Dan/Kane Snitchin Netcops
As Seen on Oprah
false accusations to authorities.
Anyone who has dealt with CPS knows just how low of a lowlife you gotta
be -- congrats boys -- your criminal stalking of Mr. Hanson is duly
noted --- AND - your threat to contact athorities with false accusations is
also duly noted.
It's no wonder you scumbags are more hated than the IRS - you CPS scum are a
special breed. lol
J.D.Wentworth
"As Seen on Oprah" <crock...@oprahooprah.com> wrote in message
news:M0F4h.11118$bg7.6740@trndny04...
Yup - they whine like little sissys when their perversion is exposed, and
now act like vindictive teens making false accusations to authorities.
How lame can these lusers be??
Dan Sullivan
As Seen on Oprah wrote:
> Whenever Dan/Kane get outed for their perverted ways, thay begin making
> false accusations to authorities.
What false accusations?
> Anyone who has dealt with CPS knows just how low of a lowlife you gotta
> be -- congrats boys -- your criminal stalking of Mr. Hanson is duly
> noted --- AND - your threat to contact athorities with false accusations is
> also duly noted.
Greg advised a woman to get herself arrested IN COURT!!!
She wasn't even under investigation by CPS.
CPS got one of her children back and the others were going back to her
shortly.
But Greg advised her to get herself arrested.
And then sue for 12 million dollars.
0:->
Ooooo......daisychaining Trolls. Isn't that illegal pornography?
J.D.Wentworth
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1163076065....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Thats a reason to call in some false allegations. Huh ?? Knock knock. You
pervs crack me up. lol
>
J.D.Wentworth
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163076158....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Just goes to show you others on my network think you perverts are lame. lol
>
Greegor
> Greg advised a woman to get herself arrested IN COURT!!!
Not exactly, Dan! Just because you repeat it hundreds of times does
not make it so.
Admitting you perpetrated a Computer Felony to lift that text Dan?
And the best you can do is twist it and keep repeating this half truth?
One nice thing about getting a computer Felony is you can be
legally prohibited from USING ANY COMPUTERS basically forever!
But I am not an attorney.
0:->
"Others?" R R R R R ....who are you kiddin, chuckles.
0:->
No, there is no reason to call in 'false allegations' when there are
true ones to relate.
So again, what false allegations, troll?
The proof is in his postings. He did in fact give advice, legal advice,
that is illegal to give. He even gave her steps to perform and the
outcome expectations she should look forward to.
Come on troll, help us expose this pissant with your kindly help.
Thanks.
0:->
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote
> > Greg advised a woman to get herself arrested IN COURT!!!
>
> Not exactly, Dan! Just because you repeat it hundreds of times does
> not make it so.
Greg Hanson wrote,
"lostintranslation:
While your state laws may prohibit recording,
there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
should STILL have a right to record a government
agent in the performance of their duties.
The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
It would need LITIGATION though.
If you want to play that one out you might actually
be better off to bait them into trying to
charge you for breaking the state law.
I think defending that one might be stronger
than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
Trying to have it allowed in court using that
"government agent in the performance of their duties"
argument might be a good way to get them
to try to charge you.
A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
But I am NOT a lawyer."
-----------------------
> Admitting you perpetrated a Computer Felony to lift that text Dan?
Not at all.
You think a copy and paste of what you posted on a public website is a
computer felony?
> And the best you can do is twist it and keep repeating this half truth?
So you concede it's at least half true.
You can always accept a plea bargain... if your public defender thinks
that's the best way to go.
> One nice thing about getting a computer Felony is you can be
> legally prohibited from USING ANY COMPUTERS basically forever!
Is that your best legal advice, Greg?
> But I am not an attorney.
I know... you're a vegetable.
0:->
"Wimpy?"
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> Greg advised a woman to get herself arrested IN COURT!!!
>
> Not exactly, Dan! Just because you repeat it hundreds of times does
> not make it so.
"Not exactly?" It doesn't have to be "exact" Greg. It only has to be
correct in you giving legal advice so dangerous to the person receiving it.
Okay, Greg. Prove him wrong. Post "exactly" what you said, in full context.
Go ahead.
If he's misquoted you then by damn we need to see just how innocent you
are. Go for it.
Stand up for your rights. Stand behind your claim that you did not give
legal advice. We're pullin' for yah, boy.
> Admitting you perpetrated a Computer Felony to lift that text Dan?
What computer felony was admitted to, Greg?
Or even not admitted to. Go for it, boy.
> And the best you can do is twist it and keep repeating this half truth?
Half of the truth may not provide the needed context. If Dan left out
the full context, let US be the judge of that, and post the full
evidence here. All of it.
You certainly have the right to vindication, Greg.
But these claims of yours are empty...precisely because YOU do not quote
and you do not link. And you do not provide anything but lies, so far.
> One nice thing about getting a computer Felony is you can be
> legally prohibited from USING ANY COMPUTERS basically forever!
Are you threatening? Or are you reminiscing about the one person that's
posted here in the past and his admission to misuse of computers for
illegal financial gain?
Please describe the felony using a computer that you believe Dan has
committed.
Here is a definition of a felony for you. It's out of Iowa statute:
Felony: A crime considered to be of a grave nature and subject to
severe penalties. For example, in most jurisdictions felonies include
murder, kidnapping, manslaughter, burglary, robbery, and other grievous
crimes. Iowa law provides for four classes of felonies, ranging from
class "D," the least serious, to class "A," the most serious.
A little citation of appropriate statute might be in order as well, from
YOU.
I wonder too, if it's a crime to accuse someone of a crime they have not
committed?
Possibly you, the apparent expert here on felonious behaviors, could
enlighten us on that little matter?
> But I am not an attorney.
Neither am I, so if I'm going to accuse someone of a crime I make it a
point to direct them to statute.
It's generally understood that giving legal INFORMATION, which I've
noted some people do here, is not the same as giving legal advice.
The former is simply informative and does NOT advocate actions that are
covered by statute. Such as keeping records. Or asking for
documentations, policy, etc. Or are actions that are clearly supported
by law, though the latter can be walking a very fine line between advice
and information.
Telling someone to BREAK THE LAW, is legal advice, Greg, of the illegal
kind if by no other reason than it encourages law breaking. Do you
believe it's legal to encourage someone else to break the law?
Check it out in your state.
Or is this all a bit to complicated for you and your needs?
0:-]
Greegor
> While your state laws may prohibit recording,
> there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
> should STILL have a right to record a government
> agent in the performance of their duties.
>
> The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
>
> It would need LITIGATION though.
>
> If you want to play that one out you might actually
> be better off to bait them into trying to
> charge you for breaking the state law.
>
> I think defending that one might be stronger
> than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
>
> Trying to have it allowed in court using that
> "government agent in the performance of their duties"
> argument might be a good way to get them
> to try to charge you.
>
> A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
>
> But I am NOT a lawyer.
Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
would convict a person for tape recording government
agents in the process of interviewing themself.
Government agents interviewing citizens have
NO expectation of privacy.
The prosecutor would never charge it.
But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
Which is dumber Dan?
My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
(A Bill Of Rights issue!)
or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
...and posting the EVIDENCE!
Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
Dan Sullivan
> Stolen text:
> > While your state laws may prohibit recording,
> > there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
> > should STILL have a right to record a government
> > agent in the performance of their duties.
> >
> > The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
> >
> > It would need LITIGATION though.
> >
> > If you want to play that one out you might actually
> > be better off to bait them into trying to
> > charge you for breaking the state law.
> >
> > I think defending that one might be stronger
> > than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
> >
> > Trying to have it allowed in court using that
> > "government agent in the performance of their duties"
> > argument might be a good way to get them
> > to try to charge you.
> >
> > A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
> >
> > But I am NOT a lawyer.
>
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.
Then why is it against the law?
> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.
Then why is it illegal in some states?
> The prosecutor would never charge it.
You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.
> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
>From whom?
Is it illegal?
> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
in the middle of getting her children back.
Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
between you and Bob Jarovits.
> Which is dumber Dan?
Difficult to tell, Greg.
> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)
It's not a technicality, Greg.
It's specifically against the law in that state.
> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!
Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?
> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.
Ya know, Greg.
Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.
0:->
> Stolen text:
>> While your state laws may prohibit recording,
>> there is still a valid argument to make that a citizen
>> should STILL have a right to record a government
>> agent in the performance of their duties.
>>
>> The caseworker should have no expectation of privacy.
>>
>> It would need LITIGATION though.
>>
>> If you want to play that one out you might actually
>> be better off to bait them into trying to
>> charge you for breaking the state law.
>>
>> I think defending that one might be stronger
>> than arguing to have the tape be allowed.
>>
>> Trying to have it allowed in court using that
>> "government agent in the performance of their duties"
>> argument might be a good way to get them
>> to try to charge you.
>>
>> A charge I would WELCOME if I was in your state!
>>
>> But I am NOT a lawyer.
>
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.
Then why don't YOU break the laws in your state regarding this issue,
and get back to us, rather than suggest someone else, who has children
she's trying to get back, has succeeded in get one back already, do so
in the middle of her case?
No one is stopping YOU from choosing to do stupid things, Greg. Feel
free. You have so far.
> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.
There's an argument that does not fit the issue. Lots of people think a
lot of laws suck, Greg. Nonetheless, they obey them or lose.
>
> The prosecutor would never charge it.
>
Okay, break a law in your state that you think is comparable and
challenge the court with it. Get back to us with your result. Stop
asking other people to be your lab rat, Greg.
> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
I'm still waiting for proof. Got any?
And do you have any proof it's a crime? You claimed it's a felony.
I asked you before to cite the law, and so far, nothing but accusations
and bullshit, Greg.
> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
How can an open forum that guests can come and observe possibly offer an
expectation privacy, reasonable or otherwise?
>
> Which is dumber Dan?
>
Wait for my answer. 0:->
> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)
There is nothing in the bill of rights on this issue, but feel free to
cite something you think applies.
And legal "technicalities" are what put people in jail and or fined when
they violate them, and are convicted.
> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ....and posting the EVIDENCE!
You have proof of this?
Had he done so, please show where all those people that post and or read
under a nom d' electronique, or 'nym, are breaking any law, Greg.
>
> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
Dan of Long Island is much much smarter.
He posts evidence. You post claims and bullshit.
You think you can bluff your way out of the vicious trick you tried to
pull on a women who is at risk of losing her children. You tried to make
her your lab rat just like people in Oregon did to Christines. NO ONE
that gave them advice took their risk. They are in jail for years now.
Because of people just like you, pissant.
You do this to every new person that comes here, and if they catch on to
you, you continue the harass them even for years.
You are one nasty little piece of work, boy, and it will catch up with
you. Trust me.
Buy rope. It will be much less painful than the long difficult times you
are buying yourself. One slip stupid. One person that takes your stupid
advice and loses and decides YOU are the source, and you are over.
You'll need three Lisa's to support what it will cost you.
0:-]
Greegor
> Dan, I think you know that not a jury in the land
> would convict a person for tape recording government
> agents in the process of interviewing themself.
Dan wrote
> Then why is it against the law?
You haven't shown that it IS in the LEO Intervierw with citizen
context.
If it is, it should not be!
Special context for government agents in performance of their duties.
Citizens rule.
Greg wrote
> Government agents interviewing citizens have
> NO expectation of privacy.
Dan wrote
> Then why is it illegal in some states?
Now you changed to SOME states eh? Hehe..
Dan, wrong laws are passed all the time.
Some are unenforceable, others are just BEGGING for the slightest
challenge.
The fact you are saying SOME should be a clue to start with.
But your right to record a government agent
who is interviewing you is NOT the general
context of the laws you refer to.
Citizens rights AGAINST agencies are a priority.
Agencies have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Their people DO, on their lunch breaks or in the bathroom.
They do NOT have any right to PRIVACY while
INTERVIEWING or INTERROGATING a citizen
as part of their official agency duties.
That is NOT under general laws about recording,
but under that very special situation.
I am NOT an attorney, I am a CITIZEN.
Greg wrote
> The prosecutor would never charge it.
Dan wrote
> You're taking a big chance with that statement, Greg.
The prosecutor should know the "fluff" law would be STRUCK DOWN
at the slightest challenge, and they like the bogus intimidation.
Greg wrote
> But faking an IP address and using a bogus name
> to go into a private web site where you were kicked out,
> that gets a LOT of attention now'days.
Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York wrote
>From whom?
> Is it illegal?
CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY!
Fake IP?
Fake Name?
To re-enter where you were EJECTED?
LIfting Confidential Support Group text to post PUBLICLY?
Later enlisting others to help you lift this text?
(Now it's a criminal conspiracy!)
See what your ATTORNEY says! ROFL!
Ask him what JURISDICTION that would be under!
Greg wrote
> Doing that to violate a reasonable expectation of privacy
> and posting the lifted text PUBLICLY is not smart.
Dan wrote
> This from a turd who told a woman to get herself arrested in Court when
> she wasn't even under investigation or a principle in the case. And was
> in the middle of getting her children back.
Your claims and the actual text don't match exactly.
Dan wrote
> Your advice is so ridiculous that sometimes I can't tell the difference
> between you and Bob Jarovits.
Greg wrote
> Which is dumber Dan?
Dan wrote
> Difficult to tell, Greg.
ROFL!
Greg wrote
> My taking a stand against a legal technicality which is WRONG?
> (A Bill Of Rights issue!)
Dan Sullivan wrote
> It's not a technicality, Greg.
Government agent is a special case that would need study.
No "reasonable expectation of privacy" in performance of duty.
Dan wrote
> It's specifically against the law in that state.
Nope. GENERALLY illegal in that state,
not specifically in the case of government agents performing duty.
That was the point.
Greg wrote
> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!
Dan wrote
> Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?
It's the "Time Magazine" version, Dan.
Greg wrote
> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
Dan wrote
> I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.
Perpetrating a Felony yourself is SO MUCH BETTER Dan! <g>
Dan wrote
> Ya know, Greg.
> Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
> Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.
You laugh so hard you get caught perpetrating a FELONY!
0:->
R R R R R R R R ...... <gasp> R R R R RR R <WHEEZE>
I'm dying here. Stop it Dan.
RR R R R R R
>
0:->
Show were there is an exemption for recording a government agent without
their knowledge in that state.
>
> Greg wrote
>> or your actually Perpetrating a computer FELONY break in?
>> ...and posting the EVIDENCE!
>
> Dan wrote
>> Is that your best legal assessment, Greg?
>
> It's the "Time Magazine" version, Dan.
Which means you can't answer.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Which one is smarter, Dan Sullivan of Long Island New York?
>
> Dan wrote
>> I'm obviously smarter because I didn't advise anyone to get arrested.
>
> Perpetrating a Felony yourself is SO MUCH BETTER Dan! <g>
Show the statute that makes the reprinting of a public conversation a
felony.
And we can bring charges against a great many reporters and media people.
> Dan wrote
>> Ya know, Greg.
>> Most of the time I think you couldn't be more stupid.
>> Then Oliver Sutton you do something even worse.
>
> You laugh so hard you get caught perpetrating a FELONY!
I can't believe you didn't get it...oh well, yes I can.
You keep screaming "felony" but YOU don't cite the law that makes what
you claim was done a felony.
Are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself, with your obvious
dodge and diversion from the thing you did in giving advice to someone
to expose herself to the court as a law breaker in that state?
When are you simply going to grow up an be a man and own up to your
mistakes and do your best to correct them?
0:-]
Greegor
Dan's credibility concerning his computer FELONY
alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking,
alt.support.foster-parents
0:->
There's not a thread you can be on, not a subject you are trying to use
to dodge, Greg, that is shelter for you any longer.
Your lies, dishonesty, stupidity, will follow you everywhere you go.
Now answer the question, where is this statute that makes what you
describe a felony?