Healthy Marriage~Responsible Fatherhood & Faith~Based Grants . . . We Know What the Game Is!

HMRF A

Let’s Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and “Conciliation” — Courts’ Operations, Practices, and History

Note To Readers: See New Page “Just HHS, Just Georgia, Just HMRF” grants

Publicizing my new pageHHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!  You will see it in the right sidebar, atop a list labeled “Vital Info/Links.” Scroll or “page-down” below a green-background rectangle of text (“Contributions Appreciated” section) to find “Vital Links.”

Also see this related (or, “what inspired it”) 5/12/2016 post:  Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

But first and FYI in the cream-colored, fine-print, maroon-bordered box right below, I also put a link to a “Congressional Research Service” (CRS) 12/11/2012 Report showing the Origins of HHS, certain Presidential Powers, and some Recent Developing Trends, and possibly already passed, House and Senate bills re-instituting those Presidential Powers (odd capitalization there deliberate).

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.

[An extended version of this box recurs below, while I talk some about the situation]…

I might start posting this link at the top of ALL posts until the message sinks in that existing federal agencies are in a state of constant transition, and sometimes re-organization, and we ought to get a basic read on where they came from — and in which direction they are now going.  For, example, does this direction EVER include reducing budgets based on having actually solved any problems they were set up to solve, or curtailing grants streams the grants streams were set up to resolve? And if not, does that not reflect (badly) on either the operation of, or perhaps even the original intentions of, those who pushed for the funding streams in the first place? (“Who” entails both individuals and corporate, often nonprofit “persons” run by certain individuals).

Or, are we going continue, as we do now, sponsoring an UNENDING stream of funding for the behavioral/mental health/social control categories** relating to the family court systems:

Batterer Intervention Programming seeking to further classify Batterer typologies, and simultaneously and opposing the concept that battering is actually “bad,” while attempting to behaviorally modify the batterers, AND, co-parenting coaching in an UNENDING stream attempting to change the behavior of the spouse or parent that protests battering, AND an Unending stream of grants encouraging teenagers to abstain from sex as a way out of poverty (using money diverted from funds that might otherwise more directly help their parents out of poverty, i.e., “TANF”) (“Abstinence Education”) AND so forth.[*as opposed to “medical research and development” or “curtailing the outbreak of contagious diseases” category under which the public health system originated..]

Thus, through these self-contradictory funding streams, the public is forced to separately fund under the banner of men’s rights (to their families, i.e., families as property rights), and women’s rights to not be assaulted or subjected to violence in the name of family (i.e., women, including mothers and the children they have given birth to NOT as an adjunct form of property owned by the men, including fathers), and the institutions (family courts) in which the staged custody battles take place, propped up in part (and — I do show this — the larger part) by Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood funding, and at that point NOT significantly protected by the Domestic Violence Prevention funding.

Meanwhile, as this built-in funding and “federal policy position” conflict facilitates generation after generation of children growing up witnessing abuse and experienced adults somewhat confused on whether or not it’s a crime, or a social disease, or the fault of their mothers’ or fathers’ lack of “communications skills,” obviously, there is from the USDOJ a Defending Children’s Initiative, plus Task force on Children Exposed to Violence.

Some of these children then, periodically, may run away, which then can be blamed on the mother and generate more criminal cases.  She can be hunted down, or they can be hunted down, at which point the Reunification Services can be ordered — a good deal, if you’re in that business.

The runaway children, and I’m talking now about those  running away from the abusive households to which the family courts “re-aligned” them under Promoting Healthy Marriage, Access and Visitation (etc.) at times MAY enter the foster care system (more HHS funding), OR, they may become runaway youth and end up, temporarily, in a transitional housing for youth shelter.  FYI, one of mine, shortly after reaching the age of majority and having apparently, outlived her fiscal and psychological utility for my “ex” (i.e., reducing significant child support arrears), the family court system (ordering more personnel — a GAL — into the mix, and engendering through poor decision-making, the “left-behind” parent’s [in my case, that was me, the mother] need to keep coming back to court hoping to regain contact with the separated children), which itself then “supports” the rationale to further streamline procedures, reduce legal protections to due process, based on “the courts are overloaded.”

Meanwhile, and I am still talking primarily HHS funding — the “smart ones” who may not necessarily have a strong overlap with the “honest” ones or those with a high personal sense of ethics regarding their own accountability, or understanding of the downside of diverting private nonprofits with private agenda — these “smart ones” (or, politically connected ones) — instead of choosing “just one of the above” can — and my Georgia-based page SHOWS (Excerpts below also validate in part) — are simply positioning themselves, AS ARE STATE AGENCIES, to say, “come through us, government — come to us, clients” and take Abstinence Education, Responsible Fatherhood/Healthy Marriage, AND Family Violence Prevention.

For a reminder (I did post on this in 2016), the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) dates back to 1984 and involves primarily the agency HHS.   By contrast, the Violence Against WOMEN Act, was in 1994, and is commonly associated in the public mind, and in general, with the USDOJ’s “Office of Violence Against Women” which exists to implement grants from that Act.  BUT, organizations are free to take from both the USDOJ and the USDHHS, as they are free to take from apparently equal and apparently opposing sides from the staged “gender wars.”

At a certain point, it’s time to call those in the game — at the highest levels, not the lowest levels– at this game, and let our Congressmen and women know that we know what is that game.

In order to do that, I recommend those approaching Congress not show up dumber-than-dirt on who is the HHS, what is “Presidential Reorganization Authority” historically, and a few things about 1996 PRWORA welfare reform as it pertains to HMRF funding as administered through HHS.

So, you might want to bookmark this link and get back to it, and you might want to also mark out some time to read my confrontational and, in general, NOT popular among the domestic violence groups OR protective mothers’ groups* BLOG.

*Why not?  After all, I am indeed a survivor of domestic violence, becoming through those court actions, a “protective mother,” and even though several years down the road, after it became clear that the family court would facilitate a state of ongoing disruption, minus enforceable safety boundaries from the same individual, until suddenly, and temperamentally, switching custody.  Right now, I just discovered leading feminist jumping in to promote the term “Mothers of Lost Children” (and her book) and the same professionals which I have documented, refused to seriously discuss the “HHS / HMRF” factor in between their laments about badly behaving judges, GALs, and custody evaluators.

I learned, over time, that to perpetuate any form of abuse — and economic control is essential to trapping people in abusive relationships, marital or other — the art of, pardon me, bullshitting the bystanders– is an essential part. They need to call it something else — like “Marriage” or “Family.”  There also have to be effective means, utilized at the same time,  of silencing future outcries (dissents), just in case, some bystanders might DO something about the abuse, and cut into the privilege — and profits– involved in exploiting other human beings in the name of some social benefit.

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.  It also explains the relationship of this particular authority to how forms of it were perpetuated under the Wartime Powers Act (for WWI and WWII) and that, among other things, such agencies as FEMA, the EPA and (as above) HEW were originally formed. This is a fairly neutral report, bipartisan, intended for members of Congress (CRS = Congressional Research Service) of the larger context of one of the largest grant making federal agencies, whose activities I continue report, particularly after learning how badly the policies compromised my personal family line, and kept them in danger, needlessly, for years, based on re-classifying “danger” from existing criminal definitions, to membership in a socially targeted as “dangerous” demographic group, i.e., single-mother=-headed households.


I do not know yet, whether Congress in 2012 did, in fact, reauthorize this “Reorganization Authority” but every thing I can see at the observational level is that a consolidation of federal DEPARTMENTS (HUD, HHS, etc.) programming is taking place under HHS programs targeted to HMRF funding — and the HMRF funding itself, along with funding to “Prevent Family Violence” — is also (at least in Georgia, this page shows) being centralized to go to just a very few organizations, with the former “Statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (CADV groups), themselves a symptom of centralized control of battered women’s shelters and services to help victims, are getting a small percentage of what the state agencies are getting.

Now, about that New Page, HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

That approximately 10,000 word PAGE (not post) is meant as an example, and a point of reference to how states are handling both the HMRF funding AND (as it turned out) the DV Funding, and just how centralized it is possible to become over time.  It currently is on top of my list of “Vital Links/Info” on the sidebar.

It is informative, and it does some detailed lookups on the very few grantees at this time, receiving straight CFDA 93086 grants.  As it turns out, some of these are also receiving the bulk of the “Family Violence Prevention/DISCRETIONARY” grants also, and as such have delivered coordinated control of that field over to the same agencies (and there are TWO referenced, which you will see, ONE of which also is handling the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants).

Again, Title of the page:  HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

BY THE WAY — I could use some help looking up some of these corporations, from people willing to write-up and provide links to their efforts.  

Contact me through a comment if interested, but expect to make a time commitment if you’re serious about asking my time to again, review how to do this.  If this leads to other posts on this blog, that might also be good….

Why bother?

Well, it’s rewarding and enriching personally to SEE what is happening and there IS no better way to learn it than by starting to look at the evidence first-hand, and let that evidence speak to you.  Listening to the narratives of others who have looked it up and are talking about it, qualifies you as a second-hand witness, not an eye-witness.  Listening to others (including reading their accounts) is no real substitute for the real thing to get the “gray matter” working. It will raise some hard questions which, then, by even attempting to answer, will put anyone in a better position to understand more of current events in this country, including probably (especially, if you’re family-court-involved) in your life also.  There are all kinds of corollary benefits to following the money trail where public funds are involved. Understanding increases exponentially.

One of the hard questions that may come up should also include: “Why haven’t others — why haven’t “the experts” we’ve been reading advocating for Family Court Enhancement (or, Fixing), or about making family courts safe for children, or about stopping domestic violence, or about the issues of “parental alienation” either as a reality, or as an “unsound psychological theory” — talking about the same things Let’s Get Honest and just a few others, over many years, are talking about?

Ideally, if pursued, this might awaken one to the reality of how much national public policy is public relations-driven, i.e., the “Freud’s nephew factor” (Edward L. Bernays). This should then lead to a consideration of who controls the technology on which the media is based, which again, ought to lead RIGHT BACK to, “who owns this place, anyhow?” WHO controls it fiscally, WHO controls the operational infrastructure, and who controls most of the assets in the United States of America.

Continue Reading: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/note-to-readers-see-new-page-just-hhs-just-georgia-just-hmrf-grants/

Nothing’s Changed in the Rigged Court Game

ID-100289357

Image Courtesy of Stuart Miles by FreeDigitalPhotos.Net

Twin Cities News Talk

Because Minnesota deserves the truth.  Posted Saturday, March 31st 2012

Radio Talk Show Host, Sue Jeffers, Minneapolis, MN – News Talk/AM 1130

Guests: Tim Kinley and Lea Banken On Air this Saturday, March 31st @ 1 pm, Judicial Accountability/Judicial Reform  

SueJeffers033112_1P_FamilyLaw

Further Historical Information on Minnesota Courts

Posted on September 6, 2012  Carver County Corruption

The Grim Truth About MN Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea

http://carvercountycorruption.com/2012/09/06/chief-justice-lorie-skjerven-gildea-up-for-re-election/

VOTE DAN GRIFFITH FOR MN SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea is up for re-election this November 6th in Minnesota. Lorie Gildea received Banken mother’s  Writ of Prohibition (an emergency appeal) last August 2011. Gildea signed the paper denying Lea`s emergency appeal stating Lea had a remedy; a regular appeal that would take up to a year and thousands of dollars, of which time Lea would have no contact with her three young children. Lea filed her regular appeal and it has now been over a year since she has seen her children ages 2, 6 and 8. Lea`s case is still in appeal, no decision has been made.

Carver County`s Senator Juliane Ortman sent a letter to Chief Justice Lorie Gildea asking for an immediate investigation into Carver County Family Court practices back in April 2012. Link: ORTMAN LETTER Senator Ortman has been approached for years by citizens in Carver County about numerous family court horror stories where mothers lose custody of their children to wealthy ex-spouses with a history of abuse convictions. It is a pattern in this county no one can deny. Senator Ortman and Lea Dannewitz (previously known as Lea Banken) were interviewed by KARE 11 after the Ortman letter went out. Lorie Gildea got wind of the coverage by KARE 11 and sent a letter back to Senator Ortman immediately stating a full refusal to conduct an investigation. KARE 11 stopped the airing of the investigation for reasons unknown.

Lorie Gildea (incumbent) is up for re-election this November 6th. Gildea was appointed into office, not elected. Gildea is not a mother herself and is fully aware of the corruption in Minnesota`s judicial system. Gildea has allowed this corruption to continue. As a result hundreds of Minnesota parents, children and citizens suffer daily.

Every ballot in Minnesota this November will have a judicial section. Lorie Gildea`s opponent is Dan Griffith. Dan Griffith`s quest is to bring accountability back to the judicial system and ensure judges abide by laws and statutes that are enacted by the legislature and approved by the Governor. Currently, judges do not have to abide by the law – there is no remedy to hold them accountable.We have many readers contacting us and asking what they can do to help. Answer: get out to vote this November 6th. Vote Dan Griffith for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice and help us bring change to a very broken court system in Minnesota.


Minnesota Supreme Court race

As featured in JP Election Brief: The Supreme Court Special on October 18, 2012.

This year, there are three Minnesota Supreme Court seats up for election: Place 1, Place 4, and the Chief Justice seat. Only 2 of the 3 Supreme Court races were considered in the primary, the Chief Justice and Place 4 seats. In those races, three candidates competed for each seat and the two candidates receiving the most votes proceeded to the general election. In both of the primary races, the incumbent was successful.

In the race for the Chief Justice position, incumbent Justice Lorie Gildea and challenger Dan Griffith won the highest vote percentages and will compete against one another in the general election. In the race for Place 4, incumbent Justice David Stras and Tim Tingelstad will face one another in the general election.

Both incumbents received higher vote percentages in the primaries than their closest competitor. In their respective races, Gildea received approximately 50% of the vote to Griffith’s 29%, while Stras received approximately 49% of the votes to Tingelstad’s 29%, making it very likely that both incumbents will be re-elected.

Place 1 was not contested in the primary, but will see incumbent Barry Anderson compete against challenger Dean Barkley in the general election. Barkley previously served as a lobbyist and campaign manager for former governor Jesse Ventura and is a member of the Independence Party.

In all likelihood, all incumbents will be re-elected to their seats, maintaining the current state of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Gee ya think?!!

Below are the results from the 2012 Election.

Supreme Court

Chief justice

Candidate Incumbency Place Primary Vote Election Vote
GriffithDan Griffith No Chief Justice 29.4%ApprovedA 39.59%   DefeatedD
ClarkJill Clark (Minnesota) No Chief Justice 21%
GildeaLorie Gildea   ApprovedA Yes 49.7%ApprovedA 60.0%   ApprovedA

Place 1

Candidate Incumbency Place Primary Vote Election Vote
AndersonBarry Anderson (Minnesota)   ApprovedA Yes Place 1 58.94%   ApprovedA
BarkleyDean Barkley No Place 1 40.65%   DefeatedD

Place 4

Candidate Incumbency Place Primary Vote Election Vote
NelsonAlan Nelson No Place 4 21.7%
StrasDavid Stras   ApprovedA Yes Place 4 48.8%ApprovedA 55.95%   ApprovedA
TingelstadTim Tingelstad No Place 4 29.4%ApprovedA 43.62%   Defeated