Welcome to my blog.

You are on nearly the top** post of the page which displays all posts. 

You probably got here indirectly from the Main Page “FamilyCourtMatters.org” Sidebar “Current Posts”

or having been given the case-sensitive short-link “https://wp.me/psBXH–8Ly” from social media (or me).

Labeling/Linking protocol:

I typically begin the body of posts now repeating the title (clickable – with active link), then for your — and my — convenience keeping them straight (because I often reference them on other platforms, such as Twitter) I identify in three characters the end of its short-link (here, that’s “-8Ly” as you see right above), date published and/or updated (if major updates or revision), and approximate word-count.  Remember the first part (wp.me/psBXH- for posts and wp.me/PsBXH- for pages) and you can copy (hint: tweet, share, etc.) any post without that long title.  Just pick a few words from it and get the link right). (This information is reiterated on my Front Page, too//LGH July 28, 2020).

I also try to consistently include the date published as an actual part of the title, for convenience and FYI.

For this post, then, its title with short-link, the last 3 characters of that shortlink posted openly, and approximate word-count:

In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018) (case-sensitive short-link ending -8Ly,” about 10,700 words).

However you got here,

Let’s talk.

FamilyCourt Matters.org, this WordPress blog, has been available on-line now over nine years and as of today (Dec. 8, 2018) has 785 published posts and 45 pages. By posts, you’ll see quickly, I do not mean a few thousand words and quoting an expert, referencing a problem, and maybe including a link or two.  These posts have (I feel confident to say) as much detail and background links as the average mainstream media journalism reporting on even one aspect of similar issues. The overall purpose of the blog differs from the purpose of mainstream media or even many blogs focused on similar topics.  

I am calling out to concerned people to educate themselves— as I had to — on the structure and operations of the family courts which ties directly into other major topics — the structure and and operation of governments (plural) + the structure and operation of private corporations, especially in the nonprofit (tax-exempt) charitable, advocacy or “philanthropic” sector which has become the extra arm of government, not the altruistic, neutral mediator between government and citizens as it is commonly being characterized.

I keep blogging to name names and report developments (in this field) from an “outsider/consumer” point of view, while continuing to assert there are other places to look for more productive grounds from which to argue for or against specific agenda within and around the family courts

From June 2015 to Jan 2016, I took about one and a half years off from publishing posts, not off researching or writing, to handle urgent personal situations relating to the aftermath of years in the family courts.  I had to focus on other types of writing and explored other ways of presenting this information off-blog, such as into pdf formats and page-length (8X11″) content. 

In January 2018 I restructured the blog to have two static home pages (one introduction which typing in “FamilyCourtMatters.org” accesses, and which, along with the top right sidebar “Current Posts” widget, links to this one, where all posts — sticky ones first —  display), like most blogs, the most recent on top.  

In early 2018 I also worked to update and extend the table of contents pages.  The blog doesn’t generate them automatically, and I feel the Table of Contents with my typically long post titles is good for an overview and browsing material for the field.  

Even if the posts aren’t even read, the titles show I’m talking from a different perspective and about certain dynamically censored topics.  Because such key topics have been censored, for some years, now, I documented and continue to publicize (post, Tweet, talk about and name) organizations, professionals, and blogs who have historical refused to report on, a.k.a., basically attempted to censor public discussion of THE basic infrastructures of either the courts, or the business involving the courts as referral mechanisms to private interests (i.e., in conflict-of-interest style) while simultaneously claiming a basis for nationwide reform.

Refusing to discuss the key elements of the basic infrastructures of the family courts also unnaturally deprives the public (at least the public relying on such sources and not their own investigations or analysis outside the usual population divides: religion, gender, race (of course!), and politics). At least for private organizations and individuals running or associated with them to engage in such coverups is legal, but immoral; individuals, including myself and others like me, who get fed up with coverups must go dig out the information them/ourselves.

Summer/Fall 2018, I relocated out of state but continued posting periodically and re-engaging in social media more and within a few months signed a lease.  I am back here again, working to make the blog more approachable and navigating (finding) its various Tables of Contents easier both from the home page and from Twitter.  Meanwhile, I continue to research – follow leads, investigate, put information together from various sources — and write as much as possible and engage more on social media — while working with new (cellphone) technology, an aging laptop and how to match capacity to handle software updates with device life expectancies, etc. including getting one to share data with the other without either one shutting down.  

EXPANDING SPHERES OF ATTENTION: This past season I have begun looking more at parallels between US and other countries’ historic reforms of the family law system in the late 1900s and early 2000s.  How these laws were passed, reigning paradigms (which differs by country) and how professionals organized (usually) at academic or private society (association) levels cross-collaborate, and in which journals.

{{INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL, about 1,000 words, MOVED Jan. 6, 2019: PLEASE READ IT then return to this post.  Link to return to this post is provided at the bottom of that page.. }}

Let’s talk, but…

(Connect through Comments, or on Twitter, where I am @LetUsGetHonest)

.. If we are going to converse, let’s start with some solid, identifiable ground, identifiable facts in a common context.  The largest one I find applies to so many is accounting by governments of their own expenditures (not just budgets, but also income-producing assets controlled), and the same goes for the private sector working in partnership with it to constantly correct course, solve problems, consult, and (etc.).

As harsh as it may sound, the common ground for conversation on-line about systems of this scope should not be experiences.  For moral, social support, empathy, or friendships, yes, probably.  But for solutions?  Not in the public sphere.  SOMEONE besides those running “the show” must talk about how that show is being run in terms with some “Lowest Common Denominators” that do not trigger constant debates to the point no conclusions are reached.  WHY:  WHILE the public is battling verbally on-line based on (personal experiences and social bonding) in this manner, the systems complained about continue operating, and generally, expanding.

There HAS to be a different type of language and focus of attention.  I believe there is…I’ve been looking at it for years now…

I PAY ATTENTION TO GOVERNMENTAL  (AND PRIVATE) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND I LOOK FOR TAX RETURNS OF NONPROFITS AND READ THOSE TOO.  PATTERNS ALWAYS SURFACE, AND THESE PATTERNS OF ACCOUNTABILITY OR (MORE OFTEN, LACK OF IT) SHOW CHARACTER — ORGANIZATIONAL, AND OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE ORGANIZATIONS.  IT HELPS CUT THROUGH THE [word deleted].

Screenshot of LGH’s Tags for May 2, 2018 post “In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts…” a.k.a. “Welcome To My Blog” 2nd to top sticky post (Jan. 13, 2019 revs), Bottom shows also previous and next post titles. NB: Some tag names are quite long.

This blog has about 10,500 words.  The image of its tags is included here to encourage people, as time allows, to keep reading.  I cover current and ongoing relevant topics in this post, too… not just the above complaints about censorship and so forth…See those Tags for terms that will continue to come up on this blog (and often on my Twitter account too).

This intro updated (and background-color changed from light-blue to light-yellow) Jan. 14, 2019: Blog Administrator’s prerogative)

The main part (published May, 2018) of this top post on FamilyCourtMatters.org‘s “Current Posts” page begins after this brief “Preview” in gray font with three short quotes from the post.

PREVIEW:

In this post, besides the subject matter in the post title,  I also make public my position (“Opposed!“) to the current “H.Con.Res.72” in popular promotion by some people and organizations (shown below) these days, and why I’m opposed.  I also discuss other recent FamilyCourt Reform buzz words and initiatives, with “show and tell” images.

Below all that, I have more — as understanding this leads to the need to understand government itself.

Please also visit (in this reading or a return to digest more of the post) the section on Mary Lasker, the huge growth of public relations as driving social policy, and the major roles of the psych- professions and mental health as paralleling US involvements in wars over the decades — as it impacts the family courts.

In other words, it’s essential to consider the massive development of and investment in the tactics of “socially engineered consent” going back at least a century…unless being constantly socially engineered to “consent” (without full information) on why we don’t really need representative government with informed consent of the people, not socially engineered “leave the thought-leadership to us” consent motivated by desire to hold onto previously acquired (legitimately or not) wealth and prevent too many outsiders figuring out where it came from:

Three quotes from that section; there will be also related images and after them, the post as published in January, 2018. In body of the text, they appear in normal font, not this color or size and of course not as quotes because it’s my own writing:

…When it comes to the field of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychiatry (and corresponding mental and behavioral health), obviously due to the persuasion necessary (versus brute force of government ONLY), those fields’ origins are closely tied to commandeering organized military behavior for war efforts.  Both fields had plenty of people to observe and practice / learn upon after each war.  Consider also the chemical industries’ major prosperity due to war efforts, and thereafter, turning some of this expertise (and massive resources) as well into what is now the pharmaceutical industries.

and, regarding socially engineered consent (exercised upon the masses, first for engaging in war, then for advertising, and in general, for accepting a massive and invasive (what’s now HHS) health and human services infrastructure:

Unfortunately — for some (very fortunately for a whole other sector of professionals and business owners and so-called “thought leaders”) —a lot of social policy originates in public relations (the art of propaganda), whether in persuading the population to get behind (another) war (starting with World War I, as to the 1900s), or to stop smoking, or to consent to universal taxation under the concept that it helps equalize the gap between the rich and the poor and empowers the people– still. “In other words, UNinformed, engineered consent preferred.”

and:

The tempting (marketing) prospects of influence and development of ongoing revenues from the population as a whole has been and remains massive.

In looking at the family courts fairly, and historically as developed NOT that long ago in many states, to be honest one HAS to admit they combine law and behavioral health/psychology, two VERY powerful interests with an emphasis on giving more power to the behavioral health/psychological assessments and evaluations part (the profession of law already had this power!).  For example, consider the operational size (though they are organized differently) of the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association.  (…which I also did — and showed tax returns of — on this blog some years back).  Anything which by market sector is going to affect nearly ALL of the massive United States of America and its territories (and its military population) is going to be HUGE and a tempting target to market to.

The family court divisions under the state court jurisdictions — and these courts’ “fauna and flora” as typified by coordinated efforts of significant tax-exempt organizations** judges lawyers and psychologists (and family court services administrators) tend to join as members, are still fairly recent developments.  Some, only in the 1990s.  They seem to have sprung out of earlier “juvenile courts” and associations, which organizations (some of them) only date to the 1970s.

(** asterisk footnote provided in the post below after this same paragraph).

– – –

In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)  (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”; about 7,900 words).

Very much related Page, published April 26 (note: Pages, obviously, do not show on “Last Few [10] Posts” widget on sidebar and I do not produce Table of Contents for pages; so it is best accessed through this link:
Page (not “Post”) Title: Censorship By Omission = Intent to Bypass Informed Consent = Tossing the Truth Overboard =  Characteristic of Bullies, Abusers, Criminal Enterprises (RICO)~~>Symptoms of Ulterior (likely profit-oriented) Agenda and/or Previously Compromised Persons. It’s just ‘OFF’!! [Apr 26, 2018 insert to Top Sticky Post (about to be published)]  (Case-sensitive shortlink for this Page ends “-8YJ” | about 10,000 words).

I realize the above titles may upset people who may be drawn to this blog because of its subject matter, whether through hearsay, or through it coming up on a basic Google search on some of the under-reported organizations, themes, grants, or topics I blog.  I have been studying these things diligently for years and beyond that have the perspective of direct experience (of abuse and of the family courts) and of networking (in-person, by phone/electronically, or in public on-line), which this or related page/posts will explain.If the titles are upsetting, so what? The main question should be not how upsetting they are to any status quo but how accurate and insightful, how relevant, are they.  This is not a popularity contest….

I also realize FamilyCourtMatters.org neither looks nor talks like most blogs complaining or concerned about common family court issues or even professionally published films, presentations, or academic discussions of what to do about the family courts.

That’s intentional.

The blog fills a major information gap which is there, it doesn’t take to long to deduce, intentionally.  I realize the presentation is dense (a recent commenter — “giant walls of text.”  Apart from my inclusion of so many images too, that’s a fair characterization).

I am introducing, again, a different, objective, and NOT social science/psychology-dependent and less “tunnel-vision” way to view and talk about these issues. For readers who understand the magnitude of the problem and are still suffering from their experiences and (typically) years under “case-churning” litigation, the information is valuable, but it will quickly bust several myths and place the honest (willing to look at the evidence) individual in a place of major discomfort.

If so, that’s good.  It MAY just indicate change, and I hope DOES indicate a more circumspect way of reading, processing and IF it passes the truth “smell test,” only then repeating information found on line. I’ve been through that already and have few no regrets.  There is “a fork in the road.” This blog is a signpost that another road with less traffic, but (I say) a broader perspective (and fresher air) still exists.

By refusing to just stop blogging what I’ve been finding I eventually have also forced — word was getting out — some of the “we don’t want to talk about it” organizations to at least counter, belatedly and with only a fraction of the substance, generally out of context (in a field where context counts!), a weak imitation** of the material I have consistently published on this blog year after year and in increasing depth, with periodic chronologies, decade-by-decade summaries citing key events of the involved programs, policies and key players affecting the courts.  **(For “weak imitation” footnotes inside and below the next insert in dark red font with borders (box) representing Sept. 2018 added text.)

**(such weak, belated mentions by certain censoring organizations and individuals) is instead in an attempt to continue controlling the public, on-line dialogue and retain their followers — whose warm bodies showing up at rallies and disaster stories being told and re-told on-line (in print, film, or the conference circuits) are needed to help carve out (in my opinion) their “spot in the sun” as technical consultants and trainers in a certain niche. …

Followers of such organizations and/or the collaborating “FamilyCourtReform” professionals are encouraged (as the title says, coached, and now even certified — I’ll post the evidence, but it’s also available on-line) to repeat verbatim (UNexamined) certain telling phrases (propaganda), further embarrassing (in my opinion) the class of people they claim to represent, and I’m referring to the designation “protective parents” (with a focus on “mothers”). Let alone women, in general..

…If a policy and analysis cannot even stand up to casual logical challenge, why should it be supported and promoted?  The challenges are going to come sooner or later, if not from one place or another. There is a real strength to truth, but truth isn’t simply often-recited, overbroad facts which won’t stand up to other quoted facts, neither tied to fact-checking or exposure to the larger and historical context.  Where is the process of proof?

Where is awareness of what is, and is not, “proof” of an argument which is intended to support social policy intended for nationwide application upon family court processes, training, and standards?  

[above text in dark-red, later (Sept. 2018) additions to the Jan. 2018 post]

Hints:  My 4/29/2018 Tweet (click on attached media). Or my  4/30/2018 reply Tweet to another person’s colorful graphic illustrating some of the common phrases, two of which I challenged (next two images).

---

When advocacy on-line culture focuses on group dynamic and group loyalty (i.e., personalities, specific organizations are “right” or “wrong” and no further “truth” filters need be applied thereafter), a direct challenge of the facts from an on-line stranger (i.e., me, in this context) can be taken personally.  It’s not meant personally.  The context is criminal activity, high-risk, life-and-death situations (when it comes to domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, parental kidnapping, or the more prolonged version — continual erosion of any income base with which to sustain life itself..).  The most important value is understanding: truth.

Twitter thread (puzzle pieces w/ “Crisis in the Courts Crowd” sound bytes 4/30/2018, my account in the background, image #1 of 2. Click above image to enlarge; this link for the Tweet; to see my reply click “see this thread” once on Twitter.)

Twitter thread (puzzle pieces w/ “Crisis in the Courts Crowd” sound bytes 4/30/2018, my account in the background, image #1 of 2. Click above image to enlarge; this link for the Tweet; to see my reply click “see this thread” once on Twitter.)

RE: This Post:

RE:  “Censoring Terms” comment in the title.

This takes longer to say, although I’ve raised the topic over the (nine) years of this blog several times, defining my terms: usually when it comes to “problem-solving” the problems which recur generation after generation by now, in the family courts, themselves originally considered and springing out of diversionary “problem-solving courts” (alongside drug courts and others) intended reduce outright litigation.

It’s as important to understand today as ever. My exhortations are continued below the next section within maroon borders which focuses more on why I’m bringing it up again now this season. Both sections have a lot of parenthetical phrases, some moved to color-coded “footnotes” [1] [2] or [3] or asterisks (***, ****) to define terms and points of reference in more detail.

Section and exhortation below it off-ramped to a page titled “Censoring Terms” (full title tba).  Still relevant.  Access HERE!

All this takes a while.  Be patient.  Without patience, anyhow, family court matters (and this blog “FamilyCourtMatters” about them) cannot be understood.

Certainly the buzz-words and sound-bytes and demands to reform the ‘family courts’ (“The Greenbook Initiative” 2000ff) through federal interventions (“Family Court Enhancement Project” ca. 2008ff), “spoon-fed” to the public and/or decision-makers by nonprofits which historically have already been influencing and training professionals in the courts to start with (at public expense, naturally),  limit statements of the problem (“Our Broken Courts Initiative” ca. 2012ff) to terms the users are promoting to fix it. (Safe Child | House Resolution 72 + related State-level echoes, Bill introduced July 2017).  Those four bolded, green phrases except the very last one have already made appearances on this blog, and typify development over time of some common efforts to standardize family courts known to be under state law (and local government, usually county courts’ administration) jurisdictions from a higher, that is, federal (national) level.  

CLASS LABELS (USA) & GOVERNMENT FINANCING:  TAXATION, TAX-EXEMPTION,

(Direction of Cash-Flow | Tends to accumulate most where it can’t be taxed.  

But USA financing model is that most workers ARE taxed to support (all levels of government).

We also should recognize that much of USA’s ongoing federal clout, power, and influence comes by way of the individual income tax (1913ff); in other words, it is provided by employees contributing as they work to assets which are held and invested (for profit) by federal government, while allocating the debt (accounting practices) to that same public, then devising creative public/private agreements to distribute funds to better handle, primarily, housing, for a created class of human beings designated “low-income.”  

The word “income” is tax-specific, but who realizes this and ever thinks about the proliferating and accumulating-wealth tax-exempts in connection with (as even related to) the prevalence of low-income households — at least as anything other than a positive, mediating or remedying influence?  What “low-income” people do not have is ongoing passive revenues and stockpiled assets — as do, often, those most adamant about how to manage such people in “healthy communities” and, I’m learning, “TOAH” (Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing)** units to be developed.

“INCOME” vs. “REVENUES.”

INCOME == taxable.  Employees earn (and interest on certain investments etc.)  See IRS (USA) for better definitions. INCOME, generally means, subject to taxation as in “personal INCOME tax.”

Gov’t Character (from Definitions part of 2012 US Census of Gov’ts) CLICK IMAGE if needed to read full-sized.

REVENUES == typically refers to categories of increase (money) received OR earned by tax-exempt entities — either Non-Profits, OR, Government itself.  Government entities are not taxed.  Obviously, tax-exempt organizations (basically, not 100%) as corporations aren’t either.

Look at any Form 990, Page 1 Summary, left side:  After Header and basic information (Lines 1-8), The first major category (Lines 9-17?) is REVENUES (not “income”), and then “EXPENSES.”

Also, remember tjat the “IRS” stands for “Internal REVENUE Service” and IRC, “Internal “REVENUE” Code.

By constantly focusing on low-INCOME people for justifying more expensive projects to be created (not to mention welfare itself) attention is drawn away from the collaborating power bloc of NOT-taxed entities (i.e., gov’t entities and tax-exempt entities) which status tends to allow stockpiling of wealth — and continued control over it — generation after generation.  The more the differential grows (in part for this obvious reason), the more programs are created labeled “low-income.”

(**Next six-image slideshow included just for a point of reference.  I’ve been looking at several of the listed “Partner” entities (most, obviously, nonprofits) and their filing habits, tax returns, etc. recently — and some (Silicon Valley Foundation, regional planning association for this area (ABAG) and the MTC (Metrpolitan Transportation Commission) — earlier ). Includes basic search on the phrase, which is why results are specific to SF Bay Area.  Click to enlarge, use navigation keys to view.  FOUR of the images (for clearer viewing) are from top Google search result:  “BayAreaTOD.org” where “TOD” likely means “Transit-Oriented Development”).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BLURRING JURISDICTIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW;

ONGOING ATTEMPTS TO INTERNATIONALLY (AND NATIONALLY) ALIGN FAMILY COURT PROCESSES.

• THIS IS DONE THROUGH OVERLAPPING, NETWORKED NONPROFITS INVOLVING CIVIL SERVANTS IN (OR FORMERLY IN) OFFICE…
• SO YOU STILL THINK FOLLOWING (SUCH) NONPROFITS AND LEARNING TO READ THEIR TAX RETURNS IS IRRELEVANT?..
• ADDRESS ECONOMIC REALITIES, NOT JUST THEORY!

FAMILY COURTS are technically speaking under state jurisdiction, not national, but looking at influence and financing, it’s obvious that many already in power, or seeking to align / join those in power at key federal departments (HHS, DOJ, DOE, DOL) are seeking to control from the top down and outside in without being (1) particularly caught at it by the common people and (2) when caught, still able to call out “that’s a state jurisdiction matter” when parents complain about basic human or civil rights violations administered within the family court venue.

In addition, there is a major ongoing process, which I’ve been blogging consistently,** through family court policies and nonprofits involved in them, to “internationally align” policies across national borders, something any American should be highly opposed to, as the United States has fought wars to maintain independence from governments which are either socialist, dictatorships, monarchies, and (goes with some of that territory), theocracies (i.e., have designated national religions).

Something is ALWAYS “lost in translation” when compromising to align across family court jurisdictions the practices and definitions of “due process” and rights of men (as opposed to!) women, or according to race, religion, etc. over the centuries and decades.  The international alignment is (my opinion, based on information obtained over almost a decade in writing this blog, networking, and researching about twice as much as I ever post!) more for the benefit of corporations than individuals, flesh-and-blood human beings who can only occupy one physical place at a time, and have more limited lifespans than corporations can through succession have. (**Search blog for: “bypassing sovereignty”# “David Mitrany” “Reorganization Authority”# or more recently, “FamiliesChange” posts.  I even have two pages on it as well as posts).  

{{Below are three images, not one large “composite” one.  Click on the first image to enlarge, click again to move direct to the next, for better viewing.}}

Above three images: I blogged several of the above phrases in earlier years, and “Family Court Enhancement Project” initially on June 29, 2014, after which I took a necessary and long (1-½ years) break from posting anything here, though at the time I’d hoped to follow through.

House Resolution 72 is more recent.  For now, I include some images and description for FCEP and House Res. 72 on this post.

FYI: These were not the main topic of this post a month ago.  I’m starting with this because of their importance, because a recent comment on this blog indicated someone is already to legally protest “Family Court Enhancement Project” (estimated start time, 2008?), which reminds me of how lawsuits against the “Family Justice Center” in San Diego (also alleged, and along similar themes, to be preventing domestic violence) started within a year or two of its formation –despite it having been officially endorsed by the USDOJ as a great model under then-President George W. (not “H.W.”) Bush, that is, around 2003.

---

These buzz-words come (typically and broadly summarized) from both <A> sources which, though still private sector nonprofits are obviously associated closely with government and civil servants (i.e., membership organizations where the membership is prominently and by business name, JUDGES or COURTS) and <B>sources positioned as if NOT associated with government or similarly powerful interests (by size of nonprofit and small circle of named spokespersons).  The advantage of the latter group is pleading “victim” or concern for victim, “the little guys against the big guys.”  

The latter group is essentially peddling the same version as the former, but cutting out a personal piece of the pie as their own experts’ “turf.” This turf while not exactly the same as the “domestic violence” advocacy groups in coordinated networks with each other, has overlapping territory and personnel and similar approaches to “the problem.”

The “House Resolution 72” result uniquely satisfies both sources in that it further entrenches the family courts as federally regulated venues (while still under state jurisdiction) and “conveniently” fails to address major HHS and DOJ federal funding already in place which, combined also with significant similarly-directed private funding (tax-exempt foundations) is a tangible source of the chaos and, if you will, conflict, in the family courts.

In doing this it also trends towards putting more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, which in some places is simply called dictatorship. These people do not really believe in government, due process, or legal jurisdictions established under the Constitution of the United States.   Representative government as a concept when and where it might mean limits on their positions within or influencing it is just discarded; that being credited with representing the interests of a certain class of individuals bears NO relationship to any process involving elections or involving accountability to those these individuals, some following, some leading in networked nonprofits of vastly varying sizes, allegedly represent.   Collectively the behavior has been more like that of cults or gangs than responsible representatives of an entire class of individuals the “raison d’etre” speaks to.  I’m not naming names in every single paragraph, but have specific organizations in mind, most of which are discussed over time on this blog with (where available) tax returns shown.  In making that last statement (in dark red font) I am NOT discrediting any individual claims of harm, distress, trauma, or abuse suffered through the family courts by individuals who may choose to associate.

BUT I challenge EVERYONE (not just battered mothers, not just noncustodial fathers, EVERYONE including non-parents, and married people) to acquire a better level of understanding of how to look up, quickly assess, and categorize where it starts interacting with local, state (county) or especially federal government agencies, nonprofit tax returns. In doing so, you’ll quickly also see the current state of reporting (databases available) on the same, which are — in a word — extensive, but unreliable and inconsistently used by those inputting or uploading data to them, and by those maintaining the public-access databases themselves. I have examples of some of the largest (a basic search with NO names entered) from one such database, below on this post.  This should eventually lead to independent letters of inquiry on the same, and (ideally) posting or publicizing both letters and any answers on-line for others to see.

House Resolution 72 (U.S. 115th Congress), I plan to post on separately, except to note on these next images from Congress.gov two consistencies it contains seen throughout the reform/protect/set guidelines on child maltreatment (&/or domestic violence) movements.  Other than these brief comments near the images (and on one of them), I’m taking a “time-out” on this one, for my own psychological reasons — It’s so “off,” and as paragraphs above and post title indicate, is being backed by individuals who also are.   I’ve seen it coming for years, but not had the resources to counteract the immoral but convincingly empathetic (sponsored) testimonies posted alongside proposed solutions as suits the agenda of associated individuals behind it (who I believe are exploiting distressed parents for personal advancements — not legitimately concerned about their realities and safety. These individuals have, in fact, been willing to sacrifice truth for publicity (from the start).  Unlike most of those parents, for the pushiest leadership of said groups, it’s been a living and a market niche which could possibly be “dominated” without confronting the REALLY powerful and fundamental forces behind so-called (I call them this at least) “family court fiascoes” (individual case results) and the venue itself.

HouseResolutn72@Congress’gov (115thCongress, Bill Summary)

For now, and “for the record,” I object to House Resolution 72’s (and any legislation either in the Senate or at State levels mirroring it) because it:

(1) Insists (without reference to ANY supporting assessments) that child safety WITHIN the family courts is a viable and legitimate goal,

(2) Omits that Family Courts also negatively affect parental/maternal/ or paternal safety not even on the radar, thus playing it safe politically*

[[*..and thus following patterns started back in the 1980s for nonprofits and for FVPSA and for many fathers’ rights groups re-purposed as “children’s rights” groups after the 1970s feminist calls for civil rights for women, too.]]

HouseResolutn72@Congress’gov (115thCongress, Bill Summary), with my indignant annotations. Proofreading Correctn to Top Comment: “politically viable” should be “politically VOLATILE.” (my “word-o”|uncorrected it reverses my intended meaning!). The pink underline (mid-image) should also cover “perpetrators” on following line, to the end of that sentence.

(3) Seeks to create more specialized professionals and pay or incentivize them with more public funds to detect and address abuse (see annotated image below).  As did the Family Court Enhancement Project already….

and,

(4) Continues an existing uniform, unilateral derailment of any purposeful consideration of the economics | built-in-by-design conflicts of interest typical of a typical family court jurisdiction.

These courts CAN be understood conceptually and from historic development AND through the lens of private nonprofit associations (often highly active in regions and states targeted by the “family court reform” personnel), such as the AFCC who have claimed to basically be running them, and whose members historically include primary categories of personnel working in the courts (including administrators) AND even law professors coaching next-generation family lawyers how to think about “high-conflict” parents and “insufficient resources” for these courts.

House Resolution 72 and those individuals I’m aware of (so far) promoting it and taking proud credit for it, telling others to support on their websites (so far I have only found two, but those are significant ones in the protective mothers (so-called) movement, though not large ones) bypass the difficult analyses above by simply rejecting it.  When I for YEARS blogged “ex-communicado” for not collaborating with the same, making it impossible to completely ignore (as did other intelligent men and women both, before me), eventually (estimated time, not before 2013, 2015) some acknowledgment has trickled through, but without any acknowledgement of this blog, and in attempt to STILL commandeer the communications.

 

In short, this latest House Resolution 72 is (in my opinion, above) it’s a distraction for political credibility purposes, and caters to the advocacy groups in continuing to censor major federal incentives to keep the gender war going, and then claim children are endangered when “both” parents aren’t consistently involved — while the family courts, as many know, will on short notice, tolerate COMPLETE cutoff of one parent from contact with her (or his) children overnight – and then suggest expensive treatment plans to reunify them (search this blog — or the web — for “Stable Paths” workshops, or Reunification Camps, etc.)

---

Searched April 2018 (“to be continued — and detailed”). Embedding ignorance in training for DV advocate inside the family courts, etc. (I’ll explain that comment separately, or for example, read the 3rd search result above carefully.  Familiarity with people and groups (such as NOMAS.org, or Mr. Goldstein and others) over time who have with “BMCC” (a repeating conference, not a nonprofit) been pushing certain POV on the Crisis in the Courts, through publishing, consulting, conferencing and networking (and some are also professors, though not all) will help.

Other commonalities with this latest House Resolution 72 introduced last summer in the U.S. Congress and earlier “family court reform” movements including (but not limited to) the Family Court Enhancement Project, Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference  (BMCC) key presenters and organizers over the years, Mothers of Lost Children, California Protective Parents Association, The Leadership Council on Interpersonal Violence and Abuse (etc.) and some of the favorite male spokespersons for some of the above (Barry Goldstein**, Lundy Bancroft)  include who’s been pushing for these and demonstrating their utter commitment to purposes 1,2, 3 and 4 above, despite any evidence to the contrary, including plenty of those so pushing for this solution are well aware of what critical elements influencing the family courts are ignored in the proposed solutions. At least the leadership has been, for (generally speaking) a decade or two, and for some (within the more classic domestic violence “industry” leadership), even longer….

** Who consistently promoted Daniel Saunders, PhD at (?) University of Michigan for his “scientific evidence” on how custody evaluators failed to account for domestic violence ca. 2011 (that’s by recall, but is searchable on this blog), but meanwhile wouldn’t talk about AFCC, and had no interest in such phenomena as “fatherhood.gov”  or healthymarriage.org websites — or in general, federal HHS grants targeting the family court decision-making processes!! — even a cursory exploration of which would lead to VALUABLE information on this venue as related to federal incentives.

Marin Independent Journal 4/5/2018 Opinion piece (in “Marin Voice”) by Kathleen Russell” Image #2/2.  FN1 I also wonder whether a UK film-maker is aware (or if so, would report) on the US HHS federal incentives to remove children from non-abusive mothers to increase noncustodial parent (a.k.a. “fathers” generally) under the rationale that it’s better for society and will reduce public reliance on welfare by motivating fathers to pay their child support.. (at least as originally sold to Congress) FN2 in this presentation, women & mothers don’t abuse (not shown: the 58,000 children a year sound-byte is included, below). .

Image #1/2 (in FCM post published 4-21-2018) Click image to enlarge or here for article (so long as link is valid on publication).

[FN3]

---

“FCEP” based on who and what is involved in it, should be understood as “system self-correct without putting all the cards on the table” while formerly more popular (and has been turned into a book sold on Amazon) “Broken Courts Initiative” incorporates the concept that the courts once weren’t broken (and neatly bypasses what happened when to knock them off course) could be fixed somehow, and rejects the concept that they were structured by those who (quite honestly) didn’t give a damn if it was a means to a larger desired social goal – – such as more work for mental health professionals and lawyers, and public funding to go with it.

Note: Project funded by a USDOJ (OVW) grant, as presented at “NAWJ” (National Association of Woman Judges), with both Judge Susan B. Carbon (formerly Director of OVW and its major discretionary grants funding) + Loretta Frederick “BWJP” (which operated under a “parent organization” for decades until separating itself, finally, only in 2013 just in time to be one of the chosen favorites for this project. Judge Carbon had also been a family court judge in New Hampshire prior to her time on OVW. “NCJFCJ” meanwhile is a judicial membership organization (501©3) based (mostly) in Nevada

“FCEP” is being coordinated “NCJFCJ” but its partners included BWJP (barely incorporated in 2013, formerly part of another organization in DuluthMN), two parts OF the USDOJ, and “Center for Court Innovation” which isn’t a business OR government entity, but a center at a blended operations for both. The PRIVATE part of “CCI” is the (1968ff) Ford-funded “Fund for the City of New York” and the PUBLIC part is the NYS Unified Court System. On a closer look, grants probably go to &/or through NCJFCJ, but directly to the test site courts, and in the process are creating more FT jobs to “Navigate” the project, at least so found at the Multnomah County, Oregon website.

---

The “Family Court Enhancement Project.”  What a Joke!!  (Oct. 2015 Presentation names Judge Susan B. Carbon of NCJFCJ, formerly Director of the Office of Violence Against Women, before that a family court judge in, as I recall, New Hampshire (or VT) and Loretta Frederick of Battered Women’s Justice Project. Posted at “AFCCnet.org” another “FCEP Guiding Principles” (funded by a USDOJ OVW Grant) below explains how the project works and who are its national partners, although one of them is not named properly (is not, literally an entity but a joint project between a major tax-exempt foundation and the entire NYS Unified Court System).  They want to “triage” custody and parenting time with domestic violence issues

---

Regarding “FCEP” — Click HERE to view. I found uploaded “July 20 2017” (within the url indicators) at AFCCnet.org, but not as AFCC’s work (See three logos on image).

More “FCEP Websites again list at least three participants in the “Guiding Principles” document (again one being the giant Center for Court Innovation or “CCI” in NY).   This document (as found on the organization “AFCC’s” website) doesn’t on this page at least reference any component of the United States Federal Government (i.e., the USDOJ) being a “partner” — funder yes, partner, no —  of FCEP which NCJFCJ is coordinating….

Notice the “Values List” that for one of the Guiding Principle #1, judges are encouraged to read the “BWJP framework.”  And, as ever, “Collaboration” (“multi-disciplinary” solutions) is a key component.   Guiding Principle #6 (not imaged — see link) includes to continue pushing for alternate dispute resolution (mediation, etc.) services to “Expedite” hearings where children or others might be in danger.

“Accountability and transparency” as the fifth “underlying value” from groups which can’t, don’t, or won’t even properly name and categorize themselves (year after year) or provide the public (as to the USDOJ) ONE comprehensive, reliable and functional database of grants awarded, searchable in “multidisciplinary” ways (other than by year only or award program only, in other words not defeating research on specific awardees receiving many different grants), is beyond hypocritical – – it’s laughable. Or would be if not on such a serious subject matter affecting people’s lives and whether to help shorten violently or prolong, functionally and as human beings, their life-spans.

Promotes a “BWJP Framework for identifying, understanding, and accounting for abuse” and that pilot site “judicial officers, court staff, attorneys, advocates, and other stakeholders have received consistent training on the BWJP framework.”  Thus understanding who/what BWJP is and has been over time, and that mistakenly portraying it (year after a year) by mutual consent as if a business entity when it wasn’t — misleads the public, who funds it. That this has been taking place is an alert on the USDOJ itself, as well as ALL others involved, unfortunately this includes participating judges and their participating membership associations…

---

Typically, these terms attempt to (and successfully) litter the field of vision with obstacles to discussing or even considering statements of the problem which don’t conform to solutions those using them are historically determined to pursue, chief of which is typically promoting certain (small) circle of professionals and the often-referenced nonprofits or quasi-nonprofits (names implying there is some legitimate registered entity associated) as technical consultants (experts on family court reform).

For example, one of the largest such assumption is that family courts were ever designed somehow to protect people (especially children), but just consistently fails to do so.  Really?  Another is that family courts should be handling criminal matters such as domestic violence.  

Or that they even should’ve been formed in the first place!

Literally, one has to start understanding government itself other than through the classic myths, historic propaganda on progressive (or conservative) movements, childhood understandings, or currently popular rhetoric posing as analysis with pre-determined solutions proposed (i.e., “selling hope” “redeeming the institution…”).  

(From “Scientific Advertising” quoting Wikipedia, w/ some extra images).Pls. click to Enlarge, Albert D. Lasker, 1888-1952, note his father just happened to be president of several banks; move to Chicago, became partner of Lord & Thomas at only age 32…

LET’S TALK (and “Get Honest”) ABOUT THAT!

Unfortunately — for some (very fortunately for a whole other sector of professionals and business owners and so-called “thought leaders”) –a lot of social policy originates in public relations (the art of propaganda), whether in persuading the population to get behind (another) war (starting with World War I, as to the 1900s), or to stop smoking, or to consent to universal taxation under the concept that it helps equalize the gap between the rich and the poor and empowers the people– still. “In other words, UNinformed, engineered consent preferred.”

This is bound to affect (compromise) justice and due process sooner or later. Right now, I’m seeing it’s about a century later than some of the key institutions and sponsored professions set in place to perfect the art of manipulating the public into the illusion that they (it, we, whichever perspective works for you!) are informed.  This keeps them (it, us) occupied arguing pro-con a limited menu of choices, while the REAL work of transforming government (away from) the informed consent model — that is to say, representative government — can continue with less interference for lack of understanding who — or more accurately, WHAT — is in control (running the place) — and how.

PLS. CLICK TO ENLARGE (or click link to access): Summary of Lasker Papers from OAC (Online Archives of California): over 4,000 boxes. Note the brand names (Pepsodent, Palmolive, Kleenex, Kotex) cigarette brands (Lucky Strikes) and that in 1921 he was head of Shipping Board appointed by Pres. Harding)

(I’m thinking particularly of “Freud’s Nephew” (Edward Bernays, “the father of public relations”(2015 article) and of, more recently, ad agency giant Albert D. Lasker (“Scientific Advertising” which just quotes Wiki) and his third wife Mary Lasker, whose work (particularly as she outlived him for four decades) in setting up, pushing for and promoting ongoing expansion of the NIH, getting the National Cancer Act passed (1971), and so forth.

March 10, 2002 article on Bernays: “How Freud Got Under Our Skin” under “Education” in “The Guardian.”  See nearby image (annotated) for post-World War II relevance, and even a reference to (mid-1990s) the Clinton (in the UK, Blair) Administration, Dick Morris, and appealing to marginal groups rather than key issues like tax and healthcare reform

Guardian.com, 3/2/2002 How Freud Got Under Our Skin (article on, actually, Bernays) See last para in image: SIGNIFICANCE: This is 1996. “WELFARE REFORM” w/ attn to “Focus on the Family” (marriage/fatherhood) issues (and funding) was indeed passed. Dick Morris (like Clinton) also was Rhodes scholar, i.e., Univ. of Oxford mentoring — significant..

From advertisers to politicians, everyone wants to appeal to our sense of Self. And, as a new TV series shows, it was Sigmund Freud’s nephew who turned the analysis of our subconscious into a boom industry: PR

Dick Morris as Clinton advisor, “The Clinton Years” 2000 PBS Frontline Intvw (re 1996 elections, Triangulation, Hegelian concept from Oxford, Thesis-AntiThesis-Synthesis)|| (the rest of my fine-print comment at bottom) “NOT MENTIONED HERE : Balance Sheets — Collectived owned, income-producing investments of the US Gov’t. When BOTH Thesis & Antithesis focus on “Deficit / Budget” the public is distracted from total assets owned, and how they are accounted for, what revenues (through investments) they are actually producing. I.e., from reading the CAFRs that politicians DO have access to and know about”.

Dick Morris PBS Frontline Interview”The Clinton Years“, section from 1995 (search the word “triangulation” to find).  June, 2000 interview by Chris Bury (annotated image nearby).  Relevance: Relates to the time of Welfare Reform (1996) a major topic within this blog because of its funding of programs targeting single mothers and driving funds into public relations campaigns for BOTH favored Progressive (or Democrat) and Conservative (Republican) causes, which essentially continues to profit the service providers..and maintin the status quo of public ignorance on what is a financial statement representing government holdings, activities, and cash flow (and from there, actual needs).

He as much as admits that both parties would rather talk about deficit and budget because it works come election time, than address it.  From a different perspective, I remind us that for ANY organization, or organizations (or, government entities, large (Federal, state) or smaller (County AND regional, i.e., Joint Power Authorities, etc.) operating collectively, a budget is not the whole — it’s a planning and “control” document.  Only financial statements (done honestly) show “the whole” as can be seen in miniature by taking some and looking at them!

You can get a taste of the levels of influence from two images from “The Mary Lasker Papers” found at NLM.NIH.Gov.  Pardon all the underlining, but notice how “money speaks” and the major changes after World War II, and — where this starts to connect more specifically to the family court matters — that psychiatrist Karl Menninger was also a Lasker awardee, and Mary Lasker’s wealthy (through marriage) connections, i.e., to an heir of the Cox newspaper business (Florence Mahoney) and the ability to hire a journalist (Mike Gorman), bring paid-for (Lasker Awardee) “expert witnesses” to call for increased funding, before Congress, coaching witnesses without the pedigrees how to speak, cultivating long-term relationships with Congressmen, etc., has had a major influence in who and what the US is today and how it operates.

Starting personally on the [negatively] “receiving end” of the family courts and a clear disregard for criminal behavior by one (not both) parents as even halfway relevant in a custody decision, and looking backwards into who designed them (and after which model), I was forced to (that is logically) look into and at the prominent role of psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis and “mental health” forces throughout the 1900s setting the stage for their formation, actually in the last quarter (or less) of the 20th century (1975-2000s).

Naturally, the Lasker wealth (like others’) was poured into tax-exempt foundations, but her main purpose was ensuring the U.S. Government poured funds into her causes.  She wanted universal healthcare, but “settled” for a huge federally-funded biomedical research (grantmaking) infrastructure with special focus on things which had affected her personally (Cancer — Albert Lasker died from it), and Birth Control (later “Planned Parenthood”), and of course, Mental Health.

The Mary Lasker Papers (from profiles.NLM.nih.gov)#1 of 2. I have posted this in context of big tobacco litigation, as I recall in 2017). See also her bio section (Lasker was nearly 60–nearly 20 yrs older– when they met).

Mary Lasker Papers at NLM.NHI.gov. Mike Gorman as journalist also profiled there as is John E. Fogarty. Note (from that link) he was over House Appropriations Subcommittee on DOL and “Federal Security Agency,” which I know from my background looking at HHS grants and history, later became (1953) the HEW from which HHS + the USDOE split in 1980

Notice even this gov’t site put “citizen” witnesses in quotes when referring to researcher Sidney Farber (1903-1973, NCBI.nlm.NIH Tribute / Biography) and psychiatrist Karl Meninger (1893-1990, Bio from Washburn.edu, Topeka Institute for Psychiatry [Quote1 below] , NYT Obituary [Quote 2 below] which called him the “elder statesman of American psychiatry”), and (bottom of Mary Lasker Papers, Image #2) that she coached less renowned witnesses (regardless of their ability to articulate) to use plainer speech and more passion. Remember also that the field her famous husband had mastered was advertising, and the art of persuasion (sales)…These were to U.S. Congress to massively expand what is now the HHS sector.

Both Sidney Farber and Karl Menninger graduated from Harvard Medical School (at different times), with Farber’s first year however, having been in German universities before transferring there (see bio links provided above).

Quote 1 (from Washburn University biography)

[Dr. Karl Meninger] eventually graduated cum laude from Harvard Medical School in 1917. Dr. Karl became interested in psychiatry and mental health during his medical internship at Boston Psychopathic Hospital where he met his mentor, Elmer Ernest Southard. It was Southard who encouraged Karl to consider the mental health needs of children.

Dr. Karl returned to Topeka and began practicing medicine with his father. Together the two opened the Menninger Diagnostic Clinic in 1919. By 1925, the two doctors opened the Menninger Sanitarium, a private facility that served as an alternative to state hospitalization. After securing the services of his younger brother, William Menninger, The Menninger Foundation was created, offering a variety of mental health services and programs for both adults and children. Dr. Karl also helped to establish, with collaboration from the federal government, the Winter VA Hospital, whose potential as a training ground for students of psychiatry became the impetus for the creation of the Karl Menninger School of Psychiatry.

Quote 2 (from NYT obit)

He was a crusader for many causes, including neglected and abused children, prisoners, American Indians and wildlife.

A Father Figure, Without a Paddle One of the first physicians in the United States to receive psychoanalytic training, he held certificate No. 1 from the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. But his views sometimes ran counter to accepted Freudian wisdom

When it comes to the field of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychiatry (and corresponding mental and behavioral health), obviously due to the persuasion necessary (versus brute force of government ONLY), those fields’ origins are closely tied to commandeering organized military behavior for war efforts.  Both fields had plenty of people to observe and practice / learn upon after each war.  Consider also the chemical industries’ major prosperity due to war efforts, and thereafter, turning some of this expertise (and massive resources) as well into what is now the pharmaceutical industries. Four screenprints here from Chemical & Engineering News (“gallery” format allows click any image to enlarge + to navigate direct to others using arrows provided).

The tempting (marketing) prospects of influence and development of ongoing revenues from the population as a whole has been and remains massive.

In looking at the family courts fairly, and historically as developed NOT that long ago in many states, to be honest one HAS to admit they combine law and behavioral health/psychology, two VERY powerful interests with an emphasis on giving more power to the behavioral health/psychological assessments and evaluations part (the profession of law already had this power!).  For example, consider the operational size (though they are organized differently) of the American Bar Association and the American Psychological Association.  (…which I also did — and showed tax returns of — on this blog some years back).  Anything which by market sector is going to affect nearly ALL of the massive United States of America and its territories (and its military population) is going to be HUGE and a tempting target to market to.

The family court divisions under the state court jurisdictions — and these courts’ “fauna and flora” as typified by coordinated efforts of significant tax-exempt organizations** judges lawyers and psychologists (and family court services administrators) tend to join as members, are still fairly recent developments.  Some, only in the 1990s.  They seem to have sprung out of earlier “juvenile courts” and associations, which organizations (some of them) only date to the 1970s.

**such as the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the later “National Association of Counsel for Children (“NACC”)  when combined with — only more recently — other organizations (tax-exempt of course!) focused on protection from or (so-called) “prevention” of domestic violence or child abuse — often but not only those deriving their mainstay revenues from federal departments of Health and Human Services or the Department of Justice — such as “Futures without Violence, Inc.” in San Francisco (Legal domicile), or “Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (“PCADV”) and (smaller in size but still well-connected) Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) in Minnesota are continuously emphasizing the involvement of psychological and mental health professionals in judging in which parent’s (or relatives’ or non-relatives’) households children grow up, and when parents do not marry or stay married, who pays whom — these major organizations seek standardized operations, procedures, standards, and to promote as much involvement of their trained professionals in as many families’ lives as possible.

In summary, and having looked also at so many tax-exempt foundations’ IRS returns also, I saw that none of these approach in size any of the major privately controlled foundations — whose assets are typically counted in the billions, not millions, and there are many of such size.

None of the above are even in the $100M total gross assets size.  The largest one mentioned above, as I recall, is Futures without Violence, currently showing about $40M in its latest available (on “990finder”) database.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Government’s assets (and annual revenues) are counted in the trillions {{documented from US Treasury AFR in my most recent — Sept. 8, 2018 — post.  Look for the colorful annotated images..}}

To search by EIN#s:  MacArthur Foundation ($6B+ FYE 2015) EIN#237093598, Chicago | Ford Foundation, The filing a 990PF in NY ($12B FYE___) EIN#131684331 and there is an $888M Ford Family Foundation (TFFF.org, FYE2014) EIN#936026156, contribtns from “Estate of Hallie E. Ford) in Oregon |

**The above list is casual, off the top of my head, and doesn’t include ANY of the above tax-exempt nonprofits’ spinoff and networked organizations (and there are many!), or ANY of those dedicated more specifically towards prevention of Child Abuse (whether or not separated parents are involved).

**The above list doesn’t even include those more specifically and originally focused on juveniles (such as The Juvenile Law Center in Pennsylvania, lead agency in the state for MacArthur Foundation’s “Models for Change,” and often associated with Luzerne County “Kids for Cash” class action lawsuits) or such as the “National Council on Crime and Delinquency” which is now located in Oakland, California, but coincidentally has a “Children’s Research Center” subdivision in Madison, Wisconsin with (almost) “spitting distance” of the AFCC headquarters, judging by street address.

• The NCCD caught my attention years ago when a NY-based “Children’s Rights, Inc.” which had made the habit of systematically suing child welfare agencies in various states contracted with NCCD across the continent in California.  California requires charities to produce annual “RRFs” which report (or are supposed to report!) their “government grants” — providing agency, address, telephone number, and contact person.  To my surprise, “NCCD” was taking “government grants” from several different continents (and from Canada on this continent) AND states — a truly new interpretation of “government grants” designation on a state charitable registry intended to protect US (and California especially) residents from fraud by soliciting charities.
• A comment from a distressed reader in Georgia led me to that information (!)

“Etc.”

Reminder, you have just been reading this post:

In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)  (case-sensitive short-link ends “-8Ly”; about 7,900 words).

Link from the top of this post to the most previous post, also marked “sticky” and will remain near top of this blog underneath this one.

. . .

Link from the top of this post to a related page published about a week earlier: