Let's Get Honest! Blog

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

My Posts, Just the List (from April 23, 2014… back to Sept. 24, 2012)

with 2 comments

Table of Contents — Simplified

I started this blog in spring 2009. It is my continuous show-and-tell learning curve exposing, as the motto says, Family and Conciliation Court Operations, Practices, and History from the early 1990s and earlier.

This table of contents was finally, painstakingly published on April 24, 2014. It’s not automatically generated by wordpress.

The table, the post’s titles and abstracts themselves are an overview of issues, and an insight into which ones you might not have noticed before.  I had fun researching, writing them, and there’s a degree of entertainment involved too. These issues, and their practical consequences decade after decade, are so vital, so real, so life-changing, so consequential, and sometimes so truly ridiculous, I find humor helps trim it down to size.

[Substantial Explanatory Material removed, January 2015.

Get to the Table of Contents.

Get face to face with the evidence, deduce/grasp/SEE the patterns,

Get an Understanding — that’s most important! — and from there, what would YOU do about the situation?  

Then show and talk to others. Not enough conversations on this material…]

There are valuable posts 2009-2010-2011 also. I will add earlier Table Of Contents to the posts and links as I can; readers may use the Archive function.    But first, browse the table of contents!  I’ve added abstracts (summaries) to many, and marked vital ones.   In this field,  an overview supported by links to evidence (details) really counts; and that’s where my five years of sustained attention and continued investigation outside the mainstream, really delivers the goods.

…I guarantee, so far, you will not find this type and such a synopsis of this type of information elsewhere regarding our courts, or our government.   We have been too “laissez-faire” as citizens into understanding basic economics and the overall systems affecting our courts, many of which originate outside the courts, and before this type of court even existed.


Put this together with the sidebar summaries, pages, and other links on blogroll — become more aware of your economic and court-connected corporations language, and become a resource! (But, remember to link back here where quoted, thanks!)

Blog Purpose can be deduced by: Browsing the table of contents below, reading a post or two, reading the sidebars, such as the one which starts:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can show others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”

Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?

Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

April 24, 2014 at 9:23 pm

New Here? A Roadmap with some Chronology, Links, Issues (Sidebar-Plus)

with one comment

WIDGETS:  This post contains essentially two or three of this blog’s sidebar text-boxes (“widgets”), each designed for total strangers, novices, and/or followers.  They are to alert, expose new readers to key concepts and themes by immersing them into the narrative, and leaving footprints (links) for the curious. And to keep remind us of basic information which has been forgotten through advocacy-group neglect over (as of 2014) a period of 15-20 years minimum.

To understand this information is also to get a grasp on the essence of the relationship between “government” and the individual, and to call more individuals to wise up to how this works.

Citizenship is an economic contract; it is a concession of power for implied mutual benefit. The party entering (or even born, but then became adult under) this contract has no excuse for failing to monitor the other party to the contract.  Ignorance may be the cause, and ignorance of the significance of welfare reform, or of simply paying taxes, doesn’t exempt one from the consequences of it.

Be assured one side, the public, is being monitored MORE than adequately, with tools they have helped fund through taxes and consuming services (wanted or mandatory) to develop the tools (the technology, and the salaries of to staff the offices, and contracted vendors, who are keeping count.  

Private tax-exempt foundations such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation (based on originally UPS corporate wealth), which tax-exemption IS a benefit, are also keeping counts and based on their results, demanding political and justice (child welfare and juvenile) systems change. Click the logo to read the summary:

Read the rest of this entry »

Get Real(itybloger)! — Call In, Read the Links on CAFRs, Review Regularly.

with 3 comments

The “CAFR” topic is a governmental accounting and reporting practice which affects all people (and particularly in this situation, all US Citizens) because of its impact on the economy and our understanding of the size and scope of government operations. It is an over-arching and underlying issue, but it has been a hidden issue.

My bringing it up on this blog is going to have a certain flavor and examples relating to the family and conciliation courts. Moreover, as mainstream media basically plays deaf, dumb, and blind on this matter (though they aren’t, and although heads of major media outlets are actually mailed copies of CAFRs, I’m told) I am often looking for ways to express, communicate and teach some of the concepts behind this fundamental issue of national (at least) importance to people who may be reading my blog. I am not a CPA and do not have a financial degree, so obviously this is not financial advice. It is simply my blog.

My statements are my own, and my citing to other people’s writing, website, or work in this post in no way implies that they agree with me in general or in particular — or vice versa.

This has been undergoing revision.  I am  considering posting a “table of contents” and summary (just written) for this post  (Nov. 2014) as my own understanding continues to deepen of just how relevant the issue is.  The CAFR issue, and how seldom it’s referenced by mainstream media  is FOUNDATIONAL to representative government, and maintaining any balance of power and consent from those governed.

This topic also brings up the topic of responsibility —  if we want freedom, it comes with responsibilities to comprehend both large-scale basics and be able to prove things, specific economic details of governmental operations.

We have to care enough to know whether the information being fed us is reasonable, or ridiculous, and from there, make value judgments and tactical decisions.  Failure to decide is a choice.  If it requires learning a new language, so what!  What’s freedom worth?



C.A.F.R. =  Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

Governments, plural, issue CAFRs annually.  So, who ever reads them?   After all, it’s just what the public is funding and is taxed for..
Read the rest of this entry »

ORPHANS: Where The Great Commission meets the Military-Industrial Complex

with one comment

NOTE: this 3,000 word (you’re welcome!) post is out of sequence — belongs back with the “On the Road to Emmaeus” and “”Christian Social Services: Replenishing the Ranks of the Faithful (Bethany Christian Services posts, ca. Eastertime, 2013.

6723 Whittier, McLean, VA (Always Look Up Street Addresses!!!)**

File under, if you notice the details, What’s wrong with this picture?

I dare anyone to connect the dots and tell me what the American Petroleum Institute has to do with the Christian Evangelism by Adoption Trade, and why so many Congresspeople are all excited about putting every adoptable infant into a nice Christian home. While travelling the globe to get them, sponsored by known connections with the very forces that make them.

Orphans, that is.

I know why certain kinds of Christians are interested. They believe (have been indoctrinated into) Matthew 28:18 “The Great Commission” —

I also can kind of deduce why the Board Members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CACI) might be heavily interested in maintaining close connections with Protestant Evangelical Franchise Operations and their mighty networks, and expertise at creating nonprofits under the religious umbrella.

The next question that comes up — why are you and I funding and tolerating this?

Read the rest of this entry »

CDRC and Friends: Ever Wonder How All that MANDATORY Mediation, Alternate Dispute Resolution, etc. got passed? [May 15, 2013]

with one comment

Fall, 2014 update: This 12,000-word post is “sticky” (stuck to the top of the blog) because it illustrates how any special interest group already involving certain sectors of civil servants or other positions of influence (for example, at law schools) can lobby state legislatures and US Congress year after year through nonprofit associations. I have written an update and expect to publish it as a separate post, soon.

[May 2013 post below:]
This is a combination of what I took OUT of “Flipping Cause and Effect: AFCC Rhetoric” (“Got custody killings?  Blame it on the bad language”) post — when the website I was reviewing brought up “Jay Folberg” as Dean of USF Law.

I [“Let’s Get Honest”] have been advising parents (in particular) to figure out WHO in the lobbying, rules-of-court-changing, profession-inventing, task-force-chairing State by State Supreme Court (or thereabouts) legal/judicial powerhouses — has AFCC affiliations, or at least has drunk that Kool-Aid.  As a handle, it’s definitely an indicator. Many symptoms accompany membership. When a certain panorama of symptoms shows up (this particular post shows most of them, like idiocy**) then the diagnosis “AFCC” is probably pretty accurate, whether or not it’s on the website already as a nametag…

** “Idiocy” referring to linguistic jumps in logic and labeling that really did lead a particular professional from Southern California to blame custody-killings on bad language.  For more information (and to identify an AFCC professional’s previous involvement in a case ending (?) with the massacre of 8 people in a Seal Beach, California Hair Salon), see “footnotes” to that “Flipping Cause and Effect” post.

The confusion is innate; it is intentional, and it has a purpose — where there is confusion, who gets to come in and settle the conflict?

Apparently AFCC exists and was originally organized, in part as a gas-lighting (“crazymaking”) organization = a deliberate lobbying outfit for forcing linguistic change away from the criminal codes into the behavioral health language la-la land; which purpose their site admits has been “on the books” as a corporate plan (mission/goal) since the 1970s.

Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law?…We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family…There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.

Yes, “Lets us now start the search for the words” and  grope blindly away from the concept of crime as crime, or even wrong, and into the “solid” foundation of expert opinion in the field of behavioral sciences for newer, better, kinder and gentler on criminals definitions of right and wrong, and harsher, more vague and less objective definitions of relationship, or potentially, thought-crimes, for example believing that criminal conduct or repeated threats to engage in it by family members ought to actually matter in making custody decisions about minor children and that some individual civil or legal rights for adults actually remain once a family matter has been raised in the family court venue. [/LGH comment added 2014] …

[emphases mine] “The combined expertise” is not a “who.”   What’s with the bad writing, the grammar problems, and the devotion to founding heroes (that was a  Meyer Elkin quote) obviously flailing around for words that will demote the language of criminal law (or at least evict it from the family law vocabulary) and elevate the language of “the behavioral sciences”)?  If “law” and “behavioral sciences” [what’s really implied is lawyers, and behavioral scientists, the professionals in those fields, such as the ones who had joined this organization by 1975,] were the “us” in “Lets us now start the search”  then who is the “them“?   Where there is an “us” there is a “them” right?

So, is the “them” anyone who has not yet joined the self-appointed forces for language change?  And if those forces, as represented by AFCC membership and the behavioral sciences ~ law partnership, can’t (or just can’t be bothered to) speak or write straight, but are many of them sittings as justices, judges, and child psychologists/evaluators in authority over individual families — what does this lack talk mean for the designated “them” in the US/THEM equation?
Read the rest of this entry »

A Stunning Validation by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson: The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis

with 15 comments

A key issue in the courts includes sexual assault and violence towards women and children. This has also been a key issue with psychoanalysis. Cummings is a psychoanalyst, or has been one.

The key, or leading edge, feature OF these courts includes therapeutic jurisprudence, attempting to resolve conflict through addition of behavioral health professionals, the field Dr. Cummings has dedicated much of his life to preserving the business and economic well-being of, to the point that a Wall Street Journal article reported, not too many years ago, that — doctors and hardcore professionals aside, among the top highest paying professional jobs, including the benefits and actual hours worked to earn the pay, were: Judges, and (with a doctorate) psychologists.

He is also well-informed in his field, has been a psychoanalyst, and very likely knew of this other psychoanalyst’s, Mr. Masson’s, 1980s allegations of Anna Freud’s censorship of her father’s letters, which cast an entirely different light on what “The Etiology of Hysteria” is.

Time to read this statement of “The Assault on Truth, The Origins of Psychoanalysis .

(I notice the Cummings Foundation site also got a facelift since my last visits).

I feel it’s only fair to warn people which path they are going down. If they want to ignore the warnings, then it’s not my problem, other than when it’s draining attention and energies from more critical analyses — which this movement IS, and is probably intended to do.

As soon as I saw the January 2012 advertisement (at the SF Center for Psychoanalysis) of an upcoming March 2012 “FREE TRAINING IN ARIZONA” I blogged it, Our Broken Family Court” isn’t. It ain’t “Ours” and it ain’t “Broken.” That phrase is a “tell.” I’ll tell you why…. [excerpt:]

Donner authored an excellent article {bold added} by the same title in Psychoanalytic Psychology. Contact him (HERE) to request a copy of “Tearing Children Apart: The Contribution of Narcissism, Envy and Perverse Modes of Thought to Child Custody Wars.” [see FN3 LGH, below]

Our broken family court system: Free training in Arizona

Another free training geared toward child custody evaluators is coming up March 16-17 [2012] in Phoenix, Arizona. Co-sponsored by the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers and the Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Foundation, it features a cast of well-known experts, including:

More information and online registration is available HERE.

How much of this “Broken Courts” buzzwords (spoken by the people who have the answers, which naturally involves buying certain products, trainings, and consultations, by the same, on how to fix it) — is enough?

When is anyone (else) going to actually, literally, develop the habit of running background checks on charming, or wealthy strangers who approach them (or into whose strong, authoritative, and competent, OPEN ARMS someone is tempted to dash for sympathy and protection — or for money). Wasn’t that, ladies, part of what got you into an abusive relationship to start with? Handsome strangers, charming, eloquent and INTERESTED IN YOU?

I do this consistently. It’s been a great source of learning, enriched my understanding of this vital field, and moreover, helped me screen out the liars and dissemblers (those who don’t quite lie, literally, but systematically “forget” to reveal who they really are, and what is the agenda, which you get to find out later — after the situation is further compromised, you have less time, money and energy left, and in some cases, in which it’s just plain too late to extricate onesself – – or one’s kids). I will explain this further, separately.

FYI, I found the material on Freud’s Archives/Jeffrey M. M. while looking up the background of the Cummings Foundation and Nicholas Cummings.

One thing about investigating, looking things up: be prepared to have world view turned upside down (or the sense that something IS upside down, or backwards as presented in public confirmed). In this case, regardless of who this man was personally, at the point of insisting to publish about the Freud coverup, he was acting in the public interest.

Post-Published Note. First published Feb. 2013.

In Dec. 2013, realizing in ongoing conversations and further readings how central this topic is to the family and conciliation court systems, including possibly why we even have them to start with, I re-arranged, moving a major section to the top of the post. Therefore further introductory sections may seem out of sequence.

I think EVERYONE concerned with the courts, even though I know I primarily focus on the economic factors, should read this material. Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson was highly qualified, had access to the Freud archives, documents how censorship of his work after 1897 continued even up to the 1950s, when the letters were compiled (including by his daughter Anna), constituting “The Origins of Psychoanalysis.”

Quote First, Commentary below. Especially read if you’re considering signing up for psychoanalysis!

So who is that guy? Briefly,

Read the rest of this entry »

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery (1997 Interview)

with 8 comments

This Post is Sticky (one of about 5 sticky posts) and stays near the top. Others are below. Also, I just moved the “Supervised Visitation” section to a separate post (and of course expanded that one) on 6/6/2013.

File this Article under “What a Difference One Person can Make, if that person:

Has Guts, Will Obtain Evidence, Look at Evidence, Come to Logical Conclusion regarding Evidence Obtained AND Publicize It!

Includes Marv Bryer’s discoveries, especially in the mid- to late 1990s.

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption Through Common Law Discovery

1997 interview with Marv Bryer.

[I ASK READERS: ] Can you read 7 pages “for the cause”? And think about it?

If given a brief pop-quiz of about 10th grade level on what it’s talking about, how much of the vocabulary or ideas could you remember?

Marvin Bryer’s discoveries began when his daughter was involved in a custody battle for her son. Apparently a judge received a bribe to rule against Mr. Bryer’s daughter, and as a result Mr. Bryer discovered a judicial slush fund bank account, and a common law discovery for overcoming judicial immunity.

Right away, we are in the financial category: Bribe, Slush Fund, Bank account, overcoming judicial immunity.

Underneath this, I also pointed out that (for example, in California) the shifting of literally trial courts, to the state level away from the local, AND of the workforce (county employees) of the courts to become instead trial court employees — moves the entire power structure up to the state level — but under Administration (“AOC”).  What does this mean?  How about shifting the bureaucracy of court operations up to the State level, where it’s harder to sue (see “immunity”).  It also centralizes power and control — and for this matter, I have not note that “AFCC” is very active at the state level under this particular Judicial Council’s AOC.

Table is repeated below:

Report From Judges Blasts California Court Bureaucracy By MARIA DINZEO  ShareThis        SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – In a sweeping call for reform of the Administrative Office of the Courts, a report from a committee of judges found the agency has been operated as the director’s fiefdom, has strayed far from its original path and has been deceptive about finances and personnel. The judges also criticized the bureaucracy as top-heavy, overpaid and badly organized.       Their long-awaited report proposes a drastic reorganization that includes cutting the staff by one-third and moving the agency from its lavish San Francisco headquarters to a cheaper space in Sacramento.

In the 221-page, 11-chapter document, the Strategic Evaluation Committee also recommended cutting high-level positions, closing regional offices and eliminating entire divisions of the vast bureaucracy that sits atop the court system.      Based on a year-long investigation, the massive, crisply-worded report does not pull its punches.

That 221 page document should be read– it shows the centralization and expansion of control in the administrative sector.


Read the rest of this entry »

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

with 10 comments

 [Published June 29, 2014; Post in edit mode late July-Aug. 2014;  expanded to almost double the size,nearly 24,000 words; with background info….In most posts, a lot of the length is simply quotes,  my style is not just tell, but  “show and tell.”]


Between “Pts.1” [1a and 1b] and “Pt.2” I expect to post more material on the Family Court Enhancement Project (“FCEP”), which I understand is all the talk about town (i.e., on the internet in these circles (use your search function to find some of it…).   So the title of this blog refers to a series.  It is a natural continuation of the recent (and from May 2012) “Parades, Charades and Facades,” and my posting this is keeping a personal promise (to myself) for the year 2014, to expose what’s underneath the rhetoric.
These parades, charades, and facades have become a problem for the people who match the profile of what they claim to represent, “Protective Parents” and/or “Battered Mothers,” specifically. I am among that class and a witness of the practices, tactics, and censorships of dialogues involved. I believe collectively the groups involved comprise a cult, and exhibit all primary cult practices.

Before a few mental circuits of distressed parents disconnect, or melt from the heat of in “righteous indignation,” (“But my children were abused; I am an incest survivor” etc.), this post is not about whether or not incest or abuse took place in those cases, or children are being placed in the care of batterers or dangerous parents. I’m a survivor, and I know that plenty of times, abuse, sometimes incest did take place and children ARE being placed in the care of batterers.  Mine were….

It’s about what kind of parents are taking a road trip (real, or virtually) with ANY advocacy organizations whose articles of incorporation (if any) boards of directors on their tax returns and patterns of incorporation, charitable filings they have not yet even identified (let alone read and understood), and what’s worse to a destination they have not evaluated as sensible, based on analyses of those organizations in the larger context.

It’s about the dangers of tunnel vision.  Focus is one thing, but tunnel vision, an entirely different thing. it’s about how even spending days, weeks and months on a combination of social media, group -emails, individual emails, and even supplemented by various published articles on a certain topic can still be like eating white bread and peanut butter only, and wondering why you can’t make it through the marathon.

It’s so easy to get a sense of TIME (date of origin of a group), PLACE (where did it originally incorporated, and if it’s one of those state-skipping chameleon corporations, make a note of it, and find out where it’s been before), SIZE (for that, see the financials), and POSITIONING (who else is it interlocking agenda with; and — this is important — is it talking from a religious-exempt institution, or from a law school, or center/institute (etc.) at a university, or individually.  Universities, hospitals, government represent considerable clout, prestige and authority, and lesser accountability for said “Center” or Institute” when it comes to tracking the funding = tracking the influence.  Is it a regular HHS grantee? On which federal funding streams?

Does it file separately — or has it got another organization as its fiscal agent?  If that status changed (example in this post), when, and probably why?

It’s about followers failing to set standards and keep leaders ethical.Consider: if as a parent, you would NOT want your kids to get into a strange cars with smiling strangers and start hitch-hiking with them, for years, recruiting others as you go, why have you demonstrated this same behavior by failing to do basic look-ups, and obtain those fiscal identities and trade-association connections?

[Example: Child-Justice, Inc. (Eileen King, fall 2012] connections to First Star = connections to NACC = connections to AFCC. Another: Battered Women’s Justice Project [“BWJP”] connections (ongoing) to AFCC AND to Duluth, MN’s “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” [connection to Ellen Pence, the HHS and DOJ-funded DV industry programming] AND recently, presenting at “BMCC” (Battered Mother’s Custody Conference). Why would BMCC (and Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Goldstein) keep a ten-year silence (as if they were unaware of its existence) on what has been a $150 million/year federal since 1996 financing program around marriage and fatherhood promotion by way of diversions from Title IV-A, welfare, or the $10 million/year since 1996 (though first financed in 1988) Title IV-D (re: child support enforcement incentives, including percentage-based quotas) access visitation grants? Possibly because out of some of this funding comes the batterers intervention and supervised visitation networked industries, with solid income streams from court-ordered services, courtesy US taxpayers and privately, individual, extorted parents?

One significant “Why?” unanswered ought to indicate something seriously “off,” but there are many — far too many — significant unanswered questions in this company. Suggestion: Come to a decision on the “why” and act on it. Insist on answers as a condition of telling your stories through these channels, lending credibility as the voice of the victims. As a condition of attending rallies, or advertising rallies, etc.

WHO are the friends of those empathetic friends? WHO are they leading you to?
Get the group identity first (the process is simple)! Assess size and special interest groups, and steer clear of groups which refuse to incorporate, or which refuse to submit state-level charitable returns when states require this — on time. And which attempt to censor conversations about areas of common interest, or refuse to educate followers about it in communications or in websites.

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

However, the leadership and by association followers have habitually refused to discuss these topics properly, timely, or thoroughly, remaining focused on the apparently preplanned solutions to the crises — essentially, get better trainers (i.e., themselves:  a self-defining mixture of professionals, nonprofits, some groups absent any corporate identity and enough mothers who tell their stories to lend the experts credibility. For example, see in recent “Parades, Charades and Facades” post, or find and read a typical newsletter or press release from one of the members).  Unless you look at other sources of information, on the same topic it is less clear how self-defining and discussion-limiting the conversations are.These are professionals whose background and skills are in the fields of persuasion, experienced in group situations and guided-group attempts at behavioral modification [seeking to persuade the court, persuade the public, or persuade the legislature towards system change, or persuade people to refer services and advertise product].   People who have obtained PhDs, published, conferenced, been professors, and many (not all) still are.

And there’s been definite “guidance” on what is unacceptable to teach or talk about in these life-and-death matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The book here is meant to sound so authoritative, but it isn’t!  It is anything but complete on the subject matter and its deliberate avoidance of reference to the money trail stemming from 1996-forward (Welfare reform) , to specific organizations, or any searchable terms or names which might better alert women, definitely primary target readers, to the scope and context and history of HOW “custody of abused children going to batterers” actually happens.

Track the organizations* promoting this book, and you will find a very speckled and incomplete trail of corporate and nonprofit filings with a literal obsession with intervention at the federal level while ignoring how the federal grants factor are already in place to intentionally produce certain custody outcomes. In other words, they are a significant factor in the problems to start with.
Read the rest of this entry »

Parades, Charades and Facades — Mother’s Day and Beyond

with 3 comments

[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).


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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 12, 2014 at 2:53 pm

My Challenge: Talk Sense, or become an OxyMORON (and Someone Else’s Dinner)

with 9 comments

This post was drafted  March 2014, and is posted June, 2014. Although it has some oddball illustrations — like the duckbilled platypus– and it references distraction techniques of cults (which, FYI, you’re in it), below  all that are some references you might want to bookmark re: FMS.Treasury.Gov (excerpt in 2nd box yellow with teal-green border.  This shows combined US government receipts & outlays, by source, in numbers and in a pie-chart, which is easier to remember.

Show your friends reading the morning newspapers about how broke we are. We who?

This is also 7,000 words, and has multiple formats.  [Insert Standard Copyeditor’s/Proofreaders’ Nightmare Disclaimer for anyone who’s expecting a proofread, copyedited vision of perfection.]

I am one person struggling with a free wordpress blog platform.  I compose what I’ve personally investigated and written up, including quotations and evidence from many different sources, and commentary on these, in a triple-view format; sometimes in “Text” (html) mode, others in “Visual” (the post editor).  Neither “Text” nor “Visual” mode bears ANY true resemblance to “Published” (or Preview) mode, either to paragraphing, or even to fonts (typestyles).

However, I do consistently deliver other goods that I know have helped some people not go “bonkers” (nuts) during their custody cases, get them out of trauma mode by giving some objective information (not standard predigested rhetoric) on these operations.

Anyone who doesn’t like this blog, or its format, can go find this information elsewhere [good luck with that…], or if he or she wants this information in a more polished format, hit the Donate button (on the sidebar) to help me overcome the technical (computer) issues through upgraded website, or, if that’s not within your ability range (or wish), consider signing the petition I’ve included on this post so I may do this myself, with my own resources, which the straightforward petition explains.    It can be signed anonymously, although city and state will display.

(Now would be a great time to sign or donate)

Or be patient and understand the purpose of this blog.  It’s not my attempt at an academic dissertation. I have my degrees already.    It’s about laying out some information as a NOTICE that this type of information exists.  And that people who have been badly traumatized can at least reduce their own confusion on cause-and-effect by becoming aware of this information; including WHO designed the family courts, and the programs to be run through them; and how.


Sometimes you just need other information to get your bearings. What’s more, it’s interesting and relevant to all of us where our taxes are being spent, and who’s running our courts.
Read the rest of this entry »

Amazing and False Assumptions about the Family Courts…

leave a comment »

This post is essentially draft, notes.  I’m just injecting, FYI, some different  talk into the tired old (while still relevant) conservations about what the courts are doing, and have done to our little ones, the next generation. ~  It’s at least as reasonable as what’s out there now. No big deep conclusions; I just wanted to point to other information, information worth giving up one’s security-blanket support groups for.

And for those who are curious, and make it through  enough paragraphs, I’ve thrown in a link telling readers (finally) my name.    WHY?  My situation is not safe (it has really become life-threatening, again, and from the attrition) and I’d like to take credit for the considerable effort put into this blog, while still alive.  And if you’re concerned, remember there’s a Donate Button Here, and a Petition there.

  Some people who have witnessed my personal situation now for over 10 years, and I truly hope that younger people, and in-bound  men and women to the family law system will recognize just who they are  dealing with, and abandon the false prophets flying around hawking their wares as if it were just one nice big family with a few communication problems any real  (well-trained) expert could straighten out.

I have paid attention to networks, and been networked, and around long enough to see “denial” mode kick in when people are presented with the uncomfortable information that they’ve been betrayed as badly by those showing empathy for their distress as by any original “abuser” who got custody.   

While I’m extremely stressed this past month, after going public (with my case) for the first time in April, I have like many been since Year 2000, to the top and back down through the justice system, the agencies, and the personalities.   I have spoken with extremely intelligent men and women and qualified, who continue hoping to extract some justice. I’m interested in extricating my LIFE and a future, with the least damages and compromise, particularly for my two (daughters), who I miss very badly these days, as well as all along, but see no way to get to, in the current situation.



You’ve probably been hearing this more and more around the internet, as propagated by people who want us to believe it’s even relevant to the family law code in state after state.  We may want this — naturally, as human beings or parents, or others — but how does what we want relate to what the existing legal system says about this area of law? Time and again, people complain that the family courts aren’t keeping their children safe, and demand that they do, thinking (without evidence) that the courts are on the same page with the parents. since when did any family court venue say that this was its reason for existing? Does even the family code indicate this is its purpose? Now, there’s a push for The Safe Child Act by certain people who, shamelessly (and probably knowingly) call the courts by their wrong names and push the theme of “more scientific practices to recognize child abuse, ” etc.  If you’re a parent, it’s hard to resist the appeal to pathos and the assumption that better subject matter expertise would turn the family courts (often called mistakenly “custody courts,” simply an inaccurate term) into safer places for children.  Here’s a segment, catch the phrasing:

Of course protecting children’s health and safety requires more than a goal of making this the courts’ first priority.  The court cannot rely on generalized professionals who understand mental illness and psychology unless they have specialized expertise in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, substance abuse, medical diagnosis and treatment. Court professionals must be familiar with current scientific research so they know that exposure to domestic violence, child abuse and other trauma results in a lifetime of greater illnesses and injuries.  As the Saunders’ study demonstrates, courts must avoid relying on unqualified “experts” who focus on the myth that women frequently make false allegations; unscientific alienation theories or the belief that mothers’ attempts to protect children from frightening fathers are actually harmful to the children.

Yeah, well guess which group of professionals, a fairly tight-knit, self-referencing court-reform community saw the opportunity to become the next generation of experts in the courts, a long way off, and is NEVER going to give up this talk — and realized that if the mothers actually refocused their emotional energy on something different than “Abusers getting custody,” they might (like I eventually did) figure out a thing or two…See very recent post “A Different Kind of Attention Leads to Sound Judgment” for more information).

This information doesn’t take long to figure out — that the language is focused on better professionals, not operational structures. Well, the rest of this post, I’d just rather look at some different terminology; a bit about commissions that draft codes, what’s a code versus a statute, and face it — the Family Code is the new kid on the block, and you probably still have less than enough understanding of how tightly this country (and each state) is organized around the profession of law. And it doesn’t take too long to figure out that, whatever else most of us may want to believe about how vastly important we, and our children are to the world — this entire system is just not about them.

I haven’t written much lately because longstanding dealings with my own situation (<=<=yes, that is me, my petition.  Now you know….) the family court case that never closed, and its aftermath) required attention. I have been dealing right along with two or three attorneys (NOT on my side) in matters directly affecting my safety — and doing this without stable income or a full-time or even consistent job history. (You try to have a stable job history after your kids disappear from your life overnight….). A fourth one was brought in recently, apparently just for fun — and it’s become clear what the next agenda.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 7, 2014 at 10:19 pm

Accounting Literacy Matters. Cause-based Literacy Doesn’t. (Spring 2010, Ellen H Brown tangles with Walter Burien’s info, or at least tries to.)

with 3 comments

This blog has been sitting in draft since January. I cleaned it up, fleshed it out and am publishing. Meanwhile, I’ll be over at Cracking the Cult of the Constitution by Clint Richardson, and tell you why when I get back. Particularly on the topic “Corporations Sole.” (3 part series from August 2013).

Look for these two colors in a side-by-side column format to see the conversation that inspired this post.  I’ve added material to a middle section one day after publishing this post (added Sun. 5/4/2014) because I think it’s relevant.  Alternating color scheme (dark green/light-beige with red fonts) section is more about the particular institute set up AFTER the conversations of 2010.

I wouldn’t bother with this, or all the pretty colors, except that attempting to communicate CONCEPTS through the cognitive dissonance of people who mis-understand why “government” and its “social services” and “justice systems,” aren’t solving the problems, even when the word “problem-solving” is appended (like “problem-solving courts.”), is getting old.

Half the understanding is a matter of basic vocabulary, and paying attention to others’ speech. Here, I’m listening in. For followers who are just interested in “the courts,” — too bad. The courts are part of government, and if you don’t get that, I can’t help you. I did my part!! (see blog).

I find the colors, and the conversation, interesting.  Hope you do too — but the point isn’t this person, or that person.  The point is, how to make sound judgments (it shouldn’t take that long) and assessments when authority figures, or would-be authority figures/leaders, start talking.  And notice what happens after you do NOT get a straight answer.

Some months ago, I also got entangled with the “Web of Debt” conversation; not because of CAFRs, in particular, but because I also live in California and wanted a few answers I wasn’t seeing on the site. 

The strange response to a single comment on a blog (from someone I was a complete stranger to) led to my further inquiries about “Inquiring Systems, Inc.” and some of the issues below.  What I see is someone trying to sound more intelligent than he or she is (see below), and trying to seem more concerned about the disenfranchised 99% (us poor slobs) than the associations and behaviors would indicate.

Which one was the attorney, well keep reading.


Remember, you cannot judge a book by its cover?”
Well, you can’t judge a corporation by its website, or by what causes it’s in favor of.
Yesterday (well, about 1/23/2014), I got another good, fast, one-day lesson on the Environmental/Green Progressive/OneWorldOnePlanet (Our planet = Our Plans) movement by simply paying attention to a passing conversation, and then follow-up.
See How and When to Change, Ditch (or Track) the Conversations of Public Interest Crusades.  While the public is supposed to be entranced by their messages, networks, and international connections, we should habitually change the focus BACK to the accounting practices, and then talk about it — and with these as the subject matter.
Don’t be so easily distracted like children (which we are being treated as in this matters)!!  Insist that people you hang with also grow up. The art of distraction has many purposes, but often it’s for the purpose of stealing, and that is what has been done from individual people subject to income taxes, who do NOT play this game in the manner those seeking to rule the planet have been playing it.
I almost left the conversation (follow up on this conversation):”Know Misdirection / Omission when seen:  Ellen Brown CAFR article” — however when it began with misquotes, led to mis-use of nonprofit status to shield others groups …(all charging fees and taking donations) to do the same all over California (in particular), and  an advisory board reaching to a progressive Congressman from New Mexico attempting to start a public state bank . . . and another to the United Nations Environmental Programme and its Financial Initiatives starting with a “small group of” (multinational) banks — I felt there was a reason the one individual “couldn’t” (didn’t) want to understand, or follow through with what Mr. Burien has been saying — and where he disagrees with Gerald Klatt, who put up the cafrman.com website and disagreed with Ms. Brown.
That is a ONE-page conversation, easy to read. I place the 2010 conversations side by side, and note that after NOT answering Burien’s corrections, Ms. Brown went off and hooked up with another group to promote “The Public Banking Institute” (2011).

Read the rest of this entry »

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment

with 5 comments

Post in Update Process.  Recent (October 2014) introductory material will be reduced shortly.  I felt inspired to elaborate some more on the role of the Ford Foundation, Center for Court Innovation, MDRC, and the economic influence on setting in motion systems-change elements (including court changes) at public expense. I tend to revise published posts as my understanding increases, and often in the process or drafting a related one.

This is a recent find when I was explaining and showing the Center for Court Innovation to a person completely unfamiliar with it.  It didn’t take too long to “get”once the tax returns and other materials were shown in person.  It probably also helped the understanding process that the individual was familiar with project development and budgets, and hadn’t been indoctrinated NOT to talk  finances or economic systems through any court advocacy group which is more interested in selling books, promoting conferences, and getting in on the “train the trainers, educate the judges” routine….

 NYC 2014 BUDGET — READ! Center for Court Innovgot $400K (Fund for City of NY not mentioned), Man Up, LIFT, Vera — ec (439pages…)


This link and discussion added below under the post’s’ heading “Center for Court Innovation.” [Click through to the website and bookmark, please!] Making for one very long post indeed, but covering some very important ground….

This NYC 2014 BUDGET link above (the adjustments to a NYC budget) shows that the name “Center for Court Innovation” was identified with an EIN# that matches the $86 million (in assets) tax-exempt corporation called “Fund for the City of New York” as a fiscal item on the NYC budget, and having been characterized as running several types of courts in the city, while receiving budgetary contributions from the City for this service.

I think this should interest readers from both the size of operations and the setup (see pp. 7, 8, 9). It takes some sustained attention, to grasp, however.  Question:  Why would writers of the NYC Budget Adjustments who surely know the difference between a corporation or nonprofit organization (such as Fund for the City of New York) and a project which is not a corporation (such as “Center for Court Innovation”) forget to use the correct name when listing the budget adjustment of, that year, $400,000, with (it says) funding having begun in 2005 and this CCI being the designated lead for that type of project?  More visuals below under that Title.

Neither the CCI nor this Fund should be ignored, for what they represent to USA and, it’s been made clear, the internationalization of justice reform according to “best ideas, as defined by those in power to fund demonstration projects, AND evaluations of the same demonstration projects” via tax-exempt fund and tax-supported court system.

CCI is self-defined as “a public/private partnership.” That means both public and private funds go into it and moreover, that those funds are not easily traceable by looking at EITHER the public (NYS Unified Court System) budget OR the tax returns of the Private (Fund).  And yet they are also self-defined as innovative, and systems change oriented.  An attempt is being made to engineer this change, obviously, without public awareness of who, really, is paying for it, although depending on what type of change, we  ALL pay the price if it’s in a more, versus less oppressive direction.  So which direction the money and which direction the change IS going, should be watched.  You watch the influence by watching the organizations; and you watch the organizations, in good part, by getting tax returns where available (or other financials) and considering what’s seen, who’s involved, and WHAT is the organizational or corporate purpose.

CCI is an item on others’ tax returns and budgets, but not being a specific corporation OR arm of government, it would be quite a project to get a picture (layout) of its finances, and from that, its influences, on a major court system such as the NYS UNIFIED Court System.

We are supposed to take it on faith that being in the hands of the experts is good news.

I have been in such hands (in California, but with similar flavor and programming) and know better than to accept “just trust us” when it comes to bright new ideas on how to change the courts bypassing regular public input, because the public is too broke to get that input in there, and those pushing the ideas are, well, the opposite.

Founded as a public/private partnership between the New York State Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York, the Center for Court Innovation seeks to aid victims, reduce crime, strengthen neighborhoods, reduce incarceration, and improve public trust in justice. The Center combines action and reflection to spark justice reform locally, nationally, and internationally.

Fund for the City of New York was (funded/incorporated as a nonprofit) in 1968 by the under-funded (?) Ford Foundation, with significant involvement in other systems-changes elements of the courts around the country; CCI is hardly its only project.

To my 259+ “Followers” who just received an email notification of this trust (and other viewers)…. You were just mailed a post in DRAFT status, when yours truly hit “Publish” instead of “Save Draft” while editing it.  Right now, my version of wordpress, or my input device, simply will not let me put a published post back into draft or pending status.  When I attempt, the system simply refreshes all windows.

{{As of Mon 3/24/2014, I have continued adding to and editing this post; it has now doubled and is about 19,000+ words long.  Please scroll through the material if you only plan to read part — I tend to add material to the middle and introductions, when revising; meaning some of the original topic (after first stating it) is moved down towards the end. Or, I will split it off.  

To put it bluntly — I’m an investigative blogger (and DV survivor, mother, etc.).  I don’t publish in professional journals, and my former profession was not based around getting federal grants to write up others problems in a scholarly manner.  Rather, I provided genuine services, real-time (and involving considerable focus, preparation, and practice) to a local community, based on demand for those service, NOT forced consumption by the local courts and the federal child support or welfare system — making it a win-win situation (if not necessarily producing wealth, it was a healthy lifestyle for sure. So — obviously this is not “AP” (or any other) editing style  When I get to it, I’ll split this post, maybe.  In the meanwhile, everything I wrote goes into a storehouse ALSO called memory (awareness of  trends, systems, groups and to a degree, personnel).

Therefore, I pretty much blog it as a write it — with about 2/3 more posts in draft, and consistent communications (networking) by phone and email as well.}.

However, even incomplete and in draft, this post on this material is still timely, and relevant. It proves who (by group name, including Executive Director), while valiant in reporting troubling matters,  was still systematically and uniformly covering up, or had abandoned from all significant public discussion the role of the federal grants (access/visitation  in particular) in influencing INDIVIDUAL  custody cases where child abuse had already been identified.

The information surrounding the creation of the family and conciliation courts, plus its relationship to “welfare reform” is significant enough it puts an entirely different light on the whole subject matter. There are  MANY corollaries (logical conclusions) from the information about the Who, What, When, Where, How and even Why  that make sense of the current situations in the court and enable people paying attention to  even see, document , changes continuing to happen along the same lines.

There is literally  NO EXCUSE for this degree of  OMISSION from DISCUSSION of THIS MUCH relevant information.  

This post also again PROVES that the organization in question, through  its at least 2004 Executive Director, and as I have asserted often enough in person (email, phone) and I believe on this blog, has had access all along — and chose to siderail that information, if not [just about] eliminate it from their email alerts, co-sponsored conference topics, summaries of the situation and assessments — as do the professionals and other organizations they tend to support, promote and help publicize.

With the information from Liz Richards nafcj.net alone, a logical  conclusion  would QUICKLY lead [as it did me] sensible people to understand (better) the events leading up to and following from the 1996 PRWORA welfare reform and, by NAMING them, which significant organizations and individuals were restructuring not just the courts, but the entire US Government (economically, through radical changes to the Social Security Act). Please note, from NAFCJ.net website, front page: “Fifth Step – Change your Reaction Mode” which is still good advice!

Fifth Step: Change your reaction mode: Learn how stop being fooled and manipulated by dishonest people who are supposed to be helping you ! Learn about unique responses to this problem.

I’m not sure I agree at this point with the recommended responses, which could and have produced retaliatory action (extreme) upon individuals.  I DO, however, agree with researching and finding out WTF is going on — in those areas!

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

March 23, 2014 at 9:26 am

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


Advocates for Change: Tell us about your JUDGE, ATTORNEY (pretender), or CPS...


Experts are Nice, but Economic Comprehension is Better. Find and Start Reading Gov't Entity CAFRs!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 319 other followers

%d bloggers like this: