Diana Napolis, koOky former California CPS Caseworker
Greegor
> There are some serious problems with this glowing report that gets CPS
> off the hook.
>
> 1. While children usually tell the truth, it is how that "truth" is
> obtained and then how it is interpreted. Kids want approval.
> a. Interrogators of children often put suggestions into a kid's head
> by the very questioning they ask.
> b. What is this "truth" they speak about with kids? It all depends on
> the interrogating adult's interpretation of the child's statements.
> Young kids often tell the truth but in their words and from their
> perspective that is not understood by the interrogator. The
> interrogator takes what they say without doing any further
> investigations, only use it to “prove their case..
> c. All paid employees related to CPS have a stake to make when they
> make allegations, mostly because they live off the backs of kids and
> family's miseries. The more they can make of allegations; the more
> trauma they can cause, which is job security. Often these workers are
> personally rewarded for every child they take ~ so why wouldn't they
> gin up allegations when it gives them awards, a paycheck and all that
> sympathy they are so holy for “protecting little babies’ when in truth
> they benefit from not telling the truth?
>
> 2. As for all these confessions. Many people enter guilty pleas
> rather than put a child through a harrowing court trial and because
> they do not have the funds to adequately defend themselves. This is
> always counted as a "confession" when in truth it is way for the
> accused to get through the horrible ordeal of the accusations.
>
> 3. Allegations whether criminal or not, always stand with little way
> to refute CPS. They have the unconstitutional right to interrogate
> kids and then make these allegations to suit their purposes and remove
> them with little scrutiny and are no hekd accountable even when they
> could be proven false. These allegations false or not, last for a
> lifetime for the accused, without any way to refute them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYcQMR86ggY&feature=related
>
> 4. People, remember that every child taken reaps a financial reward
> for the courts, CPS, and all other accusers. Federal money is given
> according to how many kids have been taken. Read title IV-E, that
> will spell it out as to the money allocated for foster care and
> adoption ~ btw relatives usually receive NOTHING, they work for free.
> A recent relative care giver made spreadsheets for the care she gave
> with 24/7 care for 4 years with NO compensation. At minimum wage it
> came out to over $270,000 of FREE care. Meanwhile she is at risk for
> being falsely accused of neglect and maltreatment with myriads of
> witnesses who know different that CPS REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE BECAUSE
> IT WOULD REFUTE THEIR FALSE CHARGES.
>
> 5. Neither kids nor their families have decent advocates. Little kids
> do not even merit an attorney for an advocate, merely volunteers whose
> say in court is about the only thing counted. CASA is merely a rubber
> stamp for DSHS agencies, they are not representing kids, even though
> they pretend protections of the child is their mission. It is not
> near any protection except for themselves and the DSHS agency. .
> a. Families often cannot afford to defend themselves, especially
> relative care takers and foster parents who are trying to adopt. Even
> if they can afford a lawyer, he/she does not have any say in court nor
> any way to refute allegations. It costs families hundreds of thousands
> of dollars they do not have and CPS knows it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaA2ohqTNsQ&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC7FxvYUKzw&feature=related
>
> 6. While states are strapped, this only means more reason to "get that
> money" at any cost, who cares what cost it is to the child as CPS
> agencies are funded on the basis of traumatizing them?. More often
> than not little kids are suddenly take with no explanation nor even a
> chance to say good-bye. They are then lied to about the disappearance
> of the people they love. They suffer life-long trauma over this,
> often detachment disorders that affect them for the rest of their
> lives. As a matter of fact, when these kids are taken it AGAIN it
> means another money bomb for the agencies.
> a. There are indications in research that parents and families are the
> best for a child, even if they have "issues." However their
> "psychological evaluations" are rigged:
>
> 7. Shoddy "investigations" that are more like witch hunts are the
> prevalent practices of CPS. The CWLA (Child Welfare League of
> America) report admits that: "The findings of the federal Child and
> Family Service Reviews have clearly demonstrated that the more time a
> caseworker spends with a child and family, the better the outcomes for
> those children and families ..." However, the case manager supported
> by their offices, often refuse to do a thorough research on the
> families of the children they are supposed to represent in order
> to ..." Workers spend on the average of 2-4 hours per month per child
> ~ and most of that is filling out paperwork that has little to do with
> "spending time" with any family. Yet they count this paperwork time
> as “spending time" when in fact it is not and do not even come close
> to the amount of time they should spend and therefore regularly some
> to "conclusions" that are terrible for the child.
> a. Do *not* give the excuse that case managers have a lot of cases.
> They chose this profession and chose the job. Furthermore they have a
> moral obligation as they are the lynchpin (yes I spelled lynchpin
> correctly, as in "lynch" as they regularly do to families) to a
> child's stability with their decisions.
>
> 8. Terminating parental rights and adoptions is BIG BUSINESS reaping
> billions of dollars per state. AFSA sets quotas for State for
> kidnapping and selling kids, and if quota are exceeded they are
> rewarded and can make all the false allegations they wish since they
> are not held accountable CPS gets between $5000-10,000 per kid every
> time they are taken and moved.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qfbu2SxvM8&feature=related
>
> 9. Juvenile courts, non-profits, and judges are conflicting interests
> while placing children. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=1&em;
> .
>
> Do not say this is an odd case, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
> Oregon state has a juvenile judge who employs almost her whole court
> with her extended family: Nevada is missing millions of dollars that
> are unaccounted with little oversight and NO accountability.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86IHL8L9tIo&feature=related. Nobody
> watches, no official demands accountability, in all 50 states.
>
> So tell us again about how 'true" these allegations are when in fact
> the agencies themselves get rewarded every time they twist the truth
> and lie about a family, in additions to when they tell the truth and
> how they "interpret" kids' statements, when in fact they are pressured
> by their State to do a shoddy and incomplete job while working in a
> liaise-faire agency with all the power and no accountability. False
> allegations that stand without any way for the accused to refute them
> happens all the time.
>
> And CPS affiliates merely hide behind phrases such as "in the best
> interest of the child, “confidentiality” and other “reasons” to cover
> up their falsehoods by refusing citizens any voice in court. If they
> are so truthful why are they so afraid to publish or even release to a
> court of law or the media the truth? It is an easy matter to remove
> real kids and family names and replace them with aliases and done all
> the time.
>
> I could say more but …had to comment on this transparent attempt to
> legitimize CPS when in fact it is an unconstitutional entity that
> profits off of kids by breaking up families in order to keep their
> jobs.
>
> Cat in Seattle
Well said.
The person you answered appears to be Diana Napolis,
famous for being a mentally ill California caseworker.
The person obsessively posts about the
SAME OBSESSIONS as Diana Napolis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
The regulars here have almost given up on
answering the stuff she SPAMS to various
related newsgroups.
She tends to not answer questions or comments,
operating in a sort of blind cult-like mode.
Learn more about her by Googling Diana Napolis or
Karen "Curio" Jones one of her old alias names.
Her own blog is so mentally ill that it's funny.
CPS didn't dump her out for being so extremely mentally ill
until she made national headlines and to avoid the
PR disaster they dumped her.
Targeted families are regularly and routinely ordered
into psych evals with no probable cause (Constitution?)
but I have NEVER heard of a family succeeding at
getting the caseworker ordered into a psych eval.
Of course, if they did, they would probably rig the
hell out of the psych eval anyway, and if it went
badly it would become almost top secret!
The caseworker's HIPAA privacy rights you know!
LOL
Could you imagine having Napolis sitting in judgement
of YOUR family?
She actually believes this mentally ill crap
that false allegations of child sexual abuse
are extremely rare.
The CLASSIC where a 14 year old girl tells
such LIES to get rid of a new stepdad because
she wants Mom all to herself is well known.
Caseworkers KNOW how common that one is,
although they pretend that it's not, because
they take advantage of those BS cases
to secure their jobs as you said.
There's a MYTH that lots of caseworkers
spew that kids do not lie.
It's likewise, profitable for caseworkers to
push this lie.
Another variation I've run across several times
is that the case gets sorted out and Mom
actually doesn't want the BRAT back because
she needs to protect the OTHER kids and
new stepdad from the little hellraiser.
Ironically, the girl who falsely claimed rape
stands a BIG percentage chance of being
raped over and over in Foster care.
It can be a nasty cosmic justice in that sort of case.
In some of these cases, where the kid LIED
to get into foster care, her complaints about being
raped are written off as LIES, by the same
people who much earlier said that kids don't lie!
But Diana is the most extrerme of the KOOK
caseworkers in that she genuinely sees abuse
behind almost EVERY door!
She thinks ritual stanic child abuse is common!
Can you imagine a nut case like her accusing you
of Munchausens By Proxy? I bet she did!
She's never said so, but you just KNOW that
Diana claims she was abused as a child.
This kind of thing came up in discussions of
a news story recently when a kid shot
his Dad to death claiming his Dad disciplined
him too much.
I asked if ANY kid doesn't think that ANY
discipline is too much!
I bet EVERY kid thinks they are SO VERY
put upon, so abused when they are disciplined
in any way, spanking or not!
It's like asking somebody if they could
use more money. Who would not say yes?
Kids compare notes to see who's got it
the WORST, and the winner of this wierd
whiney contest is considered cool somehow.
We have an entire CULTURE of people
falsely claiming victimhood.
Whether Diana truly was abused as a child, or
whether her mental illness has her falsely
BELIEVING she was, EITHER WAY, somebody
like that should NOT be a CPS caseworker!
Greegor
G >
G > The person you answered appears
G > to be Diana Napolis, famous for
G > being a mentally ill California caseworker.
G >
G > The person obsessively posts about the
G > SAME OBSESSIONS as Diana Napolis.
KBW > I've never seen a post from CA about
KBW > Jennifer Love Hewitt. I admit I don't
KBW > read much of what CA posts, so it
KBW > is possible. Could you supply the
KBW > MID and.or Google link to at least
KBW > one post from CA about Jennifer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
Anybody can look up Diana Napolis AKA Karen "Curio" Jones.
Almost as easily as looking up Kent Bradley Wills.
http://www.bbs.ca.gov/pdf/enf_docs/fy0304/mf2003530.pdf
http://www.xeper.org/maquino/nm/Napolis.pdf
http://members.cox.net/court50/lettertohume.pdf
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.legal/2008-06/msg00403.html
This is my FAVORITE. Diana wrote to try to overturn
some old research results that said that satanic
child abuse does not exist. She used the
pseudonym Rory Hume and complained that
the professor involved wrote back to her under
her real name!
She tried to complain that it was unprofessional!
Do you think some professional should take
the word of some famous nutcase using
a bogus name, to change their research results?
http://members.cox.net/court50/lettertohume.pdf
Preview Page 1 of 3
Date: Monday, April 14, 2008 10: 11 AM From: Rory Hume
<Rory...@ucop.edu> To: Steven Beckwith <steven....@ucop.edu>,
dn...@cox.net Cc: Barry Klein <bmk...@ucdavis.edu>, Bob Dynes
<robert...@ucop.edu> Subject: Re: Complaint about suspected
Academic Fraud
Excellent, Steve. Perfectly handled. Thanks. Rory
On 4/14/08 9:03 AM, "Steven Beckwith" <steven....@ucop.edu>
wrote:
Dear Ms. Napolis,
Your April 9, 2008 e-mail, copied below, to Chancellor Vanderhoef at
the University of California, Davis was forwarded to me by Executive
Vice President and Provost Hume here at the Office of the President. I
have communicated with Vice Chancellor Barry Klein about your e-mail.
In addition to serving as the Vice Chancellor for Research, Dr. Klein
is the campus Institutional Official responsible for managing
allegations of research misconduct made against employees of the Davis
campus. I have asked him to review your allegations and to take
appropriate actions based on his assessment. I expect that you will
hear shortly from the campus about this matter.
Sincerely,
Steven Beckwith
Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies
Office of the President
University of California
------Forwarded Message
From: <dn...@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:20: 12 -0700
To: <Invand...@ucdavis.edu>
Cc: <rory...@ucop.edu>, <dgre...@blumecapital.com>
Subject: Complaint about suspected Academic Fraud
Ritual Court Cases Project 6977 Navajo Rd. PMB 114
San Diego, California 92119-1503 619-873-5917
April 9, 2008,
Per the instructions of the Office of the Secretary of the Regents, I
am
proceeding with a request for further administrative review of the
research
study, "Characteristics and Sources of Allegations of Ritualistic
Child
Abuse," by Dr. Gail Goodman, principal researcher at UC Davis, Phil
Shaver,
and Bette Bottoms, published in 1994.
On July 13, 2007 I sent a series of brief questions to Gail Goodman of
UC
Davis requesting feedback about the issues I raised about this study
in case
http://webmail.west.cox.netJdo/maillmessage/preview?msgId=importantDELIM1015
9/21/2008
Preview Page 2 ot:;
I had come to any wrong conclusions. Because I received no response
from Dr.
Goodman, I elevated the matter to Keith Widiman, Chairman of the
Psychology
Department, and Steve Sheflin, Dean, who also provided no response.
In December 2007 I conducted a more thorough review of this pivotal
research
study -which purported to find no "scientific" evidence of the satanic
cult abuse of children -and discovered what I believe to be many
irregularities. In lieu of a rational explanation which might explain
these
irregularities it appears that academic fraud occurred.
My background is as a Court Intervention Social worker for Child
Protective
Services with a specialization in the investigation of ritual abuse. I
established the Ritual Court Cases Project in 1994 and published my
archive
of court cases on the internet which proved the existence of SRA. This
archive now includes over 80 cases and is posted at
http://www.endritualabuse.org/ritualabusearchive.htm. I am now
returning to
my research which is, of course, lawful activity.
The problems in the research study "Characteristics and Sources of
Allegations of Ritualistic Child Abuse" in my opinion are many, the
most
outstanding of which is 1) the researchers claimed to have analyzed
the
legal findings of Social Services in the United States about the legal
outcomes of satanic ritual abuse cases and yet there was no mention of
Juvenile Court proceedings or petitions filed. Instead, the
researchers used
social worker case opening and closing codes which are not legal
findings.
2) The researchers claimed to have discovered no scientific evidence
proving
intergenerational satanic cult abuse yet their perpetratorjvictim
relationship scale measured only one generation.
The lead researcher Gail Goodman gave an interview about this study in
1994
to New York Times reporter Daniel Goleman for his article titled
"Proof
Lacking for Ritual Abuse by Satanists," in which the numbers that had
been
analyzed in this study were grossly inflated which caused Mr. Goleman
to
erroneously conclude: "In a survey of more than 11,000 psychiatric and
police workers throughout the country, conducted for the National
Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect, researchers found more than 12,000
accusations of
group cult sexual abuse based on satanic ritual, but no one that
investigators had been able to substantiate. "
The above claim is a completely false statement. The researchers did
not
receive this high of a return rate.
On January 2, 2008 I sent a 53 page critique of this study to UC Davis
Vice-Chancellor Loessberg-Zahl, requesting that he address the issues
that I
had raised. I chose to correspond under the pseudoynm "Ellen Geykus"
because
I am currently on probation in San Diego County (which should end in a
few
months) and I did not want UC Davis officials to divert from the
issues and
focus on my probationary status.
On February 7, 2008 I received a dismissive letter by Mr. Zahl who had
discovered my real name, Diana Napolis, and addressed his letter to
"Diana
Napolis." In order to discover my real name, someone would have had to
search the internet for my postal address. The only place on the
internet
which lists my postal address is at endritualabuse.org I believe this
search for my real name to be also highly irregular.
Ms. Zahl claimed that he had not discovered any researcher misconduct
and,
as I suspected would happen, Mr. Zahl informed me that he had
contacted the
campus police and advised me that there was no further reason to
contact Dr.
Goodman. My fellow colleagues and I believe that this was an attempt
to
intimidate me from asserting my right to question this research study.
http://webmail.west.cox.net!do/mail/message/preview?msgId=importantDELIM1015
9121/2008
Preview Page 3 of3
Because I am requesting that a serious investigation into academic
fraud occur, I obviously have no interest in contacting the lead
researcher.
I am requesting that further review of this study take place by UC
Davis Chancellor Mr. Larry Vanderholf, the Provost of Academic
Affairs, Rory K. Hume, and Chairperson of the Regents office.
I sent this 53 page critique as an attachment file. The questions were
meant to be directed to the researchers involved via an intermediary.
If the entire file is not received, please inform me and I will send
it through the postal mail.
Sincerely,
Diana I\lapolis
cc: Rory K. Hume Richard Blum
------End of Forwarded Message
------End of Forwarded Message
http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/mail/message/preview?msgId=importantDELIM1015
9/21/2008
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>G >Well said.
>G >
>G > The person you answered appears
>G > to be Diana Napolis, famous for
>G > being a mentally ill California caseworker.
>G >
>G > The person obsessively posts about the
>G > SAME OBSESSIONS as Diana Napolis.
>
>KBW > I've never seen a post from CA about
>KBW > Jennifer Love Hewitt. I admit I don't
>KBW > read much of what CA posts, so it
>KBW > is possible. Could you supply the
>KBW > MID and.or Google link to at least
>KBW > one post from CA about Jennifer?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_lMyMi3UdQ
>
>Anybody can look up Diana Napolis AKA Karen "Curio" Jones.
>Almost as easily as looking up Kent Bradley Wills.
And just as easily as anyone can look up your two convictions for
BEATING your ex-wife, your claim that you are on Iowa's Child Abuse
Registry, and so on.
What would any of it have to do with your claim that CA posts
about Jennifer Love Hewitt? You did write that they obsessively post
about the SAME OBSESSIONS.
Are you going to offer proof of your claim, or will you continue
to try and distract from it, as you did in the part of your post I
snipped, since you can't prove your FACT CLAIM?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Greegor
You didn't actually LOOK at those links did you?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What are you arguing about and why, Kent?
>
If you didn't NEED to prove, once again, that your illegal drug
use and abuse, (unless you lied about using and abusing illegal drugs)
makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident or force, you
wouldn't have snipped where I made my possition very clear.
You made the FACT CLAIM that CA and Diana are the same person. As
of my writing this, you've failed to prove your claim. In fact,
you've offered nothing to support your FACT CLAIM.
You made the FACT CLAIM they obsessively post about the same
thing. Not once has CA posted about Jennifer Love Hewitt. There is
nothing to indicate that CA cares anything about JLH.
>You didn't actually LOOK at those links did you?
I did look. Nothing in them supports, let alone proves, your
FACT CLAIM that CA is Diana.
Have you failed to notice that many of the claims presented by CA
are no more outrageous than the vast majority of your own?
Does that make you also a kook? By your standards, it should. Of
course, you are psychologically UNABLE to allow yourself to be held to
the same standards you DEMAND for others.
You present a persona that is even more unbalanced than the one
presented by CA. Get off the drugs you admit you use and abuse, then
get the mental health care your years of using and abusing illegal
drugs has made necessary.
Be a good little monkey and RUN from the TRUTH I've presented.
Greegor
PERSONAL connection to these issues?
The reason you push this recovered memories crap
is that you're a mental case who claims to have
discovered your own ""abuse"" through
""recovered memories"", right?
Did you trash your relationship with your
own parents based on the hocum from
some ""recovered memories"" kook?
So now you're too horrified to admit that
it was all a bunch of garbage, right?
I see how in late 2008 Diana tried using a fake
identity to harass a university researcher in
an attempt to get them to change their results.
Diana posted the proof of this online herself!
She was put out that the professor wrote
back to her using her REAL name.
She claimed this was unprofessional behavior on his part!
The research that Diana wanted to REVERSE
concluded that ritual satanic child abuse
does not exist.
The reason I still think you ARE Diana is that
you apparently consider yourself a childadvocate.
That's a prety close match with Diana's brain rot.
What gives YOU the right to pretend you are
advocating for children?
That's a classic position for the misfits at CPS.
Who ELSE would attempt to claim such
a bogus aire of officialdom? (""childadvocate"")
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Diana or Michelle, Could you please explain your
>PERSONAL connection to these issues?
>
>The reason you push this recovered memories crap
>is that you're a mental case who claims to have
>discovered your own ""abuse"" through
>""recovered memories"", right?
>
>Did you trash your relationship with your
>own parents based on the hocum from
>some ""recovered memories"" kook?
>
>So now you're too horrified to admit that
>it was all a bunch of garbage, right?
>
>
>I see how in late 2008 Diana tried using a fake
>identity to harass a university researcher in
>an attempt to get them to change their results.
>
>Diana posted the proof of this online herself!
What does Diana have to do with CA? Be specific and prepared to
be made to look the fool. Unless you're too much a coward to answer.
>
>She was put out that the professor wrote
>back to her using her REAL name.
>
>She claimed this was unprofessional behavior on his part!
>
>The research that Diana wanted to REVERSE
>concluded that ritual satanic child abuse
>does not exist.
>
>The reason I still think you ARE Diana is that
>you apparently consider yourself a childadvocate.
Are you so screwed up from your drug use that you believe Diana
is the ONLY person who can be a child advocate?
Serious question.
>
>That's a prety close match with Diana's brain rot.
>
>What gives YOU the right to pretend you are
>advocating for children?
>
>That's a classic position for the misfits at CPS.
>
>Who ELSE would attempt to claim such
>a bogus aire of officialdom? (""childadvocate"")
Just because you HATE families, as PROVED by your extremely
pro-CPS stance, doesn't mean everyone else is, Greg.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>>Who ELSE would attempt to claim such
>>a bogus aire of officialdom? (""childadvocate"")
>
> Just because you HATE families, as PROVED by your extremely
>pro-CPS stance, doesn't mean everyone else is, Greg.
That sentence is just painful!
I meant to write, "...doesn't mean everyone else does, Greg."
I apologize for any confusion my poor proofreading may have
caused.
--
"Kent"
Greegor
PERSONAL reasons to want to sell this stuff?
Diana actually wrote to one university
researcher and tried to argue them
into reversing their finding that ritual
stanic child abuse does not exist.
But she misrepresented WHO she was.
When they wrote back to her under her
real name, she got pissed and complained
that was unprofessional.
Apparently she wanted to conceal her very real
diagnosed mental illness and her legal history.
How professional would it be if the professor
acted on a complaint from a raving mental case?
By the way, Diana does post her letter where
she admits to the subterfuge but calls the
response unprofessional. I did not see her
original complaint letter or the professor's
response letter.
The professor's letter back to her would
be the most interesting, I think.
Not to detract from the academic results
but NBC did a demonstration that makes
suggestibility of kids blatantly obvious
and on film/video so that any lay person
can understand the problem.
By the way, that was not just about
implanted memories, but showed how
interrogating or interviewing the kids
about the blue man on the roof would
have the kids telling stories in a
"matter of fact" way about the blue man
on the roof by the 4th interview.
The kids pick up huge clues about what
the interviewer WANTS TO HEAR.
This is about kids interviews/testimony
USED IN COURT.
Another problem mentioned is that kids
are interviewed over and over without
cameras and THEN after many such
interviews the video camera is turned on.
Considering this situation, people like
Michelle and Diana (when she was
actually a CA CPS caseworker) are
extremely dangerous.
Please note that Diana apparently worked
for CPS in California but if you read her
material she frequently asserts that she was
working FOR THE COURT which is both
factually a deception and reveals her
dangerous intent in that regard.
It's common for CPS caseworkers to pose
as having expertise they DO NOT have,
but most of them are a bit too cagey to
PUBLICLY make such false declarations
of expertise.
Why does Diana repeatedly refer to her
past employment as a COURT something
or other when in fact she worked for CPS?
I strongly suspect that CA/Michelle/Diana
have a PERSONAL stake in the outcome
on this issue, likely in the case of
THEIR OWN perceived abuse there
was NO ACTUAL PROOF.
Since the original argument was about recovered
memories I would suggest that they didn't even
KNOW they were victims until it was ""extracted""
through hypnosis, and NOW they are unable
to cope with the idea they were DUPED by
abusive psychology.
Imagine the horror these people must feel
at the realization that they blamed their
own parents FALSELY of such terrible things!
No wonder some KOOK like Diana/Michelle/CA
would have some trouble accepting that
they were DUPED into believing some
fictional story of child abuse!
And what if they simply DELUDED THEMSELF?
Diana has clearly had other quite vivid DELUSIONS.
It's part of her record!
CA/Michelle/Diana, Was there ever any
actual PROOF of your abuse?
Or was it possibly just a bunch of brain rot
""extracted"" through suggestive interviews
or hypnosis?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>How obvious is it that Michelle or Diana have
>PERSONAL reasons to want to sell this stuff?
To whom do you direct this question, and why did you attempt to
answer before reading any replies?
In answer to your question, no very. Unless you know something
the rest of the readers don't appear to know, we know very little
about CA. Her motivations have never been made public. Certainly
I've not seen her claim any specific motivation.
I've only seen Diana post three times or less. Each post had
NOTHING to do with children, but some rant about alien conspiracies.
>
>Diana actually wrote to one university
>researcher and tried to argue them
>into reversing their finding that ritual
>stanic child abuse does not exist.
Some accessible references please with links, not just copy and
paste materials. I think everyone accepts that you think you're
exempt from any and all laws. You don't need to PROVE it again.
>
>But she misrepresented WHO she was.
>
So you've claimed. I note the proof is lacking.
>When they wrote back to her under her
How did a (singular) University researcher become they (plural)?
>real name, she got pissed and complained
>that was unprofessional.
If, as you claim, the researcher had her real name, where is your
complaint?
Do you also think the use of her real name was unprofessional,
presuming your claim is true?
>
>Apparently she wanted to conceal her very real
>diagnosed mental illness and her legal history.
It looks suspiciously as though you want to do precisely that.
Trying to avoid the need to be a victim status a psychologist
identified? The item I call "The Lisa Rant" mentions how a
professional psychologist identified this trait in you.
It stuck out with me because I made the same claim of you. Of
course, I lack the education and training of the psychologist, so my
"diagnosis" was, being kind to myself, lacking.
>
>How professional would it be if the professor
>acted on a complaint from a raving mental case?
Very, if after examining the materials the researcher, sorry, the
person in your latest psycho-rant has been promoted to professor all
of a sudden, found s/he was incorrect.
>
>By the way, Diana does post her letter where
>she admits to the subterfuge but calls the
>response unprofessional.
Yet you've been UNABLE to post a link to it, even though I've
requested it of you a few times.
>I did not see her
>original complaint letter or the professor's
>response letter.
But you presume much from it.
Let's see the letter you claim you've seen, unless I've exposed
another of your lies.
>
>The professor's letter back to her would
>be the most interesting, I think.
It might well be interesting. Especially since it will, in all
probability, nullify all your innuendos.
>
>Not to detract from the academic results
>but NBC did a demonstration that makes
>suggestibility of kids blatantly obvious
>and on film/video so that any lay person
>can understand the problem.
They subjected kids to real trauma, and kids to fake trauma?
And tested the hypothesis you are putting forward?
Legally did that?
Please offer a verifiable cite, unless you're lying again.
>
>By the way, that was not just about
>implanted memories, but showed how
>interrogating or interviewing the kids
>about the blue man on the roof would
>have the kids telling stories in a
>"matter of fact" way about the blue man
>on the roof by the 4th interview.
>
Just as they will about the tooth fairy. Unlikely they would,
however, buy from any interviewer that the tooth fairy came and
molested them, don't you think? No matter how many times they were
told that the tooth fairy did it?
Let me, and everyone else reading, know when you find TRAUMA
implanted by interview.
The blue man story is just a story like any other. Nothing
remarkable about the blue man on the roof.
>The kids pick up huge clues about what
>the interviewer WANTS TO HEAR.
Yes, they do. Now prove your claim that they are fed false
memories of TRAUMA. Unless your claim is nothing more than another of
your MANY drug induced pathological lies, of course.
>
>This is about kids interviews/testimony
>USED IN COURT.
Yes it is, and that is why interviewers are very careful not to
do the things you claim they do.
If they do as you claim, offer the proof. If they do not, and
you're simply lying in the pathetic hope of getting parents to trust
you so that you can sabotage their cases with CPS, you'll not be able
to offer any proof.
>
>Another problem mentioned is that kids
>are interviewed over and over without
>cameras and THEN after many such
>interviews the video camera is turned on.
Prove it, unless you're lying.
>
>Considering this situation, people like
>Michelle and Diana
So you accept CA (Michelle) and Diana are not the same person.
That's good news, Greg.
>(when she was
>actually a CA CPS caseworker) are
>extremely dangerous.
You are the dangerous one here. You try to deal in absolutes.
There are none in human affairs.
What kind of diversion are you running and why? Serious
questions.
I think you are still trying to get parents to believe you'd be
on their side in any dealings with CPS.
Using your own posts, I've been able to PROVE you're nothing more
than a CPS shill. The gig is up. Only the very foolish would follow
any advice you'd given.
And if they are foolish enough to follow your advice, they
probably shouldn't be allowed around children. At least you'd be
performing a small service to the world.
>
>Please note that Diana apparently worked
>for CPS in California but if you read her
>material she frequently asserts that she was
>working FOR THE COURT which is both
>factually a deception and reveals her
>dangerous intent in that regard.
>
So when you leave certain critical details out of referring to
your own history, like your two convictions for BEATING your ex-wife,
you are doing so to deceive. Got it.
>It's common for CPS caseworkers to pose
>as having expertise they DO NOT have,
>but most of them are a bit too cagey to
>PUBLICLY make such false declarations
>of expertise.
Let me see if I understand. They pose as, but do not publicly
declare. Can you explain how that works and what significance that
would have?
You are posing as an expert on this issue, publicly, but offer NO
credentials yourself. Your information is often based on, according to
you, CPS manuals, but CPS workers, and juvenile court works often
have, in addition to any phantom manuals, a few years of experience,
and ongoing professional development and often college degrees in
their field.
What do you have?
>
>Why does Diana repeatedly refer to her
>past employment as a COURT something
>or other when in fact she worked for CPS?
You have proof she never mentioned working for CPS? You are
aware that a worker that opens a case because a they are a worker for
the court and must respond to the judges requests, right?
Why do you create these elaborate lies via innuendo, Greg? Do
you really think the readers are that stupid?
>
>I strongly suspect that CA/Michelle/Diana
>have a PERSONAL stake in the outcome
>on this issue, likely in the case of
>THEIR OWN perceived abuse there
>was NO ACTUAL PROOF.
I strongly suspect, from your own claims about yourself, that you
have a huge personal stake in creating a diversion concerning your
long periods of time alone with Lisa's little six year old girl in the
bathroom while she showered.
Your steamy rhetoric reads very much like known child molesters.
Have you been alone with other children while they were showering, or
have you backed off since the state of Iowa has found out about you
and, if you are telling the truth, placed you on Iowa's Child Abuse
Registry?
I note that dispute numerous requests, you've NEVER offered proof
that you're on the registry. Did you lie when you made the claim? If
yes, please explain why. If no, please present the proof.
>
>Since the original argument was about recovered
>memories I would suggest that they didn't even
>KNOW they were victims until it was ""extracted""
Double quotations (quadruple if you follow British rules of
grammar) still mean nothing at all.
Since I explained this to you, I have to wonder why you continue
to destroy your own writings by using them.
>through hypnosis, and NOW they are unable
>to cope with the idea they were DUPED by
>abusive psychology.
>
>Imagine the horror these people must feel
>at the realization that they blamed their
>own parents FALSELY of such terrible things!
You shot yourself in the foot, metaphorically speaking. The
incidence of such accusations being false would be extremely small
precisely because of this parental love factor.
>
>No wonder some KOOK like Diana/Michelle/CA
>would have some trouble accepting that
>they were DUPED into believing some
>fictional story of child abuse!
You have extreme trouble with the truth.
Trouble with lies, if they are lies, is common for everyone, not
just CPS workers. You serve as a great example. Many times you've
been exposed in lies because you forget what you've claimed.
>
>And what if they simply DELUDED THEMSELF?
>
They might start listening to the CPS shill know to us as Gregory
Scott Hanson?
>Diana has clearly had other quite vivid DELUSIONS.
>It's part of her record!
>
Are you saying that her moment by moment experiences are all
delusions and she has no accurate factual interactions with others?
That opens the door to YOU having the same thing going on. You do
understand that you exhibit strong signs of being mentally disturbed,
do you not?
You are constantly speaking in terms of insinuations and innuendo
and positioning yourself as a victim or a victims advocate by exposing
those that you believe are victimizing you.
And very rarely do you produce anything like proof when asked for
it. The few occasions when you've been seen to do so you come up with
sources as cobbled together nonsense from people with much the same
personality disorders you exhibit on-line.
You have even done a considerable amount of victim blaming. In
fact you've done it to families coming to find support and information
at ASCPS.
It's just the sort of thing I would expect of a CPS shill such as
yourself.
>CA/Michelle/Diana, Was there ever any
>actual PROOF of your abuse?
Early in your post you make it clear you've accepted Diana is not
CA (Michelle). Now you make an assumption without proof that they are
the same person.
Pick a lane.
You'll not be the least embarrassed, as normal people would be
and are, to discover that yes, indeed, a great majority of child
sexual abuse allegations are based not JUST on the testimony of the
child. They are based on witnesses, both lay persons (witnesses
without any professional training) and professionals, the people that
gather forensic evidence from physical injuries, cultures of sexually
transmitted diseases, DNA matching of semen samples to the alleged
perp, and PREGNANCY of the female victim (if old enough to conceive a
child) with, yet again, DNA matching.
You'd brush all that aside to play your "poor little me," a
helpless victim of others and the system.
Do you still blame Lisa's little girl for turning on you and
getting you reported? Oh wait, you've offered NOTHING in the way of
proof that you've ever been reported for child abuse. That's a part
of your cover so that people won't see you for the CPS shill you are.
>
>Or was it possibly just a bunch of brain rot
>""extracted"" through suggestive interviews
>or hypnosis?
It's said anything is possible. More so if you create the
circumstances in your question without determining they are true. You
cannot know they were subjected to suggestive interviews (In your mind
asking for the truth, if it goes against you, is suggestive) or
hypnosis.
If you'd left out the innuendo of "bunch of brain rot," you could
have asked a perfectly valid question that was not rhetorically loaded
to out you as a little self serving, pro-CPS shill you are.
What if you are addressing someone that is in fact a victim?
This is the same sort of language you have used with families new
to ASCPS -- blaming them for being a victim of your favorite faux
villain that serves you so well, your precious CPS.
You can't possibly be so stupid as to NOT understand how you
serve CPS when you do these attacks. Oh wait, you do. You're all for
CPS, as your own posts have proved.
Greegor
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent, You are a moron.
If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
raised and you snipped. That will be a win for you.
If, as is clearly the case, I am not, you'll never be able to
offer anything to counter what I presented. That will be another in
the LONG list of losses you've had in your life.
Which will it be? Will you counter the points I raised or prove
once again that I was and am correct when I state you're a pro-CPS
shill?
The choice is yours to make.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:svjnf5tjv286o05p2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:08 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kent, You are a moron.
>
> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
> raised and you snipped.
Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT, Wills you just make lame
excuses for that you are so STUPID.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:svjnf5tjv286o05p2...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:25:08 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Kent, You are a moron.
>>
>> If I am, you should have no trouble countering the points I
>> raised and you snipped.
>
>Nobody HAS any problem refuting your BULLSHIT,
Then why have you and Greg NEVER been able to do so?
>Wills you just make lame
>excuses for that you are so STUPID.
Yet I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>