LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: When Congress Taxed Churches: Religion & Politics in the District of Columbia After the Civil War

It is always good to know how the funding systems for the chattel law, or rather the trafficking of tiny humans in the name of the tax exempt god all started.

Obviation is why we preserve the annals of history.

SPEAKER: Sally Barringer Gordon
EVENT DATE: 2018/07/10
RUNNING TIME: 57 minutes
TRANSCRIPT: View Transcript (link will open in a new window)

DESCRIPTION:

Sarah Barringer Gordon presented the annual Cary and Ann Maguire Chair in Ethics and American History Maguire Lecture titled "When Congress Taxed Churches: Religion and Politics in the District of Columbia After the Civil War." In 1874, Congress imposed taxes on all religious property in the District of Columbia. Other jurisdictions also debated taxing churches and some did, including Missouri and California. This lecture explores why imposing taxes on all religious property in the District of Columbia seemed like a good idea to many religious and political thinkers in the 1870s, and how the backlash against them created the extraordinarily deferential system that has only increased exemptions over the past 145 years. Gordon's talk was a culmination of four months of research in Library's collections for her upcoming book tentatively titled "Freedom's Holy Light: Disestablishment in America, 1776-1876."

Speaker Biography: Sarah "Sally" Barringer Gordon held the Maguire Chair at the Library's John W. Kluge Center in 2017 and is Arlin M. Adams professor of Congressional law and professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania. She is well known for her work on religion in American public life and the law of church and state, especially the ways that religious liberty developed over the course of American national history.

DOJ: Maryland Man Pleads Guilty To Failure To File A Foreign Agent Registration Statement

Behold, the model to prosecute organizations that have never incorporated like the Detroit Land Bank Authority and other organizations that have filed as 501c3s but operate way outside its stated purpose to the IRS, like the Detroit Land Bank Community Development Corporation.

There are other "groups" of which this transposable prosecutorial model may be applied, like the Bill, Chelsea & Hillary Foundation, the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Health Access Initiative, Clinton Global University, just to name a few of its other corporate shape shifting forms.

This is going to hurt alot of campaign financing efforts.

Just another conjugal collaborative.

United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended the FBI for their work in the investigation and the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section for their assistance.  Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Christine Manuelian, who prosecuted the case.

Greenbelt, Maryland – Nisar Ahmed Chaudhry, age 71, of Columbia, Maryland, pleaded guilty today to failure to file a foreign agent registration statement.

The guilty plea was announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur; Assistant Attorney General for National Security John C. Demers; and Special Agent in Charge Gordon B. Johnson of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Baltimore Field Office.

According to his plea agreement, Chaudhry, a national of Pakistan and lawful permanent resident of the United States, represented himself to be the President of the Pakistan American League, an unincorporated entity he created and associated with his residential address in Maryland.
Chaudhry failed to file a registration statement with the Attorney General, as required by law, providing notification of his activities on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, and falsely represented that his activities in relation to Pakistan were solely educational in nature and executed for the benign purpose of encouraging better relations between the United States and Pakistan.
According to his plea agreement, from 2012 through 2018, Chaudhry acted as an agent of the Government of Pakistan in order to engage in political activities for, and in the interests of, the Government of Pakistan.  These activities were designed by Chaudhry to obtain and manage information on the status of the United States Government's policies regarding Pakistan, and to influence U.S. government officials and U.S. foreign policy towards Pakistan.

Chaudhry interacted on a routine basis with representatives of the Government of Pakistan, at their Embassy in Washington, D.C. and consular office in New York City.  Chaudhry also interacted with numerous institutes, foundations, and organizations operating in and around Washington, D.C., commonly referred to as "think tanks," that played a role in shaping and influencing U.S. foreign policy.  Chaudhry organized roundtable discussions in the Washington D.C., and Maryland metropolitan areas between his American government and think tank contacts and visiting Pakistan government officials to influence United States foreign policy in a direction favorable to Pakistan’s interests.  Chaudhry cultivated contacts within these entities and the United States government in order to obtain in-depth information regarding the United States government's policies towards Pakistan.  Chaudhry then sought to neutralize unfavorable views of Pakistan held by current and former U.S. government officials by employing certain methods of discussion with these individuals during personal interactions with them and/or by controlling and manipulating discussion at the roundtable events he organized or attended.

In order to be more effective in obtaining information of interest to Pakistan, and to gain a strategic advantage in acquiring information that might not otherwise be divulged to official representatives of the Government of Pakistan, Chaudhry falsely represented that his activities were solely educational in nature and not affiliated with the Pakistan government.  These representations were made not only to American think tank scholars, but also to current and former United States government officials, including U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents who interviewed Chaudhry upon entry into the United States from his travels to Pakistan.

According to his plea agreement, Chaudhry regularly traveled to Pakistan to brief high-level Pakistan government officials on information obtained from his American government and think tank contacts.  He also met with Pakistan government officials in the United States to report on the details of his meetings in Pakistan with high-level Pakistan government officials, and obtain information regarding matters of interest to Pakistan relevant to his activities in the United States on behalf of the Pakistan government.

In consideration for his activities on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, Chaudhry was granted invitations to events at the Pakistan Embassy; introductions to, and meetings with, high-level Pakistan government officials; assistance with procuring civilian, military, or government -related jobs and preferential postings for relatives and associates in Pakistan; assistance with securing Pakistani visas on an expedited basis for friends, relatives, or associates; reimbursement for certain travel expenses; and the use of diplomatic channels to ship personal items to and from Pakistan, among other things.

Chaudhry organized press briefings in Washington, D.C. and Maryland for visiting Pakistan government dignitaries and arranged for various scholars and/or former United States government officials to attend conferences in Pakistan.

Chaudhry faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow has scheduled sentencing for July 30, 2018 at 2 p.m. in Greenbelt, Maryland.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Amazon and Goodwill Team Up To Hustle Charity

Goodwill is not a charity.  Just watch the videos.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

When Will IRS Audit God?

If you find lack of oversight of churches to be an issue, please be advised that all corporations can now claim religious protection under the resurgence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because corporations have religious beliefs, now.

It was under the leadership of Tom DeLay that religious organizations began to take on more authority in operating states child welfare programs.

It is this same pitch which generates funding for what I like to refer to as the child welfare propaganda campaigns.

IRS Getting Pressured To Crack Down On Televangelists Following John Oliver’s Segment

WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — The IRS is getting pressured to begin cracking down on televangelists following a John Oliver segment on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight.”

Oliver blasted televangelists this past Sunday for what he called “seed faith,” where they tell donors they will reap the rewards by giving money to them.

“They preach something called the prosperity gospel which argues that wealth is a sign of God’s favor and donations will result in wealth coming back to you. That idea sometimes takes the form of seed faith – the notion that donations are seeds that you will one day get to harvest,”Oliver said in the segment.

He continued, “The argument is ‘sow your money into the ground, you will reap returns multiple times over,’ except as an investment you’d be better off burying your money in the actual ground because at least that way there’s a chance your dog may dig it up and give it back to you one day.”

People have donated millions to televangelists through the “prosperity gospel,” believing by giving money, God will help them.

18 Years A Slave Of The State: The Story Of Tyrone Obaseki In Foster Care  

This video is a story far to commonly told about foster care.

#Time2AuditGod

 Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

IRS and Nonprofits Are Off To The Privatization Races

And we are off!

This is an issue dealing with "dark money" in political campaigns and non-taxable mega churches.

Considering the fact that about 80% of charitable contributions go towards administrative costs like payroll, there is a question to the legitimacy of the operations.

Then you have strawman charitable organizations, and I most definitely include those so-called "social welfare" organizations which secretly funnel money to political campaigns.

This includes the channeling of unreported foreign national funds into charities and political campaigns.

Do not let me even begin with the multi-million dollar mega churches which do not pay taxes.

Religious organizations seem to have a strong aversion when it comes to public scrutiny of its public contracts, like schools and any other child welfare program.

It is off to the races to see if the IRS is going to make it to the finish line with a new set of policies.

For this maiden race of accountability of privatization, I am going to put my money on the nonprofits because, as we all know, they are too big to fail.

#Time2AuditGod

Nonprofits Voice Opposition to IRS Proposal on Social Security Numbers

More than two hundred nonprofit organizations have called on the Internal Revenue Service to withdraw a proposed regulation that would allow charitable nonprofits to collect and report donors' Social Security numbers to the agency.

The proposed rule change would permit, though not require, charities to file an additional return with the IRS that would include detailed information about donors who contribute $250 or more, including their Social Security numbers. In a joint set of comments filed in response to the proposal, Independent Sector, the National Council of Nonprofits, the Council on Foundations, and others argued that the regulation would "expose the public to increased risk from identity theft, impose significant costs and burdens on nonprofit organizations, and create public confusion and disincentives for donors to support the work of nonprofits."

"A charitable nonprofit should never be asking a donor for her or his Social Security number when soliciting donations," the joint letter states, and the proposed regulation "is certain to confuse the public and result in fraud." The letter goes on to say that the "collection, storage, and reporting of Social Security numbers to the IRS is a costly additional endeavor," in that nonprofits would have to divert resources to purchase data security systems, and notes that the Government Accountability Office, in reviewing a similar proposal in 2009, found that "[t]axpayers may reduce giving because they are reluctant to provide Social Security numbers to charities given concerns over identity theft."

"This proposed IRS regulation will do more harm than good," said Candy Hill, interim co-CEO and vice president of communications and marketing for Independent Sector. "The collection and reporting of Social Security numbers by nonprofit organizations poses significant increased risk to taxpayer privacy while creating new liabilities and administrative burdens for charitable organizations. Combined with the anticipated impact on charitable giving, this proposal will result in fewer resources available to support communities across the country."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

FTC, All 50 States and D.C. Charge Four Cancer Charities With Bilking Over $187 Million from Consumers

Yes, the welfare of a child was used as a strategy to bilk donations.

The same strategies are used to bilk donations for foster care.  The only difference is there is no enforcement mechanisms in child welfare.

#Time2AuditGod

Complaint Alleges Defendants Falsely Claimed Donations Would Help Pay For Pain Medication, Hospice Care & Other Services; But Spent Donations on Cars, Trips, Sports Tickets, & Professional Fundraisers

The Federal Trade Commission and 58 law enforcement partners from every state and the District of Columbia have charged four sham cancer charities and their operators with bilking more than $187 million from consumers. The defendants told donors their money would help cancer patients, including children and women suffering from breast cancer, but the overwhelming majority of donations benefitted only the perpetrators, their families and friends, and fundraisers. This is one of the largest actions brought to date by enforcers against charity fraud.

Named in the federal court complaint are Cancer Fund of America, Inc. (CFA), Cancer Support Services Inc. (CSS), their president, James Reynolds, Sr., and their chief financial officer and CSS’s former president, Kyle Effler; Children’s Cancer Fund of America Inc. (CCFOA) and its president and executive director, Rose Perkins; and The Breast Cancer Society Inc. (BCS) and its executive director and former president, James Reynolds II.

CCFOA and Perkins, BCS, Reynolds II and Effler have agreed to settle the charges against them. Under the proposed settlement orders, Effler, Perkins and Reynolds II will be banned from fundraising, charity management, and oversight of charitable assets, and CCFOA and BCS will be dissolved.  Litigation will continue against CFA, CSS and James Reynolds Sr.

“Cancer is a debilitating disease that impacts millions of Americans and their families every year. The defendants’ egregious scheme effectively deprived legitimate cancer charities and cancer patients of much-needed funds and support,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The defendants took in millions of dollars in donations meant to help cancer patients, but spent it on themselves and their fundraisers. I’m pleased that the FTC and our state partners are acting to end this appalling scheme.”

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said, “The allegations of fundraising for personal gain in the name of children with cancer and women battling breast cancer are simply shameful. This is the first time the FTC, all 50 states, and the District of Columbia have filed a joint enforcement action alleging deceptive solicitations by charities and I hope it serves as a strong warning for anyone trying to exploit the kindness and generosity of others.”

South Carolina Secretary of State Mark Hammond said, “When charities lie to donors, it is our duty to step in to protect them. At the same time, however, this historic action should remind everyone to be vigilant when giving to charity. This case is an unfortunate example of why I always tell my constituents to give from the heart, but give smart.”

According to the complaint, the defendants used telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, and materials distributed by the Combined Federal Campaign, which raises money from federal employees for non-profit organizations, to portray themselves as legitimate charities with substantial programs that provided direct support to cancer patients in the United States, such as providing patients with pain medication, transportation to chemotherapy, and hospice care. In fact, the complaint alleges that these claims were deceptive and that the charities “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation, with none of the financial and governance controls that any bona fidecharity would have adopted.”

According to the complaint, the defendants used the organizations for lucrative employment for family members and friends, and spent consumer donations on cars, trips, luxury cruises, college tuition, gym memberships, jet ski outings, sporting event and concert tickets, and dating site memberships. They hired professional fundraisers who often received 85 percent or more of every donation.

The complaint alleges that, to hide their high administrative and fundraising costs from donors and regulators, the defendants falsely inflated their revenues by reporting in publicly filed financial documents more than $223 million in donated “gifts in kind” which they claimed to distribute to international recipients. In fact, the defendants were merely pass-through agents for such goods. By reporting the inflated “gift in kind” donations, the defendants created the illusion that they were larger and more efficient with donors’ dollars than they actually were. Thirty-five states alleged that the defendants filed false and misleading financial statements with state charities regulators.

In addition, the FTC and 36 states charged CFA, CCFOA and BCS with providing professional fundraisers with deceptive fundraising materials. The FTC and the attorneys general also charged the defendants with violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), CFA, CCFOA and BCS with assisting and facilitating in TSR violations, and CSS with making deceptive charitable solicitations.

In addition to the bans imposed on charity work by the settling individual defendants and the dissolution of two corporations, CCFOA and BCS, the proposed final order against CCFOA and Rose Perkins imposes a judgment of $30,079,821, the amount consumers donated between 2008 and 2012. The judgment against CCFOA will be partially satisfied via liquidation of its assets; the judgment against Perkins will be suspended based upon her inability to pay.

The proposed final orders against BCS and Reynolds II impose a $65,564,360 judgment, the amount consumers donated between 2008 and 2012. The BCS order provides an option, subject to court approval, for spinning off its Hope Supply Warehouses program to a legitimate, qualified charity. BCS’s remaining assets will be liquidated and used to partially satisfy the judgment. The judgment against Reynolds II will be suspended when he pays $75,000.

The proposed final order against Effler will impose a judgment of $41,152,231, the amount consumers donated to CSS between 2008 and 2012. The judgment will be suspended upon payment of $60,000. The full judgment amounts against the individuals will become due immediately if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final orders was 5-0. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The proposed orders are subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

Before giving to a charity, read the FTC’s Charity Scams.

Federal Complaint Against Cancer Charities for Fraud

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

POTUS Gets SCOTUS on Dark Money

Why would POTUS call for a cap on charitable deductions?

Simple.

You can not audit God.

When you have charity executives pulling down seven digit salaries, some things do not seem quite right.

When you have 'dark money' being funneled into political campaigns via 'charitable donations', you might want to question how that happens.

As SCOTUS has laid the groundwork for dark money via charitable donations to be secretly dumped into political campaign with the ruling in Citizens United it becomes, only proper, for adjustments in the rules for a charitable deduction cap.

Obama Budget Calls for Charitable Deduction Cap

Nonprofit leaders are expressing disappointment that the Obama administration's budget for fiscal year 2016 once again calls for capping the charitable tax deduction at 28 percent.

The plan would "limit the value of most tax deductions and exclusions to 28 cents on the dollar, a limitation that would affect only couples with incomes over about $250,000 (singles with incomes over about $200,000)." The proposal also calls on Congress "to institute the Buffett Rule, requiring that wealthy millionaires pay no less than 30 percent of income — after charitable contributions — in taxes." Earners in the top tax bracket currently receive a deduction of 39.6 cents for every dollar they give to charity.

"This misguided proposal would cost our most vulnerable communities the most and see the loss of billions of dollars in charitable investment," Council on Foundations president and CEO Vicki Spruill said in a statement. "This approach directly impacts the ability of donors to support vital services and removes a crucial incentive to give. The charitable deduction is a powerful and proven way to strengthen communities, and the Council stands beside the entire nonprofit sector in opposition to any move to limit it. Capping it would have a cascading impact on nonprofits and philanthropic organizations across the country."

In a separate proposal announced in January, the administration called for an increase in the capital gains tax rate to 28 percent and for closing the so-called "trust-fund loophole," with an exemption for assets donated to charity. "As in previous years, the White House is sending mixed messages to the charitable community about the value of American generosity," Joanne Florino, senior vice president for public policy at the Philanthropy Roundtable, told the Chronicle of Philanthropy. "It leaves us wondering why the president would hold charitable donations harmless in some areas of the tax code but not in others."

The administration's budget is not expected to win support of the Republican-controlled Congress. House Republicans, in the meantime, are pushing for a vote to make permanent a set of temporary tax "extenders" for certain kinds of giving — gifts of land for conservation purposes, gifts of food to food banks and other charities, and gifts made by retirees from individual retirement accounts — and to simplify the foundation excise tax to a flat 1 percent; the administration's budget calls for a 1.35 percent excise tax.

"While we applaud the president for recommending a simplified private foundation excise tax, he has done so at a rate that will ultimately increase taxes on many grantmaking nonprofits," said Sandra Swirski, executive director of the Alliance for Charitable Reform, which was founded by the Philanthropy Roundtable. "We believe the tax needs to be streamlined at a flat 1 percent rate, such as the proposal that passed the House of Representatives last year."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuettee Does Nothing About Human Trafficking in Michigan Before His Re-election

To the Michigan Attorney General, Bill Schuettee,

Dear Sir,

It is understood that there is a substantial, inherent conflict of interest within your office of contemporaneously advising and advocating for those of whom contract with the State of Michigan to care for children in need.

In the same breath I ask you to take time out of your campaign to make the Charitable Section of your office sing for its supper.  By that I mean light a fire under the arses of your Assistant Attorneys General and do something about these child, and for the purposes of this story, adult caregiving, non-profits' practice of human usury, or rather human trafficking.

This has been going on for decades with an absolutely intentional hoodwinked culture within the Attorney General's Office.  I can further my disdain of your lack of leadership to point a finger to the Madame Maura Corrigan, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice and current Director of  Department of Human Services for turning up her nose to the rampant fraud, waste and abuse within her Department...and the courts.

Children, under your watch, under the auspices of the State, are raped, beaten, tortured and killed, yet you do nothing about it.

If you are in need of further documentation of non-profit, "charitable" organizations enslaving and torturing the most vulnerable of our society for a pretty, non-taxable penny, please, feel free to look into my filings within your office or just google my name.

You suck and so does the Director of Department of Human Services.

Much love,

Beverly Tran

Woman investigated for using special needs children to sell candy in nonprofit scam

Fox 2 News Headlines
DEARBORN HEIGHTS, Mich. (WJBK) -

A Dearborn Heights woman is under investigation for using special needs children she took legal guardianship to sell candy for what appears to be a fake nonprofit.

Children trapped for so long, they are now adults, going on for 20 years. The victims don't know they've been robbed of the lives they could have had.

"I miss them so much they just don't know how much it hurts," said Kathy Williams.

"They" are her children, turned into modern day slave labor, she says and all Williams can do for the past 20 years is helplessly watch.

It all started almost twenty years ago in 1995 when Williams' husband died unexpectedly.

She was on the brink of a nervous breakdown, left on her own to raise four children. Two have mental disabilities, the youngest just 5 years old.

"I was lost, confused emotional wreck," Williams said. "I didn't have any money, nowhere to go."

And then appeared a ray of light in Williams' darkest hour. An acquaintance, Catherine Bergum, offered to take the kids in.

"I should have never gone down that rode should have known better," Williams said. 

Little did Williams know, those kids would eventually become part of what appears to be an elaborate and shameful money making scheme.

And now the kids have grown to be adults.

Fox 2 watched them for months as they sold candy door to door. Business to business. On foot all day, everyday, rain or shine.

They live with Catherine Bergum and her husband Don, both of whom records show became the kids' legal guardians in the mid-1990s. 

Five out of the seven young people, including their own grandson with their own documented mental disabilities.

Each have a range of challenges from schizophrenia, to retardation, to depression and emotional impairment.

Instead of nurturing and caring for her special needs family inside their Dearborn Heights home, numerous complaints say Catherine Bergum forced the kids to work and live like animals.

Sleeping on the kitchen floor, or in backyard shed that doesn't have heat or bedding, and made to use a porta potty set up on the side of the house.

The day starts with chores and when they are finished, they hit the streets.

Bergum's daughter Nancy Britt picks them up from the Bergum home and drops off in a different location. Sometimes as far away as the Upper Peninsula. Always on the move, so no one catches on..

Each day they are not allowed to come home until every box of the candy is sold. 

A man who worked as a former driver for Bergum, wanted us to conceal his identity and says regrettably, he knows first-hand.

"If they sell 150 boxes a day,  $8 a box we're talking $1,000 dollars or more a day," he said.

Fox 2's Taryn Asher: "And how much do the kids keep?"

"Nothing," the former driver said. "The reason I left, I got tired or it.  I've seen how she was treating the kids. I got tired of it."

Bergum's sellers claim the money goes toward a nonprofit and are happy to provide laminated proof - a document no more official than the cheap plastic around it.

Fox 2: "So what's the name of your company? 

"Americans of Today," said the candy seller. "See it's right on there, Americans of Today."

Fox 2 discovered  Americans of Today may be filed with the state as a nonprofit, but right now the attorney general's office which regulates charities, says it's questioning whether it's legitimate cause.

Americans of Today is not even registered as a charitable trust. Because for years documents show the non profit hasn't proved to the state where the money was going.

It didn't provide copies of Internal Revenue Service returns or financial statements, or a description of all methods of solicitation - a violation of state law.

Americans of Today is licensed by the city of Livonia, but not to sell candy according to clerk. Only to pass out fliers, but one can see here in Livonia, they are not.

In fact, one came up and even sold candy to Fox 2.

On each box of candy it says WorkingTeens.com "Proven fact that a teen kept busy stays out of trouble."

On the website which has no contact information, and tries to fend off curious media - claims the working teens get to keep 33 percent of the money. 

But here's another problem - the people working for Catherine Bergum are no longer teens..

Fox 2: "How long you been involved in the program?"  

"21 years, yep," the young man said.

Fox 2: "Done a lot for you?" 

"Oh yeah," he said.

Fox 2: "How long have you been associated with the program?"  

"Twenty-something years," he said. 

The former driver for Bergum said the sellers never receive any money they make.

"That's why they claim it's a nonprofit," the former driver said.

Fox 2: "But she is the one profiting." 

"Definitely," he said. 

Fox 2: "There are no kids, there is no charity this money is going toward."

 "No, not at all," the driver said. 

Williams agreed.

"It's all about money with her," Williams said. "She doesn't love my kids she uses my kids, all of those kids. Not just mine, anybody's kids."

Fox 2's Taryn Asher confronted Bergum outside a metro Detroit restaurant.

"Catherine, I need to speak with you for a moment," Asher said. "I want to hear about what you've been doing for the last 20 years, making mentally challenged kids sell candy door to door."

"I don't know what you are talking about," Bergum said.

"You want to tell me about your fake nonprofits you set up, where's all the money?" Asher asked.

In 2009, records show Bergum filed for bankruptcy and claims she made $600 that year from her nonprofit Americans of Today.

Several documents show Bergum isn't only profiting from her lucrative candy business, she is collecting all of their social security checks.

As their representative payee she gets nearly $700 a month for each of the six who are now adults she cares for. That comes to about $4,200 a month. 

It appears she uses all of that ill-gotten money to go shopping, drive nice cars, dine out almost every night and got to casinos. She can be seen in multiple photos at Soaring Eagle time and time again. 

Yet those special needs adults are said to make nothing.

Elmer Cerano leads a Lansing-based organization that protects the rights of people with disabilities. He is appalled by what Fox 2 discovered.

"People are complaining that somebody is walking through the neighborhoods selling candy and it just doesn't feel right, follow up on that," Cerano said. "Adult protective services, child protective services if it started when people were young. Where the hell were they?"

Over the last 12 years there have been 14 different complaints filed with adult protective services against Catherine Bergum and her husband. The complaints detail the candy scam with allegations of exploitation, neglect, emotional physical and even sexual exploitation.

To this date nothing has been done to remove the vulnerable, special needs adults.

The complaints date back to 2002 filed by concerned citizens, family members even the victims themselves, stating:

• How they live in horrendous conditions
• How they are forced to sell candy against their will and punished and ridiculed when they do not.
• How they are forced to eat onion sandwiches and clean the privacy fence with a toothbrush.
• How they are moved around to different locations to conceal the candy selling scam.

State regulators say allegations aren't substantiated and the case is closed. But for those with little concept of time, the case is never closed.

Fox 2 "How long have you been associated with the program?"

"Twenty-something years," the seller said.

The candy seller was asked what they get out of it.

"We get trips and activities," the seller said.

"They something but they still work when they camp," the former driver said. "They don't go on activities or anything like that, maybe once or twice a year."

Once or twice a year. or about how often the state has been to the Bergum house.

It all goes according to script. Records claim Catherine Bergum will set it up like everyone is living in a comfortable home with more than enough food.  

She will get rid of the porta potty in the back and she won't allow the mentally impaired adults to be interviewed alone. The alleged victims say they are happy and deny anything was wrong.

"My kids are brainwashed, " Williams said. "I know they are brainwashed."

"Are they forced to say certain things," Asher asked.

"Oh yeah," the former driver said. "I've been to therapy with them before no one-on-ones with them. Cathy always has to be there."

When it came to probate court, for years Bergum had to provide annual reports on the condition of each of the legally incapacitated, developmentally disabled people in her care.

She documented all of the family activities she claims they go on, and each time it appears her word was good enough..

"They don't know any different," Cerano said. "If you're controlling everything that happens to them from when they're a kid, what choice do they have. 

"When they are taken advantage of, people need to pay a price for that."

Bergum, when confronted, did not answer questions.

"What do you have to say about that," Asher asked Bergum. "What do you have to say about yourself exploiting these kids Cathy. All these years.

"You took guardianship of these kids. It's your duty to take care of them. Where's all the money Cathy?"

Bergum did not answer the questions, climbing into her vehicle to leave the parking lot.

Through the years Williams says she has tried to get her kids back, get them away from Bergum. But the courts always felt the Bergums were able to provide a more stable home.

Now that they are adults, it hurts her to think this is the only life they've ever known.

"It really get me upset," Williams said. "But there is nothing I can do. I just hope and pray they will wake up one day and realize what is going on."

In response to Fox 2's story, the Michigan Department of Human Services issued this statement from Bob Wheaton, the acting manager of communications.

The Michigan Department of Human Services has begun a thorough review of cases involving these guardianships. There are questions and concerns related to these cases. 

The department and its director, Maura Corrigan, take very seriously its responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of vulnerable adults. 

That's the job of our Adult Protective Services. The DHS Office of Family Advocate is reviewing the cases. 

To provide a fresh pair of eyes, the Oakland County Department of Human Services also has been assigned by DHS to review the cases - as well as other active cases involving this guardian that were already being investigated.

Two separate investigations have been launched because of Fox 2's story.

Now something may be done.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

In The Name Of God I Command You To Give To Me

Oh those wacky Christian charities.  Invoking images of the wrath of God if you do not give to them in order to save the poor souls of the abused and neglected child, while they drive off in their Mercedes to make sure someone is in the office when the decorator arrives.

Charities With the Highest Admin Costs

A favorite saying in business is that you have to spend money to make money. Charitable organizations, on the other hand, have to spend money to give money, and it turns out that some are woefully inefficient at channeling donations to the people they're supposed to help.

The non-profit Charity Navigator Web site tracks such expenses via charities’ disclosure statements to the IRS to provide donors with an assessment of how well charities run themselves. Looking only at the supply side for the more than 5,500 charities that it tracks, the organization does not evaluate the impact on the recipients of funds, since that impact is often a subjective appraisal of "effectiveness." The statistics used in this list are from the most recent fiscal year's data on the Charity Navigator Web site at the time of publication.

Here are a few of my favorites of the top 20:

18. Gospel to the Unreached Millions (GUM)

Administrative expenses: 43.1%

Based in Houston, this evangelical ministryis one of the least efficient in translating donations into international programs designed to spread its spiritual message. With administrative expenses topping 43% and fundraising expenses more than 38% of its total budget, GUM was able to disburse a mere 18% of incoming money to the targeted recipients of aid in its last reported fiscal year, 2006. Managing a budget of almost $1.5 million, GUM has a poor track record of directing that cash to its evangelical programs.

17. American Psychiatric Foundation

Administrative expenses: 43.7%

Psychiatric evaluation and treatment are a big business in the United States, with new conditions being identified and monitored seemingly every day. The American Psychiatric Foundation, based in Arlington, Va., tries to improve the public’s understanding of mental illness and to advocate for early intervention programs and treatment services through grants, research funding and awards. The group, which is the philanthropic arm of the American Psychiatric Association, has received consistently low ratings for its high administrative costs, which consistently reach more than $500,000 annually.

11. Victorious Christian Living International

Administrative expenses: 46.0%

Based in Phoenix, Arizona, VCLI is one of the smallest organizations on the list, as well as being one of the least efficient. With a budget of only around $100,000 in fiscal year 2007, the group spends almost half on administrative expenses stemming from the operational costs of running offices in Illinois, Alabama, Guatemala, and Cuba in addition to its headquarters in Arizona. The organization, founded by its charismatic leader Ray L’Amoreaux (whose $24,000 salary represented 2.24 percent of expenses in 2007), seeks to help churches further their efforts to recruit more committed followers of Jesus.

9. Changed Lives

Administrative expenses: 47.4%

Changed Lives is a Christian organization based in Tennessee whose message of Biblical values is broadcast streaming over the internet to followers around the world. Carried by speaker Ben Haden, who began his broadcasting career at NBC in 1967, Changed Lives features video lectures on a number of spiritual topics and distributes Bibles and other religious literature for free to its supporters. While the organization’s revenues have increased over the last three reported years, its overhead has more than kept pace, pushing administrative expenses to over 47 percent of the group’s 2008 budget of around $790,000.

8. Vision New England

Administrative expenses: 48.7%

Another evangelical organization, Vision New England works with a network of over 5,000 churches to advance its goal of supporting and improving upon pastors’ efforts to increase bring more New Englanders to faith in Jesus. It does this through seminars and prayer groups throughout the region. The group’s $1.4 million budget in 2008 was significantly lower than the previous two fiscal years, but a significant rise in administrative costs during that same period brought overhead costs up to 48.7 percent of total expenses.

1. American Tract Society

Administrative expenses: 68.0%

Topping the list of America’s worst charities is an organization that spent more than $1.6 million dollars on its administrative expenses in 2007, over twice what it spent the previous year. The American Tract Society, based in Texas, distributes religious literature to spread its message around the world. With a history of low ratings from Charity Navigator, the group’s administrative expenses have consistently outpaced the amount of donations coming in. While the group receives income from other sources than contributions, donors to the American Tract Society may be surprised to know that the recipient is the most inefficient in the country at maximizing the impact of its donations.

Congressional Charities Pulling In Corporate Cash

Donate to a legislator's favorite charity and you can have carte blanche to defraud federal entitlement programs and drug children.

Congressional Charities Pulling In Corporate Cash

WASHINGTON — Representative Joe Baca has achieved near celebrity status in his suburban Los Angeles district, as much for his record of giveaways — Thanksgiving turkeys, college scholarships, spare boots for firefighters — as for anything he has done in Congress.

PAYING FOR GOOD WILL A basketball clinic is one event sponsored by the foundation set up by the family of Representative Joe Baca.

That generosity is made possible by the Joe Baca Foundation, a charity his family set up three years ago to aid local organizations. It provides another benefit, too: helping the Democratic congressman run something akin to a permanent political campaign.

Joe Baca T-shirts and caps are given out at the charity’s events, where banners display his name. Local newspapers mention the charity’s donations, and cable stations show appearances by Mr. Baca and his family at functions his foundation supports.

“It’s great,” said Laura Goodloe, 36, as she watched her 8-year-old son, Jordan, play at the arena in San Bernardino, Calif., where the Baca Foundation offered a free basketball clinic last month. “He is giving back to the community.”

But unlike most private foundations, Mr. Baca’s gets little of its money from its founders’ pockets. Instead, local companies and major corporations that have often turned to Mr. Baca’s Washington office for help, and usually succeed in getting it, are the chief donors.

A review by The New York Times of federal tax records and House and Senate disclosure reports found at least two dozen charities that lawmakers or their families helped create or run that routinely accept donations from businesses seeking to influence them. The sponsors — AT&T, Chevron, General Dynamics, Morgan Stanley, Eli Lilly and dozens of others — contribute millions of dollars annually in gifts ranging from token amounts to a check for $5 million.

Since 2009, businesses have sent lobbyists and executives to the plush Boulders resort in Scottsdale, Ariz., for a fund-raiser for the scholarship fund of Representative Steve Buyer, Republican of Indiana; sponsored a skeet shooting competition in Florida to help the favorite food bank of Representative Allen Boyd, Democrat of Florida; and subsidized a spa and speedway outing in Las Vegas to aid the charity of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada.

Just last month, they touted their largess with flags bearing their names near the tees at a golf tournament benefiting the foundation of Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina.

Despite rules imposed in 2007 to curb the influence of special interests in Congress, corporate donations to lawmakers’ charities have continued, thanks to a provision that allows businesses to make unlimited gifts to them. And while business executives say they want to give to a good cause, their pattern of spending — contributions that often are not disclosed, in apparent violation of ethics rules — suggests another reason.

Altria, the cigarette maker, for example, sent at least $45,000 in donations over a six-week period last fall to four charitable programs founded by House members — including Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, and Mr. Clyburn, the Democratic whip — just as the company was seeking approval of legislation intended to curb illegal Internet sales of its cigarettes. An Altria spokesman said the donations were not related to the measure, which all four congressmen backed. (The other two are Mr. Boyd and Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.)

Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy, acknowledged that the company participates in lawmakers’ charitable events in part to get access to them and push its agenda. “We are not apologetic about it at all: it is part of our overall effort to work with policy makers,” he said. “Social settings are always a good way to get to know people.”

Like Mr. Baca, other members of Congress benefit from the good will that their corporate-financed philanthropy generates among voters. The lawmakers defend the donations, saying they have no influence on the politicians’ positions on legislation or policy. They also say that they typically do not serve on the charities’ governing boards or solicit contributions themselves.

“There is nothing improper here at all,” said Mark Hayes, a spokesman for Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, who helped found two Indiana nonprofit groups that are supported by corporate contributions. “They are simply causes he believes in.”

But some current and former lawmakers, as well as ethics officials on Capitol Hill, find the charitable donations troubling, calling them one of the last major unregulated fronts in the “pay to play” culture in Washington. The donations typically far exceed what companies are permitted to give to candidates in campaign contributions.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, a House oversight group, twice last year investigated lawmakers’ charities, but took no action, in part because the House granted waivers exempting the congressmen from prohibitions against soliciting donations from companies with business before their committees.

The donations by corporations and lobbyists to politicians’ favorite causes can create expectations that the lawmakers will return the favor, said Mickey Edwards, an Oklahoma Republican who served 16 years in the House.

“Almost all of these foundations, they were set up for a good purpose,” Mr. Edwards said. “But as soon as you take a donation, it creates more than just an appearance problem for the member of Congress. It is a real conflict.”

A Time for Giving

In August, with Congress in recess, the charity fund-raising effort goes into overdrive, and last month was no exception.

¶At a mountaintop resort spa in Utah, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Republican, hosted a golf tournament to raise money for the Utah Families Foundation, which he helped establish. Companies willing to donate at least $20,000 got to meet privately with the senator and received other perks.

The guests included executives from Cephalon and Watson Pharmaceutical, drug companies that have sought Mr. Hatch’s help in protecting them from federal regulators who have accused them of conspiring to delay the sale of lower cost generic drugs...more