The Family Under Attack - Does the State Own YOUR Children?
fx
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3580.html
Why the ongoing imprisonment of FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints) children in Texas should serve as a warning
to every family in America.by Carter Braxton
(Libertarian)
Saturday, April 26, 2008
"The children are in a position to no longer on a daily basis be
influenced by adults who have encouraged a code of silence," said
Darrell Azar, a spokesman for Child Protective Services. "Now that they
are away from that influence they may become more comfortable, and we
will have a better chance of learning the truth."
The first thing I'm going to say is that removal of children from the
home is sometimes justified. Children are individuals too and as such
have rights, including the right to be free from the unjustified use of
force. No parent has the right to physically or sexually abuse their child.
The state is the arbiter of rights. It is the duty of the state to
identify where rights have been violated and to take action to correct
those wrongs. If evidence exists that a parent has exceeded (or
perverted) their authority to teach and correct, it can properly be
presented in the form of an indictment detailing the criminal acts
alleged to have been committed.
But the state is not a parent. Absent specific evidence of a crime, of
specific harm being done to a specific child by a specific adult (at a
specific time and place, etc.) the state has no authority to intercede
in the parent – child relationship.
At least it didn’t until now.
Formerly, the law considered parents to have sole legal right and
responsibility for the upbringing of their children. They, and they
alone, had the right to teach, correct and protect. That it was the
right of the parent to make decisions related to the religious or
philosophical upbringing of their child rested at the very heart of our
system of liberties.
To replace the wisdom of the parents with the authority of the state is
to upend that system. And the movement to do just that is gaining momentum.
The recent raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints ( FLDS ) Yearning For Zion ( YFZ ) Ranch in Texas (and
subsequent detainment of 416 children) is a particularly egregious
example of this trend. Military tactics (machine guns and armored
personnel carriers) were used to "extricate" 416 children. No evidence.
No warrant. No charges. Just guns (and social workers, of course).
And it is now being argued in court, and apparently successfully (to
judge by the continued detainment of the 416 children), that the beliefs
of the parents, in and of themselves, were harmful enough to the
children that they needed to be removed.
Let me repeat: none of the mothers or fathers were charged with any
specific criminal acts. Lifestyle was their crime. Religion their offense.
The point is not whether you share their beliefs, but whether you feel
they had the right to hold them, and to pass them on to their children.
The relationship between parent and child is unique. It is perhaps the
only relationship before the law where inequality of rights is actually
justified. Children have rights, but those rights cannot be
over-expanded without doing detriment to the individual child, the
family unit, and society as a whole.
Under the pretense of "youth rights", or "protecting the children", the
state can engage in egregious acts of "reeducation" and social
engineering. By molding the minds of the young, the state can mold the
entire society. That is why parents must jealously guard their right to
parent. Acquiescence to the state’s demands to number, immunize,
psychotropically medicate, or educate your child a certain way may not
be in your child’s best interest. You, the parent, not the state, are
the one who should make these important decisions.
But education of children is especially the key to controlling any
society. Every successful totalitarian regime has understood this.
Independent families are a threat to the future of any totalitarian
system because they can teach children that the state is not the
benevolent master it pretends to be. That is exactly the kind of
education the state detests (and the reason you’ll never find mention of
it in any government school).
And perhaps, just perhaps, that’s the real reason behind some of the
government’s "child protection" actions. Perhaps the state feels the
need to "protect" children against teachings that conflict with the
interests of the state.
An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and
the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"
Child Protective Services Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of CPS.
every parent should read the free handbook from
connecticut dcf watch...
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com
Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS
Perpetrators of Maltreatment
Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, biological Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, biological Parents 13
Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, biological Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14 biological Parents 12
Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, biological Parents 1.5
Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.
THIS IS AMERICA'S HIDDEN HOLOCAUST
Currently Child Protective Services violates more constitutionally
guaranteed liberties & civil rights on a daily basis then all other
agencies combined, Including the National Security agency/Central
intelligence agency wiretaping programs…
THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
BY: Nancy Schaefer Senator, 50th District of Georgia
http://www.senatornancyschaefer.com/articles.php?filter=6
This is Child Protection?
By Gregory A. Hession, J.D.
Mercenary Motherhood: "Memoirs of a Babystealer."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-callahan16oct16,0,5019944.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
FOSTER CARE IS A 80 PERCENT FAILURE:. A Brief Analysis of the Casey
Family Programs. Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. By Richard Wexler
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanalysis.doc
HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN
http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families
By Nev Moore Massachusetts News
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/5_May/mayds4.htm
A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
30% of the nation’s homeless are former foster children.
27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated
33% were receiving public assistance
37% had not finished high school
2% receive a college degree
50% were unemployed
Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children
not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems,
including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and
impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of
the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various
studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care
tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school
compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their
education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment
than the general population.
*Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support
80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.
The highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, Wade Horn
of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a former child
psychologist who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should
just be blown up.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2017991
Four rigorous studies have found that at least 30 percent of America’s
foster children could be home right now if their parents had decent housing.
This study found thousands of children already in foster care who would
have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in
the first place.
Front-page story in USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm?csp=34#Close
The full study is available here.
http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf
The bottom line? - Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system
for the most part turns out young adults that are nothing more than
walking wreckage...
CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CONSTITUTIONALLY
GUARANTEED LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER
AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAMS....
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...
BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...
dragonsgirl
"fx" <f...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:f27a2$48140c60$944e2002$28...@STARBAND.NET...
I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige at the age of 13 to be
'teaching that conflict with the interests of the state'.
I would call it abuse.
> intelligence agency wiretaping programs.
Chaz
>
> > The full study is available
>
>
> read more »
http://linkboxes.blogspot.com/
"Baskerville has exposed a major abuse of power that is not only
responsible for destroying families and for the social disorder that
ensues from that. It also rationalizes massive government spending and
violations of our constitutional freedoms by courts, bureaucracies,
and other arms of the state. Today's social crisis is not the product
of impersonal social forces to which we must resign ourselves. It is
the logical culmination of the modern state's perpetual drive to
create problems for itself to solve. This book powerfully reveals the
interconnected threats to the family, accountable government, and
freedom."
--Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Greegor
BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
recently as 100 years ago?
The founding fathers and the Quaker Oats guy
commonly married child brides.
Life expectancy wasn't very old either.
I'm not in favor of the child bride thing but
to go from something being a "cultural norm"
to that same behavior being the focus
of hysteria within 100 years is amazing.
The mainstream Mormons only gave up
polygamy so Utah could obtain statehood.
So WHY didn't they just go after these
FLDS people for their polygamy?
Why did all of this have to wait until 2008?
Why didn't this happen 30 or 40 years ago?
AND why did it have to be based on
a malicious fake child abuse report
by that prank call lady?
Why, after all of these YEARS, is that the
best excuse they could come up with
to raise hell with these people?
dragonsgirl
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f45e6da-d0c2-4ac9...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige
> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
> BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
>
> Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
> how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
> recently as 100 years ago?
First of all, Greg, I don't think that writing a two sentence reply
qualifies as getting 'all worked up'.
The 'cultural norm' 100 years ago also included children that didn't get
educations, picking cotton in the blazing sun from dusk to dawn as young as
five, and much more.
Can you, in your infinite wisdom, see the difference between 100 years ago
and today? I mean, surely you can't be THAT blind, can you?
>
> The founding fathers and the Quaker Oats guy
> commonly married child brides.
That was well over 200 years ago.
>
> Life expectancy wasn't very old either.
And?
>
> I'm not in favor of the child bride thing but
> to go from something being a "cultural norm"
> to that same behavior being the focus
> of hysteria within 100 years is amazing.
For someone who isn't 'in favor' you sure do try to make a good case for it.
You fail miserably, but you give it a shot never the less.
>
> The mainstream Mormons only gave up
> polygamy so Utah could obtain statehood.
>
> So WHY didn't they just go after these
> FLDS people for their polygamy?
>
> Why did all of this have to wait until 2008?
>
> Why didn't this happen 30 or 40 years ago?
>
> AND why did it have to be based on
> a malicious fake child abuse report
> by that prank call lady?
>
> Why, after all of these YEARS, is that the
> best excuse they could come up with
> to raise hell with these people?
The best excuse?
Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that.
Greegor
I'm just saying that your level of RAGING and
CONDEMNING of them is kind of a crock of poo
because "societal norms" were JUST FINE with
those things in fairly recent history.
I don't know sociologically when or how exactly
we got from there to here. If you do, please share!
So WHY would I be so full of piss and vinegar
and condemn them so harshly when they
were considered the NORM less than 100
years ago?
Even without looking into the past I have
brought up problems like a young Mexican
married couple whe moved to Iowa legally
but then all hell broke loose because she
was under legal age HERE.
Only a few years ago there have even been
news stories about a couple who got married
in some Southern state (with parents permission)
and moved to some Northern state where all
hell broke loose.
I don't promote polygamy or child brides.
I just don't see the FIRE AND BRIMSTONE
CONDEMNATION of them as being very rational.
I'm sure there are many different versions
of the story about how our societal norms
shifted from child brides and polygamy being
OK to this societal norm which so strongly
condemns what was OK so receently.
How is it that morality in the US and morality
in England started out the same and
diverged so severely that consorship there
abhors shootings but sex is AOK on TV?
And it the opposite in the US?
Ya wanna throw a RAGE about that, Betty?
dragonsgirl
> Betty, I'm not in favor of polygamy or child brides.
> I'm just saying that your level of RAGING and
> CONDEMNING of them is kind of a crock of poo
> because "societal norms" were JUST FINE with
> those things in fairly recent history.
Again, Mr I-Blow-Shit-Way-Out-Of-Porportion, I did not rage.
Further, you mentioned founding fathers, 200 years ago was not 'fairly
recent history'.
>
> I don't know sociologically when or how exactly
> we got from there to here. If you do, please share!
My guess would be that it all started with the constitution.
You know what that is, right? The piece of paper that was instrumental in
the founding of this independant country?
You know...how it says all men are created equal? I don't think that phrase
was written to literally mean 'adult men, and men only'.
So, I'm guessing it all began when a document was signed that declared all
men equal.
How did you get this far in life?
>
> So WHY would I be so full of piss and vinegar
> and condemn them so harshly when they
> were considered the NORM less than 100
> years ago?
Huh?
You mean you believe that child brides were common 'less than 100 years
ago'?
Oh dear.
I think you should take another look-see at that history book.
>
> Even without looking into the past I have
> brought up problems like a young Mexican
> married couple whe moved to Iowa legally
> but then all hell broke loose because she
> was under legal age HERE.
When in Rome.
>
> Only a few years ago there have even been
> news stories about a couple who got married
> in some Southern state (with parents permission)
> and moved to some Northern state where all
> hell broke loose.
Laws normally attach some qualifier to them such as 'legal so long as it
does not violate state or local laws'.
A bad example would be to point out that fireworks are legal in this
country.
They are also legal, for example, in this state.
But you better not let the cops catch you blowing them off in this town or
your ass is certain grass.
Again, when in Rome.
>
> I don't promote polygamy or child brides.
But you make an argument in support of them?
>
> I just don't see the FIRE AND BRIMSTONE
> CONDEMNATION of them as being very rational.
Now who was giving the 'fire and brimstone' condemnation, or, are you just
exaggerating again?
>
> I'm sure there are many different versions
> of the story about how our societal norms
> shifted from child brides and polygamy being
> OK to this societal norm which so strongly
> condemns what was OK so receently.
Factually speaking, and this may give you a teeny tiny bit of a clue as to
why it's not ok now, but it was ok then, is this:
Children grew up and matured rather quickly over 100 years ago.
They often did not attend school, and they began very hard work at young
ages.
They were often given, and took, a great deal of responsibility, as life was
much harder over 100 years ago, and the very survival of families was
dependant upon the ability of each family member to contribute to the
productivity of the family.
Are you still with me here Greg?
It was not uncommon for parents to have several children to work the fields.
The more hands the more productive a family unit was.
Children grew up hard and were mentally and emotionally adults at much
younger ages.
This is in no way a drawback, as children often grew up to be successful
themselves because of the rearings that they had.
However, the cons of childhood 100+ years ago included early death from
illness and accidental death, lack of education, malnutrition, and so on.
As this country began to move in to the 'modern' age, more foods were
available without the labor that was once needed to feed a family. More
children attended school, and were responsible for less at home due to their
school day.
As time went on, and life got easier people no longer needed to press harsh
work on their children. In turn, children no longer needed to mature as
they did 100+ years ago, and the life expectancy went up. There was no rush
to get married at 13 and have kids because you would only live to 34.
Today children can expect to live to retirement age...roughly 30 years
longer than children of 100+ years ago, or better.
Their youth is no longer spent caring for ailing relatives, younger
siblings, livestock, homes, etc.
Children are not required to become adults with the full responsibilities of
adulthood as they were then.
And because they aren't required to, they don't.
100+ years ago a 13 year old girl was mentally in her twenties.
Today a 13 year old girl is mentally a 13 year old girl.
And that is my take on why what was acceptable and the norm 100+ years ago
is not now.
>
> How is it that morality in the US and morality
> in England started out the same and
> diverged so severely that consorship there
> abhors shootings but sex is AOK on TV?
> And it the opposite in the US?
I've never really thought about it, nor do I care to.
I know very little about the relationship between US television and Britty
Telly.
>
> Ya wanna throw a RAGE about that, Betty?
Now, Greg, calm down.
Did I 'rage', as you imply, or did I simply point out that you were wrong?
Dan Sullivan
> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige
> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
> BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
>
> Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
> how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
> recently as 100 years ago?
Explain history?
Explain that things change?
GFYS, greg.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:c5b88b82-05e5-4e5c...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording of
events in the world? OR are you stupid enough, AGAIN, to TRY to deny that
into the start of the 20th century marriage of girls age 12 and 13 were
quite common in the world? And DANNY BOY, there are STILL places where it
isn't uncommon. Much of the Muslim world, Africa, and parts of South
America. Oh and before I forget - INDIA and the Asian subcontinent. You are
so giddily full of shit in your SANCTIMONY Mr. Sullivan that you are
something of a joke! Rage on and give us your pretended GREAT KNOWLEDGE.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c5b88b82-05e5-4e5c...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 3, 9:43 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige
> >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
> >> BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
>
> >> Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
> >> how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
> >> recently as 100 years ago?
>
> > Explain history?
>
> Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording of
> events in the world?
Of course I do.
GFYS, porndaddy.
And leave your pornstar daughter ALONE!
She's busy making MoooooooVies.
krp
...
>>
>> > On May 3, 9:43 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige
>> >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
>> >> BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
>>
>> >> Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
>> >> how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
>> >> recently as 100 years ago?
>>
>> > Explain history?
>>
>> Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording
>> of
>> events in the world?
>
> Of course I do.
>
> GFYS, porndaddy.
See WHAT INTELLECTUALISM!!
WOW!
Dan Sullivan
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:W%3Uj.18251$Fv.5074@trnddc03...
Deal with it, piggy.
George Orwell
Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording of
events in the world? OR are you stupid enough, AGAIN, to TRY to deny that
into the start of the 20th century marriage of girls age 12 and 13 were
quite common in the world? And DANNY BOY, there are STILL places where it
isn't uncommon. Much of the Muslim world, Africa, and parts of South
America. Oh and before I forget - INDIA and the Asian subcontinent. You are
so giddily full of shit in your SANCTIMONY Mr. Sullivan that you are
something of a joke! Rage on and give us your pretended GREAT KNOWLEDGE.
~~~
Ken's daughter, Megan, wrote to use today to identify him as the man
seen in this documentary wearing the white shirt with black stripes. He
is approx. 10 minutes into the film. This is no joke. Compare this man
with the images of Ken that are online. No wonder he defends child rape.
There is money in it for him.
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=161
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Dan Sullivan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
krp
>
>>>> > On May 3, 9:43 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige
>>>> >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict
>>>> >> BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
>>>>
>>>> >> Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides,
>>>> >> how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as
>>>> >> recently as 100 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> > Explain history?
>>>>
>>>> Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented
>>>> recording of
>>>> events in the world?
>>>
>>> Of course I do.
>>>
>>> GFYS, porndaddy.
>>
>> See WHAT INTELLECTUALISM!!
>> WOW!
>
> Deal with it, piggy.
Oh Danny I already have written you off as just a loud street bully from new
York. A punk who only has power in his PACK. Yours has evaporated Danny.
You're all alone. Kane's gone. Ron is WAY too smart to defend you any more.
All ya got is the COMPUTER HATCHER!
Dan Sullivan
krp
"George Orwell" <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:f4859d89ce063f28...@mixmaster.it...
>> Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording
>> of
>> events in the world? OR are you stupid enough, AGAIN, to TRY to deny that
>> into the start of the 20th century marriage of girls age 12 and 13 were
>> quite common in the world? And DANNY BOY, there are STILL places where it
>> isn't uncommon. Much of the Muslim world, Africa, and parts of South
>> America. Oh and before I forget - INDIA and the Asian subcontinent. You
>> are
>> so giddily full of shit in your SANCTIMONY Mr. Sullivan that you are
>> something of a joke! Rage on and give us your pretended GREAT KNOWLEDGE.
>Ken Pangborn defends child rape:
So stating HISTORICAL FACT is now SUPPORT of child rape Davey? I fail to
see where I take ANY position on the matter other than stating the FACTS
that marriage at a young age was the accepted NORM in the world at one time,
was in the United States in many states until the mid 20th century when laws
started to change, and STILL is the practice in much of the middle east and
Africa. I am neither defending or passing judgment on it Moore. Just stating
FACTS.
Feel free to keep TYPING to make a big deal out of that. There has been a
great deal of scholarship on the subject explaining the need for having
women marry young throughout history. I don't have to agree with it all.
What was - WAS Davey. I wasn't there to act as a judge or moral authority
and neither were you MORON!
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Greegor
ascps.
Johnny
> For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in
> ascps.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thread/thread/1365b3e126709507
>
Screw you!
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c032fd0b-81c8-439a...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in
> > ascps.
>
>
> Screw you!
Well said!
Johnny
Thanks, I thought so too!
Greegor
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
Dan Sullivan
That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
Greegor
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker
said for years also. And you extended his lie, as well.
Then he got firmly ID'd.
You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
Dan Sullivan
> G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
>
> DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
>
> Got proof?
>
> DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
>
> That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker
> said for years also.
I'm not Donald Fisher.
And he never was a CPS case worker.
> And you extended his lie, as well.
It was and is the truth.
> Then he got firmly ID'd.
As what?
> You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
He's helped me in dozens of cases.
And we won almost all of them.
How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
Greegor
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
G > Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
G > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker
G > said for years also.
DS > I'm not Donald Fisher.
Got proof?
DS > And he never was a CPS case worker.
He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought
it might matter, stroking his ego.
G > And you extended his lie, as well.
DS > It was and is the truth.
His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan!
G > Then he got firmly ID'd.
DS > As what?
Retired Oregon CPS caseworker Donald L. Fisher.
The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster"..
ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO.
G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases.
DS > And we won almost all of them.
Got proof?
You ran your own mutual admiration society,
each vouching for the other in a circular fashion.
And your positions regarding the Child Protection
INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives.
Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
My EGO does not need inflating.
Why does yours, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
>
> DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
>
> G > Got proof?
>
> DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
>
> G > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker
> G > said for years also.
>
> DS > I'm not Donald Fisher.
>
> Got proof?
>
> DS > And he never was a CPS case worker.
>
> He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought
> it might matter, stroking his ego.
Post the proof.
> G > And you extended his lie, as well.
>
> DS > It was and is the truth.
>
> His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan!
As what, exactly?
> G > Then he got firmly ID'd.
>
> DS > As what?
>
> Retired Oregon CPS caseworker Donald L. Fisher.
> The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster"..
> ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO.
So many claims, accompanied by no evidence at all.
Typical gutless greg hanson.
> G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
>
> DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases.
> DS > And we won almost all of them.
>
> Got proof?
Jennifer, Chuck, etc... etc...
Most in the google archives.
And you were reading and posting your crap to these people as their
situation progressed... and eventually resolved to their favor.
> You ran your own mutual admiration society,
> each vouching for the other in a circular fashion.
>
> And your positions regarding the Child Protection
> INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives.
Post any of my quotes you need to, greg.
> Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
So?
Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
> DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
>
> My EGO does not need inflating.
So, that would be "none," right, greg?
Greegor
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
G > Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
G > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker
G > said for years also.
DS > I'm not Donald Fisher.
G > Got proof?
DS > And he never was a CPS case worker.
G > He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought
G > it might matter, stroking his ego.
DS > Post the proof.
G > And you extended his lie, as well.
DS > It was and is the truth.
G > His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan!
DS > As what, exactly?
G > Then he got firmly ID'd.
DS > As what?
G > Retired Oregon CPS caseworker Donald L. Fisher.
G > The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster"..
G > ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO.
DS > So many claims, accompanied by no evidence at all.
Oliver Sutton?
DS > Typical gutless greg hanson.
G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases.
DS > And we won almost all of them.
G > Got proof?
DS > Jennifer, Chuck, etc... etc...
DS > Most in the google archives.
Oliver Sutton?
DS > And you were reading and posting
DS > your crap to these people as their
DS > situation progressed... and eventually
DS > resolved to their favor.
Oliver Sutton?
G > You ran your own mutual admiration society,
G > each vouching for the other in a circular fashion.
G > And your positions regarding the Child Protection
G > INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives.
DS > Post any of my quotes you need to, greg.
G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > So?
DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
When a person who poses as a Family Rights
Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
it kinda gives away the con game.
Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than
an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
G > My EGO does not need inflating.
DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
Definately some.
Not in it for the glory.
Not keeping a scorecard.
Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
Dan Sullivan
> G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> DS > So?
> DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> it kinda gives away the con game.
I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
And I never did it myself.
> Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than
> an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
>
> DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
>
> G > My EGO does not need inflating.
>
> DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
>
> Definately some.
What was your winning advice?
> Not in it for the glory.
OBVIOUSLY!!!
> Not keeping a scorecard.
Because you can't even keep your own lies straight.
> Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
How long did it take Lisa Watkins to win her CPS case with your
advice, strategy and tactics, greg?
LK
> On May 12, 2:45 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> > DS > So?
> > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> > it kinda gives away the con game.
>
> I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the
archives and that does seem to be your position.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0b2bfe17fed5c50b
Dan Sullivan
> On May 12, 9:35 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 2:45 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> > > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> > > DS > So?
> > > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> > > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> > > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> > > it kinda gives away the con game.
>
> > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
>
> For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the
> archives and that does seem to be your position.
>
Please be specific.
I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
LK
By telling them to give CPS what they want. Warning them not to piss
off the worker. Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
breath mint. You know, ass kissing.
> I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
How many exactly?
How did you do it?
What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all
in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people
said, "Oh thank you Dan, I couldn't have done it without you."
And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
Dan Sullivan
> On May 12, 10:51 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On May 12, 10:47 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 12, 9:35 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 12, 2:45 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> > > > > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
> > > > > DS > So?
> > > > > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
> > > > > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> > > > > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> > > > > it kinda gives away the con game.
> > > > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
> > > For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the
> > > archives and that does seem to be your position.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
> > Please be specific.
> By telling them to give CPS what they want.
My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate.
> Warning them not to piss off the worker.
Is that a bad suggestion?
> Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
> breath mint.
I don't know what you're referring to.
> You know, ass kissing.
Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "ass kissing."
> > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
> How many exactly?
More than 40.
> How did you do it?
By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
> What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all
> in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people
> said, "Oh thank you Dan, I couldn't have done it without you."
Here's a quote from Doug Quirmbach the Public Relations Director of
CPS Watch to a father who just got his baby back from CPS
"It appears you needed help in expediting the disclosure of the truth
so you could get your baby back home. CPS, as you learned, are experts
at delay. In its adversary role, the agency is not interested in the
truth. Dean would
have helped speed things up, possibly. But his posture is
diametrically opposed to the approach you ended up taking.
It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's
expert help in developing and following through with the approach you
successfully implemented. Dan's is an approach that begins by assuming
a posture that CPS mistakenly reads as submissive and then using the
agency's own procedures against them. He is like a bulldog. He never
lets go. He begins with the very accurate assumption that the
caseworker goofed up and goes into the closet to find the
administrative policy or directives that define the malpractice. He is
brilliant with the tools of this approach."
And here's what was posted from the father who got his daughter back
the night before her first birthday...
"Our daughters first B-day was yesterday! Everything went great and
our daughter is doing so well with adjusting.
I spoke with my attorney the same night, he called to say happy b-day
and check in on us.
He reminded me that a while back my friend, Dan, had pushed me to ask
him to emergency petition the court. The attorney was saying if it was
not done when we had the opportunity then, we might not be sitting
around having cake celebrating. We owed this guy a world of thanks.
Dan told me to call him and push at him to file the darn motion. I
made the call and the attoreny said "its what I was thinking but how
did you have the same idea"?
I said I just spoke with my friend Dan and the attorney politely cut
me short. He said "In what area does your friend Dan practice law"? I
said he doesnt. He said "are you sure"? , "only an attorney thinks
like this".
At the end of our convo he said I am not sure what to really bill you.
I think I just showed up in court and your buddy gave you everything
you needed to prevail. So I said how about you charge me nothing? ;-p
Well its not quite nothing but no where near what it would be had I
not had Dan fighting hard along side me.
He did the real work. He knew we were a mess, we weren't sleeping,
eating. When my voice cracked on the phone his did too. He said it was
alright to cry, he let me get it out.
Once I was so angry I wanted to smash everything!!! He told me to go
punch the trees outside. He told me a joke, he made me laugh.
I would sit and stare blankly at the computer and an email box would
pop up. It was Dan, he just found a new piece of info about OI and had
to share it. When I was down he picked me up. He gave me the strength
to fight. He spent more time on the phone with me than my own father.
When I had a question at, 10pm, 11pm, 12pm.......Dan had the answer.
My wife's mom died during this ordeal to cancer. While we grieved her
loss Dan took this tragedy and worked it into our case to use against
cps.
I honestly forgot about parts of our case that happened in court. The
guy shocked me by reminding me exactly what transpired. It ws like he
was there in court with us taping the whole thing. He is just a great
listener and nothing gets passed him. My problem was his problem.
When it comes to family, this guy is as serious as a heart attack!
He told me we won months before we even walked into court. He was
right.
Dan, Thank You! The smile on my wife's face!!! You have no idea!!!
In every snapshot, my daughter is all smiles! My wife couldn't stop
crying.
I thought I was going to have to cover her with a shock blanket! She
still cant believe its over.
I also went to NY to pick up my 8 year old daughter today. She has not
seen her sister once since cps intervened on us. They said she would
also be fair game to take if she were at my home and they came
calling.
They are together for the first time in 7 months! My life is complete
again, my world is whole.
Dan, we all (not kids) lifted a glass of champagne last night and we
toasted to YOU! Not only have you made us the happiest people in the
world, but you made my parents the happiest grandparents in the world!
I needed to say this publicly here. People need to know from where the
help came, from who was willing, night or day, to listen and to guide
us.
Many Thanks,
Chuck, Margie and baby Angie
aka
Loyal Fan
P.S. My wife is insisting on her confirmation name being Danielle. You
better have no plans cause your now her sponsor!"
> And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
Oregon.
LK
> On May 12, 2:56 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 10:51 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 10:47 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 12, 9:35 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 12, 2:45 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> > > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> > > > > > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> > > > > > DS > So?
> > > > > > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> > > > > > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> > > > > > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> > > > > > it kinda gives away the con game.
>
> > > > > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
>
> > > > For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the
> > > > archives and that does seem to be your position.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > > Please be specific.
>
> > By telling them to give CPS what they want.
>
> My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate.
For example, anything the worker decides to put in a case plan?
Wouldn't your own case tell you that not much of what they do is
necessary and appropriate? What would you consider unnecessary and
inappropriate? Besides false accusations and findings against people
like you of course.
>
> > Warning them not to piss off the worker.
>
> Is that a bad suggestion?
>
And that's not going to happen simply by fighting against them or
underminding them with somebody who "Knows the system better then they
do?"
> > Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
> > breath mint.
>
> I don't know what you're referring to.
Just something I read in the archives. Nothing major.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8c91054f57035cf5
>
> > You know, ass kissing.
>
> Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "ass kissing."
>
Same link.
Post links to some of your advice that wasn't ass kissing. You know,
where you told somebody how to outsmart the worker by knowing the
system better then they do.
> > > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
>
> > How many exactly?
>
> More than 40.
>
> > How did you do it?
>
> By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
>
For example?
Do you have a link for this?
Link?
> > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> Oregon.
What qualified you for the first one?
Dan Sullivan
> On May 12, 4:50 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 12, 2:56 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 10:51 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 12, 10:47 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 12, 9:35 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 12, 2:45 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> > > > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> > > > > > > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> > > > > > > DS > So?
> > > > > > > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> > > > > > > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> > > > > > > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> > > > > > > it kinda gives away the con game.
>
> > > > > > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
>
> > > > > For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the
> > > > > archives and that does seem to be your position.
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > > > Please be specific.
>
> > > By telling them to give CPS what they want.
>
> > My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate.
>
> For example, anything the worker decides to put in a case plan?
Of course not.
> Wouldn't your own case tell you that not much of what they do is
> necessary and appropriate?
Necessary and appropriate... as in a case plan.
> What would you consider unnecessary and
> inappropriate? Besides false accusations and findings against people
> like you of course.
This is one or greg's half assed tricks.
Discuss one thing and then try and switch it to something else.
> > > Warning them not to piss off the worker.
>
> > Is that a bad suggestion?
>
> And that's not going to happen simply by fighting against them
Fighting against CPS is the wrong thing to do.
Calm, firm, knowledgeable disagreement is the means to a favorable
resolution.
> or
> underminding them with somebody who "Knows the system better then they
> do?"
You don't tell CPS that you know the system better than they do.
You just do what needs to be done.
And you don't tell what's in your hand before you have to show it.
> > > Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
> > > breath mint.
>
> > I don't know what you're referring to.
>
> Just something I read in the archives. Nothing major.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
Right, nothing major.
> > > You know, ass kissing.
>
> > Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "ass kissing."
>
> Same link.
You just said it was "nothing major."
> Post links to some of your advice that wasn't ass kissing.
No, you claimed I advised people to kiss CPS' ass and all you could
come up with was, as you put it yourself, "nothing major."
Do you get up this stupid in the morning or does it start after you
talk to greg?
> You know,
> where you told somebody how to outsmart the worker by knowing the
> system better then they do.
Reread the link you cited.
> > > > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
>
> > > How many exactly?
>
> > More than 40.
>
> > > How did you do it?
>
> > By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
>
> For example?
Read Doug Quirmbach's post again.
You don't know how to google?
Ask greg.
Google it.
> > > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> > Oregon.
>
> What qualified you for the first one?
Resolve and persistence.
What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
Greegor
G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > So?
DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
G > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
G > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
G > it kinda gives away the con game.
DS > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
DS > And I never did it myself.
G > Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than
G > an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
G > My EGO does not need inflating.
DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
G > Definately some.
DS > What was your winning advice?
In which case?
G > Not in it for the glory.
DS > OBVIOUSLY!!!
G > Not keeping a scorecard.
DS > Because you can't even keep your own lies straight.
Your lips are moving but no proof is forthcoming.
G > Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
DS > How long did it take Lisa Watkins
DS > to win her CPS case with your
DS > advice, strategy and tactics, greg?
As opposed to what, Dan?
gposter
Dan Sullivan
> G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against
> G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as
> G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
>
> DS > So?
> DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
>
> G > When a person who poses as a Family Rights
> G > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS ass,
> G > it kinda gives away the con game.
>
> DS > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
>
> DS > And I never did it myself.
>
> G > Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than
> G > an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
>
> DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
>
> G > My EGO does not need inflating.
>
> DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
>
> G > Definately some.
>
> DS > What was your winning advice?
>
> In which case?
The last five.
And be sure to post the outcome for the family.
Reunification, etc, etc...
And how many children were involved.
> G > Not in it for the glory.
>
> DS > OBVIOUSLY!!!
>
> G > Not keeping a scorecard.
>
> DS > Because you can't even keep your own lies straight.
>
> Your lips are moving but no proof is forthcoming.
Your own words, greg.
"FORCED" and then "threatened."
> G > Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
>
> DS > How long did it take Lisa Watkins
> DS > to win her CPS case with your
> DS > advice, strategy and tactics, greg?
>
> As opposed to what, Dan?
Did she win but without your advice, strategy and tactics?
LK
Sounds like something a worker would say.
> > > > Warning them not to piss off the worker.
>
> > > Is that a bad suggestion?
>
> > And that's not going to happen simply by fighting against them
>
> Fighting against CPS is the wrong thing to do.
>
Kissing ass is the right thing to do?
> Calm, firm, knowledgeable disagreement is the means to a favorable
> resolution.
>
> > or
> > underminding them with somebody who "Knows the system better then they
> > do?"
>
> You don't tell CPS that you know the system better than they do.
>
> You just do what needs to be done.
>
> And you don't tell what's in your hand before you have to show it.
>
> > > > Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
> > > > breath mint.
>
> > > I don't know what you're referring to.
>
> > Just something I read in the archives. Nothing major.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Right, nothing major.
>
> > > > You know, ass kissing.
>
> > > Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "ass kissing."
>
> > Same link.
>
> You just said it was "nothing major."
>
It's still ass kissing advice.
> > Post links to some of your advice that wasn't ass kissing.
>
> No, you claimed I advised people to kiss CPS' ass and all you could
> come up with was, as you put it yourself, "nothing major."
>
"GFYS Greg" doesn't count.
Greg, would you back up Dan's self-glorification claim?
No link? So you're saying you wrote it yourself?
>
> > > > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> > > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> > > Oregon.
>
> > What qualified you for the first one?
>
> Resolve and persistence.
>
> What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
Doesn't mean much from an internet blowhard who claims he has all the
answers but won't give any real ones.
You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
system that makes up its own rules as it goes along. Maybe you could
write a book on it. Call it, "How To Get Away With Touching Your
Daughter In The Toilet With A Puppet Bear" by Dan Sullivan Self
Proclaimed CPS Expert with no credentials.
Dan Sullivan
I never kissed nor advised anyone to kiss CPS' ass.
I advised people not to give CPS any reason to document inappropriate
behavior.
> > Calm, firm, knowledgeable disagreement is the means to a favorable
> > resolution.
>
> > > or
> > > underminding them with somebody who "Knows the system better then they
> > > do?"
>
> > You don't tell CPS that you know the system better than they do.
>
> > You just do what needs to be done.
>
> > And you don't tell what's in your hand before you have to show it.
>
> > > > > Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a
> > > > > breath mint.
>
> > > > I don't know what you're referring to.
>
> > > Just something I read in the archives. Nothing major.http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > Right, nothing major.
>
> > > > > You know, ass kissing.
>
> > > > Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "ass kissing."
>
> > > Same link.
>
> > You just said it was "nothing major."
>
> It's still ass kissing advice.
Not at all.
> > > Post links to some of your advice that wasn't ass kissing.
>
> > No, you claimed I advised people to kiss CPS' ass and all you could
> > come up with was, as you put it yourself, "nothing major."
>
> "GFYS Greg" doesn't count.
Then you have no advice to prove your claim?
Ask greg how to google.
Of course there's a link.
Google and find it.
> > > > > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> > > > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> > > > Oregon.
>
> > > What qualified you for the first one?
>
> > Resolve and persistence.
>
> > What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
>
> Doesn't mean much from an internet blowhard who claims he has all the
> answers but won't give any real ones.
I didn't say I have all the answers.
But the advice I dispense is extremely effective in getting children
back to their parents from CPS custody..
> You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
> system that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
CPS can make up "rules" as they go along, but there are the rules that
they MUST follow.
Policies, procedures, rules and regulations.
Otherwise they (CPS) look like fools and the family prevails!!!
> Maybe you could
> write a book on it. Call it, "How To Get Away With Touching Your
> Daughter In The Toilet With A Puppet Bear" by Dan Sullivan Self
> Proclaimed CPS Expert with no credentials.
Poor boy, your best response is to repeat a CPS fabrication... a lie
from an organization you supposedly hate?
Yeah, you and greg are quite the team.
Are you replacing ken pigborn as greg's buttbuddy?
gposter
LK, by supporting greg you and your website have lost any and all
credibility. Well, maybe not in alt.boylovers or other "sex with
children is okay" groups.
LK
As an expert, you should realize that CPS would just do that anyway or
make something up to make or strengthen their case. Your puppet bear
story, if false, would be a perfect example of that.
It's your claim. Provide your own links.
Being your own claim why not provide it yourself?
> > > > > > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> > > > > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> > > > > Oregon.
>
> > > > What qualified you for the first one?
>
> > > Resolve and persistence.
>
> > > What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
>
> > Doesn't mean much from an internet blowhard who claims he has all the
> > answers but won't give any real ones.
>
> I didn't say I have all the answers.
>
> But the advice I dispense is extremely effective in getting children
> back to their parents from CPS custody..
>
What advice? Be specific.
> > You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
> > system that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
>
> CPS can make up "rules" as they go along, but there are the rules that
> they MUST follow.
>
And when they don't work, they change them.
> Policies, procedures, rules and regulations.
>
And when they don't work, they change them, or make something up.
> Otherwise they (CPS) look like fools and the family prevails!!!
>
> > Maybe you could
> > write a book on it. Call it, "How To Get Away With Touching Your
> > Daughter In The Toilet With A Puppet Bear" by Dan Sullivan Self
> > Proclaimed CPS Expert with no credentials.
>
> Poor boy, your best response is to repeat a CPS fabrication... a lie
> from an organization you supposedly hate?
>
So now it's a lie and a fabrication? Amidst your earlier claims that
it was a misunderstanding on the part of the worker who wasn't quite
sure what she heard but wrote what it sounded like.
Dan Sullivan
I never claimed to be an expert.
> you should realize that CPS would just do that anyway or
> make something up to make or strengthen their case. Your puppet bear
> story, if false, would be a perfect example of that.
It wasn't my puppet bear story.
It was a fabrication on the part of the caseworker.
The two detectives from the DA's office who were present during that
interview with my daughter documented in their report that my daughter
made no disclosures of inappropriate behavior.
I purposely didn't post the links so I could tell you to GFYS when you
refused to find the info yourself.
Soooooooo... GFYS.
GFYS.
> > > > > > > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
>
> > > > > > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
> > > > > > Oregon.
>
> > > > > What qualified you for the first one?
>
> > > > Resolve and persistence.
>
> > > > What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
>
> > > Doesn't mean much from an internet blowhard who claims he has all the
> > > answers but won't give any real ones.
>
> > I didn't say I have all the answers.
>
> > But the advice I dispense is extremely effective in getting children
> > back to their parents from CPS custody..
>
> What advice? Be specific.
Each case is different.
> > > You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
> > > system that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
>
> > CPS can make up "rules" as they go along, but there are the rules that
> > they MUST follow.
>
> And when they don't work, they change them.
They don't change the rules, they simply ignore them.
And their failure to comply with their own rules and regulations
always bites them on the ass.
> > Policies, procedures, rules and regulations.
>
> And when they don't work, they change them, or make something up.
See above.
> > Otherwise they (CPS) look like fools and the family prevails!!!
>
> > > Maybe you could
> > > write a book on it. Call it, "How To Get Away With Touching Your
> > > Daughter In The Toilet With A Puppet Bear" by Dan Sullivan Self
> > > Proclaimed CPS Expert with no credentials.
>
> > Poor boy, your best response is to repeat a CPS fabrication... a lie
> > from an organization you supposedly hate?
>
> So now it's a lie and a fabrication? Amidst your earlier claims that
> it was a misunderstanding on the part of the worker who wasn't quite
> sure what she heard but wrote what it sounded like.
I didn't claim the CW misunderstood what my daughter said.
The CW documented she didn't understand what my daughter said.
As I said previously, the two detectives from the DA's office
documented that my daughter said nothing to indicate abuse.
LK
> LK, by supporting greg you and your website have lost any and all
> credibility.
Hi Roberta.
I don't expect much credibility from the anti-parent, pro-CPS hosebags
such as yourself anyway. Nor is it required for my website to have
it's intended effect. Also, I've backed up 99% of everything posted
on my website with links mostly to news articles to major newspapers,
unlike your buddy Dan here who posts self-glorifying statements and
tells you to go find the links to them yourself. So dispute the
credibility of my website all you want.
On top of that, I'm surprised you could think up anything to say all
by yourself without copying and pasting. That's a big step for you.
Dan Sullivan
> <snip>
>
> > LK, by supporting greg you and your website have lost any and all
> > credibility.
>
> Hi Roberta.
>
> I don't expect much credibility from the anti-parent, pro-CPS hosebags
> such as yourself anyway. Nor is it required for my website to have
> it's intended effect. Also, I've backed up 99% of everything posted
> on my website with links mostly to news articles to major newspapers,
> unlike your buddy Dan here who posts self-glorifying statements and
> tells you to go find the links to them yourself.
FYI a "self-glorifying statement" is one written by the person making
the post.
The statements you are referring to were made by people OTHER than
myself.
Are you this stupid when you wake up in the morning or does it only
start after you talk to greg?
> So dispute the
> credibility of my website all you want.
>
> On top of that, I'm surprised you could think up anything to say all
> by yourself without copying and pasting. That's a big step for you.
I'm surprised you aren't able to google the info, LK.
Such a tiny step for such a big fool.
rkb...@pacific.net.sg
> ...
>
> read more »
LK
Yet you claim to give advice that is highly effective in getting over
40 children returned to their parents in this very thread. Logically
that must prove a claim of some level of expertise, wouldn't you
think? Not to mention, the statements that you claim are from others
without providing links such as...
"It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's
expert help in developing and following through with the approach you
successfully implemented."
where the word was used. It was posted by you making it your claim.
You also claim to "Know the system better then they do." Which also
makes a claim of some level of expertise.
> > you should realize that CPS would just do that anyway or
> > make something up to make or strengthen their case. Your puppet bear
> > story, if false, would be a perfect example of that.
>
> It wasn't my puppet bear story.
>
As you would say....
Really?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/fbdc31469c3c74c9?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9?&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/1053fa8cf6b86a18?hl=en&
Whose puppet bear story was it then?
> It was a fabrication on the part of the caseworker.
>
That may or may not be.
> The two detectives from the DA's office who were present during that
> interview with my daughter documented in their report that my daughter
> made no disclosures of inappropriate behavior.
>
As you also claim with no proof.
Curious, why would the police have been there at that time? What was
the initial complaint or what was the report made to CPS that prompted
this particular investigation? Is it CPS policy to have a cop
accompany every worker to an initial assessment in your area? Or did
you have an open case for a time prior to this? Did you go psycho on
another worker prior to this?
I only ask because it's been my understanding that a cop would only
accompany a worker if she had reason to fear for her personal safety
or she found evidence of a crime prior to a removal in which case the
parents would be arrested. At least that's how it's done around here.
Which is how you win an arguement in your own mind?
So you can't provide any specific examples?
> > > > You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
> > > > system that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
>
> > > CPS can make up "rules" as they go along, but there are the rules that
> > > they MUST follow.
>
> > And when they don't work, they change them.
>
> They don't change the rules, they simply ignore them.
>
> And their failure to comply with their own rules and regulations
> always bites them on the ass.
>
Always?
LK
> On May 13, 12:47 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > LK, by supporting greg you and your website have lost any and all
> > > credibility.
>
> > Hi Roberta.
>
> > I don't expect much credibility from the anti-parent, pro-CPS hosebags
> > such as yourself anyway. Nor is it required for my website to have
> > it's intended effect. Also, I've backed up 99% of everything posted
> > on my website with links mostly to news articles to major newspapers,
> > unlike your buddy Dan here who posts self-glorifying statements and
> > tells you to go find the links to them yourself.
>
> FYI a "self-glorifying statement" is one written by the person making
> the post.
>
Exactly.
Greegor
DS > "FORCED" and then "threatened."
Dan, It's funny how a DICTIONARY makes mention of
convincing, coercion, influencing and more all
under the definition of "force".
Didn't you know this, Dan, Mister Comma Cop?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force
force (fôrs, frs)
n.
c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force
of logical argumentation.
--------------------------
b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator
who is still a force in national politics.
--------------------------
1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to
practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
2.
a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot
into the shoe.
c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the
group.
-------------------------------
8. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card).
Idioms: force (someone's) hand
------------------------------------
forcea·ble adj.
forcer n.
Synonyms: force, compel, coerce, constrain, oblige, obligate
These verbs mean to cause a person or thing to follow a prescribed or
dictated course. Force, the most general, usually implies the exertion
of physical power or the operation of circumstances that permit no
options: Tear gas forced the fugitives out of their hiding place.
-----------------------------------
Coerce invariably implies the use of strength or harsh measures in
securing compliance: "The man of genius rules . . . by persuading an
efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent
majority"
Dan, Have you explained how you coerced your
bipolar ex-wife to take her psych meds?
You didn't allow her to endanger your kids, did you?
gposter
> On May 13, 1:04 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 12:47 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > LK, by supporting greg you and your website have lost any and all
> > > > credibility.
>
> > > Hi Roberta.
>
> > > I don't expect much credibility from the anti-parent,
I am not anti-parent, I am pro-child. I fully support any loving
parent that has been falsly accussed of child abuse.
pro-CPS hosebags
> > > such as yourself anyway. Nor is it required for my website to have
> > > it's intended effect. Also, I've backed up 99% of everything posted
> > > on my website with links mostly to news articles to major newspapers,
> > > unlike your buddy Dan here who posts self-glorifying statements and
> > > tells you to go find the links to them yourself.
>
> > FYI a "self-glorifying statement" is one written by the person making
> > the post.
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
> > The statements you are referring to were made by people OTHER than
> > myself.
>
> > Are you this stupid when you wake up in the morning or does it only
> > start after you talk to greg?
>
> > > So dispute the
> > > credibility of my website all you want.
>
> > > On top of that, I'm surprised you could think up anything to say all
> > > by yourself without copying and pasting. That's a big step for you.
>
> > I'm surprised you aren't able to google the info, LK.
>
> > Such a tiny step for such a big fool.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Greegor
LK > blowhard who claims he has all the
LK > answers but won't give any real ones.
LK >
LK > You must be really smart if you consider
LK > yourself an expert on a system that
LK > makes up its own rules as it goes along.
LK > Maybe you could write a book on it. Call
LK > it, "How To Get Away With Touching
LK > Your Daughter In The Toilet With A
LK > Puppet Bear" by Dan Sullivan Self
LK > Proclaimed CPS Expert with no credentials.
LOL
Greegor
vs. (an old message quote, further down.)
DS > By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
LK > Curious, why would the police have been
LK > there at that time? What was the initial
LK > complaint or what was the report made
LK > to CPS that prompted this particular
LK > investigation? Is it CPS policy to have
LK > a cop accompany every worker to an
LK > initial assessment in your area? Or did
LK > you have an open case for a time prior
LK > to this? Did you go psycho on another
LK > worker prior to this?
LK >
LK > I only ask because it's been my
LK > understanding that a cop would only
LK > accompany a worker if she had reason
LK > to fear for her personal safety or she
LK > found evidence of a crime prior to a
LK > removal in which case the parents
LK > would be arrested. At least that's
LK > how it's done around here.
Dan said a cop and a DA, no less!
And they made a report!
Golly, Dan, the only time the caseworkers
needed a cop in our case was when one
tried the pathetic scam to try for a confession
by telling huge lies. The cop was probably
protection against an expected punch in the nose.
But no DA was involved in that, Dan!
Why did they have a cop and a DA there in your case?
How much of your interaction with caseworkers
was with a police escort?
DS > LK supports a CPS fabrication against a father.
DS > A fabrication that was thrown out of court,
DS > ignored by the DA's office, and reversed by
DS > New York State in an Administrative Review.
DS > And the CPS case worker resigned.
Can you PROVE any of this, Dan?
Could it be like the Chuck "Loyal Fan" Kimmel
or ""Oliver Sutton"" fabrications on your part?
Don't you think the testimonial from ""Kimmel"" was
just a little over-the-top? NOBODY would ever
figure out that it was a fabrication! LOL
Dan Sullivan
wrote:
> We're not following this battle on alt.a
I'll delete that NG when I post.
Dan Sullivan
Absolutely.
> Not to mention, the statements that you claim are from others
> without providing links such as...
>
> "It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's
> expert help in developing and following through with the approach you
> successfully implemented."
> where the word was used. It was posted by you making it your claim.
You asked me to post messages from people who acknowledged my help.
And that's exactly what I did.
> You also claim to "Know the system better then they do." Which also
> makes a claim of some level of expertise.
True.
> > > you should realize that CPS would just do that anyway or
> > > make something up to make or strengthen their case. Your puppet bear
> > > story, if false, would be a perfect example of that.
>
> > It wasn't my puppet bear story.
>
> As you would say....
>
> Really?
>
>
> Whose puppet bear story was it then?
The case worker.
> > It was a fabrication on the part of the caseworker.
>
> That may or may not be.
If you think you can prove it wasn't a fabrication, be my guest.
> > The two detectives from the DA's office who were present during that
> > interview with my daughter documented in their report that my daughter
> > made no disclosures of inappropriate behavior.
>
> As you also claim with no proof.
You don't have to take my word for it.
> Curious, why would the police have been there at that time? What was
> the initial complaint or what was the report made to CPS that prompted
> this particular investigation? Is it CPS policy to have a cop
> accompany every worker to an initial assessment in your area? Or did
> you have an open case for a time prior to this? Did you go psycho on
> another worker prior to this?
No.
> I only ask because it's been my understanding that a cop would only
> accompany a worker if she had reason to fear for her personal safety
> or she found evidence of a crime prior to a removal in which case the
> parents would be arrested. At least that's how it's done around here.
Oh.
It's how I have fun with people that greg drags into the fray.
They find some inconsequential detail to complain about... and I tell
them... GFYS!
You seem to be able to find previous posts of mine where I was
offering advice..
Please continue.
> > > > > You must be really smart if you consider yourself an expert on a
> > > > > system that makes up its own rules as it goes along.
>
> > > > CPS can make up "rules" as they go along, but there are the rules that
> > > > they MUST follow.
>
> > > And when they don't work, they change them.
>
> > They don't change the rules, they simply ignore them.
>
> > And their failure to comply with their own rules and regulations
> > always bites them on the ass.
>
> Always?
Yes.
Dan Sullivan
> DS > I never claimed to be an expert.
> vs. (an old message quote, further down.)
> DS > By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
That doesn't mean I claimed to be an expert.
> LK > Curious, why would the police have been
> LK > there at that time? What was the initial
> LK > complaint or what was the report made
> LK > to CPS that prompted this particular
> LK > investigation? Is it CPS policy to have
> LK > a cop accompany every worker to an
> LK > initial assessment in your area? Or did
> LK > you have an open case for a time prior
> LK > to this? Did you go psycho on another
> LK > worker prior to this?
> LK >
> LK > I only ask because it's been my
> LK > understanding that a cop would only
> LK > accompany a worker if she had reason
> LK > to fear for her personal safety or she
> LK > found evidence of a crime prior to a
> LK > removal in which case the parents
> LK > would be arrested. At least that's
> LK > how it's done around here.
>
> Dan said a cop and a DA, no less!
I said neither.
> And they made a report!
> Golly, Dan, the only time the caseworkers
> needed a cop in our case was when one
> tried the pathetic scam to try for a confession
> by telling huge lies. The cop was probably
> protection against an expected punch in the nose.
>
> But no DA was involved in that, Dan!
>
> Why did they have a cop and a DA there in your case?
Neither were there.
> How much of your interaction with caseworkers
> was with a police escort?
None.
> DS > LK supports a CPS fabrication against a father.
> DS > A fabrication that was thrown out of court,
> DS > ignored by the DA's office, and reversed by
> DS > New York State in an Administrative Review.
> DS > And the CPS case worker resigned.
>
> Can you PROVE any of this, Dan?
>
> Could it be like the Chuck "Loyal Fan" Kimmel
> or ""Oliver Sutton"" fabrications on your part?
>
> Don't you think the testimonial from ""Kimmel"" was
> just a little over-the-top? NOBODY would ever
> figure out that it was a fabrication! LOL
Over how many months and how many posts from Chuck Kimmel were
fabricated, greg?
LK
Actually I asked you to post links.
> And that's exactly what I did.
>
> > You also claim to "Know the system better then they do." Which also
> > makes a claim of some level of expertise.
>
> True.
>
> > > > you should realize that CPS would just do that anyway or
> > > > make something up to make or strengthen their case. Your puppet bear
> > > > story, if false, would be a perfect example of that.
>
> > > It wasn't my puppet bear story.
>
> > As you would say....
>
> > Really?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/......
LK
So why were the police there?
Dan Sullivan
> Actually I asked you to post links.
For clarity I posted the quotes.
Why are you complaining about finding the original posts when anyone
with half a brain can google the text and find it themselves?
Dan Sullivan
Did gutless greg tell you to try and change the subject?
LK
It's a relevent question.
Dan Sullivan
I asked greg over how many months and how many posts from Chuck Kimmel
were fabricated and you try and change the subject.
And I do notice that you didn't deny that greg told you to change the
subject.
Do you do everything greg tells you to do?
gposter
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have to wonder what your intent is in asking these questions LK.
Will the asking and answering help other in their troubles with CPS
or.. are you like gag and piggy, just shit disturbing?
LK
Wow. Your hatred for Greg must be eating you up inside. It's like he
holds you all in the palm of his hand. None of you can even discuss
anything else or have a thought or probably even take a shower
(Roberta) without dragging Greg into it or resorting to Greg this Greg
that. It's not normal or healthy. And Greg's probably loving every
minute of it.
Maybe you should talk to a shrink about it. Get treated for OCD.
Learn that there is more to life than Greg.
I was actually referring to a question that I asked that you didn't
answer. Greg elaborated on the question. BFD.
I realize that this may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but not
everybody is ruled by Greg. There are people who think
independently.
All system sucks hail the mighty Greg!
That is all you're accomplishing, you know.
gposter
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL, take your blinders off LK
Dan Sullivan
YOU are the one who asked me about the puppet bear fabrication AFTER
you were told about it from greg.
Don't you remember?
greg dragged YOU into it!
And the best you can do is complain that I didn't post links that
anyone can find all on their own!!!
> Maybe you should talk to a shrink about it. Get treated for OCD.
> Learn that there is more to life than Greg.
>
> I was actually referring to a question that I asked that you didn't
> answer. Greg elaborated on the question. BFD.
>
> I realize that this may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but not
> everybody is ruled by Greg. There are people who think
> independently.
You are just not one of them.
LK
Hi Roberta
Questions are often a part of a discussion.
Dan Sullivan
What questions need answering?
gposter
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi LK
right, wink wink.
LK
Take of your own and you'll see I'm right.
Greegor
Police don't normally report things to the DA
when there is no evidence.
This story doesn't make sense.
Why did the Police report anything to the DA
if there was not enough evidence?
How could it be " ignored by the DA's office "
when it would not even be reported to them?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/1053fa8cf6b86a18?hl=en&
September of 2001 Dan wrote
[...]
I learned that the only way to prove an accusation of emotional
neglect is with an evaluation of the child by a qualified
professional. CPS rarely if ever has the evaluation done, but that
doesn't stop them from handing out EN findings like candy. A simple
statement in a request for review that points out that fact will get
the finding overturned on a dime!
As an example of what CPS thinks is credible evidence, when I was
"founded" for molesting my 3 year old daughter, besides sending to
the
review CPS' own report that concluded there was no evidence that I
had
done anything, I pointed out that in the case record the caseworker
wrote that she believed the proof that I molested my daughter came
from my little girl because she said to CPS and the detectives, "My
daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." AND THEN in the
next sentence the caseworker wrote "We didn't know what she was
trying
to say." My question was, how can this statement of my daughters be
credible evidence if no one knew what she was trying to say? I won.
As a side bar - I got a copy of my file from the DA's office to see
why I wasn't arrested. Their report stated that there was no evidence
anywhere that my little girl was even harmed. AND my daughter didn't
accuse me of anything. AND there was a letter in the file from the CW
to them stating that the forensic rape exam results were
inconclusive!
In spite of the fact that CPS AND the detectives did their interviews
at the exact same time standing side by side their reports didn't
match in any way at all. In fact if I went to trial in family court I
would have called the detectives as MY witnesses. The petition to
family court from CPS even claimed that the detectives were present
when my daughter made her "credible evidence" statement. AND the CW
stated in the petition that the forensic examination concluded that
there WAS evidence of molestation! Can you say "fabrication?" You
know
sometimes I wish I did go to trial, but like I always say, "Stay out
of court."
BTW the caseworker resigned from CPS on a Monday morning following
the
Friday that I picked up my copy of the case record and started
alerting everyone from the state on down about how insane the
caseworker acted AND documented in the case record and petition! I
was
petitioned to family court in September and the CW documented in the
CR that in March she did a vaginal exam on my daughter and attempted
on three different visits after that to program my daughter into
accusing me of molesting her, all documented in the case record! "As
the labia were gently separated the little girl said STOP IT HURTS."
Isn't that special! One supervisor from a local CPS told me that CPS
workers were trained to examine injuries. I told him that a sexual
abuse accusation had not even been made at the time and he got real
loud and said, "How do you know THAT?" I said I read it in the case
record. Then he said even louder, "How did you get a copy of the case
record?" I love it when they lose control. In NY CPS does NOT want to
give out copies of the case record to anyone, subjects of the reports
AND their attnys included. PLUS from March to September I had MORE
visitation than my visitation agreement specified and no one
including
CPS tried to get the visitation even reduced. The CW worked in the
garment industry in Manhattan before she worked for CPS, do you think
that's where she got her medical training? She also went BACK there
after her stint at CPS! Two hours on the train in the morning and
another two at night, I can't tell you how bad I feel.
I requested the DA info because I thought it was a good idea to see
what was in THEIR file so I asked for it, my attny thought it was a
waste of time because I wasn't arrested. And he used to be an
assistant DA! Another freakin' expert!
Anyhow back at the ranch, you don't want to ask what they do wrong,
you want to ask how things work, and be prepared to LISTEN AND LEARN!
Good luck on your review Greg. You have my prayers!
Adios, Dan
gposter
> Why WAS the District Attorney involved, Dan?
> Police don't normally report things to the DA
> when there is no evidence.
>
> This story doesn't make sense.
>
> Why did the Police report anything to the DA
> if there was not enough evidence?
>
> How could it be " ignored by the DA's office "
> when it would not even be reported to them?
>
What a great post/email from Dan. This is a perfect example of how to
prevail when falsely accused.
Too bad for Lisa and her daughter that you did not follow this
excellent advice. I am assumming that this post was written before you
got honest about what was going on with Lisa's daughter's case greg.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Greegor
vs. (an old message quote, further down.)
DS > By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
DS > That doesn't mean I claimed to be an expert.
What part of "knowing the system better than the
people in the system" isn't calling yourself an expert, Dan?
LK > Curious, why would the police have been
LK > there at that time? What was the initial
LK > complaint or what was the report made
LK > to CPS that prompted this particular
LK > investigation? Is it CPS policy to have
LK > a cop accompany every worker to an
LK > initial assessment in your area? Or did
LK > you have an open case for a time prior
LK > to this? Did you go psycho on another
LK > worker prior to this?
LK >
LK > I only ask because it's been my
LK > understanding that a cop would only
LK > accompany a worker if she had reason
LK > to fear for her personal safety or she
LK > found evidence of a crime prior to a
LK > removal in which case the parents
LK > would be arrested. At least that's
LK > how it's done around here.
G > Dan said a cop and a DA, no less!
DS > I said neither.
You said the DA made a report that
there was not enough evidence, right?
WHY would the DA's office write that?
Or recieve a report that was a non-starter?
Why would the Police send the DA
a report that there was not enough evidence?
G > And they made a report!
G > Golly, Dan, the only time the caseworkers
G > needed a cop in our case was when one
G > tried the pathetic scam to try for a confession
G > by telling huge lies. The cop was probably
G > protection against an expected punch in the nose.
G >
G > But no DA was involved in that, Dan!
G > Why did they have a cop and a DA there in your case?
DS > Neither were there.
You said a cop was there, and that a cop
sent a report to the DA saying there was
not enough evidence, right?
G > How much of your interaction with caseworkers
G > was with a police escort?
DS > None.
You already said that the Police were there
along with the caseworker at least once.
DS > LK supports a CPS fabrication against a father.
DS > A fabrication that was thrown out of court,
DS > ignored by the DA's office, and reversed by
DS > New York State in an Administrative Review.
DS > And the CPS case worker resigned.
G > Can you PROVE any of this, Dan?
G > Could it be like the Chuck "Loyal Fan" Kimmel
G > or ""Oliver Sutton"" fabrications on your part?
G > Don't you think the testimonial from ""Kimmel"" was
G > just a little over-the-top? NOBODY would ever
G > figure out that it was a fabrication! LOL
DS > Over how many months and how
DS > many posts from Chuck Kimmel
DS > were fabricated, greg?
Are you asserting that a VOLUME of posts
proves the person was not a sock?
Or are you just conceding that
SOME were fabricated? Nice try!
Greegor
he has gone for months refusing to
explain his strategy, so his recent
explanations are very interesting.
Royal Fan is supposedly somebody
named Chuck Kimmel. Notice the last name?
Is he Jimmy Kimmel's long lost brother?
I tend to think he is more like Oliver Sutton,
one of Dan's fake names used when
FightCPS kicked him out and he wanted
to go back into that group.
Dan has basically dissed any and all
Family Rights groups, openly.
After he got kicked out of FightCPS
he lied and said he wasn't.
The leaders at FightCPS publicly spoke out here.
Dan then described an e-mail he got long before
which informed him he was in fact kicked out
of FightCPS, but argued about it.
Dan actually tripped himself up in a lie, because
he had been denying that he knew
he had been kicked out.
Hey, LK, What's wierd about the previous link
you posted where Neal was complaining,
did you see where Neal pointed out that
CPS could easily REFILE a case to keep their grip?
The person who posted as Jennifer later
supposedly had a drug relapse
and lost her kid or kids for good.
(Neal had warned that CPS could just refile.)
I've never seen proof that Jennifer or Chuck
"Loyal Fan" Kimmel were real people.
Even if they were, there is a question about
whether thay were caseworkers/fosters or
some other bloodsucker for the system
playing cute internet games.
LK > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these
cases?
DS > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to
Oregon.
LK > What qualified you for the first one?
DS > Resolve and persistence.
DS > What qualifies you to be greg's lap dog?
LK, Dan basically urges people to fall all over
themselves to do anything and everything
the caseworkers want, even before they want it.
AND he doesn't just urge this for some cases.
He actually told Ric Werme (who created the ascps newsgroup)
that his method is the ONLY method.
I jokingly call it winning through submission.
And when CPS writes up a service plan
full of baseless services, Dan acts like CPS
will just remove items if you ask them,
apparently Dan thinks CPS caseworkers
are REASONABLE people.
LK
> > > Do you do everything greg tells you to do?
>
> > Wow. Your hatred for Greg must be eating you up inside. It's like he
> > holds you all in the palm of his hand. None of you can even discuss
> > anything else or have a thought or probably even take a shower
> > (Roberta) without dragging Greg into it or resorting to Greg this Greg
> > that. It's not normal or healthy. And Greg's probably loving every
> > minute of it.
>
> YOU are the one who asked me about the puppet bear fabrication AFTER
> you were told about it from greg.
>
Actually your puppet bear story is all through the archives. In fact,
just googling the keywords "Dan Sullivan Puppet Bear" gives you
243,000 results.
Greg didn't have to tell me about it.
YOU were telling me about getting your founding’s overturned, yet you
failed to mention it yourself although you brought up other things you
were founded for.
So I asked. It was a legitimate question.
> Don't you remember?
>
> greg dragged YOU into it!
And Greg drags you all over usenet and you follow.
You're his bitch Dan. The sooner you come to terms with that, the
sooner you can get help for your OCD. Why are you in denial?
>
> And the best you can do is complain that I didn't post links that
> anyone can find all on their own!!!
>
Back up your own claims.
Greegor
DS > Calm, firm, knowledgeable disagreement is
DS > the means to a favorable resolution.
LK > or underminding them with somebody who
LK > "Knows the system better then they do?"
DS > You don't tell CPS that you know the system better than they do.
DS > You just do what needs to be done.
By WHOSE definition?
Greegor
of
DS > CPS Watch to a father who just got his baby back from CPS
Dan was refused membership into CPSWATCH.
Pre-emptively.
He was the only such person I ever heard of.
Greegor
fooled Doug Q. into sending that e-mail.
Greegor
taking anything at face value can lead to
this kind of ridicule.
Dan trots this Doug Q letter out a lot.
Dan Sullivan
> Why WAS the District Attorney involved, Dan?
> Police don't normally report things to the DA
> when there is no evidence.
>
> This story doesn't make sense.
>
> Why did the Police report anything to the DA
> if there was not enough evidence?
>
> How could it be " ignored by the DA's office "
> when it would not even be reported to them?
Greg, the jailhouse lawyer, speculates about how the legal system
works in New York.
Dan Sullivan
> I think Dan and his "Oliver Sutton" type socks/fake ID
> fooled Doug Q. into sending that e-mail.
How?
Dan Sullivan
I was asked to post messages from people that showed I was successful
against CPS.
Who would be better qualified to recognize my abilities than the
National Public Relations Director of CPSWatch, Doug Quirmbach?
Dan Sullivan
> What part of "knowing the system better than the
> people in the system" isn't calling yourself an expert, Dan?
I would consider an expert one who has complete knowledge of a
subject.
I do NOT have complete knowledge of how CPS is supposed to function.
But I do know more about the system than the people in it.
> You said the DA made a report that
> there was not enough evidence, right?
No.
> WHY would the DA's office write that?
Offices can't write anything, greg.
People write things.
> Or recieve a report that was a non-starter?
Are you claiming that the DA's office prosecutes everything they
investigate?
> Why would the Police send the DA
> a report that there was not enough evidence?
I never said they did.
> You said a cop was there, and that a cop
> sent a report to the DA saying there was
> not enough evidence, right?
No.
> You already said that the Police were there
> along with the caseworker at least once.
No, I didn't.
Dan Sullivan
> I've asked Dan what his strategy is and
> he has gone for months refusing to
> explain his strategy, so his recent
> explanations are very interesting.
The strategy is to disprove every false allegation with credible
evidence.
> Royal Fan is supposedly somebody
> named Chuck Kimmel. Notice the last name?
> Is he Jimmy Kimmel's long lost brother?
First cousin.
> I've never seen proof that Jennifer or Chuck
> "Loyal Fan" Kimmel were real people.
Evidently they didn't find a need to speak with you on the telephone.
I spoke with them both many times.
Dan Sullivan
> <snip>
>
> > > > Do you do everything greg tells you to do?
>
> > > Wow. Your hatred for Greg must be eating you up inside. It's like he
> > > holds you all in the palm of his hand. None of you can even discuss
> > > anything else or have a thought or probably even take a shower
> > > (Roberta) without dragging Greg into it or resorting to Greg this Greg
> > > that. It's not normal or healthy. And Greg's probably loving every
> > > minute of it.
>
> > YOU are the one who asked me about the puppet bear fabrication AFTER
> > you were told about it from greg.
>
> Actually your puppet bear story is all through the archives. In fact,
> just googling the keywords "Dan Sullivan Puppet Bear" gives you
> 243,000 results.
Then you have a lot of reading to do.
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_...
>
> Greg didn't have to tell me about it.
But the fact is, he did.
> YOU were telling me about getting your founding’s overturned, yet you
> failed to mention it yourself although you brought up other things you
> were founded for.
Was I supposed to mention everything?
I have an extensive history with CPS.
> > And the best you can do is complain that I didn't post links that
> > anyone can find all on their own!!!
>
> Back up your own claims.
I did.
I posted the quotes you were looking for.
Greegor
LK > Wow. Your hatred for Greg must be eating you up
LK > inside. It's like he holds you all in the palm of his
LK > hand. None of you can even discuss anything else
LK > or have a thought or probably even take a shower
LK > (Roberta) without dragging Greg into it or resorting
LK > to Greg this Greg that. It's not normal or healthy.
LK > And Greg's probably loving every minute of it.
DS > YOU are the one who asked me about
DS > the puppet bear fabrication AFTER
DS > you were told about it from greg.
LK > Actually your puppet bear story is all through
LK > the archives. In fact, just googling the keywords
LK > "Dan Sullivan Puppet Bear" gives you 243,000 results.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_...
LK > Greg didn't have to tell me about it.
LK > YOU were telling me about getting your
LK > founding’s overturned, yet you failed to
LK > mention it yourself although you brought
LK > up other things you were founded for.
LK > So I asked. It was a legitimate question.
DS > Don't you remember?
DS > greg dragged YOU into it!
LK > And Greg drags you all over usenet and you follow.
LK > You're his bitch Dan. The sooner
LK > you come to terms with that, the
LK > sooner you can get help for your
LK > OCD. Why are you in denial?
LMFAO!
DS > And the best you can do is complain
DS > that I didn't post links that
DS > anyone can find all on their own!!!
LK > Back up your own claims.
LK > Maybe you should talk to a shrink about it.
LK > Get treated for OCD.
LK > Learn that there is more to life than Greg.
LK > I was actually referring to a question
LK > that I asked that you didn't answer.
LK > Greg elaborated on the question. BFD.
LK > I realize that this may be a hard concept
LK > for you to grasp, but not everybody is
LK > ruled by Greg. There are people who think
LK > independently.
DS > You are just not one of them.
Dan would make a grunt sculpture if he knew
that LK and I haven't had any form of back
channel communication for weeks!
Greegor
Were you dressed like Oliver Sutton at the time?
Greegor
What makes you think Doug would know?
Wasn't Doug's comment made in RESPONSE
to an e-mail that ""Loyal Fan"" sent him?
What if Loyal Fan was your sock?
Who couldn't be misled by an e-mail from a counterfeit person?
Dan Sullivan
> On May 14, 4:34 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 2:12 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Where Dan and his cronies are concerned,
> > > taking anything at face value can lead to
> > > this kind of ridicule.
>
> > > Dan trots this Doug Q letter out a lot.
>
> > I was asked to post messages from people that showed I was successful
> > against CPS.
>
> > Who would be better qualified to recognize my abilities than the
> > National Public Relations Director of CPSWatch, Doug Quirmbach?
>
> What makes you think Doug would know?
What makes you think he wouldn't?
Do you think Doug and I only conversed on the asCPS NG?
> Wasn't Doug's comment made in RESPONSE
> to an e-mail that ""Loyal Fan"" sent him?
Ask Doug.
> What if Loyal Fan was your sock?
What if you REALLY molested Lisa Watkins daughter and have been lying
about it on asCPS since the little girl was removed by the
authorities?
That's much more probable than Jennifer being a sock... and Chuch
Kimmel being a sock... and Doug Quirmbach being fooled and posting his
commentary on my "expert" methods.
Doug knew exactly how I handled cases and he posted as much in his
commentary.
Can't you comprehend what he wrote?
It's pretty much all there.
And what kind of removal lasts more than seven years if not the worst
kind of abuse?
Do you REALLY expect EVERYONE to believe that a removal that lasted
more than seven years was for "clutter?"
> Who couldn't be misled by an e-mail from a counterfeit person?
Do you have any credible evidence as opposed to mere speculation that
Chuck was a "counterfeit person" AND that he sent a bogus email to
Doug Quirmbach?
You CAN contact Doug Q and ask him.
Or is your ascertaining of the facts too much to expect?
greg you're just a steaming goober who can't get out of his own way.
Greegor
Dan, You have been caught in lies. Not mistakes or poor word choice,
but deliberate deceptions.
You lied about being kicked out of FightCPS.
Your fight with Bob was because you didn't like his Constitution based
suggestions.
You posted references for Donald L. Fisher AKA Kane AKA d'geezer AKA
dlfish.
He posted references for you.
You claimed you never heard of Donald L. Fisher of Carson, WA either.
Nonetheless you swore that he was not a retired caseworker.
Eventually his own OLD posts as dlfish gave him away as exactly that.
Then you and Betty argued that a "Child Welfare Worker" is not
necessarily a caseworker. (But Don was an Oregon state employee,
and if you look at Oregon state job descriptions you find that
a Child Welfare worker IS a CPS caseworker.)
You badmouthed all Family Rights groups.
You used a fake name to re-enter FightCPS.
You're a self-proclaimed master of strategy,
and persuasion of caseworkers, but you
can't even get along in any Family Rights
group enough to avoid being kicked out.
Apparently you expect that when you show
up in a Family Rights group, the group
is supposed to recognize you as the
second coming of Jesus Christ the savior.
Yours is THE way, the only solution.
That's why you got into your big fight with
Bob and his Constitutional Defense strategy.
And pushed your ATTACKS on him to the
point where you were kicked OUT.
How strategic was that?
And then you returned to FightCPS as ""Oliver Sutton"".
You have proven that deception is not beyond you.
Seriously dude, a guy named "Loyal Fan" sucking your ass?
What part of that seemed like strategic genius?
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
Greg
Dan claims that he was founded for abuse or neglect five times. Two
were overturned at a "fair hearing" and three during administrative
review. This in itself doesn’t make much sense.
My understanding is that in the PROCESS of appealing a CPS decision,
the first step is the administrative (internal) review. I've not
heard of many of those being overturned at that point regardless of
what evidence someone submits or how poor the evidence the caseworker
claims is. First of all, you only have 30 days to request the
administrative review from the date on the letter with the decision by
the worker (in my state anyway) and second, you don't have the file so
you don't really know what evidence you have to argue against. All
you have is a letter with the decision by the worker. Getting a copy
the actual case file is almost impossible within that 30 day period.
Even if they’re ordered to give you a copy of your file, they’ll
simply drag it out over that time period. Their excuse for the time
could be, for example, they have to review the file before it is
released because there might be confidential information regarding an
anonymous reporter or someone they interviewed during their
investigation who requested to remain anonymous for their personal
safety and that information would have to be removed “by law” prior to
releasing the file, for example information about the mother who would
probably be the one making all the reports.
It's almost automatic to deny a reversal of the decision at this time
because many people will take it no further and the finding generally
sticks. These administrative reviews are also done by CPS workers,
from a different department, who may very well go through several of
these daily, suggesting that this part of the process does not
actually go under careful consideration, and I’ve heard that many of
them aren’t even really looked at regardless of what evidence you
submit with the request, but stamped as denied anyway.
So for one person to have three founding’s overturned during the
internal review stage of the process would be almost miraculous.
> And when CPS writes up a service plan
> full of baseless services, Dan acts like CPS
> will just remove items if you ask them,
> apparently Dan thinks CPS caseworkers
> are REASONABLE people.
Imagine that.
Dan Sullivan
<Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg
>
> Dan claims that he was founded for abuse or neglect five times. Two
> were overturned at a "fair hearing" and three during administrative
> review. This in itself doesn’t make much sense.
In your uninformed opinion.
> My understanding is that in the PROCESS of appealing a CPS decision,
> the first step is the administrative (internal) review. I've not
> heard of many of those being overturned at that point regardless of
> what evidence someone submits or how poor the evidence the caseworker
> claims is.
Is that what you HEARD???
From whom?
Got proof?
> First of all, you only have 30 days to request the
> administrative review from the date on the letter with the decision by
> the worker (in my state anyway) and second, you don't have the file so
> you don't really know what evidence you have to argue against.
"You don't have the file???"
How do you know that?
> All
> you have is a letter with the decision by the worker. Getting a copy
> the actual case file is almost impossible within that 30 day period.
If you are uninformed and don't know the law to quote.
> Even if they’re ordered to give you a copy of your file, they’ll
> simply drag it out over that time period.
The 30 day time period?
> Their excuse for the time
> could be, for example, they have to review the file before it is
> released because there might be confidential information regarding an
> anonymous reporter or someone they interviewed during their
> investigation who requested to remain anonymous for their personal
> safety and that information would have to be removed “by law” prior to
> releasing the file, for example information about the mother who would
> probably be the one making all the reports.
>
> It's almost automatic to deny a reversal of the decision at this time
> because many people will take it no further and the finding generally
> sticks.
In NY if the family doesn't prevail at the Ad Review a Fair Hearing is
automatically scheduled.
> These administrative reviews are also done by CPS workers,
> from a different department, who may very well go through several of
> these daily, suggesting that this part of the process does not
> actually go under careful consideration, and I’ve heard that many of
> them aren’t even really looked at regardless of what evidence you
> submit with the request, but stamped as denied anyway.
"Who may very well... suggesting... I've heard... "
You are SOOO full of shit!
> So for one person to have three founding’s overturned during the
> internal review stage of the process would be almost miraculous.
Looks like I know the system better than YOU, too!
> > And when CPS writes up a service plan
> > full of baseless services, Dan acts like CPS
> > will just remove items if you ask them,
> > apparently Dan thinks CPS caseworkers
> > are REASONABLE people.
>
> Imagine that.
Imagine that you're SOOO stupid you take GREG'S word for
something!!!!!
Dan Sullivan
> > greg you're just a steaming goober who can't get out of his own way.
>
> Dan, You have been caught in lies. Not mistakes or poor word choice,
> but deliberate deceptions.
> You lied about being kicked out of FightCPS.
No, I didn't.
You don't know what was in the conversations I had with Linda.
> Your fight with Bob was because you didn't like his Constitution based
> suggestions.
Bob's a moron.
He STILL hasn't submitted his "2006 bill" to the legislature!!!!
> You posted references for Donald L. Fisher AKA Kane AKA d'geezer AKA
> dlfish.
So?
> He posted references for you.
So?
> You claimed you never heard of Donald L. Fisher of Carson, WA either.
What did I say, exactly?
> Nonetheless you swore that he was not a retired caseworker.
Kane is not a retired CPS case worker as you claim.
> Eventually his own OLD posts as dlfish gave him away as exactly that.
Untrue.
> Then you and Betty argued that a "Child Welfare Worker" is not
> necessarily a caseworker. (But Don was an Oregon state employee,
> and if you look at Oregon state job descriptions you find that
> a Child Welfare worker IS a CPS caseworker.)
No, a CPS case worker is a Child Welfare worker.
A child welfare worker doesn't HAVE to be a CPS case worker.
A whale is a mammal.
Are all mammals whales?
> You badmouthed all Family Rights groups.
Name all the groups and post exactly what I said to badmouth all of
them.
> You used a fake name to re-enter FightCPS.
It isn't a fake name.
> You're a self-proclaimed master of strategy,
> and persuasion of caseworkers, but you
> can't even get along in any Family Rights
> group enough to avoid being kicked out.
There are assholes everywhere, greg.
> Apparently you expect that when you show
> up in a Family Rights group, the group
> is supposed to recognize you as the
> second coming of Jesus Christ the savior.
> Yours is THE way, the only solution.
>
> That's why you got into your big fight with
> Bob and his Constitutional Defense strategy.
No, bob said I, as a family rights activist, should know some specific
particular facts.
And those "facts" turned out to be mere speculations on bob's part.
> And pushed your ATTACKS on him to the
> point where you were kicked OUT.
I didn't attack bob.
I dealt in facts.
Bob attacked me.
Like you do, greg, without facts, just bullshit.
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8933b8bb-deec-40bc...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > DS > I never claimed to be an expert.
> > vs. (an old message quote, further down.)
> > DS > By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
>
> That doesn't mean I claimed to be an expert.
>
> > LK > Curious, why would the police have been
> > LK > there at that time? What was the initial
> > LK > complaint or what was the report made
> > LK > to CPS that prompted this particular
> > LK > investigation? Is it CPS policy to have
> > LK > a cop accompany every worker to an
> > LK > initial assessment in your area? Or did
> > LK > you have an open case for a time prior
> > LK > to this? Did you go psycho on another
> > LK > worker prior to this?
> > LK >
> > LK > I only ask because it's been my
> > LK > understanding that a cop would only
> > LK > accompany a worker if she had reason
> > LK > to fear for her personal safety or she
> > LK > found evidence of a crime prior to a
> > LK > removal in which case the parents
> > LK > would be arrested. At least that's
> > LK > how it's done around here.
>
> > Dan said a cop and a DA, no less!
>
> I said neither.
>
> > And they made a report!
> > Golly, Dan, the only time the caseworkers
> > needed a cop in our case was when one
> > tried the pathetic scam to try for a confession
> > by telling huge lies. The cop was probably
> > protection against an expected punch in the nose.
>
> > But no DA was involved in that, Dan!
>
> > Why did they have a cop and a DA there in your case?
>
> Neither were there.
>
> > How much of your interaction with caseworkers
> > was with a police escort?
>
> None.
>
> > DS > LK supports a CPS fabrication against a father.
> > DS > A fabrication that was thrown out of court,
> > DS > ignored by the DA's office, and reversed by
> > DS > New York State in an Administrative Review.
> > DS > And the CPS case worker resigned.
>
> > Can you PROVE any of this, Dan?
>
> > Could it be like the Chuck "Loyal Fan" Kimmel
> > or ""Oliver Sutton"" fabrications on your part?
>
> > Don't you think the testimonial from ""Kimmel"" was
> > just a little over-the-top? NOBODY would ever
> > figure out that it was a fabrication! LOL
>
> Over how many months and how many posts from Chuck Kimmel were
> fabricated, greg?
< So why were the police there?
It is not unusual for a somebody to create an alter-ego to support
themselves. Moore has done it for a decade and claims I have done the same.
He includes posts from ISP's overseas and around the country and NOT from
anywhere near me. Nice try DAVEY!
As to the GUSHING praise of Sullivan the hero - rescuing the wrongly
accused - given his demonstrable behavior in THIS forum - I find the
endorsements contradicted by observable behavior clearly showing that Danny
is NO friend of the wrongly accused.
gposter
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
To bad nobody gives a shit what you think piggy. You have never
provided any proof ,what so ever, that what you claim is true. In fact
it is you that forgets what sock you are posting as. On the other
hand, David has provided clear and convincing proof of what he says
about you.
Anyone with any questions can Google you....
Dan Sullivan
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Really?
And are you claiming that YOU are the wrongly accused, piggy?
gposter
>
> - Show quoted text -
gregg, can I have permission to copy and post your posts on
fightcps.com?
Hint...it is a yes or no answer.