let all  citizens figure this out, rich and poor alike.  It really IS possible that a creative single parent without ongoing stressor of a difficult relationship might be able to work harder, or faster — and probably figure out an alternate to the public school system (a time-soaker and underproducer in many ways) and simply become self-sufficient.  Or to figure out their OWn networked combinations of school, food, housing, education, health and self-defense (although the latter is one of the hardest).  There are few things more toxic than spending month after month in welfare lines or soup kitchen lines and the stigma that goes with it.  Child support is problemmatic, because this is going to be channeled into more custody wars (or elsewhere through the family system), so it seems that there might be another way.  ESPECIALLY with the $30 million here, $30 million there frauds  being caught, the racist, sexist, and just awful treatment of some clients needing child support by groups like Maximus and others.  And did I mention the $20 MILLION California settled with Jaycee Dugard family (if I have that figure right, DNK about any updates or revisions) for having so failed at supervising a convicted rapist & kidnapper, Phillip Garrido in his MARRIED household with Nancy — that this woman literally raised to girls to ages 12 & 15 in backyard sheds in a prosperous SF Bay Area County.

Other scenes in this county included a MARRIED couple & another literally torturing a young man who’d run away from a foster c are situation.  He’d managed to get over the fence and showed up in a gym? in his gym shorts and  covered with feces and curled up in a fetal position under the counter.  This was a TEENAGED BOY.

This particular HR (Welfare) act also has prohibitions on Abortion — except physical injury, incest or rape (etc.) and talks at length about definitions of the “family head and married spouse” which makes me wonder about why a married  couple with the children being both theirs, needs (for these purposes) a designated “head” making obviously a designated Non-Head, presumably the female when both are biological parents.  That’s a religious concept…

 

H.Res. 315 — this past June 16th, 2011, just in time for Father’s Day:

the immeasurable contribution of fathers in the healthy development of children:

The 35 co-sponsors (who wouldn’t want to get in on that one?) are:

Cosponsors:

Assuming Shelly Capito is a woman, that’s a whopping 4 females that voted for this bill essentially cheerleading the GOOD Dads.  Incidentally, it’s my understanding at least Marsha Blackburns’ office has been approached about MIS-appropriation of some of the fatherhood grants.

/16/2011–Introduced.
Commends the millions of fathers who serve as wonderful, caring parents for their children. Calls on fathers across the United States to use Father’s Day to: (1) reconnect and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, (2) spend Father’s Day with their children, and (3) express their love and support for their children. Urges men to understand the level of responsibility fathering a child requires, especially in the encouragement of children’s moral, mental, social, academic, emotional, physical, and spiritual development. Encourages active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children, including the devotion of time, energy, and resources.”  THIS one didn’t vote any $$ so it’s an easy one to go along with.
The schools have justified their existence to do many of the things this resolution says fathers are to do (no mention of Moms made, of course) and used to justify funding, no doubt.  Schools are NOT just about academics.  However it’s handy to be able to blame an absent parent when the schools cannot perform up to standards.
“Fathering” is a verb used by this contingent. Prior to this new, improved (late 1990s) application of the term, the word “fathering” meant basically impregnating a woman who carried a child to term or at least to pregnancy — and NOT a whole lot more.
I notice that Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore (if she’s still there) did NOT sponsor this resolution.  Maybe she was busy.  See my post on it, early 2011.
Oh well….

 

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm

My response to Wayne County, MI issues: Behind many issues is often an AFCC judge…. (and what “AFCC” entails)

with 4 comments

 

Review Time – who/what is the “AFCC”?:

“AFCC JUDGE” — Briefly, by this, it means all that AFCC believes, entails and habitually DOES.

  • What is AFCC?

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

This is not necessarily what the US Court systems are in place for, nor civil codes of procedure, nor the bill of rights, nor the criminal law.  AFCC views “conflict” as bad — seemingly worse than criminal behaviors by individuals in families towards others in the families.   I can’t think of any field of human endeavor or growth that doesn’t have some built-in conflict, which can be resolved either by reference to an agreed-upon-standard, or by separation.  However, in AFCC language, whoever has conflict (including with these dedicated professionals) is the bad guy, and court-ordered punishment can be meted out.

In this system, parents are required / forced to work it out being treated and viewed as a “family” whether or not they are one any more.  Even if one has threatened to kill the other, to kidnap the kids, has caused serious injury to the other partner and/or their children, or has interfered with court-ordered visitation, the problem is viewed of conflict PER SE as being wrong, rather than there being an identifiable position of truth (and from it, some justice) on various matters.

Naturally it also sees its membership as an association of dedicated professionals who are going to resolve family problems.

  • Who are AFCC members? – WHICH dedicated professionals, in what fields?

AFCC Members are:

Judges Lawyers
Mediators Psychologists
Researchers Academics
Counselors Court Commissioners
Custody Evaluators Parenting Coordinators
Court Administrators Social Workers
Parent Educators Financial Planners

It seems to me this list of professions keeps expanding, which is another thing AFCC as an association does.  We note that while there are some people as direct public employees/ servants who work in the justice system (judges, mediators, court administrators, court commissioners, and some categories of attorneys — i.e., child support attorneys, county-paid GALs, etc.) — some are not.  The category “researchers” & “Academics” is definitely broad.  Although many of these people certainly have been through divorce or custody issues, or are themselves parents please notice that “parents” is not a category.

In this worldview, then, the “PARENT” (regardless of what profession(s) any parent is in, including sometimes even some of the above categories) is the plebian, the novice, the uninstructed, the person that the professionals must handle.  One thing many parents are definitely “uninstructed” in is that this organization exists and runs conferences to strategize how to handle THEM and their flawed selves.

AFCC personnel, when judges, are often highly placed (including state supreme courts) and activist.  A look at the membership in this 2007 conference brochure shows an opening PLENARY session hearing;

The Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting: Pros and Cons There seems to be increasing support throughout the United States for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. Proponents say that such a presumption brings the best interest standard into comportment with parents’ protected and privileged status under the Constitution and will apply only to those situa- tions in which 1) parents cannot reach agreement; 2) both parents can present realistic parenting plans for the responsibility they seek; and 3) neither parent can present convincing evidence that the other parent is unfit. They say that this presumption will change litigants’ and practitioners’ expectation that gains are produced by proceeding to adversarial judicial hearings, will decrease post divorce conflict, and will uphold each parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children. Opponents, while often sympathetic to shared parenting, argue that the presumption would seriously impede the Court’s ability to tailor custody determinations to the needs of each particular child.** Presenters: Michael McCormick; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider

 

[The 2003 link points to an article from a Journal of CFCC (Center for Families & Children in the Courts, put out by Ca. Judicial Council:    ...

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families / How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court "The emotional and psychological risks to children resulting from conflicted custody disputes and the varied needs of separated families have led to the increased involvement of mental health professionals in child custody cases. ...But though treatment services can be expensive, high-quality treatment may be a more cost-effective intervention than continued litigation. ...   Courts can also maximize resources by appointing a forensically sophisticated therapist to fill a child- centered role (e.g., to provide the child’s treatment or child-centered conjoint or family therapy) and by allowing the therapist to confer with other therapists about the case. "

Sorry, but actually AFCC was founded to bring on the mental health professionals.  It's typical to talk in passive terms of needs that arose and demanded their services, however, this is a very aggressive organization that lobbies for constant expansion of the involvement of its professionals, as does this particular article.  Some of the topics of conflict include economic depletion by constant involvement of custody evaluators and therapists to start with ...

The Hon. Robert Schnider apparently one of the originals in Los Angeles area, born into a family law practitioner family -- or at least working in his father's practice.  Purely for entertainment purposes, here's a 2004 article in which this judge was going to possibly unseal (unsavory) parts of a divorce record affecting an Illinois Republican Senatorial race -- Jack Ryan against . . ..  Barack Obama.   The author questions why any judge would be allowed to do this for high-celebrity cases, and notes that "To Unseal or Not to Unseal" (My terms) would either affect a political race, and might be called "child endangerment."  Jack Ryan was being compared to Bill Clinton as to his sexual habits at the time....]

((**including totally eliminating contact with the mother, in “interventions” when she has alienated the children — which would mean sole legal & physical custody to the father, i.e., “Tailored custody determinations” The fact that no opponents UNsympathetic to shared parenting (presumptions) are mentioned tells us how unlikely that either feminists or people advocating for domestic violence victims’ viewpoints were considered).

Many of the conflicts within marriages and sometimes causes of separation actually can come from violence by one partner towards another; it can be a dealbreaker in any relationship (and can and does sometimes turn lethal).  AFCC positions itself at the crossroads and in this little paragraph above, has borrowed? the phrase “rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting” from the rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to a batter” legislative language in many states.

 

“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:

For example, a quick search comes up with Delaware Code.  Even this Delaware Code, as strong as it is, has several loopholes to allow joint or sole custody of a child to go to a perpetrator of domestic violence — but even so, AFCC and others wish to change this to presumption for equal shared parenting (see above):

DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Search DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child.

(b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence.

(c) The above presumptions shall be overcome if there have been no further acts of domestic violence and the perpetrator of domestic violence has: (1) successfully completed a program of evaluation and counselling designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence {{aka “Batterers Intervention Program” — a thing marketed by the Duluthmodel.org philosophy}} and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional; and (2) successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counselling if the Court determines that such counselling is appropriate; and (3) demonstrated that giving custodial or residential responsibilities to the perpetrator of domestic violence is in the best interests of the child. The presumption may otherwise be overcome only if a judicial officer finds extraordinary circumstances that warrant the rejection of the presumption, such as evidence demonstrating that there exists no significant risk of future violence against any adult or minor child living in the home or any other family member, including any ex-spouse.

(i.e., RISK ASSESSMENT PROPHETIC UTTERANCES.  How can anyone demonstrate no significant risk fo future violence when people have walked out of batterers intervention programs, with flying colors, and gone on to murder the same person that got them in there?)

Along with “best interests” is of course if the other parent might “alienate” the child, allegedly.

An AFCC judge is going to oppose anything “high-conflict” and be favorably inclined towards shared parenting.  Note presenter Mike McCormick, whose bio is:

Michael McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children and has written exten- sively and spoken throughout the United States on family law reform.

No presentations by NOW members or feminists in this association, that I’ve seen.  Mr. McCormick is MORE than active in fatherhood issues, and complained that even Obama’s and Evan Bayh (Indiana) fatherhood and healthy marriage promotion just didn’t go far enough.  It was too little carrot and too big a stick.  He hangs out with Glenn Sacks and friends.  I note that the acronym “ACFC” (below) is “AFCC” re-arranged.  Coincidence?

 I (Glenn Sacks) co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State JournalBuffalo News, 6/30/07

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.

Readers Every Year
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach over 6 million readers a year with your business or organization? My blog and my websites GlennSacks.com andHisSide.com receive over 10,000 unique visits a day. My weekly E-Newsletter has over 50,000 subscribers, and is by far the world’s largest regularly distributed E-newsletter devoted to family law reform, fatherhood and fathers’ issues. Contactus for more information.
(Note he’s not complaining about fathers being treated like animals & mules, which is where the “carrot & stick” reference comes from.  He wants the bribe, the incentive, and less regulation.  Personally, being a mother, I’d be offended — and have been — when anyone came to me implying or saying that I needed federal intervention to attempt to maintain work to support my kids.  This article was written 5 months after his presentation at AFCC, same year, or published then.

So one factor to remember about AFCC — they have no problem with conference presentations run by activities fathers’ rights leaders.  They are definitely a father-friendly organization, at least certain kinds of fathers.   They are also typically influential within the courts they preside over, when judges:

Another factor is that they are quite interested if not obsessed with redefining (and narrowing the definition) of domestic violence; they are going to discredit domestic violence as having primarily male perpetrators upon females, even though homicide data consistently shows this is who kills the most.  This is consistent with Mr. McCormick (above)’s membership on a group called ‘RADAR’ who pushes this theory.  Read on, same conference:

PLENARY

Rethinking Domestic Violence

This presentation will review research studies on the relationship between domestic violence and custody assessments. The domestic violence paradigm presented in many studies consistently suggests one model of domestic violence, that of male perpetrator and female victim; the argument is then made that this male-abuser model will extend to child abuse.

In other words, let’s consider a different paradigm, the “theory” (“argument”) that male abusers often extend to child abuse is just theory ……just an argument…

The data on gender differences in both intimate personal violence and threats to children indicate, however, that the male-perpetrator model is only one of several models of domestic violence, and that risk to children occurs equally from mothers and fathers. The ethics of presenting a gender biased perspective for custody assessors are discussed.

Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.

I have posted on the Dueling Duttons (just for fun — there is a Donald Dutton, of this premise, and a Mary Ann Dutton also Ph.D., who deals more with the resultant trauma from abuse).

FINALLY as to “AFCC JUDGES” , AFCC is a very activist organization seeking to reform family law and lobbying for changes in laws, practices etc.  They also have foundation sponsorship for conferences on “Domestic Violence and the Courts” as below:

Task Forces and Initiatives

Child Custody Consultant Task Force

Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force

Family Law Education Reform Project

Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force

Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project

Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network

Brief Focused Assessment Task Force

Court-Involved Therapist Task Force

And, of course, I believe I have made the case that many AFCC members are actively promoting their own products, curricula, and nonprofits are not at all above utilizing their positions as judges to direct traffic (through court-ORDERED participation into the programs, for example, see posts on Kids’ Turn. Questionable financial practice appears to be part of the territory..  See Johnnypumphandle on some of the Nonprofit Organizations:

Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.

Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community“. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.

He is talking about private and/or nonprofit associations with judges as members using public buildings and premises to run their own businesses.

It appears that this “Los Angeles Superior Court judges Association” is quite likely the predecessor of the AFCC. See this:

Update 4/11/99Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .
http://www.insightmag.com

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association {“LASCJA”} is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.

Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services.These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.

So, what was up with that?
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.
 Bringing in the topic of supervised visitation, and what’s up with tracking usage of those funds.
These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.
Sounds like kickbacks to me.  That’s definite conflict of interest.  The supervised visitation monitors paying the judges’ account  and those judges funneling them business from the courtroom, from the bench….

“. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars. . . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”

Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.

OK, now I think we’re ready to consider why, when a judge that Wayne County, MI child support workers want OUT goes to privatize child support contracting — although I realize this issue is larger, and different (child support collections is multi-million$$ business within most states) the behavior of doing this is common to AFCC personnel from the outset.  “BEWARE AFCC” “Court Cancer Metastasizes” summarizes it in this timeline (to review):

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)

A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county {the public} would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

1962

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse. 

No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin.

(Meyer Elkin awards and memorabilia are all over AFCC entitities and spinoff organizations).

(NOTE:  Visit “AFCCnet.org” History page and you’ll see it claims to have begun in 1963.)

I continue to be amazed how little reported this powerful lobbying group is even spoken about. It’s like talking about the air — taken for granted, you inhale and exhale it, with little consciousness of the content.

OK, NOW — My RESPONSE TO THE MICHIGAN POST:


My last post:   Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket.  Judge was AFCC

Showed county workers picketing against the privatization and outsourcing of Child Support Enforcement, particularly as the companies bidding on the contract already had a history of fraud and other legal issues.  Particularly as it would reduce workers’ salaries to $8 to $9 per hour, and more.  People in Wayne County MI picketed to remove the judge (Marybeth Kelly) that did this.

This response shows how simple it can be to look up some basic data on a court situation.   I’m simply pasting what amounts to a fast-track search of some information on the judge in question.  I did not handle the issue of grants systems possibly going to county workers to bring marriage, fatherhood, or other program funding to them rather than the custodial parents, which may have been involved in part.  This is an “off-the-cuff” response, minor phrasing perhaps re-arranged for this different format.

I wrote:

I’m not a Michigan native, and came to this posting because I am investigating some of the privateering in the child support industry, particularly Maximus, but in the course of this, Lockheed-Martin and Tier Technologies do come up.

RE:

 As Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor noted in a statement thanking Kelly for her service, “What about the children whom the Wayne County Friend of the Court is supposed to serve? What about the families for whom a timely child support check makes the difference between survival and not being able to buy groceries?” ***
Excellent questions. 
{{** this reply doesn’t address what the picketing and rally did– that at least one of the firms bidding for the contract had a known history of corruption, including fraud and conflicts of interest. }}
Actually nice appeal, but wrong questions.  The child support system probably needs to be shut down at this point, because it is so corrupt whether done through public agencies OR farmed out.  I have been blogging at http://familycourtmatters/wordpress.com, and if you search OCSE (or read 06/29/11 posts), it’s clear that Federal Funding (HHS — and OCSE is under it) has been co-opted by special interest groups, and is a $4 billion-a-year industry.  
In California, where I live, a respected attorney (Richard Fine, Esq. at the time) with a record of confronting fraud and taxpayer waste, took on “Silva v. Garcetti” where the L.A. District Attorney was sitting on $14 million undistributed, collected child support.   In return for exposing this, and other financial corruption, Mr. Fine was tossed into coercive solitary confinement (age, 69) and of course disbarred, and his settlement monies compromised, his family had to foreclose on the home, etc.   
Whether it’s done through the Friend of the Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, or otherwise, these grants carry incentives to the states, which impacts custody outcomes, and also provides a wide range of action for various money-laundering and other corrupt practices.  
Tier Technologies is (I think) run out of a Northern California area where the local child support agency  literally advertises and recruits commuters  (targeting at the noncustodial parent) to open a child support case.  Title IV-D child support cases are handled differently than others, and the entire system is I believe more of a public burden than a public waste.  It has undermined the family law process entirely, and introduced outside agents into play, which only ONE party is informed of.   
PRIMETIME AFCC BEHAVIOR IS TO PRIVATIZE AND DIRECT BUSINESS TO CRONIES:
I note that Judge Kelly (Whether she be good, or not so good, I hold no opinion — don’t know her.  I know systems) — reduced the budget by $30 million and added family law judges.  Just check which of these judges are AFCC members.  If so, this is going to expand, not contract, services needed ,and introduce more players into individual court cases.
Maximus sounds horrific, and I REALLY thing anyone else who lands on this page should check out my blog in it.  I am a DV survivor and custody wars survivor.  I am sure there are hardworking, honest, decent office and administrative people throughout the child support system — but when it injected promoting marriage and fatherhood into divorce court, or social science demonstration projects, etc. — it has created a system parallel to the IRS (and working alongside it), and it’s polarizing our society.  I KNOW that without the influence of this group, my court case could’ve closed much sooner, and I could’ve as a single mother handled life without child support and allowing the father regular contact.
Because of these incentives our case, and many other moms cases (I now advocate and report) went south; the children were switched to the non-caretaking parent, many times an identified abuser or molester — and thereafter there is no “Shared parent” or anything close to it.  Child Support gets immediately eliminated if the switch was after a considerable arrears ran up (in my case it was about $10K).  Everyone BUT the children literally gets a piece of the action, and some of the grant moneys.  Double-billing exists.  Like the national debt, one cannot forever support a nationwide infrastructure this large — who will be left to pay the IRS to pay them?  Or are the poor just going to be starved out, or left to kill each other over money from the pressure. 
My judges are on this courthouse forum too, but I’m not commenting on them.  I comment for example, HERE:  
http://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/lets-talk-child-support-hhs-series-90fd-grants-to-states-research-and-demonstrate/
Plenty of links and data on the blogroll to others who follow this.
Judge Marybeth Kelly I see (at least 2002) was on the child support leadership council appointed by a governor, and is AFCC — meaning, she has an agenda.  Mothers (=/= 2nd wives stepmothers) should be alert to this.   There are fathers’ activities on that council too it seems.    
Even a brief look, 2010 article about her run for Supreme Court, shows AFCC tendencies (read article, pls):
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_mary_beth_kelly_family_l.html

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Family law bench stint aids high court bid

Published: Sunday, October 03, 2010, 3:13 AM 
As she is Republican & Right-To-Life, she is probably not too sympathetic to women leaving violence, few religious groups are.  While she’s boasting about dealing with runaways, including from kids in foster care, a lot of those children I bet were inappropriately placed there (bet MI gets incentives like others states, see Georgia, Nancy Schaefer).  Notice:

She came under fire for acting too independently and trying to privatize the Friend of the Court.

That privatization effort was among the issues that prompted a labor-led coalition in 2007 to call for her resignation. Lawyers representing children under the supervision of the county’s juvenile court sued her the same year.

The lawsuit alleged Kelly violated the children’s right to counsel and effective representation when she removed hundreds of individual attorneys and replaced them with hand-picked “attorney groups.” **The lawsuit argued she created a “fixed-fee” system that resulted in far fewer attorneys for a growing number of children.

(**hand-picked, aka sounds like cronies to me. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a PRIVATE trade association of judges, mediators, evaluators and the type of personnel who mean courthouseforum sites have plenty of horror stories to post.  They get positioned in high places, including state supreme courts, or Friends of the Court associations, and then influence policy, try to and do get laws passed to direct more business to themselves, meaning it’s harder for people to conclude their own court cases.     PRIVATIZING — the complaint is that the courts are jammed, overwhelmed, but the logic behind that fails to say why.  Privatizing removes protections including oaths that Judges are under as to not having conflict of interest, and their required statements to disclosure that have to be filed. )

The suit was filed in April 2007, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case three months later.  (Who is on the Supreme Court?)

Julie Hurwitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said changing the system was politically motivated and leaves her concerned if Kelly is elected to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think that political ambition has any place on the bench,” she says. “One has to look at the history.”

Kelly says she wanted to reduce deficits and improve services and wasn’t motivated by politics. And even as a conservative endorsed by Right to Life, she says she aims to keep partisanship off the bench.

{{ANYTHING BELOW HERE NOT IN “{{…..}}’s” is quoted material:}}
Article from Aug 2010, from RIGHTMICHIGAN (note: this isn’t a left/right political issue when it comes to this venue):

Judge Mary Beth Kelly a Rule of Law Judge? Obviously not.

By Maryland Farmer, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:28:35 PM EST
Tags: Judge Mary Beth KellySupreme Court (all tags)

~ Brought out front, as it is good debate. ~

I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike.

When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.

In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power

When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.

The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)

A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.

Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed, according to the Court of Appeals, “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.

After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!

At the conclusion of this inquisition, Judge Kelly wrongfully terminated Tamara’s parental rights to her daughter.

The Court of Appeals naturally reversed the decision. But the Court went one step further: the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, actually removed her from the case:

Given the egregious violations of respondent’s constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice.

This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.

These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge. 
Here is the case:http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*

In the Matter of FELICIA ALICIA CLEMONS, Minor. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF OAKLAND COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellee, and LATRECHA ADELL FOX, Guardian, Appellee, v TAMARA ALICIA CLEMONS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 281004

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652

August 19, 2008, Decided

- – – – – 

[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:

Again, the thing is the systems; get a grasp of that, and how individual judges act will be clearer.  California, alas, is responsible for spawning that AFCC organization decades ago, and a lot of the trauma now going, plus excessive removal of kids from one parent or both parent is going to include 2nd and 3rd generations of people affected by policies run through the child support & welfare system, and pushed by AFCC judges in their conferences.  This is privatizing not just the Friends of the Court, but in effect, the entire family court system (and associated ones), court proceedings are seen as problem-solving rather than being subject to justice, and new generations of law students are being coached and trained into this line of thinking, but highly placed AFCC judges, as in UBaltimore School of Law’s “Center for Children & Families in the Court.” (“CFCC”).   Just check out their conference agenda and materials, under-reported situation.

I’d have to side with the county workers in the Wayne County issue because, their being public employees, I can do FOIAs and get payroll information, have a shot at any money trail in individual cases (if I were living in Michigan).  Besides, no low-paid FT employee should lack benefits – if they didn’t have benefits, what’s the motivation for FT employment?  It’d be better to work somewhere else…..

No charge for this PSA.  If you read it, please pass it on, I doubt this is a high-traffic post!

I attach 2008? Annual report (from IN) of a private nonprofit group entrenched in the court system:  Fathers & Families.  Scrutinize who is on corporate donors (Indiana Dept. of Child Support services).  Look at how many court officials and public employees are on the board of this group — which is focused on ONE out of TWO sides of the parents in most custody issues.  Conflicts of interest, much?

Other states (Ohio, PA) have noted copying practices from Indiana.  I even found Ontario, Canada, copying some US practices — the link was AFCC membership (international).

The courthouse forum where I found this had a “reply” button, but my reply has not shown up yet (that I can see), so here it is:

Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket. Judge was AFCC

leave a comment »

I looking up Maximus, and what comes up alongside it, Lockheed-Martin, no matter which way you push it, one finds fraud and complaints about fraud.  I am starting to wonder about how much practices like this contributed to the economic troubles in Wisconsin which caused legislators to exit the state rather than vote to compromise the union’s rights to bargain, that ushered in 2011.

When fraud is entrenched, routine and too much has been invested int he agency committing the fraud to eliminate it from further government contracts, than our government is too big for its britches, which we paid for.    Government Of, By, For, WHICH people?

This article, though 2007, seems to typify the problems with privatizing child support.  Of course there are other problems with keeping it in place, and having the access/visitation “Designer Family” incentives, too — and with the capricious nature of enforcement,  and the vested interests in keeping the states staffed by child support agencies and workers as an antidote to poverty, which I am starting to think, it just ain’t.  I think anymore it’s a contributor.  Parents who can separate and were decent to start with, the one will be willing to support HIS children without going to court to force some sort of child support order.  They will write it up.

Those who can’t are subject to fleecing whether or not through Title IV-D programs.

I did submit a full-length post (and looked up this judge, some) to the same post; it’s not up there yet but I hope will be.

It’s not about individual judges — it’s about systems.  But the forum is helpful if it links to other news articles, or data for those using or viewing it.

MI-Remove Chief Judge Marybeth Kelly (Posted at:   Courthouseforum.com)


 

The Michigan Citizen – 2669 Bagley – Detroit – MI – 48216 � Phone: 313-963-8282Monday, SEP 17, 2007
MichiganCitizen.com
 (ARTICLE POST IS FROM COURTHOUSEFORUM.COM ON THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE)

Kelly moves to privatize Friend of the Court

Councilwoman JoAnn Watson (r) with supporters of Judge Deborah Thomas in her fight for jury rights.  DIANE BUKOWSKI PHOTOS
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson (r) with supporters of Judge Deborah Thomas in her fight for jury rights. DIANE BUKOWSKI PHOTOS

March for Kelly’s removal

By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan Citizen

DETROIT — Wayne County child support workers joined hundreds of youth, legal luminaries, government officials and rank and file Detroiters Sept. 10, marching outside state offices at Cadillac Place, and packing the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center {{“CAYMC}}} auditorium, with standing room only.

They were there to support Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Deborah Thomas in her struggle for racially representative juries, among other concerns, and to demand the removal of Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly.

On Sept. 6, Kelly announced her intent to contract out the jobs of 169 Friend of the Court employees to a private company which will employ a total of 225 workers at lower wages, with no benefits or pensions. Kelly said the move would increase the amount of collections and a cut of them which goes to the county.

BIDDERS HAVE PRIOR LEGAL ISSUES

Among the national companies likely to bid on the $28 million contract are MAXIMUS, Inc., a Lockheed Martin spin-off, and Tier Technologies, which currently operates the state’s centralized child support disbursement system. 

The companies would get either a flat fee or a cut of the amount collected. MAXIMUS and Lockheed-Martin recently paid millions in fines to the federal government for defrauding social service programs, and Tier Technologies faces a securities fraud suit by its shareholders.

“We have mostly Black employees here, a lot of them with 18 or more years of seniority,” said a child support worker who asked not to be identified. “We’re already working like dogs on the biggest caseload in the state, but now they want to reduce our wages to $8 or $9 an hour. We won’t be allowed to bump into other county positions.”

The Wayne County Friend of the Court is the largest FOC in the state, with 300,000 active cases. In 2006, according to figures released by Kelly, it collected over 74 percent of the $426.2 million owing in the cases, a figure which surpasses the 2005 state-wide collection rate of 60 percent and ranks among the top state percentages nationally.

Failure to collect outstanding amounts is largely due to the poverty rate of non-custodial parents, according to Marilyn Stephen, Director of the State Office of Child Support.

“More than 75 percent of child support arrears in Michigan are owed by parents making less than $10,000 annually,” Stephen said. Over one-third of payments go primarily to the state to reimburse it for assistance to poor non-custodial parents, who get only a small pass-through of $50 a month.

WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS?  TYPICALLY THAT PHRASE GOES, TO REIMBURSE IT FOR ASSISTANCE TO CUSTODIAL PARENTS (WHO ARE TITLE IV-D).

ENGLER OPENED DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION

State Attorney General Mike Cox originally proposed privatization of child support collection in 2003. Former Gov. John Engler and Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan opened the floodgates, supporting a 2002 law allowing privatization of state social services. Kelly is a member of a state child support panel appointed by Corrigan.

Is that this woman, Wikipedia now showing as Head of Michigan DHS?

Description of Michigan DHS (from this site, bottom):

The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is the state’s second-largest agency. The DHS oversees almost 10,000 employees and has an annual budget of more than $4 billion to administer federal programs.

The DHS staff handles more than 1.5 million medical assistance cases and 1.2 million cash and food-assistance cases all across Michigan. It oversees Michigan’s child and adult protective services, foster care, adoptions, juvenile justice, domestic violence, and child-support programs. The DHS also licenses adult foster care, child day care and child welfare facilities.[4]


She graduated from Marygrove College in Detroit, Michigan in 1969 and earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from theUniversity of Detroit Law School in 1973. While in law school, she worked as a probation officer at a Detroit court.

Her first job after law school was with the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she served as a law clerk to Judge John Gillis. She next worked as a Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor. In 1979, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney, serving as Chief of Appeals; she later became the first woman to serve as Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 1989, she became a partner at the Detroit law firm of Plunkett & Cooney. In 1992, Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and served as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998.

Corrigan is a long-time member of the Federalist Society, Michigan Lawyers Chapter. She was also president of the Incorporated Society of Irish-American Lawyers and of the Federal Bar Association, Detroit Chapter.

A member of the (Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Corrigan has been recognized for her work on foster care and adoption issues, including The Detroit News “Michiganian of the Year” award.

Corrigan is the widow of the late Joseph D. Grano, a professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University. She has two children: Megan Grano, a comedian with Second City in Chicago, and Daniel Grano, an associate attorney with Flood, Lanctot, Connor & Stablein, PLLC, a law firm in Royal Oak, Michigan. She has supported several of George W. Bush‘s nominees to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which includes the state of Michigan.

Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano also supports Kelly’s move.

“We are particularly grateful with the Court’s requirement that the successful bidder hire all FOC employees whose jobs are the subject of the Request for Proposal,” said Ficano in a statement. “We expect a smooth transition.”

However, Wayne County Commissioners Jewel Ware, Bernard Parker, and Tim Killeen attended the CAYMC rally, supporting Judge Thomas and expressing strong opposition to the privatization proposal.

{{Ever since I learned about the behavior of some County Commissioners in Northern and Southern California, I am generally wary.  In S. CA ,they were in bed with the large developers (and others), and in N.CA, voted to allow an Interim D.A. just prior to the other’s planned retirement, enabling (Orloff) in effect to pick his successor (Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley), who then went on to propound another PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES situation, the Family Justice Center.  She was recently seen with her team seeking support of a California (not US Congress, but a STATE) bill which would incorporate a certain alliance of counties (already working together) as the central, training grounds (3 of them) for more Justice Centers.  I’ve never met anyone who has received help from here, or heard it in the press other than their press releases, and our landscape is strewn with domestic violence and sexual assault outrages, and deaths, plus corruption in law enforcement also — who are entrenched in that Justice Center setup.  “Just say “NO” or at least “Whoa!” post, and/or “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys post,” this blog)

Ed McNeil, assistant to the President of Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) reiterated their opposition.

“Michigan ranks fourth in the nation in the collection of child support payments,” said McNeil. “Our folks are doing their job. All the monies collected ought to go to the families, not to some private entity that gets a percentage to make a profit.”

The workers’ contract expires Sept. 30. AFSCME staff representative Danny Craig, threatened that employees “will take it to the streets” if the county insists on the privatization move.

Wayne County’s Third Circuit Court previously had a $5 million contract with MAXIMUS in 2000, to modify the child support distribution system. The state had a five-year contract with a Lockheed Martin spin-off, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., to develop and operate its centralized state disbursement unit. It now contracts with Tier Technologies to run the unit.

In July of this year, MAXIMUS entered a criminal deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, and paid a $30.6 million fine because it submitted claims for servicing all foster care children in the District of Columbia regardless of whether it had.

Also in July, Affiliated Computer Services agreed to pay the federal government $2.6 million because it admittedly submitted inflated charges for services it provided to programs run by the Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments.

Tier Technologies is facing ongoing prosecution in New York in a class action securities fraud case, brought in 2006 by its shareholders.

I’ll be back. There is more . . . .. . .

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 302 other followers

%d bloggers like this: