As you have probably figured out from the title, this is most likely the last article we are going to cover on this subject. While it is our goal to protect vulnerable families from those who may potentially cause them harm, we can only beat this dead horse so many times. For those who have followed our platform, you are most likely aware of the alleged “non-profit” organization, “P4P.” Punished 4 Protecting, which was founded by Francesca Amato-Banfield, is an organization that has been under fire for sometime now. The reasons for such scrutiny vary for many reasons. This article is going to cover, not only this questionable organization, but its founder as well.
Punished 4 Protecting
Punished 4 Protecting was founded in early 2018. While this alone has no merit, it does in that Francesca Amato claims to have been around for many years, that is the only claim she makes that is factual. According to Amato, P4P is a “non-profit” organization. As a matter of fact, the below image is one to which makes such claim.
As stated, she claims to be a “non-profit.” What exactly does that entail? To be classified as a non profit, an organization has to be a 501(c)3. Organizations of this nature are tax exempt. However, with “P4P” one simple issue arises; it’s not a 501(c)3.If anything, it would be a 501(c)4. This sort of organization is defined as, “an organization that is not geared for profit and operated exclusively to promote social welfare. However, her organization is neither of these. It is incorporated and as such, cannot be a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, We covered this issue in one of the first articles regarding Francesca’s organization. You may read the article, Sorry: 501c3 not found.
When looking at the “P4P” site, you will notice another contradiction. Looking at the name, it has one slight flaw that disproves it being a “non-profit.” The minor issue is simply “inc.” If that doesn’t sound like anything critical, it actually is. It is because an organization cannot be incorporated and be a non-profit; it is either a corporation, or a non-profit, it can’t be both. While this could be argued as a simple oversight, looking into the list of New York’s registered non-profit organizations, one organization is missing: Francesca’s.
The above image brings fourth another problem. In the same post, Francesca, the family advocate, actually threatens Ashley Cooper with CPS. Now, for an individual who is “bringing down the system,” wouldn’t this be a bit counter-productive to her cause? If anything, it does demonstrate what lengths Francesca is willing to go to silence anybody who opposes her. Given the dialogue, one can presume that Francesca is fully aware of who Ashley is. Though this is also useless by itself, it plays into something we will be covering shortly.
As we have stated, Francesca is a woman that has been encircled with controversy since 2017. With a variety of articles and YouTube videos, she has been repeatedly accused of being a con-artist. Furthermore, there have been many accusations regarding her friendships with registered sex offenders. In recent times, she faced accusations of spreading “sovereign citizenship” ideologies. One such example, comes from early 2019. Francesca Amato, alongside her typical group of associates, had a “one cure fix all” affidavit. While they claimed this affidavit worked, no evidence has ever been produced to validate this claim.
In the first image we presented, it is clear that Francesca seems to know about Ashley’s case. Furthermore, she alleges to know enough to even know who the caseworker. However, in this most recent image, she is seen asking, “Who are you?” and, “Again who are you?” This question is a complete 180 from the original image. How does one implicate to know about another’s case if they don’t even know who that individual is to begin with? The fact that a self proclaimed advocate would resort to, what is essentially a form of blackmail, to silence anybody who speaks out against her, has only added to the controversy surrounding her.
Francesca Amato-Banfield, as we can tell from our research, is not an advocate. The amount of controversy, damaging information provided by her, and various other forms of questionable deeds has many people raising a brow. If the controversy isn’t about her directly, it surrounds her associates. One example of such is David Jose who, according to many people, takes money from a victim and then proceeds to block them. As if that isn’t enough, photographic evidence shows him illegally withdrawing funds out of bank accounts. If you intend to use an advocate to fight your case, do your research. Don’t just pick the first beautiful flower you see, it may be toxic.
Other related articles: