By Julia Donovan
Whoever writes The Family Court Circus articles is intelligent, helpful, and vulgar.
There’s so much worthwhile information on the website that could help many. Still, it’s impossible to read most articles without feeling horrible for stepping over every offensive slur to get to helpful content.
Disparaging remarks about the Jewish faith, dark skin, women, etc., distract readers from the goldmine of information there.
Information about family court corruption on that website isn’t found anywhere else online — and it’s the kind of information we need to stop criminals from doing what they do in corrupt family courts.
If The Family Court Circus guy reads this, or if someone could get this message to him, I hope he will consider posting non-offensive comments and articles here if Frank Report editors allow it.
Those working to save children and families from corruption in family courts need to see that kind of information — without distractions.
Here is a Family Court Circus article, which I edited to take out the distractions.
AFCC Felony Tax Evasion
Why would a national racketeering operation of lawyers and judges be exempt from state and federal taxes?
Annette T. Burns
The AFCC, under the leadership of attorney Annette T. Burns of Phoenix, claims the organization is not subject to tax.
AFCC Executive Director Peter Salem
What if federal IRS agents raided the AFCC headquarters in Madison, Wisconsin? Corner Executive Director Peter Salem and make him produce his tax-exempt certificate.
He does not have it.
Drag the organization’s lawyers into court to tell a judge why they are tax-exempt.
Let’s face it, AFCC never qualified as a tax-exempt organization.
They pulled a trick on the IRS in the ’60s, and no one ever stopped to check compliance with the tax code.
AFCC will make noise that they conduct research, but they have no evidence. They are not a research organization. They are a union operation with a chokehold on family courts across the country, a taxable enterprise.
They are a lobbying organization subject to tax.
They will lie to you and the government about what they are, how they operate, and what they do. But they are not tax exempt.
Read the mission statement to find anything about substantive research:
AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict. AFCC promotes a collaborative approach to serving the needs of children among those who work in and with family law systems, encouraging education, research and innovation and identifying best practices.
The mission statement sounds like it was copied from an advertising agency. AFCC works with family law systems?
What type of word salad is that?
Ask Salem or Burns to post the tax exemption certificate on their website, along with the compliance paperwork that shows what they do to maintain this exemption.
AFCC is an association of lawyers and judges that maximizes conflict to generate revenue for its members.
It is a bonafide criminal racketeering operation.
The AFCC claims to be tax-exempt as it conducts research.
The original exemption certificate is long gone. No copy exists.
Dr. Richard Gardner
The “family court” hell Richard Gardner helped establish in the 1980s was a sign of the times to come for everyone in and outside “family courts” from then on.
Everywhere Gardner traveled in the 1980s and everywhere AFCC Astroturfed in the 1990s, they started churning out horrible cases. All the horrific cases are the same—different names, dates, and details. Around the world, the cases are the same.
No oversight and accountability for crimes committed in family courts makes it seem that some group(s) somewhere established family courts to force dangerous cases through mandatory systems and for-profit industries.
For the past hundred years, political organizations have been open about their goal to destroy marriage and families — and those political organizations have infiltrated the family court systems.
Here are a few quotes:
“Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.” Fredrick Engels
‘There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has seen its day…It is worse than useless, since it needlessly holds back the female workers from more productive and far more serious work.’ Alexandra Kollontai, in 1920 after the Russian Revolution
‘We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage… By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God… We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.’ Gloria Steinem