Posts Tagged ‘NACC’
Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014**, split in three; this part published June 30, 2017]
This post was first written October 25, 2014, about 30,000 words covering the above theme and an extended section, after pointing out the type of organization, looking closer at “NASMHPD” and “Mental Health America,” not to mention showing basic ABA (American Bar Association) and APA (American Psychological Association) Forms 990O, 990 (respectively) tax returns for a glimpse at organization size,** and some of their history, from its own timeline, (**Originally, not including their known related entities, formed much later than the original associations, also. In the update, I showed and discussed some of those, however).
…not to mention, again taking on the (il)logic of the “Broken Courts” theme for which conference, Amazon books and university-based resources are still active on-line and which also are being promoted in part with foundation backing and via various nonprofits, particularly two from California associated for years as presenters or participants in the “BMCC” (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) on the East Coast (New York, and in more recent years, Washington, D.C.)
Original/full post title: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”.
These reflect key topics of the blog as a whole — developing a better awareness of this type of nonprofit, professional trade association (not just one or two of them) as an organized tool by those who form them, to push private purposes and theories upon the often-unsuspecting public — because the public typically doesn’t focus on the networked nonprofit sector, let alone the networked nonprofit sector with words implying “government entity” in their names, when they actually aren’t (in other words, functioning something like squatters in public office, to add weight and importance), they are operating in the privately controlled nonprofit sphere,##
AND,
developing an awareness of the means and consequences of having “mental hygiene/illness/health” theme promoted upon the population at large with a focus on screening everyone possible, or claims (by another organization whose original legal name had the word “national” in it, but was not of this type I’m discussing here as referenced in the post title), that is NAMI, that 1 in 5 Americans live(s) with a “mental health condition,” and (shown below and in subsequent post/s from this one’s split) that this also can and has led (through one of the named organizations above) to excessive and harmful promotion of medications (Rx) and paid-for “expert consensus” on which ones to use, when, resulting in harmful side-effects, such as suicide and other causes of death, and other destructive, life-altering conditions. Key phrases there include: patented atypical antipsychotics.
The promotion of organizations and themes focusing on prevalence of mental illness, early prevention and services to promote mental health, and attempts to turn many basic public institutions — such as the superior courts under state jurisdiction — into behavioral health (modification, training, indoctrination, re-setting of personal values, etc.) revolving doors diverting people who walk through those doors into “community resources” is pervasive and is also reflected in practices and by design, intents, of the family courts.
##That comment may seem harsh, but I believe it’s true and relevant.
What I’m looking at here is not just what’s being done (the cause promoted) but the leverage provided by the networked nonprofits intent on pushing the cause — or any other cause they may agree upon, once the mechanism for promoting/pushing it is in place. These are nets; they are intended to catch people, and they are referred to among the fishers as helpful, good, beneficial and for public service. I’ve looked closely at the nets, and been caught in some of them, and do not believe this should be the purpose of public institutions.
I’m not a fish!! or somehow less knowledgeable about my own life simply from holding a different position, profession, or place in society, than those who operate in these circles. But, collectively, the public is being treated, if not literally farmed, like fish, that is, simply exploited, under pretty flimsy pretenses, without legitimate argument (that is, OPEN argumentation) and once the infrastructures are well set, privately, in privately networked circles, like the institution and attitudes to match it of, say, slavery, it’s hard to change the dynamics, or channels we (the public) get chased into.
I found it interesting that NAMI (formerly The National Alliance of Mental Illness, Inc.) was only formed, by one account in 1980 (IRS exemption only obtained in 1985), and with an initial statement of focus on mental illness in general, but also seeking biological “causes and treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.” (That image and more images and discussion, especially of how NAMI organized and “reproduced” nationwide, further below), a tactic and approach shared by other do-good, cause-promoting organizations (this topic continued, below).
ABOUT THE TIMING of TURNING AN OCT. 2014 DRAFT INTO THREE mid-2017 POST Updates.
I’d thought this had been published. In fact, throughout the second half of 2014 and all of 2015, I’d taken time off publishing posts on the blog (see my TOC page), not time off researching and writing it up, just posting, mostly because my personal situation had heated up (legally) and was in major life transition.
Somehow after resuming it in 2016 and focusing on present tasks, and getting the Table of Contents page organized, I thought — probably because had worked extensively on it, and on the theme, that this post had been published. (See image showing revision dates from administrative part of the blog). Once involved in a post, or a study theme, I am intensely involved and focused on it; once things are written, they tend to be somewhat off my mind unless related to the current theme, with, of course, all of them building on each other.
Having discovered the error after trying to quote this post, I decided to correct the situation and get it published. This required splitting it into segments (three), and involved, as it always does, further reflection and some updates on the subject matter. The updates are mostly shown as “preview” sections. I also cleaned up the formatting some (paragraph breaks had been lost) and used a font and post format which has since become more standard on this blog). As usual this process took about a week, and deepened my current internal, mental awareness* “database” of knowledge on, and understanding of, specific organizations and topics. (*And saving the evidence electronically for future reference of course.)
Original/Full Post Title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}.
The basic concept, as one of its “tags” says, is “national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships.” If you can think of a two- or three-word phrase describing this, which would apply to those mentioned above and others in the category, please help out – submit a comment! (Input at the bottom of any post.) A shorter sound-byte to convey the essence is needed.
In function, and as to at least the NGA (only one I’m aware of) in classification, these are not just ordinary nonprofits or 501©3s (or “©6s”) because of their boards, memberships, and chosen names representing several aspects of public office but most of them, by type, seem to be registered as straightforward 501©3s or ©6s. (The NGA is classified as “deemed to be an instrumentality” per its consolidated financial statements and earlier tax returns; now it’s simply labeled “nonprofit”).
However organized except for the defined “instrumentalities,” it’s their restricted memberships and boards of directors as reflected in the names, and the sense /aura of right, that is governmental jurisdiction, which seems to set them apart and empower them to do things which local legislatures ideally responsive to their state populations only, or having to deal more directly with them, might not get passed.
Some of these organizations have been around a LONG time, others not so long, but we must face that this has been part of the way the US operates since at least the invention of tax-exempt status that seems to have coincided with “tax almost everyone” around 1913, not to mention further changes in the 1930s (between the wars) and yet more after World War II. That is, these are NOT, for the most part, as associations, Constitutionally mandated or warranted, whether U.S. Constitution or state/territories’ constitutions.
If and when some were set up by an Act of Congress (or other administrative order, if by President or Chief Justice of the US, comes to mind), they are STILL functioning primarily in the private area, and are as such privately controlled, and can legislate as nonprofit to accept direct bribes contributions by supporting (corporate) partnerships, and exclude whoever they want from memberships. They are essentially private-equity, private membership clubs (associations) who want to govern, and have been doing it, but more as “squatters” and by consent through apathy, than by informed consent of those governed.
And the plan is for unified, coordinated forms of control by agreement among the professional associations, apparently, how to recommend handling all sorts of governmental programs, in discussions NOT typically soliciting or receiving input from the lowest form, apparently, of US life, the common citizen, and strategically unaligned (other than perhaps with a political party) person.
Not all in the post’s title list have fully-restricted member eligibility or boards of director eligibility as civil servant-only, but those that don’t (NCJFCJ, NCCD [National Council on Crime & Delinquency], NACC [National Association of Counsel for Children] for example) still tend to focus on public-office and public institutions, or spheres of operation, as their names reflect — and their boards often DO have people fulfilling simultaneous dual-purpose (one, public, the other technically and in reality, private) functions.
By providing dual (public in one role, private in another) contemporary roles for: Governors (NGA), Lieutenant Governors, State Courts (NCSC), Judges (several, but one entity similar, but not identical to the others focused on two types of courts: juvenile and family (FYI, juvenile came first historically) would be the NCJFCJ), State Legislatures (NCSL), Attorney Generals, Mayors (US Conference of Mayors), AND organizing memberships, conferences, and soliciting partnerships from corporations, they are in effect re-organizing and restructuring government itself, but “behind the scenes.”
(RE: MENTAL HYGIENE/HEALTH/ILLNESS promotion/advocacy; NAMI/TMAP topic, cont’d.):
I”ll color this section light-green background.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Parades, Charades and Facades — Mother’s Day and Beyond
[about 3,200 words, plus a section on the Guggenheim Family and Foundations = about 3,000 more, making it about 6,000 words… It links to post on another of my blogs “The Family Court Franchise System,” quoting parts of it here. As I often do, the original writing is closer to the bottom of the post, and the top part is context. I brought in the philanthropy examples in preparation for specific situations in upcoming posts, and not just in a random reference.]
Seeing as it’s almost Father’s Day, I thought it was time to put out a post inspired this past May, 2014, on Mother’s Day, after revisiting one I’d drafted on a different but related blog in 2012. The basic dynamics it described haven’t changed.
Along the lines of the recent post Accounting Literacy Matters. Cause-based Literacy Doesn’t (even though it’s dealing with a different topic), I then looked again (hindsight sure does help) at some of the players helping compile various Judges’ or Attorneys’ ToolKits” which, I guess, we are to hope might function as some magic wand, or special panacea, if waved around in hearings for custody and visitation matters after having separated because of domestic violence, or for general knowledge.
Excerpt, and basically about:
“How California Protective Parents Association Doesn’t — and Why“
It was drafted in 2012, and finished, of course, supplemented, in 2014. Related “exhibit”
The fine print (footnotes) to that sheet revealed “good cop/bad cop” discussions in one put out by the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence. As usual, taking a second look leads to more information about who’s been backing all the policy studies, for example the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation *backing a well-known social scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, who also turns out to be AFCC-friendly:
*Harry Guggenheim established this foundation to support research on violence, aggression, and dominance because he was convinced that solid, thoughtful, scholarly and scientific research, experimentation, and analysis would in the end accomplish more than the usual solutions impelled by urgency rather than understanding. We do not yet hold the solution to violence, but better analyses, more acute predictions, constructive criticisms, and new, effective ideas will come in time from investigations such as those supported by our grants.
The foundation places a priority on the study of urgent problems of violence and aggression in the modern world and also encourages related research projects in neuroscience, genetics, animal behavior, the social sciences, history, criminology, and the humanities which illuminate modern human problems. Grants have been made to study aspects of violence related to youth, family relationships, media effects, crime, biological factors, intergroup conflict related to religion, ethnicity, and nationalism, and political violence deployed in war and sub-state terrorism, as well as processes of peace and the control of aggression.
[from “FAMILY” hyperlink on the site ] All men are not violent, and all violent men are not alike. We encourage more research into typologies of violence and the implications for treatment of distinguishing different types of batterers. However, explanations for spouse abuse must also recognize that two people contribute to a dysfunctional marriage, and the dynamics of family relationships should be explored to understand family violence more completely. The ways both masculinity and femininity are understood in particular cultures should be explored in order to explain how male dominance and marital violence are “normalized” in different and similar ways across cultures. …
Does that not shed some light on why certain people would rather study domestic violence perpetrators and batterers than actively separate them from their victims, PERIOD, sending a public policy message to others that this is socially unacceptable? And why some are prone to publishing where the grants money is (“let’s characterize batterers and provide and evaluate treatment interventions”) than expecting it to stop by separating the batterer from the battered, as a deterrent, and sending a message that it’s completely unacceptable? (including if women are perpetrating….)
Read the post to find out which Pennsylvania sociologist I’m referring to.
Would I have known this if I didn’t look behind the rhetoric? NO. I read. I never heard of “Harry Frank Guggenheim” foundation, although the Guggenheim family are well known as philanthropists. Harry Frank (1890-1971) was born into this family of eight sons and wealth from various industries, especially smelting.
The Guggenheim Family (Jennifer Schaub, Grand Valley State grad student, 2005):
The Guggenheim Family left a strong mark in the industrial smelting industry of the early 1900’s. By 1918 Forbes reckoned that the Guggenheims were the second richest family in America (Kaufmann 2004). However, they are more widely remembered as a long line of philanthropists. Five key philanthropists have emerged from this extensive family. By creating a series of foundations, the family is credited for promoting the development of individuals {{??}} by funding research and the development of scholarly thought. . . .
Historic Roots
Meyer Guggenheim (1828-1905) was a tailor of Swiss-Jewish decent who immigrated to the United States in 1847 (John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, Oppenheim, 2002). He and his wife had eight sons. Meyer created the family fortune in the late 19th century beginning with 300,000 from an investment in railroad stocks (Oppenheim, 2002). From there he moved to importing Swiss embroidery and then eventually into the production of metals including silver copper and lead (Infoplease, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation). Meyer started the Philadelphia Smelting and Refining Company, and eventually took over American Smelting in 1901. At one time the Guggenheim family was said to control 31 industrial, import, and farming companies in the US and abroad (Wooster, 2005) ….
Daniel Guggenheim (1856-1930) was credited for shaping much of the family business; he combined and presided over, the Guggenheim and American Smelting companies. Solomon Robert Guggenheim (1981-1949) was also active in the family business creating mining strong holds most notably in Colombia (The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation). Simon Guggenheim (1867-1941) was for a short time, a Republican Senator for Colorado, and the chief ore buyer for family factory. He worked in Colorado for a number of years overseeing the Leadville mines (American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise)….
Harry Frank Guggenheim (1890-1971) was the son of Daniel Guggenheim. Harry fought in two world wars and was the ambassador to Cuba from 1929-1933. Harry was also the co-founder, along with his wife Alicia Patterson, of Newsday Magazine (Newsday.com).
Peggy Guggenheim (1898-1979), the daughter of Benjamin, was an art collector and gallery owner. Noted as one of the most important art patrons of the 1930s and 40s. She owned and operated 3 galleries in the US and Europe. Her New York gallery, Art of This Century was one of the first to show such artists as Rothko, Pollock, Dali, Moore, and Brenton (The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum).
Importance
As a philanthropist, Daniel Guggenheim is best known as an aviation pioneer. Along with his wife Florence, and their son Harry, Daniel Guggenheim created the Daniel Guggenheim Fund for the promotion of Aeronautics in June 16, 1926 (Wooster, 2005). While the fund was operational, it invested 2.6 million for the creation of aeronautical schools and research centers at 11 different universities. By conducting competitions to create innovations, and funding the research of individuals, projects sponsored by Daniel Guggenheim are said to have increased the safety of Aeronautics …
[para. out of order]
- Robert H. Goddard (1882-1945) was a physics professor whose contributions to rocket science included a rocket that could travel in a vacuum, and one of the first high altitude rockets. For these and other aeronautical innovations, Goddard has been named one of Time’s 100 Most Important People of the Century. Goddard’s research was funded by Harry Guggenheim for 4 years and the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation for 11 years (Kluger).
Although Harry Guggenheim also financially contributed to the Daniel Guggenheim fund he began his own foundation, the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, which was formed to contribute critical thought and analyses of the world issues of violence and conflict (The Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation).
Solomon Guggenheim began collecting non-objective paintings in 1929, and began the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation to purchase and increase the appreciation of modern art. After beginning to amass a large collection, Solomon began plans to create the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York Solomon died before his project was complete and Harry Guggenheim saw to the completion of his Uncle Solomon’s dream (The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum).
[[…Also the Guggenheims, or their foundations, funded: composer Aaron Copland, artist Jackson Pollock [“American Abstract Expressionism”] , and Charles Augustus Lindbergh.]]
[…obviously this is just a sampler of information …]
The world we now live in has been vastly influenced by industrialists of last century; of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Some of them were challenged on their monopolies and faced anti-trust actions; any biography of such families shows how they acquire their wealth, diversify often, and set up major foundations, in part as great public relations (sometimes necessary considering how the wealth was acquired), and in return for this, get to restructure the world and institutions we live in — because their wealth and influence enabled them to.
When it comes to a MAJOR aspect of the family courts, ordering treatment for abnormal or violent behavior (or, originally, to avoid divorce) — we can see today that many of the professionals and professors of course owe their studies, and sometimes the centers or institutes, or even schools at which they teach and research — to philanthropists.
We should be looking at this. When I saw this connection, I better understood what’s the fascination with “treating” everyone, including “batterers,” and families. It makes NO sense to me to continue dialogues “pretending” the professor/researcher classes are not themselves funded by either private foundations, or government grants, or both, and that we are all on an equal playing field when it comes to setting major policies in the courts, without discussing the power and money behind them — and the power of private wealth to direct public policy.
FOR EXAMPLE — in SAN DIEGO, and regarding GALs:
In the field of Child Welfare Law — here’s an example. The group “Children’s Advocacy Institute,” which I will post on shortly — has influenced family courts through, with others, pushing for more “counsel for the child” in contested custody cases, a.k.a., adding GALs wherever possible. Previously, the same professor was NOT interested in family or children’s issues at all, but instead public, environmental, energy (utility) laws.
SHARE THIS POST on...
GALs Gone Wild — and Overbilling, Under-reporting Income (Connecticut, Minnesota, Pennsylvania)
The title reference will be obvious to some cultures, think “Spring Break” and TV programs you’d rather not have your nine-year-olds watching. It seemed appropriate as to quality of behavior.
In context, the discussion (recently) has been on Children’s Advocacy Groups — of which “guardians ad litem” are part. Is there a way to see the impact (emotion) without losing reason to emotion, particularly when harm to children is involved?
This is a shorter post (I’m not putting much time into it); just wanted to place the three cases in question alongside (after) the National Association of Counsel For Children’s self-descriptions of just how often they want an attorney in the life of a child (or juvenile). That this organization has developed a certfication process, has an expanding membership, has member affiliates, Children’s Law Office Program guides, and more — and that it had HHS support in developing child welfare law as a certification specialty (since the US IS trafficking kids, might as well has some standards…??)
In general, we are finding that when women or children attempt to separate from abuse, for their safety, here comes some facet (usually of the court, or government agency), talking about “Children’s Rights” (to both parents, regardless of quality. Which is then used improperly to completely cut off contact, often with the noncriminal parent, and often & suddenly, with the natural mother of the children. Sometimes this then leads to foster care, or sometimes it leads to extended custody battles, which are very profitable for this arm of the government (courts) and those doing business with them. Just not for the “Children” in whose name all this was done.
In the case of these “GALs gone wild” — In at least two of the cases, there’s evidence of over-billings (Connecticut, Pennsylvania) and allegations (the GAL will have to stand trial) of under-reporting income. Both, by a LOT. That’s what’s really gone wild. In my opinion, it’s possible to have gone wild because systems of control and tracking of payments is simply not in place — nor is there any sense by the public (really) that it’s their job (with or without having children or being in the custody courts) to actually understand whether or not their local governments are using their funds honestly.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
America’s Unified Family Courts (UFCs)– forget! due process, this is about “Treating” the Whole Family
with 3 comments
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation + ABA + HHS/DOJ (+Monsanto, CIGNA + Ford) = Unified Family Courts = Treat the Whole Family
This post is three of (my) comments from the “(Kids for Cash)” topic at Scranton Political Times… Those who teach about “abuse” should be teaching about this — because how these courts were set up DOES rather explain why they have spawned (comparison intentional), literally, protest movements across the country, from their horrid treatment of litigants, particularly ignoring facts, law, and due process in individual cases). They are horrible wastes of time and mind (a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?) — and exist to dominate and intimidate, literally, the human spirit and eliminate the “unalienable rights” that SOME believe are innate (“unalienable”) to every man. . . . .And now that “every man” is to include more men – -and women . . . . those crying out for “Children’s Rights” don’t even endorse what’s right to start with — the REPUBLIC (representative government under rule of law) of the United States (plural) of America — not the Oligarchy, the Aristocracy, or the THEocracy of the USA!! — and turning the entire country, starting with children, adding youth, and expanding upwards into adults — into a treatable-at-will population — is hardly a Republic!
I was checking NAFCJ.net for a link to “the money trail” and happened across an unexplored link on there to grants by this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help the ABA create Unified Courts. These grants spanned the period 1996-1999; my attention was hooked, and this is what developed:
It is worth processing if you are concerned about these topics. I believe we need to FULLY understand who’s running the Justice and Legal Systems of the country, particularly if we are in the situation of attempting to squeeze some water out of a stone in those halls. . . . . . .
I AM WRITING as a single woman who could never have anticipated, as a 20, 30, or 40 year old how dangerous this country has become for ethical, moral, working, and competent women who are also mothers, and value that role as they also value pulling their own weight. Such women are horrors to this system — as they don’t need treatment, nor do their kids — but after a few years in it, ALL will!
So this is, literally, HOW the ABA (incl. AFCC) and others USED the family law system to turn “divorce” into a disease and treat every one for it, as collateral in treating for substance abuse and of course mental health problems. That divorce is NOT a disease hardly matters in the face of such a policy backed by such power.
PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):
Since the idea sucks,
WHOSE IDEA WAS “UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS,”
ANYHOW, and WHY?
Hey, remember “unified family courts” and “drug courts” (I believe there have been some complaint about Lackawanna County’s right?) and so forth? – – – I just found an old article detailing how the ABA and specific funders were pushing “treating the whole family” and “changing the justice systems” to address substance abuse by youth. An unexplored link over at NAFCJ.net, and the timing of 1996 with welfare reform.
The goal, and the whole point, was to change the justice system — from the outside, not the inside. Foundations pushing a concept and working through the ABA & Judges, plus money didn’t hurt either. HHS/ACF happened to agree — so once that door was open (that it’s OK to revise the courts based on somebody in power’s got a bright idea) — it stayed open.
This is a link from the ROBERT WOOD FOUNDATION grants page. They also helped AFCC, I believe:
Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) had linked to it long ago from:
which leads to:
Grants
$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm [broken link]
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm [UFC link]
And here we can read:
Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Drug Offender
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is powerful one, focused exclusively on health fields (and the largest philanthropy with this focus; been doing this for 40 years; influences medical education field, etc.)and Unified Family Courts (for substance abuse treatment) were one of their projects
SUMMARY
From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.
UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.
Key Results
I blogged this (with some sarcasm) in March 2012:
After the Grant
The ABA continues to work with the six sites and has provided technical assistance to eight other states. It also is involved in a project funded by the Scripps-Howard Foundation to examine literacy as a way to address substance abuse in four family courts.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®. It is building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the systems infrastructure necessary to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system. See the program’s Web site for more information. . . .Funding
RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems..(they mean “UFC — Unified Family Courts”)
In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. {{??}} By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level.
[That, friends, is how the ABA operates…] [NOW for the FUNDING]:
Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:
Those names should ring a few bells. Look at some of them!
* *”Grrreat” — Monsanto is “only” the food giant that’s trying to put non-GMO and organic farmers out of business and basically co-opt the US Food supply. (Ya gotta read this one) Monsanto, Wikipedia:
… multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands. Monsanto is also the second largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 49% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market.”. . .Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry[4…
In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company’s activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.[4][5]
What better corporation to contribute to an ANTI-Drug Abuse program which creates genetically modified seeds, bovine growth hormone, and strong arm tactics + lobbying to maintain it — and financial clout to help create an alternate justice system (treatment versus accountability….)!!
Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair Article):
[Starting to sound like the Unified Family Court “treatment Gestapo police” now in place? Birds of a feather..]
With an agenda like this, it’s understandable why Monsanto may want a role in dismantling the US legal system! !!! (Other Monsanto Gov’t ties) http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm
CIGNA’s quite a player also:
Gee, I “can’t imagine” why — right around the time of “block grants to the states” welfare reform — CIGNA, being a global “health service” company might want to help the ABA turn large parts of the US Justice system into a treatment-philosophy-based system, including treat the whole family for one member’s substance abuse!
So, here’s the ABA creating all these Unified Family Courts (hint: The ABA membership includes subset no doubt of AFCC membership, who also are into unified courts = more business for the mental health membership..)
“Other in-kind support was provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) of the federal Department of HHS, the Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland (AOC), and ABA volunteers. “
In short — have to watch out for these outfits… (that’s the UBaltimore one — see blog post)
Here’s how the ABA overcame opposition to UFC in Washington DC:
In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.
Does this part of the ABA seem like it’s going to take “No thanks!” as an answer?
Publicizing by ABA:
The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, {{OBVIOUSLY this group would be in favor of UFC’s – gets its membership more customers!!}} the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, [NCJFCJ] and Join Together (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information** to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs
– – – – -**The phrase “technical assistance and information” ANYwhere should be better read “indoctrination — do it OUR way; but if anyone asks, we’re just “helping” (and not responsible if it backfires).- – – – – – –
Apparently in 2006, “Join Together” was phased out by RWJF to be replaced by a “VULNERABLE POPULATIONS” project:
”
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which for two decades has been the most generous and visible private funder of addiction treatment and prevention programs in the U.S., has announced that it will no longer have a separate program area for funding addiction-related programs.
“Instead, any new grantmaking related to addiction will take place under the foundation’s Vulnerable Populations portfolio, said foundation president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., in a recent letter to RWJF grantees. Often the neediest populations such as the chronically homeless, new immigrants, victims of domestic abuse** are faced with multiple health and social issues, including addiction, that must be addressed in an integrated way for these individuals to succeed. The Vulnerable Populations grantmaking effort focuses mainly on these populations.
**the substance abuse is often related to other kinds of abuse, which is already known (acestudy.org) from other longitudinal studies. Perhaps if someone could focus on stopping the INJUSTiCE (including violence towards family members) instead of constantly TREATING it (both victm and perp as if both were responsible) there’d be less substance abuse! (who knows?)
So now they’re going for “supportive housing” to keep kids out of the foster care system. Guess who’s helping with THAT project?
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has partnered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and three private foundations to jointly fund a $35 million initiative to further test how supportive housing can help stabilize highly vulnerable families and keep children out of the foster care system. . . .Collaborating foundations include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
This groundbreaking initiative is based on a successful pilot effort in New York City, known as Keeping Families Together (KFT) that took place between October 2007 and July 2009
This is actually an upcoming grant opportunity, $5 million available, per HHS. It’s under CAPTA (child abuse prevention).
What’s Wrong with this Picture? (coming….)
Interesting: AFCC cite to the foundation: see note at bottom of the page: http://afcc.crinfo.org/action/search-profile.jsp?key=14482&type=web
This beta-test, demonstration gateway has been developed to demonstrate the structure of the Conflict Research Consortium’s joint gateway program to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
This test site has not, in any way, been approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Campus Box 580, Boulder, CO 80309
Phone: (303) 492-1635; Contac
— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:06:09 PM— on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:23:37 PM
PARTS II & III:
The powers that be (like ABA, foundations, HHS, etc.) determined among themselves that treatment is better than justice. That some of them happened be in the treatment business must just be coincidence.
Notice: justice system — or treatment system. Which would you rather have when walking into a courtroom? Would you like to know which one you’re up for when it says “court” on the outside?
So, here comes that Robt Wood Johnson Foundation:
… USPTO and trademarking social service reform (see that “®”?)
Sure ‘nuf that’s a robert wood johnson trademark:
They trademarked the act of giving grants!
IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable services, namely, providing grants to programs to combat substance abuse and delinquency. FIRST USE: 2001/01/25. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010125
{interesting, executive order GWBush establishing faith-based office was 2001/01/29…}{Filed for opposition: August 24, 2000}
(the logo is also a hyperlink)
In 2001, with a $21 million investment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 10 founding communities located throughout the United States began reinventing the way police, courts, detention facilities, treatment providers, and the community work together to meet this urgent need
Amazing what a $21 million investment can do . . ..
“Reclaiming Futures has been evaluated by The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.” (RWJF helped pay for the evaluation also)
Now there are six partners, including from OJJDP, HHS (SAMSHA), another foundation, Portland State, and a research institute at Portland state.
“Re-engineer the justice system in your state” (how-to manual):
Bring Reclaiming Futures to Your State or Tribal Lands »
Re-engineer the juvenile justice system in your state or region to avoid unnecessary costs and cut recidivism. Here’s how to get started.
RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)
For the Record, American Bar Association is listed at HHS as “Private Profit (large) Business.”
HHS has donated over $20.6 million of grants to the ABA per TAGGS.hhs.gov. So taxpayers are supporting it, too, even if they’re not engaged in litigation.
ABA activism (from site below about Unified Family Courts):
From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’s Community Anti-Drug Coalition Initiative to mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results [] on ID#s 019838 and 023195).
The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers.
OK, get JUVENILES into treatment, what next?
The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adultoffenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants. [have they?]
UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle [criminal or status offence, they should’ve said] cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping “families in crisis.“ UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.
– – – – -OK, what’s that mean?
– – – – Basically, where family court would’ve been perhaps about custody and divorce primarily, UFC’s tempt the judges to order more services, and treat the entire family — although the case may be as simple as a custody/visitation plan or a divorce, NEITHER of which are criminal matters. Also omitted — juvenile courts are not just for people of a certain age — they are for juveniles who’ve caused (or allegedly caused) some problems, committing a legitimate crime (breaking and entering, robbery, rape/sexual assault, etc.) OR “status offence,” i.e. violated some rules that wouldn’t apply to adults, like a curfew, or attendance at school (truancy violations).
Changed the entire climate, definitely affecting people with straightforward business in the FAMILY court who may not be sick or criminal. This was less for the families than for the court’s convenience, and for its liaisons with treatment-providing organizations.
You can look up ABA HHS grants around this time and see:
AND:
Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions
Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions
So, ABA is a partner in “HEALTH SERVICES.” Principal Investigator “Kathi Grasso”:
Ms. Grasso worked for the ABA Center for Children and the Law, OJJDP atsome point and is a member of NACC based in WDC. She has a degree from Catholic University. .She’s very active around the country and publishing on these matters:
Senior Juvenile Justice Policy and Legal Advisor
202-xxx-xxxx
kathi.grasso@usdoj.gov
Video 2: Keynote: Effectuating Reform in Juvenile Justice
Presenters: Kathi Grasso, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the U.S. Department of Justice
Link to handout and Juvenile Ten Core Principles
Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires
WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 13, 2009 — The American Bar Association is announcing the retirement of Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and an Oregon attorney. A legal pioneer in the field of foster care and the role of the courts in aiding abused and neglected children and their families, Hardin spent 35 years utilizing his legal skills and knowledge to improve the plight of children removed from their homes due to child maltreatment.
Beginning as a legal aid lawyer in Portland, Ore., Hardin handled family, juvenile and welfare cases, giving him practical insight into the lives of vulnerable children and families. In the late 70’s, during two years at Portland State University, Hardin forged development of the law on “permanency planning” for abused and neglected children and wrote several early publications helping social workers and policy analysts understand the legal aspects of a child’s placement in foster care. He was among the country’s first trainers of lawyers and child welfare agency staff, educating them in their legal responsibilities relative to children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect.
Hardin joined the Center on Children and the Law in 1980 where, according to ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, he became “the country’s foremost legal scholar on foster care legal and judicial reforms.”
Hardin’s experience includes having directed the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, a program of the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
. . .With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.”
[Was that supposed to be a JOKE? We are having frequent issues with lawyers BREAKING the law!]
AN AWARD NAMED AFTER MARK HARDIN:
First Annual
Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change
The Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change, created by the ABA Center on Children and the Law in 2011 with approval from the ABA Board of Governors, honors the work of Mark Hardin. Before his retirement, Mark served for almost 30 years on the staff of the ABA Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Mark has long been recognized by those who work in this area of law as an early innovator in the child welfare legal field. He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.
This is understandable, given common interests in these goups
ANYHOW, now there is a MARK HARDIN AWARD, and the FIRST (2012) recipient of it is the Director of CALIFORNIA’s “AOC” “Center for Families & Children in the Courts,” — which is part of the Judicial Council — DIANE NUNN.
… {{“multidisciplinary” is code word referring to AFCC many times. It’s their hallmark. Why just have the rule of law when you could have social workers and psychologists as well?}}
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Designer Families, HHS & HUD fraud, History of Family Court, money laundering, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit
Tagged with AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council, Due process, family law, Foundations Corporations HHS & the ABA Forcing System Change, Kathy Grasso (ABA, Mark Hardin (ABA), NACC, OJJDP, social commentary, therapeutic jurisprudence, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Unified Family Courts