Title w/ shortlink & date published (Feb. 1, 2023 update).  I see this post is nearly 16,000 words long; some of this is quotations.

“Someone Got This Evidence. You Could Too. What’s the Follow-Up Plan? (Connecticut AFCC/pt.2) [1st Publ. May 3, 2013, w/Jan.2017 update].” (Shortlink ends “-1I4” where the middle character is an an upper case “I” as in “Idaho”).

The dark-blue background, small print section (box) below is an update.

In it I quote from a recent find which was referenced at the bottom of this post as to Connecticut’s Fatherhood Initiative, “Male Information Network” and involved nonprofit, “New Haven Family Alliance.” I don’t even remember from three years ago how this one related to the post’s topic focused more on AFCC filings and dealings, at the time.

I was, I know, attempting to get people to pay more attention to those on the Fatherhood Collaborations as “just perhaps” relating to why mothers, painfully in some high-profile cases, continued to lose ground, often at the hands of other women in power in the court system, to fathers who had been accused of molestation or other abuse.  See post title.

I still don’t see any sensible follow-up plan on the original expose, nor is the expose anywhere close to finished.  I’m approaching burn-out age (if the public doesn’t care about this, I don’t care about the public, let’s each protect our own behinds and screw public interest and responsible citizenhood as characterized by taking a serious interest in learning how to follow public money as it is funneled into and blended with private partnerships.  Let’s all continue behaving like children, as we have been coached to, instead of like adults, let alone like business-owners who demand from those they have hired to work for them an account of their FINANCIAL activities.  As well as CHECKS AND BALANCES to ensure ACCOUNTING is REASONABLE…IF the relationship of citizen to government is anywhere close to government is still allegedly the servant and service-provider.)

In my personal situation, currently, I have been fighting two full years to get ahold of a certain paper trail and suffered significantly for even daring to ask.  I lost permanent rental housing and have been threatened with a lawsuit after (and I believe in retaliation for) reporting rat infestation, substandard structural condition, and in general, a slumlord.  I was unable even to obtain rental receipts. [This para. Must be 2017 re: events which took place AFTER this post was first published//LGH 1 Feb. 2023].

ALL parties involved, including me, knew that once that housing was commandeered, almost anything else would go and if it comes to court (an expense I least of all could afford to bear, being elderly and with an already compromised work history — see family court litigation, child-stealing, child support arrears (for what it was worth — about $15,000 at the time, but significant to what we had available) retroactively reduced in a deceptive manner, repeatedly being forced onto food stamps needlessly, and having no more viable contact with ANY family member) I would become homeless.

Meanwhile I’d been forced to watch one of my children not make it into college surrounding all this, the other one go through college (and now I hear into graduate school even), but at the cost of any viable relationship with her own mother (me) and instead being made dependent upon an aunt and uncle whose agenda by then had been shown as over time, “taking out” this mother, i.e., me.  Apparently I was in the way of their plans for a supplemental inheritance, in addition to one they received outright (one of the couple was my sibling, but both profited from control of (if not direct possession to spend at will as their own) my portion of inheritance.  NO legal process declaring me somehow incompetent to manage my own affairs was involved; such a process likely would’ve failed if our life histories, work histories, college track records etc. had been compared.

If anyone thinks this is (in the macro) appropriate behavior for those controlling others’ assets in a position of TRUST (as government is supposed to be doing with, in particular, the Social Security Trust fund and ALL its assets and holdings) then they’re such a person may be masochistically “into” a slave/master relationship. In some VERY real ways, that’s how this country began — with indentured servants and slaves — and that’s how it will continue until the ability to demand and understand accounts** becomes, like basic literacy and at least SOME comprehension of history timelines, common property.

**Awareness of in what ways governments are supposed to ACCOUNT for that which they’ve extracted from or we have given them (via taxation and fees for services, for starters).  Not just basic numeric sense, but a concept of “how things work” and “how things are reported” financially.

Also, all people ought to be able to handle some truly difficult subject matter — the position of religious institutions within the economy, and as tax-exempt (private, ability to conceal assets, transactions) and extremely privileged compared to others, because of this historic status.  For example, the US. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is now pouring millions of dollars directly into churches (not just “faith-based organizations,” itself an oxymoron).

[This paragraph added only April, 2023, may (or may not..) clarify my points of reference above:]

I have seen it and have reported periodically on it:  See “Welfare Reform” (Social Security Act revisions 1996 forward) to promote “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” as a national priority under “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and (essentially, as though RELIGIOUS institutions needed more of this…) getting uninvolved or “in-arrears” (on child support) fathers, aka men, more involved with their children (that’s a reference to Access-Visitation grants handled, administered, through the HHS/ACF/OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and authorized under “Title IV-D” of the revised Social Security Act.

All people — everyone individually whether a person of faith, or not a person of faith — should become willing and competent to address some [of this] difficult subject matter and acknowledge they ought to understand some basic economics and government funding…  We must not just balance our own household or family budgets, but (conceptually) also realize what goes into a financial statements and think about which ones we read (of local, state, and federal government entities, or of non-profits they deal directly with, or which deal with topics of interest in concern) mean. [Paragraph copyedited some, 4/2023].

I can’t think of anything more childish and inappropriate than arguing policy without looking at the economy.  Looking at the economy involves looking at tax returns that intersect with government, where they even exist.  This IS an organizing principle that could be generated easily, locally, among individuals, however, as to religious influence, religious people’s non-work time is often already being organized for them around home-based fellowships, and serving as marketeers (unpaid) for internet-marketed books by pastors and others, and volunteering This marketing scheme as religious service parallels, very closely, what welfare funding has been promoting as social service through HHS around the “family values” issue, and some overlap of materials, too.

Collective interest in doing a little homework on this topic remains LOW. Change probably requires a detox from certain types of social media and personal awareness of (attention to) what we are (individually) feeding into the  human CPU, i.e., our own thought-life.  It requires self-discipline up to a point where the motivation (the more you see, the more you understand) can keep that drive going…

[It seems this did not happen in Connecticut, at a wide enough scale, on these topics…  That’s why all the exhortation above. //LGH 4/11/2023]

MORE SPECIFICALLY TO CONNECTICUT (back on topic of post title…)

I just now [2016?] looked up the “New Haven (Connecticut, obviously) Family Alliance” tax returns, which I hadn’t three years ago (not main topic of that post) and found this below..

After the publication I’m quoting below (and posting on again in 2016), ca. 2012, this organization quietly phased itself out of existence — or at least of filing tax returns. Don’t let the relatively modest “Total Assets” fool you — in the most recent year shown, “Total Receipts” — nearly all of it (Page I, Part I, Line 8, “Contributions and grants” — were $1.5 Million. Of those, $1.4M were “Government grants.”

WHERE DID ALL THIS MONEY GO?  Passing it On as grants to other individuals or organizations?  Direct help to families?  Well, not really.  They claimed 13 board members, and 52 employees and most of the money went to employees.  For what services, exactly, apparently whoever filled out the tax return couldn’t be bothered to describe in detail. Take a look:

(Code ) (Expenses $ 1,240,533 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $. )
Case management services, family preservation and reunification services, Male Involvement Network, community based fitness services

Search Again

WE ARE TALKING, THIS TIME, in CONNECTICUT, as a reminder, it’s right near NYC. 

Older map of Connecticut show it right opposite Long Island, with Rhode Island to the Right, New York to the left, and New Jersey just a SHORT distance (through NY) away:

This map is from Wikipedia on “Connecticut” (an interesting read, particularly the section on “ECONOMY:”

Taxation[edit]

Before 1991, Connecticut had an investment-only income tax system. Income from employment was untaxed, but income from investments was taxed at 13%, the highest rate in the U.S., with no deductions allowed for costs of producing the investment income, such as interest on borrowing.

In 1991, under Governor Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., an Independent, the system was changed to one in which the taxes on employment income and investment income were equalized at a maximum rate of 4%. The new tax policy drew investment firms to Connecticut; as of 2014, Fairfield County was home to the headquarters for 14 of the 200 largest hedge funds in the world.^[137]

---

Connecticut’s per capita personal income in 2013 was estimated at $60,847, the highest of any state.^[132]There is, however, a great disparity in incomes throughout the state; after New York, Connecticut had the second largest gap nationwide between the average incomes of the top 1 percent and the average incomes of the bottom 99 percent.^[133] According to a 2013 study by Phoenix Marketing International, Connecticut had the third-largest number of millionaires per capita in the United States, with a ratio of 7.32 percent.^[134] New Canaan is the wealthiest town in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $85,459. Darien, Greenwich, Weston, Westport and Wilton also have per capita incomes over $65,000. Hartford is the poorest municipality in Connecticut, with a per capita income of $13,428 in 2000.^{[135]{how is a 2000 estimate in reference to a 2013 finding relevant?  No one studied Hartford per capita income since then?).}

HARTFORD COUNTY also, incidentally, and per Wikipedia, is home to, religiously speaking the Roman Catholic Archdiocese (of Hartford — over two other Dioceses, it says) AND the largest Protestant Church in New England, referring I believe to a building. Wiki previously explained that the state (per a self-reported survey) is 60% Christian, if you combine Catholic and Protestant.  MIGHT this have anything to do with its views on the roles of women, children, divorce, marriage, and how to handle reports of child molestation by fathers (or priests)?

Recent immigration has brought other non-Christian religions to the state, but the numbers of adherents of other religions are still low. Connecticut is also home to New England’s largest Protestant Church: The First Cathedral in Bloomfield, Connecticut located in Hartford County. Hartford is seat to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford, which is sovereign over the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Diocese of Norwich.

FIRST CATHEDRAL in BLOOMFIELD formerly First Baptist, 15th-oldest historically black church in the city.

Originally known as The 1st Baptist Church in Hartford, Connecticut,^[1] The First Cathedral is the fifteenth oldest historically black church founded in the city of Hartford, Connecticut; and the third congregation to be known as The First Baptist Church of Hartford, Connecticut.^[2] The phrase The First Cathedral is used colloquially to refer to the Christian ministry based in Bloomfield, Connecticut as well as the edifice in which the ministry is held.

The pastor is Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr.

---

These updates to my own older posts are starting to become a frequent addition to some of my older posts which, despite their lack of technical blogging skills, I believe still “nail” (as in “hit the nail on the head” in identifying) strategic and organizational conflicts of interests in the courts, affecting the courts, and through them, affecting the public’s wisdom in even assuming that our public institutions are any more free from privatization and through privatization (with its accompanying complexity of networked interests), the potential for bribery and/or corruption THROUGHOUT the system, and ENTRENCHED WITHIN the system as essential, basic practice.
Three years later, I am now more specific in identifying specific elements, by proper categories, as major sources of undue influence on the courts: whether center within private universities (whose funding cannot be properly tracked), nonprofits (whose funding COULD be tracked by the public, but generally won’t be, case in point, as I’m complaining about here), public agency funding (and public ignorance on how to read governmental financial reports). The line between public and private is well-blurred, and when that happens, the massive coordinated wealth — and this wealth is indeed coordinated when it comes to private tax-exempt foundations of the huge size (Ford Foundation, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, and plenty of others) working through increasingly massive COMMUNITY Foundations (referring to regional, metro areas typically) and availing themselves of sources of federal funding that the public remains unaware of. Apparently there are resources to spare if all these organizations — instead of the public at large — continue to get them year after year after year). LGH/2016.

---

Reader Alert — I Just Tossed the Attempt to Tame this Post… [6/3/2013]

I have continued to find such disturbing information (particularly in the Connecticut Judiciary), which connects, very deeply, to long-term trends (economic trends that is), that I have been unable to complete the post without (in astonishment, sort of), digging up more evidence of private takeover of public (so-called) institutions.

I’ve got to take a break here for a while; as the information is going IN My understanding (which happens once you catch onto patterns) at about five times the ability to get it out — certainly on this technology. I have never put a “Donate” button on this blog,** know the information on it (if compressed, and organized) is extremely valuable — but most needed by people who probably are already economically distressed through the courts. I don’t feel like forming another “noble” nonprofit to raise money for the poor people who are snared in the courts.

One reason is, I consider the for-profit/not for profit business to be itself unethical (though it’s been in process for decades in the US). It’s based on two sides of a tax code: Workers, versus Corporations. Add to this, the “legal corporations versus illegal corporations” and all of it being stuck to the workers (whether “low-income” or “middle-class” it’s those who play the game to the max for its loopholes, that profit the most — and are socially most respected [[not for their morality, but because we are so conditioned.]].

{{** Obviously by 2016 — DNR when first it went up — a Donate Button has been added to the sidebar in a few different places.  Feel free! (but, I’ m not a nonprofit, so doubt it’s tax-deductible}}.

So I’m publishing here not because the post is ready to be published, but because I simply want it off my chest. The major part is towards the bottom, but dig in anywhere (if you want to). Three others are on the sideline; all have some merit, but I don’t have the time. Plus I’m pissed off at what have been seeing and learning, and need a time out. (note: Probably you would be too; it involves public funding for private polemics).

(Part 1 kept sprouting off sidewise into “show and tell lectures;” this one is going to review how to look for “Funds” on a state Budgetary/Legal Annual report and see, when payment records are obtained, if the notations on the record correspond to any legitimate fund, and if so — what $$ are being held in that fund.

By looking for these funds on the government’s own financial statements (from the comptroller’s office), we are also exposed to what kind of activities the state DOES fund, in much more detail, and the relative balances and monies coming and going. It literally tells us what business it is in, and a scope of that business — much more accurately than any politician or MSM can or will (with qualifications usually noted up front).

Financial Statements are a window into W-T-F?! (do I need to translate “wtf”?  Hopefully not.  Maybe it’s in Urban slang dictionary) is a state government doing, anyhow? For most, it’s a stunning eyeopener at just how many types of funds there are, and for what. This is rarely discussed (as a whole) in public. Beyond the budget itself (this post) are also the Consolidated Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) which report on the accumulated assets of government, a major scope of “clout” that is out of sight, out of mind, for taxpayers, and basically ignored by the mainstream media, although I have been told, copies of such CAFR are sent to the major outlets. It’s time we understood clearly, that the existence and scope of this funding is NOT “out of sight, out of mind” for certain types of public officials (judges, social service workers and program directors, generally speaking the human services and juvenile/family/dependency courts areas) or for the nonprofits they form to take advantage of the federal funding streams..

It is also fascinating to see how common is the practice of incorporating (late, if ever) and letting the corporations expire — but the donations and program fundings, continue. This seems to be a tactic, not an accident. It should hardly be surprising that groups, and/or individuals, when “caught” at this find it easy enough to hop from one social service (state-level HHS) agency to a parallel one in another state, or jurisdiction, with impunity. In another (I wish!) realm, this might be called “church-hopping.” Church groups are “affinity” groups and notorious for not doing background checks on newcomers, and for protecting their own leadership.

To see this is to have to entirely revise one’s concept of government, justice, and what, really, is one’s personal relationship to both.

It being June 1st, to review, The Merry Month of May:

The timing of a major article in The Washington Times/ Communities forum on money matters around child custody and psychological evaluations [[“subtitle: [CT] State employees are accused of using their position to promote a judicial branch vendor]], and another article in The Washington Post / Editorial about two weeks earlier, announcing the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference (“BMCC”) [[“Conference shines the light on the plight of battered mothers seeking custody“]] exhibit two completely contrary approaches to a similar topic: cleaning up family court matters.

I exhort individuals (I’ve given up on the advocacy groups themselves) who are truly concerned, distressed, or even outraged about these things, to first, take a look in the mirror (the public overall has been asleep at the wheel, and this sector of the public has frequently been misled), get a new attitude, and resolve (ourselves — with our own eyes) to look for the money FIRST. The art of mimicry, quoting coalitions of leaders exploring the psyche of custody evaluators and those who train them, or the characteristics of batterers as proved by anecdotal evidence, has helped with the press coverage of things already known — but has it helped expose family court operations, really?

Family courts are “government” (or at least listed on websites ending in *.gov) and as such are supported by public funding — we have a right to know as taxpayers, and citizens, how that money is being used.

Also, publicity-hungry, protective parent, safe child, court-reform advocacy groups are put on notice that if they will NOT honestly address and evaluate (true or false, relevant or irrelevant) and prioritize conflicting information, or acknowledge previous coverups, they will be embarrassed, and properly lose public credibility, although they probably will retain the most committed and devoted cult members, and/or even paid-for (or donated by volunteer followers) access to megaphones, even media.

It is truly a disgrace for some of these to have dropped the ball picked up over a decade ago in California regarding the money trail, and the connection to welfare reform. This was delivered on a silver platter by both feminists (California NOW)and a possibly eccentric — but still savvy — grandfather/father (Marv Bryer), a respected anti-trust attorney who was not only disbarred, but also did time (Richard Fine). Plainly showing that while gender is involved (most people have one) this is NOT just a gender matter, it’s a financial matter. As to Mr. Fine’s Jail, I think that’s an indicator, someone is “right on the money” in saying, it’s about the money — not poorly trained psychologists who believe PAS theory ! !!!

ANYHOW,

The “BMCC” [[Battered Mothers Custody Conference]] opted to move its conference date from January to May (for Mothers’ Day) and locale from New York to Washington, D.C. (where at least one of the regularly promoted entities seems to have an operations base). It is an opportune time, given Ms. Stevenson’s Washington-Times-published expose, to ask, how could essentially one person with probably a bit of background help — have done what a coalition of professionals, some of them doing business with the courts, could (or did) not already do over a period of many years.

I’ve charted the different policies (approaches), roughly speaking. The right-column phrases are drawn from characteristic communications over the years, and not specifically from the latest conference, which I didn’t attend. The left-hand, while espoused by several individuals, I am most particularly referring to what ONE reporter has done in a far shorter period of time by simply not wasting so much of her time on (see right-hand column).

(etc.)
__________________

SO, WHICH APPROACH WORKS BETTER?

WELL, somehow, it seems that the former approach, without a public-funded conference, or to my knowledge, without the reporter setting up a membership-based nonprofit to run private conferences, Ms. Stevenson here apparently without a Psy.D., Ph.D., or J.D., used her smarts to demand answers, and using a single custody case for an example, somehow has gotten (1) a well-connected yet hidden courthouse corporation to actually ‘fess up and file, and (2) a Judicial Commission on Ethics to hold an emergency meeting and issue an informal opinion on judges sitting on the boards of nonprofits that do business with the courts (which is itself a pretty basic definition of the AFCC), and finally, the acronym “AFCC” in the main body (not just the commentary) of a well-known on-line in the DC area.

See last post/Part 1? for membership, agenda, and draft minutes of that meeting. Or go to the state site and just read them yourself! “www.jud.ct.gov State judiciary websites, committees, task forces, and commissions are not places to just, well, ignore!) It can introduce phrases or names of groups one otherwise might not be aware of, or understand the influence of.

Example: 2011 meeting notice of “Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Advisory Committee” show they are working with the NCSC (National Center for State Courts) which is a nonprofit known (by me, at least! Ms. Stevenson I’m sure also knows) to have been working since ca. 1983 with the AFCC. Newsletter, Vol. 2 No. 1, March 1983, announces that a contract with NCSC had been approved, as well as for Stanley Cohen (of Oregon) to become the organization’s director. Minor detail? The logo does not have the word “AND” in the corporation name; the top of the newsletter clearly does. Recommended reading… At this time, it appears the AFCC (minus the “AND”) was recently showing up in Illinois, after California caught it failing to incorporate, or at least the “Conference of Conciliation Courts” (most likely) was “Suspended Status.” How reassuring that as respectable an outfit as the NCSC doesn’t seem to care too much about whether its contracts are with incorporated entitites, either.

PRINCIPLE:
People who take the time to grasp some of the basic economic and corporate concepts will be alert to, and see, when more programs are coming down the road (through gubernatorial (i.e, appointed) Task Forces [on how to improve custody, etc.], Legislatively-Endorsed Commissions [on children], and Judicial Advisory Committees (Parent Education, Family etc.). In some states they may be called “Initiatives” as in Pennsylvania.

Whatever they are called (a few examples just above) these will be staffed by people with outside allegiances and usually membership in private associations– the ABA, the APA, or the AFCC, to name just a few.

The commission (etc.) listing may feature one aspect, or the most neutral sounding one of the individual’s alliances, however on slightly closer prodding (lookups, that is), many of them in THIS category of custody, will be quickly shown as either on some federal grants stream (anti-violence collaboration with fatherhood rights, which is to say DOJ/HHS or both), and/or inappropriately simply a local representative of a funded network (outside the state, and/or country) with an agenda, often marketing TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR PARENTS, or other high-profit, replicable merchandising.

…Particularly evident in the Parent Education Program Advisory Committee, absolutely, in Connecticut (separate post).

This practice should be stopped; tax payers should become aware of it and protest. In essence, the state-level governments are being used for simple revenue collection for outside interests under the guise (and it is, in my opinion, a DISguise; misrepresentation is involved) of “government.”

I have a separate poast on PEP, DNK whether will follow through with the Governor’s Commission. Do I live in Connecticut? How many “locals” ever looked at that commission in regards its extra-connecticut trade association/nonprofit allegiances?

Unbelievable. I spent about a half day looking at this single committee, was appropriately shocked, and have moved it to a separate post.

However, the purpose of that post and this one, is to recommend all citizen residents of any state understand they MUST keep on top of how our state judiciary is actually run and how private money is blended into out-of-state multi-state (or, as with AFCC, international) nonprofit corporations that simply wish to use the local courthouse for marketing.

SEE ABOVE CHART, AGAIN…

Yet the latter, in ten years, the “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” has yet to inform its attendees that an organization called “AFCC” exists (or how it operates); that the Child Support System (HHS/OCSE) of the federal government is involved in sponsoring programs that are causing them troubles, or that a site “fatherhood.gov” exists). These things were repeatedly brought up to the same leadership and dismissed as irrelevant; people who brought them up weren’t “collaborative” enough, thus setting up a self-perpetuating, codependent “cult of the experts” dynamic among their own followers and supporters.

Thus essentially the latter [Shine the Light, Tell your Story] approach, while it sounds noble, is diffusing the energy of the most highly motivated population which might otherwise be learning some investigative skills.

It is a roadblock and detour to mothers (in this case) who might have otherwise on their own developed the commonsense and the clout to do what just happened in Connecticut, Year 2013 — about ten (or more) years earlier, Year 2003, in any other state.

The site NAFCJ.net dates itself to 1993. So perhaps, make that twenty years earlier? Or for a rough count, let’s make it about 15. 2013 – 15 = Year 1998. By 1998, people were already feeling the impact of the money-laundering capacity of welfare reform (1996) in the category of Supervised Visitation and Training for judges — and had begun exposing this here and there, on websites. Perhaps the art of blogging (or the importance of blogging) it was not well developed at the time, i.e. — technology (social media delivery) was an issue.

What I consistently saw, reading up on HHS grants, is that money was put up front into supporting technology, and into mentoring (train the trainer activities). Compassion Capital Funding. They began with setting up their systems, then the juices of information, propagation and media campaigns got going full steam ahead. That’s simply basic business planning; possible when one has a little capital up front. They set up their funding and training systems FIRST.

In fact, a good part of the revenue purpose of these programs was to make substantial profits through downloadable “trainings,” the producers and enablers of which, often receiving more federal help to get set up to start with, would then “disappear.” In other terms, this is money laundering. Or, at a minimum “squandering.”

Like AFCC, this is ongoing, untrackable in its entirety and profitable. So, what is that missing money GOING to? Who is to say (as it’s disappeared) it’s not being used for bribes or kickbacks?

ALSO — in setting all this up front, in advance — where did that capital come from then?

Some, from HHS (i.e., from public funds) and some from private foundations. The nonprofits, often with civil servant employees (i.e. either rotating in and out of government positions, or actually staying in government positions AND on the boards of some of the grants-and-contracts-getting nonprofits. The nonprofits (sometimes for-profits, sometimes professionals, but the NONprofit is a favored format) are the vehicles THROUGH which such funding flowed. It’s that simple.

So, sooner or later you have to examine those nonprofits, and who is on their boards, to pick up the patterns, NAME the patterns, after which, they are not too hard to find in any jurisdiction, and discovering them out becomes simply a mathematical matter of TIME versus RESOURCES to do LOOKUPs, and in what form the results will be shared with others.

So, while too many were distracted, derailed, distressed, destitute, or just asleep at the wheel..

…these same entrenched systems have accumulated more friends, more wealth personally (see Horowitz invoices) and more collective clout to do more of the same. The cycle from forming a local association based on a newly created profession (Supervised Visitation) to getting a state law passed appears to have been reduced to (I can document one case) only three years. It’s unbelievably brazen, which tells me there’s little fear of discovery, or confrontation at the state level — and that represents a serious social, and fiscal, danger.

Can we change that? Who wants to change the process of letting regionalized or international nonprofit corporations, whose practices aren’t exactly all “above-board” and involve conflicts of interest — continue to break down representative government, adn set up shop in the state judiciary, or executive (under the Governor’s auspices) or in *.gov websites? And from there, lobby for laws to bankrupt and extort parents, forcing on them more services than they need, or want, and regardless of the negative impact of those services upon individuals?

All this is, as it turns out, the very logical conclusions and results from the federal income tax, and social security administration set up close to a century ago (well, as to the income tax, 100 years ago). Turns out its purpose wasn’t at all what it was sold for. So how surprising, really, should it be that the services offered under this “Public Welfare” act aren’t exactly all they’re cracked up to be- but instead, more of a fees-for-friends setup?

Me, I am experiencing burnout and frustration individually with not enough investigative bloggers to continue ongoing relationships with on-line.

Unlike some of the groups we (such bloggers, individually, or often parallel with each other) tend to report on, with slightly different emphases from person to person — we don’t ourselves as family court survivors unilaterally form nonprofits, seek funding, hit the road with a film crew, or even film equipment, and focus on setting up conferences as a tax-deductible expenses in the process of getting the word out.

For one, some of these bloggers are still parenting, perhaps single-parenting, and can’t just take off across the country. They may still have open court cases, meaning most likely, they do not have the funds, or cannot afford the risk to be absent and have some ex parte motion + hearing sprung on them. However, these drawbacks do not justify groups who do, derailing our conversation anad then faking concern and insight on the same topics.

That also needs to be kept in check, which is another reason, I blog it.

So, I want to address that we need LESS complainers and more INVESTIGATORS, and a lot more honesty about past mistakes.

Such as asking the wrong questions, and failing to screen our associates for their corporate buddies, in short refusing to engage in the practice of critical analysis of almost anything. Some behavior, among parents and groups, I have to honestly characterize as borderline infantile, i.e., asking someone else to do their homework and fix their problems. They do not yet comprehend the situation, or understand the role government actually plays in their day to day lives. In many ways, I believe, too many are barking up the wrong tree, and I have to distance myself from human beings forming a nice “churning bait ball” for being attacked from top, and bottom, until the ranks are decimated. It’s obvious in the language and in focus on group identity, rather than group integrity (i.e., are they on course or off course? ).

In this context,

Systems [plural] Analysis is Essential! And starts to document the scope of the problem, too

My Theory: (and it is only a theory, based on what have seen so far):

One of the scribd documents from the WT article has some indicators of state-level FUNDS. This can possibly be connected to listings of funds found on financial statements or budgets, and used to screen out more multi-million-dollar “oops, we’re not broke after all” scenarios, such as happened in California. You will see this 19page “scribd” document displaying near the bottom of this post.

I’m talking about, instead of sampling cases from the custody level up, or even the state-level involvement of a court-connected corporation — because there are so many of these — that the public consider looking at the money using the same tools that the governments use to take their own “state of the budget” or “state of our assets and liabilities” point of view. That is, its CAFRs and Annual Budgets.

This probably could be duplicated, with some variations, in other states.

Connecticut Comptroller’s Office — Public Resources page

http://www.osc.ct.gov/public.htm

This links to several types of reports. Be aware of CMERS and PJERS as major investment platforms; the money in them is being no doubt put into securities, stocks, bonds, etc. to produce a profit (income) from which those pensions will be paid. The public is constantly told how broke “we” are — but this “we” has a major differential; employees (even government employees) versus the government itself.

Under Comptroller’s Reports, you can readily see they divide into two basic types of Reports:

BUDGETARY and COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

The monthly letters to the governor are interesting reading once you realize that Budgetary =/= Comprehensive. For that information (I’ve linked) look up Walter Burien, Clint Richardson, or http://cafrman.com> and don’t get snobby about presentation format. The significance will probably take a while to sink in. Basically, all of our govenrments are operating at a significant profit, which is not necessary for government to do — the purpose of taxes is to provide services, not to accumulate massive wealth that no one contract, enough to go start wars overseas and meanwhile, build a world-renowned disgraceful rate of per-capita incarceration, then bill the public some more based on the need for prisoner re-entry programs for people that maybe should, very possibly should not, have been in prison to start with, and jerk child support and custody around accordingly. That is not the purpose of government.

But that’s its practice. In exchange for this, we get to check our thinking and economic understanding in at the door when we enter life, and out the door when we exit it and take the rest on faith?

2012 Annual Report … BUDGETARY basis ((Update: I’m reading this post again TEN years later, i.e., in 2023 — the link is still good and the document is 100 pages long)) (link above also) lists many funds, and what are the balances in them. Hopefully you can scan first pages well, or will take some time to read up on what these are in general.

Budgetary is partial — like an operating plan // balance sheet.

Comprehensive is all that’s accumulated throughout the years.

MOST mainstream media coverage highlights the budgetary and talks in terms of “deficits.”

Short summary of the situation here: I have verified, others have verified, you can verify. Go check comptroller’s pages of any government entity — they report these matters. They just don’t naturally publicize it much, hence in the next quote, “virtually hidden.” Not totally hidden — because these are found on comptroller’s pages.

How many people spend their spare time reviewing the comptrollers’ pages??? No moving images, not enough color, too many numbers? “It’s too hard!!!”

Well, some things in life are a little hard. Like starving, or losing contact with one’s children, or powerlessness in the face of increasingly unresponsive government. Or basic financial illiteracy…

I will start this topic here, it should be explored. I may or may not get around to finishing (reporting on) the concept of collective centralization of wealth, through regionalism. Some of the “regionalism” began with Presidential Executive Orders. I made a separate page, for this topic, “Abolishment of Government through Executive Order: How 50 states became 10 Federal Regions. No small matter:

HHS has 10 federal regions for grants administration. Here they are. Look at the map! The United States has been HHS-regionalized from Region 1 (Northeast) to region 10 (Northwest) for more streamlined administration. HHS programs affecting government are likely administered through these regions:

Regional telephone, fax, e-mail, and Web sites are available for each Region: (interactive on link above).

<

Some multi-state nonprofit groups whose “raison d’etre” is closely aligned to getting on the federal dole for certain programs, have also organized themselves into regions paralleling, somewhat, the HHS 10 regions.

For example, Arizona Fathers and Families Coalition (dba Fathers and Families Coalition of America) has an “affiliates logo” (right side of its graphics-laden, you-tubed, and hyped-up (though not well-organized) website). This group, calling itself “grassroots” began in 1996 because and only because of Welfare Reform of 1996 and apparently with it, the availability of a different way of accessing federal funds (i.e., those block grants to the states). It has sponsorship of Jeffrey Leving, Esq.’s “Dads Rights” (whatever that is) and a North Carolina grants-getting (esp. faith-based grants) CJH services inc. (per its website).

However, it has Affiliates, and has divided up the United States into FIVE (5) regions, which are listed. Region 5 is “WEST” which is 100% California (CA has been very good to FR enthusiasts…) except for one affiliate in Las Vegas, NV. I have looked at MANY of these, and MANY of them are not up to snuff on their corporate status. (Help documenting this is welcome….).

As this is a Connecticut Post — the CT affiliate is “New Haven Family Alliance,” Blannie Bostic” (the state being misspelled in the listing…). 370 James St. #201, New Haven, CT. This organization then serves as a turnstile, if not magnet, for other types of funding, which becomes a maze, if a person is on the outside simply wondering where one’s tax dollars are being spent. Programs involved in the New Haven one will have nice names, and often more public funding.:

• The Male Involvement Network (MIN)*
• Moving To Work ( MTW)
• New Haven Street Outreach Workers (SOW)
• Juvenile Review Board (JRB)
• Intensive Family Preservation**
• Project Success
• Strengthening Schools Through Family and Community

**funding by Department of Children and Families (CT, presumably), with Yale Child Study Center.

Thus public funding, plus tax-exemption help Yale clinicians build their resumes by studying and working with low-income families, primarily of color… *the Male Involvement Network language has overt references to involvement in the custody field. Just check the language…

It also (“coincidentally”) was a 1997 brainstorm of Barbara Tinney (MSW, i.e., social worker), and involved — as does the NHFA — forming a network of relationships with (for lack of a better word, sources of public and some private funding) in order to pursue not a voter-mandated, but a personal collective vision about what role men should play in their families. Did I mention the network included faith-based?

Given that AZFFC dates itself to 1996, and the MIN from the NHFA started halfway across the country in 1997, I’d have to speculate that this individual got the idea from AZFFC with the intention of taking full advantage of welfare reform, access visitation grants, and helping fathers with their child support and custody cases. They just forgot to inform the mothers….

In 1997, Barbara Tinney, Executive Director of the New Haven Family Alliance, Inc. began a dialogue with community leaders about increasing the role and responsibility of non-custodial fathers.  Amos Smith, now CEO of the Community Action Agency, and Sarah Fabish, Senior Program Officer, at the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, worked with Healthy Start and the New Haven Family Alliance to launch the Male Involvement Network (MIN): a collaboration of local and state direct service providers, administrators, consumers, and funders. . . .

The founders helped the community understand the needs of fathers (as well as their children and family members).  In response, the community developed a model that included eight core interventions based on best practices:

• Education about fathers’ roles and skill-based education
• Employment placement, retention and career development
• Family/child support to navigate the support enforcement system and meet financial obligations to children
• Health as healthy fathers contribute to healthy families and communities
• Housing for fathers and families
• Legal consultation services
• Mediation access and visitation with a focus on co-parenting
• Outreach and case management  to engage fathers, coordinate and track services
• MIN evaluates service utilization across program components [[keeps attendance records??] as well as how these services benefit children.[[which someone better justify pretty quick!!]]
• In 2005, MIN become a state certified Fatherhood Program participating in the statewide Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut and continues to lead the fatherhood movement in Connecticut as well as influence the movement nationally.

MIN shares a street address with NHFA which shares a street address with what looks like a government agency, DSS. So far, I see a website, for starters, and “outreach” (marketing to help other communities do the same…)

I decided to look up who owns that address, if I could — at the Recorder of Deeds:
https://www.uslandrecords.com/ctlr/controller

This corp. is the Grantor of a Deed shortly after is incorp. In other words, it began (apparently) purchasing some real estate and taking out a mortgage on it. How that’s possible in a building housing a state agency, I don’t know. Deed was granted to Shawmut Bank of Connecticut.

Result Matches: [1 – 1 of 1]
Preview Name File Date Party Number Type Desc. Inst. Date # Pgs. Vol/Page
NEW HAVEN FAMILY ALLIANCE INC 08/24/1993 11:15:00  Grantor  9700  MISCELLANEOUS    2 04642/94
(There is a fee to even view it…)

This is where you can look up (for New Haven at least) by street address. Courtesy “Vision Appraisal” software. This commercial building was owned by James Street LLC since 2003, previous sale for $10 million (owner “UNKNOWN”) was 4/6/1993, just months before New Haven Family Alliance, Grantee, took out a mortgage with a certain bank.

370 JAMES ST
MBLU : 181/ 0772/ 00503/ / / (Map Block Lot Unit designations).
Location: 370 JAMES ST
Owner Name: JAMES STREET LLC
Account Number:
[[for a real eyeopener, perhaps, search by owner name “City of New Haven.”…]]

Now, people who are neither ON the network, nor aware of the network, have the option of going nuts trying track all these down, or figuring out another response.

Here’s the CT Secretary of State “Business Entity Search” site. At first glance on Filing History (small button at bottom of screen, don’t forget to look!), it appears to have registered on May 21, 1991, coughed up a report August of the same year, again in in 1993, and then NOTHING UNTIL 2000! On March 24, 2000 8:30am, it RETROACTIVELY filed its “annual” reports for: 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 !!! (while the group was picking up steam and publicizing how great our connections…. and this group was helping a Male Involvement Network that helped men with LEGAL COUNSEL in their custody/child support cases??) It got 2001 in the same year — then on March 24, 2004 filed RETROACTIVELY for 2002 and 2003; it got 2004 out in the same year, as also 2005, 06, 07 and 08. Then a four-year gap until April 11, 2012, when it filed RETROACTIVELY for 2009, 2010 and 2011. I wonder how any NONPROFIT filings compare in timeliness and honesty….[[I’m not sure it is a nonprofit.] STREET ADDRESS 370 ST. JAMES #201, New HAVEN — matches public office of DDS (Dept. of Developmental Services, etc. 1971, i.e., mental retardation, behavioral health, etc.)

Turns out the Family Alliance above (a Fathers and Families Coalition of America affiliate (membership cost for organizations is ….??) Is indeed a nonprofit. The profile from a certain Guidestar review has pie charts showing that from 2008 through 2010 (despite its close connection to government and apparently sharing a street address with a government agency — AND years in which it did NOT file with the state of Connecticut as a corporation), its expenses (“administration”) went from about 1/4 to fully 1/5 of its budget. Check it out. See “Programs” and notice this evaluation is apparently a website of Community Foundation of Greater New Haven (a contributor). Board membership a little strange (conflict of interest?) for a state-supported nonprofit involving child support cases. Notice 2 connections to Quinnipiac:

Board Chair

Mr. Dan Santos Board Chair Company Affiliation Crest Lincoln Mercury (Car dealership/s).
Board Chair Term Sept 1999 to Sept 2011
Board Members
Name/ Company Affiliations
Dr. Cystal Brian, Ph.D. Quinnipiac University
Mr Michael Brooks mbrksconsulting
Mr Darrell L. Brooks Beulah Land Development
Ms Kaye Harvey Alexis Hill Montessori School
Mr Curtis Hill Concept for Adaptive Learning
Dr Gloria Holmes, Ph.D. Quinnipiac University
Atty. Michael Iacurci, J.D. Law Office of Michae Iacurci
Mr Robert MacAlpine retired
Vice Chairman
Donald Nelson, Mr. Retired Pfizer Senior Vice President
Ms Barbara J Tinney, MSW New Haven Family Alliance, Inc.
Ms Larcina C Wynn New Haven Family Alliance, Inc.

[[Next part mentions Louisville, KY “METRO” which I just looked up. City/County government merged into one in 2003. Interesting… City & County literally merged to form a new government, i.e., centralization, new laws, new managements, etc. Unbelievable: http://www.louisvilleky.gov/MetroCouncil/]] contrast with normal city URL, such as http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en.html. The merger happened in 2003; listing of counties. For example (GLI.com — take a look. See pie chart showing the demographics — less than half completed college. Includes Indiana counties…)

When smaller and larger units of government consolidate, there’s often a reason given such as funding various projects, streamlining transportation or services etc. In fact, once we understand CAFRs, this is a “crock,” as money already exists for services independent of taxing citizens to start with. The real purpose is increasing centralized control of, virtually everything necessary for human life, that’s all. Reminds me of (blogged LONG ago, I think) Testimony regarding the dangers of regionalization:

T. David Horton
Testimony on Regionalism

Transcripts from testimony taken by Illinois Legislative Committee investigating Regional Government in 1978. You will notice, by the questions asked of Mr. Horton by State senators and representatives, that even then – in 1978 – it was obvious they weren’t cognizant of the Constitution nor their authority and responsibility.
State legislators today, as far as we can ascertain, are totally ignorant of the dangers of Regional Governance, and we have yet to meet one who has read, studied and understands our Constitution. Mr. Horton tells plainly why we should all be making an exhaustive effort to take documentation to our State legislators and convince them of the fact that States are quickly becoming obsolete because of their careless practice of voting for bills which they have never read, let alone written.

We must also, somehow, awaken them to the fact that Governors’ Executive Orders are not law any more than are Presidential E.O.’s, and that if they continue to blindly ‘obey’ their so-called leaders in the legislature we will all be ‘led’ like lambs to the slaughter into the New Socialist World Order.                        —————————————————————-

Transcript of public hearing, Joint Committee on Regional Government, April 11, 1978, Springfield, Illinois Pages 12 – 33

---

. . .
To ignore the original intent of the Constitution is to ignore its only lawful meaning. Therefore, it is not just constitutional heresy to depart from the original meaning of the Constitution. It is unlawful, and that is the key to the examination of the regionalism concept.

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

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

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

---

. . .
The grouping of the states of the United States into regions for the purpose of exercising governmental powers – multi-state regionalism – and the intimidation of the legislature of each state to divide the state into regions for the purpose of exercising governmental powers – sub-state regionalism – constructs a system of government by appointed bureaucrats that by-passes and undermines the lawful government of each state by its elected state and local officeholders.

The by-passing of our lawfully-elected officials is an exercise of governmental power, and it is a sedition.

The exercise by appointed bureaucrats through federal regionalism of powers that were never delegated to the limited agencies in Washington is a sedition.

The so-called Executive Order No.11647,** purporting to group the several states into ten regions, was void.
[[**1972, a Richard Nixon Executive Order re: “Regional Councils,” revoked in 1979 by Jimmy Carter; see archives]]

This is the conclusion that was arrived at by the Joint Interim Study Committee of our sister state, your neighbor, Indiana, in its report which gives the following reasons for its conclusions. I believe you may have copies of the blue-covered report of the Interim Study Committee on Regional Government of the Indiana Legislature.

Also see (I searched that Exec. Order #) excellent, short explanation from “Barefoot’s World” on Federal Regionalism.

I know bringing in so many different references is annoying — but in order to “connect the dots,” more than one set of dots has to be seen. So, for further reference:

He points out that although the “10 Federal Regions” were eventually abolished — because their existence violated the US Constitution Article IV! — the federal agencies and their grant-making powers over the same regions remain as a way to blackmail the states and basically abolish local government, on the way to “One World” government. It also notes that our laws are written by the Uniform Commission on State Laws, which happens to be a nonprofit association (only bar members can attend; hence dissent can be also controlled by disbarring lawyers who object). This is true, I discovered it on writing up the chronology of no-fault divorce (see perhaps the post on the 1952 Traynor decision; I found out that this commission from its start has been concerned about uniform laws regarding marriage and property. We are paying the price, to this day.

(I would post a few paras, but this post is getting long!)

Sorry, but this appears to be true. It’s possible in part because of the Social Security Act, income tax, etc. What sense does it make to control the economy if there’s not a good deal of control of the media, the educational systems and the political systems to make sure attention is directed from — control of the economy.

Go to: EXHIBIT A — “ALL FUNDS” (ca. p. 9 [of 100!])

This is a balance statement of cash receipts and disbursements….

Government assets are organized into what’s called FUNDS. They have names, and some types are included in the basic budget, some are not. A “fund” is an accounting term. It’s not the same as a checking account, although wouldn’t it be nice to know which banks, and accounts, certain funds were stored in? But first, identify the various FUNDS.

Anyhow — in looking at the 2012 Connecticut report (as an outsider), I see on pp. 10-12 a listing of funds Column headings) and they read, essentially (COLUMN HEADINGS, pp. 10-11; it takes two pages to list them all).

GENERAL** – SPECIAL REVENUE — DEBT SERVICE — CAPITAL PROJECTS — INTERNAL SERVICE — DEBT SERVICE — PENSION AND OTHER TRUST — AGENCY — BONDS OUTSTANDING — TOTAL.

**on page 2, it shows REVENUES coming into the GENERAL FUND — 2012 vs. 2011. Twelve (count’em, [12]) different sources of revenue ($524 million personal income tax, $456M sales and use tax, both UP from last year; Corporation Tax $14M (last year was $27 million, so down almost 50% from last year!!); Petroleum Companies $88 million (down about $23M from last year), Health Provider $123.6M (vs. $28M last year, we’re talking more than quadrupled. Hmm..what are “health provider” revenues into the General Fund?),

As to revenues, looks like Connecticut’s GENERAL FUND & Transportation Fund took in (YE 6/30/2012) $1.408 billion in 2012; which was $0.260 BILLION ($260 million) MORE than in 2011. Looking at ca page 10, then under General Fund ASSETS —

On the left side are the row labels, Assets at the top, the Liabilities, then Reserves, etc.
Which type of FUNDS have the most? (see bottom row of top section, “Assets”)..
Scan the bottom row, across two pages — which two or three funds have balances in the Billions? Which are the largest Billions (answer: Pension and other Trust Funds ($42.2Billion), Bonds Outstanding ($18.2billion) for a grand total of $60 Billion. But the General Fund, it’s only $1.3 billion.)
(see also front pages for auditor’s disclaimers and qualifiers on the statements).

THEREFORE, we see that the biggest funds are Pension and other Trusts, and Bonds. These are earning income, no doubt, and are a force to be reckoned with and understood better. I recommend: two posts by Clint Richardson: on Public Pension Funds (Welfare for the Middle Class) [DNK date, but more recent than the 7/10/2012 CAFR School: How Corporations are Funded by Taxpayers.. Time for a shift in perspective. If you need a harvard grad to say the same or similar things to you, google Carl Hermann on California’s situation (I’ve blogged it plenty). It’s mind-boggling. No more “holier than thou” towards people on welfare, please!

This is entirely new territory to most people, and still about a year? new to me, so I will do my best, and point readers to better teachers of the same material. So what if they’re not from your own state — these are generally speaking, national models! Anyone who is willing to also look at this, please contact me for further info; there’s a contact form at top of this blog…..

Anyhow, I’m interested in locating FUNDS. Because these list in one place what gov’t is supposed to be keeping track of, where if I attempt to track court-connected vendors, knowing in advance that a lot of them ARE operating illegally in various states — I will go nuts. No human being could keep track of it, which hardly seems accidental. So ways to define the search and narrow the focus are needed. WHICH FUNDS DO WE NEED TO RESEARCH in other words?

There should be indicators on payment stubs, such as Horowitz’s, below — on which funds he was paid OUT from; and those same funds, there should be a record of what goes INTO them as well. Theoretically one can find out.

It’s a matter of following the details and getting to the data.

Watch — really look for — Details when Looking at the Evidence // Links

So, these are the links found in a recent Washington Times Communities Article, 5/23/2010, by Anne Stevenson, “out-ing” the illegal private practices by public officials (employees, including judges) in and around the courthouse.

Around the same time, I discovered the matter when I was systematically going through AFCC Chapters, realizing there was an imminent conference in Connecticut — and a suspiciously recent corporate filing, last month. In other words, it was announced on the main AFCC website:

[[There they are — charging admission and soliciting donations. That’s commerce, the next obvious question is where’s the incorporation, what’s the status, and who’s running the corporation??]]

Connecticut has also been a “to-watch” state in this field after confirming a former GAL (Maureen Murphy) over the protests of parents who knew her role in virtually torturing the mother of a little boy called Max Liberti, who was being raped physically while his mother was being “raped” financially (not to say emotionally through being powerless to stop it) in a divorce case. Of course the nation also knows about the Sandy Hook incident’ moreover, Connecticut is in the larger NY Metro area (geographically at leat) and home to Yale, with its Centers for Child Psychology So it’s definitely a to-watch state when it comes to family court matters.

However watch almost any state in detail, and there are plenty of clues to how the system works.

Federal Funding will Usually be Involved

Do you realize how dependent states are (economically) on federal funding? Dependency on federal funding = increased federal (centralized) control; i.e., people who want better courts have to look ALSO at this centralized economic clout from these grants and contract streams. Always, the systems are in a process of change, which ought to be watched. The programs are at the state level. People strategizing to PUT the programs in the courts are in nonprofit multi-state and international associations (with judges on the boards, often). But the feds step in to encourage “demonstration and evaluation” of the same. By “the Feds” we mean, public funding for public regulation of the public, as driven and strategized by quite a bit of Private interests.

Allegedly for social good. Confused situation? Yep; it leaves sovereign immunity for the federal government (“that’s a states issue!”) when you need to appeal UPwards, but an incredibly diverse and impossible to track network when disseminating, encouraging, funding, and in short administering the programs from the top down (or, outside in).

Speaking of Investigative Reporting — of the Federal Funding also, in re: the courts and Child Support issues:

Anne has previously also named and summarized some federal programs in her excellent Huffington Post blog, “Top 5 HHS Programs Endangering Women and Children” (May, 2012) and in June 2012 submitted testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, including this and more relating no oversight of programs, encompassing also child support. She did this citing almost exclusively the government’s own statements about itself (and some responses to inquiries). How can you argue with that kind of evidence?**
(well, about a year later, on March 18, 2013 “A Voice for Men: ,” courageously (??) attempted to “roast” the HuffPost article (Publication of “national coalition for men, “account suspended”).

Who has bothered to follow up on the HufPost article that wasn’t already following those 5 programs?

Government Agencies also often have their own “Offices of Inspector General” (OIG) to conduct such audits.

The acronym “OIG” should mean “where I can look up what MIGHT be happening where, by grant number, program, and grantee, at the state level. What’s the pattern? Although they’re generally speaking toothless, they are informative and tell citizens where money laundering or inappropriate spending MIGHT occur. Don’t like governmental waste? Well, then look for some and seek to do something about it. Anne did, others have — why can’t you?

**Meanwhile, for that matter March 19, 2013, the HHS’s own Inspector General, Daniel Levinson, testified before the House Appropriations Committee (regarding improper payments) on “Top Management Challenges in Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services [HHS] and Education from the Inspectors (plural) General.”

and that …HHS reported $64.8 BILLION of improper payments across only eight programs, of which the top three, responsible for $0.5 billion of improper payments — were: Foster Care, Head Start, and Child Care Development Fund. If you read from bottom of page 4 to top of page 5, it also admits HHS made excuses [“didn’t report its improper payment rate”] for a ninth high-risk program, TANF, because it “doesn’t have the authority” to require States to provide the requisite information. > > > HHS being the Largest Federal Grant-making and 3rd largest contracting authority; and the 300-plus programs “touching the life of every American.”

TANF in particular has been affecting the family courts, of course.

Who besides those paid to do it, is looking at this material and blogging or reporting on it, consistently?.

Is it “The ocean is so large and my ship is so small….” — more ships need to sail the investigative reporter blogger (tack into the wind!), to walk the “how does the money work” path that Ms. Stevenson has, and some noble (really, they are in my opinion) others previously, which has to include the Marv Bryer, Cindy Ross and others involved in incovering the Los Angeles Count Judges Association (slush fund) which apparently financially jumpstarted what is now called “AFCC,” who with increased backing, has begun to not just run the courts, and run amok IN the courts, but also from positions of judicial authority (i.e., with presiding judge members) literally set up courts and steer cases to them, then once parents are ensnared — and as this WT article certainly seems to indicate — steer contracts (or heck, forget the contracts, sign the invoices, and pay ’em anyway)…

If they are dishonest with money, they will be dishonest in administering justice. If we want better justice, we need to get better at undrstanding and controlling the improper flow of money. It’s a collective duty to the public IF they value freedom. If people value security over freedom, then they WILL engage in human sacrifice (through a variety of means) sooner or later.

These are skills that require a mindset (which usually also requires a motivation) and ability — BUT a lot of ability is mindset — apply effort, and suprisingly, with time, skills improve. One has to want understanding at least as one wants company in one’s distress (actually, much more) of how things work. It requires determination and persistence; because applying effort in this category requires sacrifice — of applying effort in something else; like raising funds to attend another rally, or hate-blogging specific judges or custody evaluators (which in my opinion is just dumb).

Probably didn’t say that too well, but I had to say it. Now let’s look at the evidence!

I want to look at EVERY piece of evidence Ms. Stevenson included in the May 20, 2013 article, and point out a few things. In particular, one of the billing invoices has format / labelling which should help others in Connecticut (and beyond) know what to look for when they are willing to follow the money.

Anyone could have gone state to state years earlier and looked up whether nonprofit organizations doing business with the courts stay incorporated. Guess we were all busy in on-line forums instead of on-line database and getting records.

I’m wondering how many people know the importance of knowing who is on which “Committee” and “Judicial Commission” within any state? [see recent series showing this regarding Pennsylvania] Just in case not — here’s the Family Court Commission for the State of Connecticut. They have meetings, agenda, minutes and personnel. Just perhaps it might be worth watching? I noticed complaint after complaint about Judge Linda B. Munro — well, who is paying attention to the Committess and their activities? This is the Family Commission — link: Go to Jud.ct.gov and look around! http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/Family/default.htm#Meeting

The Committee on Judicial Ethics had to have a fast meeting on April 19, 2013 (teleconference) on issues — I’m willing to place a bet — which came to light regarding AFCC and its upcoming conference, and that people (certain people in particular) were paying attention to the non-existence of this nonprofit, not to mention, “conflicts of interest anyone?” …

Good to know there is an Ethics Committee and who they are — and here are some opinions, not to mention meeting dates, Agenda, and sometimes even “minutes.”
http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/ethics/

So, the AGENDA was Ratifying an “Emergency Opinion” on JE 2013-13 and an Informal Opinion on 2013-15, 16, 17, and 18. The Minutes (Draft) say it was a teleconference (Public was invited but didn’t come — I wonder how and when the public was invited, and for how long).

The meeting was just under an hour; the minutes are 8pp long and Judicial Opinion 2013-15 makes an appearance in Ms. Stevenson’s Washington Times Article, below…

In approximate order (of the article) these are the active links. Notice the last one came up about ONE MONTH after AFCC was “outed” and highly encouraged?? to file for incorporation in the state of Connecticut, as discovered in the “Looking it Up” page March 2013, here comes the opinion April 2013. Coincidence? Or public pressure from strategic information-gathering??

Short quotes referencing the link after each bulleted point. Bolded section was the link…

Connecticut Committee on Judicial Ethics
Informal Opinion Summaries 2013-15 (April 19, 2013) Extrajudicial Activities; Service on Board
Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 & 3.7

In April 2013, the Connecticut Commission on Judicial Ethics issued an informal opinion stating that it would be a violation of judicial canon for court officers and their staff to serve on the board of directors of nonprofit organizations that provide services to court-involved clients who appear before them and receive the majority of their funding from contracts with the Judicial Branch.

{{If this standard were enforced nationwide, it would shut down half the court-connected services, possibly more…see Kids’ Turn post}}

• Information on Linda S. Smith, Ph.D. (15pp, public searchable info)

Boyne says that since his divorce case opened in 2007, the custody case has remained open due to the fact that the judges who currently serve as corporate directors for the vendor refuse to establish a custody or visitation schedule…

• Howard M. Krieger Ph.D.’s RFP and Contracts with Connecticut Judicial Dept/Pamela E. Sarno signing(on CT Resources letterhead which contains Horowitz’s name, but the contract is with Dr. Krieger, apparently (60pp! includes extension of contract, billing price increase from $250/hr to $300/hr, etc.)

…These same judges have ordered his family to patronize various vendor affiliated services from Dr. Sidney Horowitz, who does not have a State contract to provide therapeutic services on behalf of the Judicial Branch…[[recused judges orders services which are to Horowitz..]]

CT Resources Group has obvious AFCC leanings…

• Wiki page (Creative Commons licensing) details of Boyne v. Boyne case. The print quality of this is very fuzzy, and I’m not going to be discussing in detail, except to note that the case got transferred to Middletown (Judge Munro), which docket I understand is like a “high-conflict” court. See my “Finding Ground Zero” post — fairly recent, identifying this as basically and AFCC court. (Said post also went up after a previous inability to get a word in edgewise on that WT article, either).

Let’s look at what information we can garnish from the forms the billing records are on. See below “scribd) (below). This information is what inspired this post. I may be able to connect it to similar funds, accounts, codes (etc.) people might be able to find on the government-issued comprehensive annual financial reports (which tracks ALL funds, or is supposed to at least!) and, if Connecticut has one as California does, a “Budgetary/Legal Basis Annual [[not comprehensive]] report.

In other words, the public can and should start understanding what the word “FUND” represents in governmental economics, and learn how to locate them. Imagine how much trouble might have been saved if more of us actually knew to look for this information (would Richard Fine have gone to jail? Would the AFCC have gotten started, as it may very well have, with judicial slush funds in the 1960s, operating under the county EIN, and checks being made out (as Marv Bryer discovered, WHEN HE GOT THE CANCELED CHECKS) to nonexistent funds?

The principle is — our government is not supposed to be “Fort Knox” operating at such a significant profit it can overspend — and we are so stressed and uninformed, we don’t get the balanced books. This is a financial statement matter, and requires a restructuring in OUR thinking about OUR relationship to government. A personal responsibility accrues to maintain some freedom — and freedom includes economic freedom. You can’t maintain economic freedom as an economic illiterate. It is required to understand how money flows within government and where to find the patterns and practices. (http://cafrman.com is a start)….

• Dr. Sidney Horowitz Billing Records, part 3 Boyne v. Boyne (19pp):

The heavily redacted records Boyne obtained from the Judicial Branch show that Horowitz had billed over $4,200 to the state on the Boyne case, however, Boyne and his ex-wife’s attorney confirm that Horowitz did not provide them with copies, nor did the Judicial Branch seek their approval for the charges Horowitz submitted.

(If this is common practice, do I smell a qui tam?)

• Sidney Horowitz, Ph.D.’s, payment records

Boyne says that Horowitz failed to provide all the services and reports outlined in the court order, then recused himself from his appointment to the Boyne case in May 2012. Yet in fall 2012, Judge Lynda B. Munro and Judicial Branch Manager Mary Kay West administratively authorized payments to Horowitz at more than twice the state rate, even though no court order on record had approved the payments.

What can be learned from this billing form of Dr. Horowitz? (next post, apparently)..

It is my understanding if something is posted scribd, that doesn’t become WT property. It is a public interest blog, and I am not selling this informtion (nor is it a commercial blog). The WT of course cares about honest government and moral values, which is why it exists, God bless America. So I believe pointing out what’s on there is in the public interest too, God bless America.

In the family courts we are (both men and women) being told to give up basic due process, civil rights and human rights for the sake of the ideological “family” which we have been told is good for the “economy” and is our duty in helping eradicate poverty. The child support system is needed to counteract the welfare system, and the judges have to bring on the psychologists because it takes insight into human nature to tell right from wrong (even when crimes have been committed, there’s always the question of who made ’em do it, and “what about the children”?).

If we are, in fighting the other ideological side of the divorce wars, both citing gurus from two decades ago, or criticizing the other side’s gurus, I guarantee you, no one is paying attention to who is pulling strings.

It’s time-consuming, laborious, and tedious to get the data on even ONE set of court-connected professionals.

However, once this information is out, it can become a type for related sources, and it may hve clues (for in-state and out-of-state followers) to find PARALLEL FUNDS or PRACTICES in their own jurisdictions. keep in mind throughout that the economy of most of the 50 United “States” and territories still take federal funding — and of the principle that the debtor is always servant to the creditor; that the lender expects a return on the investment (either INTEREST to be paid back when the loan is paid back) and holds SECURITY if the borrower cannot pay it back. Many such practices ensure that the person can never pay it back, which of course appropriates the property.

For, “how big is it,” I think we have to look at this as global, and wars as an attempt to collect debt overseas. Possibly. Anyhow — it’s big, and its bipartisan. At some levels, I think Republican Democrat (also feminist vs. fatherhood) is simply the dog and pony show. I didn’t think this way before I looked at the money and also experienced being on the losing side of a “sell the kids to the lowest bidder” transaction; how people are forced into it. Things are happening in the US today which were happening in South Africa just over a century ago. The difference is, we have internet technology to scrutinize SOME of it, taken with a grain of salt, however.

————

It’s impossible to win an ideological or religious war with reason; those wars typically are won by either converting (persuasion), or simply by force. However, what I am concerned about is that while squabbling on the deck of “the Titanic” (too big to fail banks, etc. — right?) we are unaware that there are limited number of lifeboats, and the people presiding over the fun and games (in the courts, I mean) have themselves means of bailing out and continuing to live, while many of us put simply, do not.

I propose we quit fighting in comments fields (of course that’s easy to say once one can’t even comment, however I say the same even after news articles where I did get to comment at length — and so did some of the people commenting in the WT article) — and get ourselves an education in “show me the money” and how to find it.

And review in detail writings of who showed us this over a decade ago, even if they didn’t explain it in simple enough form to grasp easily. Fix the form — but get to the data!

________
FN1 (continued discussion on Find the Money vs. Shine the light on the plight reporting:

The former approach by pretty well a lone investigator (I know there was some supports in getting the evidence, and others had walked that path before, but there was no coalition of nonprofits with Ph.D.’s and J.D.’s and a Psy.D. or two encouraging Anne Stevenson to go get articles of incorporation and independently from a parent, the billing invoices. Anne and others on this approach WILL explore and talk about federal grants stream; Mo, Barry, Joy Silberg (Leadership Council), and Connie Valentine (CPPA), Eileen King, etc. from the BMCC historically WILL NOT talk about the federal grants stream, essentially the Elephant in the room. The former approach frequently focuses on “AFCC” which basically hasn’t been mentioned and is not taught from the latter approach. The approaches are night and day.

In one month, it appears that one reporter’s work, including looks like with some individual parents, has resulted in an “Emergency Decision” by the Connectictut Judicial Council on Ethics (see last post for exact name and membership) issuing an Informal Ruling JE 2013-15 about judges sitting on the boards of nonprofits doing business with the courts.

In ten years of BMCC most membership could memorize their position on PAS, batterers getting custody, pedophiles getting custody, and failure of court professionals to recognize abuse, and even help sell product and direct business to the “good guys” in the courts. They can also recruit membership — but it doesn’t appear they can look up a tax return (or think it’s necessary), find out when even a single corporation was formed or dissolved, and if this relates to when it was actually doing commerce or not. In short, when the information isn’t previously pre-digested, stripped of financial information, and presented as Us vs. Them based on PAS or Gardner — there isn’t independent investigation going on, including of their own cases.

For the latter approach, there IS a coalition of nonprofits with said degrees among their boards of directors, as well as individuals: the same core group adding more of similar persuasions (i.e., recognize batterers, shine the light, tell the story, attend a rally) on the latter approach, who (at least most of the professionals) ARE on the conference, record and sell the contents of the conference, and publish circuit among the BMCC professionals; hardly suprising as its organizer Mo Hannah, Ph.D. (Psychology) was already on that circuit to start with.