Child dragged away by police on command of CAS
LK
This is sad.
Greegor
Firemonkey
No.
Dan Sullivan
Na.
Dragon's Girl
Do you have any idea what this was all about?
It didn't appear to me that there was any force on the part of the
police until the child threatened to kick and bite and refused to
comply.
If the police have a court order that they have to enforce then that's
simply what they have to do.
If you know something about why the child was taken, or proof that the
child was even taken on an order by DFS, then please do indicate where
you find this information aside from the claims of the poster of the
video.
Greegor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8Fgq2xkTc
Betty, Did you read the YouTube text description?
CAS is Canadian, by the way, Children's Aid Society.
Not everything in a WWW discussion
is about Missouri DFS, Betty.
Dragon's Girl
I said nothing about MIssouri, Greg.
CAS, and DFS, and CPS, as well as a whole load of other agencies are
the same, with different names.
Children's protective services, any way you stack it up.
You avoided answering my questions as to whether or not there was any
credible accounting of this incident.
A label on a youtube video doesn't really seem credible to me.
Apparently it does to you.
Dragon's Girl
Greegor
LK > This is sad.
G > Dan? Roberta? Betty? Ron?
G > Talk it up!
BJHW > Do you have any idea what this was all about?
BJHW > It didn't appear to me that there was any force on the part of
the
BJHW > police until the child threatened to kick and bite and refused
to
BJHW > comply.
BJHW > If the police have a court order that they have to enforce then
that's
BJHW > simply what they have to do.
BJHW > If you know something about why the child was taken, or proof
that the
BJHW > child was even taken on an order by DFS, then please do
indicate where
BJHW > you find this information aside from the claims of the poster
of the
BJHW > video.
G > Betty, Did you read the YouTube text description?
G > CAS is Canadian, by the way, Children's Aid Society.
G > Not everything in a WWW discussion
G > is about Missouri DFS, Betty.
BJHW > I said nothing about MIssouri, Greg.
BJHW > CAS, and DFS, and CPS, as well
BJHW > as a whole load of other agencies
BJHW > are the same, with different names.
BJHW > Children's protective services, any
BJHW > way you stack it up.
BJHW > You avoided answering my questions
BJHW > as to whether or not there was any
BJHW > credible accounting of this incident.
BJHW > A label on a youtube video doesn't
BJHW > really seem credible to me.
BJHW > Apparently it does to you.
It's funny that CPS uses low standards of evidence,
which you'd swear by, but when something cuts
against CPS you need the highest evidenciary standards.
Why is that, Betty? <grin>
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92ee5527-b724-42d2...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g8Fgq2xkTc
LK > This is sad.
grag> It's funny that CPS uses low standards of evidence,
which you'd swear by, but when something cuts
against CPS you need the highest evidenciary standards.
Grag> Why is that, Betty? <grin>
What is there evidence of, grag?
High OR low.
And if it's your diminutive IQ we'll know why you don't respond.
Dragon's Girl
I don't see any evidence of anything.
Do you?
A label is placed on a video showing police scuffling with a child of
about 10 to 13.
The label may be factual, it may not be.
If it is, there could be a whole slew of reasons behind it.
Was the child with the non custodial parent? Did that parent refuse
to return the child to the custodial parent and social services became
involved, as well as the police?
Was the child in need of some kind of services that she refused, such
as mental health services? Looks to me like the young lady is a bit
out of control. No child of mine would ever dare threaten a police
officer and then physically attack them.
Was the child in state custody already and refusing to return from a
visit? Did the child run away? What WERE the circumstances, Greg?
I'm not holding anyone, or any entity to a 'standard'.
All I am asking for is the whole story.
This is something you would normally agree with.
What gives now? Why are you suddenly making more of this than the eye
can see?
No news report, no posted records, nothing but a short youtube video
with a caption that reads that CAS ordered police to take a child by
force.
We don't know why, where, etc.
Lay off the bullshit already.
Ron
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ef0076d5-19d2-42b2...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Because it would not support greggs account of things and his personal
belief structure. As I remember, to gregg the facts only tend to cloud a
good story and therefore should be avoided at all costs.
Ron
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
> "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Ron buddy, do you really think that this is a "good story"?
Pretending Greg wasn't involved of course...
Tell me, you were a cop once right? Is this what it's like? The
video I mean. Is it at least realistic in its presentation? Did
you ever get to drag a 12 year old away from their family kicking and
screaming?
Dragon's Girl
I'm not a cop, nor have i ever been one. However, I've had relatives
who were, including my uncle, who was a constable for many years. I
don't think he would have worded your phrase quite the way you
did....'get to drag a 12 year...'.
LK, do you know more about this story than the two and a half minute
video shows?
LK
Ron said "good story." I assume he meant that he liked it.
> LK, do you know more about this story than the two and a half minute
> video shows?
No. I just thought it would add a good visual. There is lots of good
stuff on YouTube. I could post more if you'd like.
I get stuff like this sent to me from the readers of my blog all the
time.
Dan Sullivan
<<<snip>>>
Can't you post something that might actually help someone who's family
is involved with CPS?
"Good visuals, good stuff, and stuff like this" isn't really helpful.
LK
Can you?
Explain how your practically daily refrences to "Ken's daughters porn
videos," helps families Dan.
> "Good visuals, good stuff, and stuff like this" isn't really helpful.
And you're advertising porn in usenet does?
Don't you understand that CPS gets away with all it does simply
because society is misled and ignorant of the issue? If a video from
YouTube can help people to see what it's like dealing with these
assholes or wake a few people up to the truth then somewhere down the
line it's going to start helping a lot more families then your "one
family at a time/kiss CPS ass approach" ever thought of.
How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
your brilliant advice?
And you can say whatever you want about what I post here or to my
website, but I still get more readers then you ever will.
In the last 30 days, Legally Kidnapped http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
had 5,468 Pageviews from 3,261 Absolute Unique Visitors, and that
continues to grow every month. It's a new favorite of the Family
Rights movement.
I'll tell you what Dan. If you're advice is so great, I'll make a
deal with you. Write a few articles that tells ways of dealing with
CPS or get a web cam and make a few YouTube videos of your own and if
they're worth a piss hole in the snow, I'll post them. We'll call it
"Dan's Corner!" I'll even provide a special link that brings up
everything that you post. I'll make you famous throughout the family
rights movement and the CPS/foster care system as the brilliant CPS
stratigest that you claim to be.
All you have to do is prove it.
Dan Sullivan
> How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
> Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
> your brilliant advice?
Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
Dan Sullivan
>...you can say whatever you want about what I post here or to my
> website, but I still get more readers then you ever will.
> In the last 30 days, Legally Kidnappedhttp://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
> had 5,468 Pageviews from 3,261 Absolute Unique Visitors, and that
> continues to grow every month.
So you must be able to prove that you have helped get hundreds of kids
back to their families!
Please post the proof.
I'd really like to see how you do it!!!
Hundreds is too much to ask.
Start with the proof for twenty.
LK
> On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >...you can say whatever you want about what I post here or to my
> > website, but I still get more readers then you ever will.
> > In the last 30 days, Legally Kidnappedhttp://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
> > had 5,468 Pageviews from 3,261 Absolute Unique Visitors, and that
> > continues to grow every month.
>
> So you must be able to prove that you have helped get hundreds of kids
> back to their families!
>
I never made such a claim. What I did was offer you the opportunity
to do that. You simply have no real advice to offer.
Like I said Dan.
> > you can say whatever you want about what I post here or to my
> > website, but I'll still get more readers then you ever will.
> Please post the proof.
>
> I'd really like to see how you do it!!!
>
> Hundreds is too much to ask.
>
> Start with the proof for twenty.
Prove your own claim of dozens and dozens.
LK
> On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
> > Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
> > your brilliant advice?
>
> Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
Got proof?
>
> Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
Got proof?
>
> Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
Got proof?
Greegor
DS > Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
DS > Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
LK > Prove your own claim of dozens and dozens.
Hey Dan! Bensen and Stabler would ask no less of you!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more bullshit in message
news:0df0ddc8-8907-4cd3...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
>> Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
>> your brilliant advice?
>
> Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
Oh don't be modest Danny - it's probably thousands or tens of thousands! YOU
are a HERO! Maybe YOU are the ONLY one in all recorded history who has EVER
beaten CPS.
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f638a810-ece5-4ad4...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 13, 11:47 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
> > Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
> > your brilliant advice?
>
> Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
Got proof?
Ask him if he has "a God damn LINK!!!!"
krp
Sound of cop car siren slowing to a halt and Bensen and Stabler's car doors
slamming...
BENSEN: Okay WHERE is the puppet bear?
Greegor
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
LOL Dan, Ya got a damned LINK?
Greegor
DS > Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
DS > Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
LK > Prove your own claim of dozens and dozens.
G > Hey Dan! Bensen and Stabler would ask no less of you!
KRP > Sound of cop car siren slowing to a halt and
KRP > Bensen and Stabler's car doors slamming...
KRP > BENSEN: Okay WHERE is the puppet bear?
Extra Special!
Dan Sullivan
ken pangborn's daughter used it in a porn video.
Greegor
DS > Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
DS > Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
LK > Prove your own claim of dozens and dozens.
G > Hey Dan! Bensen and Stabler would ask no less of you!
KRP > Sound of cop car siren slowing to a halt and
KRP > Bensen and Stabler's car doors slamming...
KRP > BENSEN: Okay WHERE is the puppet bear?
G > Extra Special!
DS > ken pangborn's daughter used it in a porn video.
Is porn all ya got, Dan?
Want some help getting your manjina working?
Firemonkey
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote more bullshit in messagenews:0df0ddc8-8907-4cd3...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
> >> Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
> >> your brilliant advice?
>
> > Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
>
> Oh don't be modest Danny - it's probably thousands or tens of thousands! YOU
> are a HERO! Maybe YOU are the ONLY one in all recorded history who has EVER
> beaten CPS.
That would not be correct. Using Dans advice I have helped two
families, one family to get thier children back from CPS and another
parent who was placed on the registry, taken off the registry. You and
gag both know this, and know he helped Betty and Lost in Translation.
Carry on idiots.
Dan Sullivan
G > Extra Special!
You can keep whatever porn you've collected.
http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
> On Jul 13, 3:23 pm, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote more bullshit in messagenews:0df0ddc8-8907-4cd3...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
> > >> Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
> > >> your brilliant advice?
>
> > > Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
>
> > Oh don't be modest Danny - it's probably thousands or tens of thousands! YOU
> > are a HERO! Maybe YOU are the ONLY one in all recorded history who has EVER
> > beaten CPS.
>
> That would not be correct. Using Dans advice
What advice would that be Roberta?
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more bullshit in message
>news:0df0ddc8-8907-4cd3...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 13, 11:21 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How many people have read what you have to say about the Child
>>> Protective/Foster Care issue Dan? How many people have actually heard
>>> your brilliant advice?
>>
>> Enough to get dozens and dozens of kids back to their parents.
>
>Oh don't be modest Danny - it's probably thousands or tens of thousands! YOU
>are a HERO!
Hero might be a bit over the top.
>Maybe YOU are the ONLY one in all recorded history who has EVER
>beaten CPS.
>
Only within the confines of your metal illness.
--
Me:
>> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
>> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn:
>NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <kjsf449973e8lmqj9...@4ax.com>
Kent Wills
That Dan is able to help really angers GregWhore and Kenny-Bob.
They have a vested interest in seeing that no one is ever helped.
Kenny-Bob's livelihood depended on it at one time. GregWhore thinks
everyone should be the massive failure he is.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Greegor
DS > Enough to challenge CPS findings and have them reversed.
DS > Enough to have their criminal charges dropped.
LK > Prove your own claim of dozens and dozens.
G > Hey Dan! Bensen and Stabler would ask no less of you!
KRP > Sound of cop car siren slowing to a halt and
KRP > Bensen and Stabler's car doors slamming...
KRP > BENSEN: Okay WHERE is the puppet bear?
G > Extra Special!
DS > ken pangborn's daughter used it in a porn video.
G > Is porn all ya got, Dan?
G > Want some help getting your manjina working?
DS > You can keep whatever porn you've collected.
Us Man Whores don't need porno.
If your man-jina is working right you don't need porn.
Dan Sullivan
> Us Man Whores don't need porno.
Looks like a quote Kent Willis will use.
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have asked me that question before lk, and I have told you to go
to fightcps.com and look it up.
Why would you ask again?
LK
Because nothing turned up. Got a link? Probably not huh?
Dan Sullivan
Quite a number of people on FightCPS got their children back using my
advice.
If nothing turned up, it's your fault, LK.
Dan Sullivan
There's almost 1500 of my posts.
How many did you read?
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a liar and a coward lk.
Greegor
DS > How many did you read?
Most of them were Dan infighting with Family Rights people.
Are you sure the messages didn't age off ?
Dan Sullivan
> DS > There's almost 1500 of my posts.
> DS > How many did you read?
>
> Most of them were Dan infighting with Family Rights people.
When someone claims the best way to get children returned to their parents
is by challenging the Constitutionality of the Family Court system , I
couldn't let it go without telling the truth.
> Are you sure the messages didn't age off ?
Why would they?
Greegor
DS > How many did you read?
G > Most of them were Dan infighting with Family Rights people.
DS > When someone claims the best way
DS > to get children returned to their parents
DS > is by challenging the Constitutionality
DS > of the Family Court system , I
DS > couldn't let it go without telling the truth.
Who appointed YOU arbiter of truth? Kent Wills?
G > Are you sure the messages didn't age off ?
DS > Why would they?
Why would the old messages age off? LOL
Is it a challenge to your ego and immortality, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> DS > There's almost 1500 of my posts.
> DS > How many did you read?
>
> G > Most of them were Dan infighting with Family Rights people.
>
> DS > When someone claims the best way
> DS > to get children returned to their parents
> DS > is by challenging the Constitutionality
> DS > of the Family Court system , I
> DS > couldn't let it go without telling the truth.
>
> Who appointed YOU arbiter of truth? Kent Wills?
See below.
> G > Are you sure the messages didn't age off ?
>
> DS > Why would they?
>
> Why would the old messages age off? LOL
>
> Is it a challenge to your ego and immortality, Dan?
May 25, 2006, FightCPS,
"I was here for a few months before I asked Bob Lynn to provide proof
for his claim "When sued, CPS loses in the majority of cases."
He insisted he was right for a week or so and then retracted his
statement as fact and changed it to his unsubstantiated opinion."
Here's my first post on FightCPS,
"Dan Sullivan
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 1539
Location: Long Island, New York
PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: AN INVESTIGATION
INTO NEW YORK'S SPCC - July 2001"
Looks like they're all there, grag.
Prove otherwise.
Dragon's Girl
Sadly, that should be obvious by the lack of respect, lack of
dignified solutions, etc that are posted within this group by Greg, et
al.
I've always been amazed at the 'pack of hungry wolves' mentality that
seems to ooze from each post they make when a new poster, searching
for information, writes here.
I've often been amused by the stupidity posted.
Meanwhile, nothing gets accomplished for those families. It seems
that many just post, and then disappear into the woodwork, afraid and
distraught even further after reading the 'pearls' of 'wisdom' Greg,
et al, produce.
Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
we were helped.
I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
be a solution?' is never answered.
You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd. They only wish to
berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
Disgusts me.
Dragon's Girl
<GASP!> You ask for PROOF???
Be still my heart...it shall never come.
Kent Wills
<betty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: AN INVESTIGATION
>> INTO NEW YORK'S SPCC - July 2001"
>>
>> Looks like they're all there, grag.
>>
>> Prove otherwise.
>
><GASP!> You ask for PROOF???
>Be still my heart...it shall never come.
Has Greg ever offered proof, I mean actual, valid proof, of any
claim he's ever made?
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Dragon's Girl
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:39:18 -0700 (PDT), "Dragon's Girl"
>
>
> [...]
>
> >> PostPosted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:39 am Post subject: AN INVESTIGATION
> >> INTO NEW YORK'S SPCC - July 2001"
>
> >> Looks like they're all there, grag.
>
> >> Prove otherwise.
>
> ><GASP!> You ask for PROOF???
> >Be still my heart...it shall never come.
>
> Has Greg ever offered proof, I mean actual, valid proof, of any
> claim he's ever made?
>
> --
> "I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
> Gregory Scott Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Yes.
However, it's all been for things that really don't matter.
LK
Betty, I realize that I'm just "et al," and everything, but that's a
one hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black that you're
suggesting here. Your side is guilty of the same thing. Remember, it
wasn't that long ago that I started posting here. I got several
private emails, most from your side and from people who rarely if ever
post here, trying to either scare me away and even a couple trying to
steer me towards Dan to "help me with my case" as it was put. Oh I
was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I can
tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good.
I've seen it happen to people in other groups looking for support
online and having everything they posted turn up on the desk of a
judge. Besides, don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the
truth, tells it like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
doing is calling a spade a spade. So his method is not politically
correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality.
And do you know what else? You all feed the fire. So if anything,
you're just as guilty as he is.
> Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
> we were helped.
Uh huh. I kind of get the feeling that you all like the fight too.
Otherwise you wouldn't participate. You all would leave and snuggle
in warmly with a nice friendly moderated group in Yahoo or somewhere.
But for some reason you all just keep on going right? Or is it like
Greg says, this your last hope because you got kicked out of all the
others?
> I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
> us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
> be a solution?' is never answered.
There are plenty of solutions Betty, you just have to start thinking
in those terms. And you can't do so until you're willing to listen to
and discuss the truth for what it is instead of arguing against it
simply because it was stated by Greg.
> You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
> can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
> There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd.
Listen to who Betty? Dan? Ron? Get real!
You Betty, being the one system suck that seems to have half a brain
must at least realize that Dan's one family at a time approach just
isn't enough to solve the problem for the thousands going through it
at any given time. You also have to expose the truth and educate the
people so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole. Greg is
at least the one person in here making an attempt to do that. Look
what he gets for it.
> They only wish to
> berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
That's where you're dead wrong. People like you want to cover up the
severity or quantity of their failures as well as their motives. You
all want to believe deep in your hearts that they're really trying to
do the right thing when you know damn well that it's all about
money. Sure maybe not totally to the foster parents and
babystealers, after all, they're falling for the same joke you are
right? It's always the pee-on’s that get stuck with the dirty work.
> It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
> an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
Sounds like you're talking about Dan. I guess you'd have to "listen"
to realize that, huh.
> I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
> those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
> group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
Maybe it's time for that. Hell, they've tried everything else right?
> Disgusts me.
That's because you're playing for the wrong team Betty.
Dan Sullivan
So "most" out of several wanted to scare you away.
Why do you say the people who wanted to scare you away were from
Betty's side?
Was Betty one of them?
And "a couple" tried to steer you to me to help you with your case.
THAT sounds like Betty.
What were the "most" out of several afraid of?
> Oh I
> was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I can
> tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
> just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
> my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
> Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
What difference would that make?
BTW look at all the websites like your's, LK.
And how long they've been in existence.
I don't see any of them with a decent success rate for getting
children back to their parents.
Why after all these years haven't they figured it out?
Because they're dominated by people like grag.
> If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good.
Scares them away with his ridiculous comments?
Or scares them away from other people's advice?
> I've seen it happen to people in other groups looking for support
> online and having everything they posted turn up on the desk of a
> judge.
You've "seen it happen?"
Is that like grag's "I've heard????"
Which web site's postings ended up on the desk of a judge?
> Besides, don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the
> truth, tells it like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
> political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
> proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
> doing is calling a spade a spade.
Grag couldn't be a more perfect example of who NOT to listen to!!!
He advises people to do things that would cause them to never get
their children back.
He told one mother (who had custody) to do something in Court that
would have gotten her arrested!
And she wasn't even in trouble with CPS!
You haven't been around long enough to have read grag's years of
advice that plays right into the hands of CPS.
> So his method is not politically
> correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality.
>
> And do you know what else? You all feed the fire. So if anything,
> you're just as guilty as he is.
So when grag advises a parent to do something that would get them
arrested or cause them to never get their children back or lose their
children, everyone else is supposed to remain silent?
> > Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
> > we were helped.
>
> Uh huh. I kind of get the feeling that you all like the fight too.
> Otherwise you wouldn't participate.
Your advice is for everyone to remain silent when bad advice is
posted?
Sounds like bad advice to me.
Or shouldn't I have said that?
> You all would leave and snuggle
> in warmly with a nice friendly moderated group in Yahoo or somewhere.
> But for some reason you all just keep on going right? Or is it like
> Greg says, this your last hope because you got kicked out of all the
> others?
Not at all.
> > I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
> > us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
> > be a solution?' is never answered.
>
> There are plenty of solutions Betty, you just have to start thinking
> in those terms.
Then why haven't you posted the solutions on your website, LK?
Why haven't you asked grag to post his advice on your web site?
Call it "grag's corner!"
> And you can't do so until you're willing to listen to
> and discuss the truth for what it is instead of arguing against it
> simply because it was stated by Greg.
Specifically what truths from grag are you referring to?
> > You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
> > can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
> > There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd.
>
> Listen to who Betty? Dan? Ron? Get real!
> You Betty, being the one system suck that seems to have half a brain
> must at least realize that Dan's one family at a time approach just
> isn't enough to solve the problem for the thousands going through it
> at any given time.
Your complaint about what I do is that I only help "one family at a
time?"
You can be sure the family's that I help don't complain.
Each and every defeat of CPS demonstrates to them and the Family Court
Judge that returns the children that someone knows how to expose the
people in CPS for what they really are.
And if I knew how to "solve the problems for the thousands going
through it at any given time," do you really think I wouldn't?
Why don't you tell me how, and I'll start right now.
What should I tell the people who get referred to me from FightCPS,
and the local people, and the people who get recommended to me from
the internet?
That I don't work with families anymore... I'm only working on the
"big picture?"
>Hell, they've tried everything else right?
> You also have to expose the truth and educate the
> people so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole.
Every time someone gets their CPS finding reversed, or their children
returned, it exposes the truth about CPS.
You want to educate the people?
Fine, me too.
You want the people to "cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
Is that what your blog is for?
How many children went back to their parents because of the newspaper
stories posted on your blog?
> Greg is
> at least the one person in here making an attempt to do that.
You really think grag is "exposing the truth and educating the people
so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
If grag is exposing the truth, why did he go back and remove his
messages that detailed what he did to his girlfriend's seven year old
daughter that caused her to be removed by the authorities?
BTW if you don't know, grag was an unrelated adult male living with
the little girl's mother.
Reading what he did (spank the little girl, force her to take cold
showers as punishment, and be present in the bathroom every time she
got out of the shower) and didn't do (like clean up the clutter in his
girlfriend's trailer which he claims was the cause of the removal)
would be QUITE an education.
The mother lost custody for more than seven years.
Now THERE'S an injustice for the public to cry out against!!!!
> Look what he gets for it.
What he deserves.
> > They only wish to
> > berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
>
> That's where you're dead wrong. People like you want to cover up the
> severity or quantity of their failures as well as their motives.
What evidence is there that's what Betty wants?
> You
> all want to believe deep in your hearts that they're really trying to
> do the right thing when you know damn well that it's all about
> money. Sure maybe not totally to the foster parents and
> babystealers, after all, they're falling for the same joke you are
> right? It's always the pee-on’s that get stuck with the dirty work.
Who are the "pee-ons?"
BTW IMO if CPS concentrated on the cases that needed their attention,
their workload could be reduced by 90% or more.
> > It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
> > an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
>
> Sounds like you're talking about Dan. I guess you'd have to "listen"
> to realize that, huh.
Has grag a single success against CPS?
> > I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
> > those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
> > group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
>
> Maybe it's time for that.
Usually the first reactions a family has to a CPS intervention ARE
fear, rebellion and a distraction from the goal, which is getting
their children back.
> Hell, they've tried everything else right?
No.
Everything else is what I advise them to do.
Calm down, don't show anger, do what's appropriate and necessary, and
focus on reunification.
> Disgusts me.
>
> That's because you're playing for the wrong team Betty.
Betty was mistaken when she tried to resolve her family's problems
with CPS?
In your opinion she should have focused on "exposing the truth and
educating the people so that they cry out against the injustice as a
whole," rather than what CPS did to her family?
Dragon's Girl
Oh boy.
>
> Betty, I realize that I'm just "et al," and everything, but that's a
> one hell of a case of the pot calling the kettle black that you're
> suggesting here. Your side is guilty of the same thing. Remember, it
> wasn't that long ago that I started posting here. I got several
> private emails, most from your side and from people who rarely if ever
> post here, trying to either scare me away and even a couple trying to
> steer me towards Dan to "help me with my case" as it was put.
Not from me. Correct?
And correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm just taking a guess here, but
were any of the letters you received filled with "DFS is going to kill
your baby and is doing it for money, you are so f*cked and your child
will never see the light of day again, you'll never get the child back
because the state wants your little money maker, you are totally
screwed', or did you hear things like 'stay calm, sorry to hear about
your troubles, hope for the best for you, here is a resource'?
There's a huge difference in trying to instill fear in someone and
offering them support, information, etc.
THE KEY ELEMENT HERE IS THAT NEW POSTERS ARE SCARED HALF TO DEATH AND
ARE TOLD LIES TO SUPPORT IT.
Oh I
> was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I can
> tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
> just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
> my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
> Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
Nope, how could I possibly know who all those people were? I'm sure
that I might have been one of them, as I regularly click to find
possible resources.
So what?
>
> If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good.
> I've seen it happen to people in other groups looking for support
> online and having everything they posted turn up on the desk of a
> judge.
I'll agree with the idea that posting publicly about your case in the
midst of DFS turmoil is not a good idea simply because you can be
found, and your posts can be used against you. I cannot, ever, agree
with the terrorist mentality of scaring the shit out of people who are
already suffering emotionally. Sorry. No way.
Besides, don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the
> truth, tells it like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
> political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
> proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
> doing is calling a spade a spade. So his method is not politically
> correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality.
Are you kidding me? All Greg is doing is calling a spade a spade when
he asks a child how long they would expect their father to put up with
a cheating mother? When he condones child marriage by throwing out
his little pearls about 'the quaker oats guy'? When he states that
women are basically asexual after giving birth and implies that in
light of that a man has a right to have affairs? There's more LK.
You should really read the archives.
>
> And do you know what else? You all feed the fire. So if anything,
> you're just as guilty as he is.
If you choose to call what I do 'feeding the fire' then do so. I am
well aware of my own actions, and I am certain that I have helped
three families from this group, two by emotional support, and one
financially.
That's called helping.
Two got their kids back.
One did not, and that person's loss of their children was in no way
connected to me or anything that I did. It was due to choices they
made on their own free will.
>
> > Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
> > we were helped.
>
> Uh huh. I kind of get the feeling that you all like the fight too.
Yes, I'm sure you do. That's why you have NEVER seen me refrain from
taking part in more controversial topics, right?
> Otherwise you wouldn't participate. You all would leave and snuggle
> in warmly with a nice friendly moderated group in Yahoo or somewhere.
> But for some reason you all just keep on going right? Or is it like
> Greg says, this your last hope because you got kicked out of all the
> others?
I've NEVER been kicked out of a moderated group of ANY kind.
In fact, I've never been part of a moderated group for CPS.
>
> > I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
> > us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
> > be a solution?' is never answered.
>
> There are plenty of solutions Betty, you just have to start thinking
> in those terms.
Tell us about them LK.
And you can't do so until you're willing to listen to
> and discuss the truth for what it is instead of arguing against it
> simply because it was stated by Greg.
You are in denial.
Why you are in denial is a mystery to me, but you are.
We have had many discussions here where we talk about the problems
with DFS and it's handling of cases, but many of us are realists. We
know, without a doubt, that although those problems exist, there is
nothing in rehashing those problems that will help families NOW.
Until changes are made we plug along trying to help with the system
the way it is. I have never known even ONE person in this group who
denies problems with social services. NOT ONE LK.
You mistake 'our' want for accurate information to be presented as
lobbying FOR CPS. This is absurd. I, personally, want ALL sides
presented, not just the completely inaccurate 'good', or the skewed
'bad'.
>
> > You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
> > can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
> > There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd.
>
> Listen to who Betty? Dan? Ron? Get real!
FAMILIES, LK. There isn't any listening to the families.
> You Betty, being the one system suck that seems to have half a brain
> must at least realize that Dan's one family at a time approach just
> isn't enough to solve the problem for the thousands going through it
> at any given time.
Dan has never claimed to try to 'solve the problem'.
He's never claimed to do anything more than help one family at a time.
If your family was the 'one' family, you'd be damned glad.
You also have to expose the truth and educate the
> people so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole.
<sigh> It's obvious that you've never heard 'one ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure'.
Greg is
> at least the one person in here making an attempt to do that. Look
> what he gets for it.
Greg is making an attempt to expose DFS?
How might posting my legal records do that?
How would pointing to my photo accomplish that?
How, exactly, would posting possible names and residences of posters
here do that?
You're just as full of shit as he is if you're falling for that.
In fact, as far as 'exposure' goes, I believe that FX does a far finer
job of it than ANYONE else here.
>
> > They only wish to
> > berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
>
> That's where you're dead wrong. People like you want to cover up the
> severity or quantity of their failures as well as their motives.
Oh no, that is where YOU are wrong. No one wants to cover up
anything.
We choose honesty and fact.
Where others use the Christine family as poster children for the kill
CPS mentality, we point to the fact that they had free will, and
exercised it when the took up weapons against state workers, and
nailed their own coffins.
They are examples of what NOT to do.
Others try this family, and ones like them, as martyrs, examples of
how to fight the state.
Great idea except one thing...they're in prison and they haven't got
their kids.
This goes back to that one family at a time. Although some may
disregard the Christines as casualties of war, I...NO WE, see them as
one family without their children, no hope of ever seeing their
children again, and in prison.
Each and ever single family and family member counts.
They aren't simply now disregarded failures.
You
> all want to believe deep in your hearts that they're really trying to
> do the right thing when you know damn well that it's all about
> money.
What's about money?
Sure maybe not totally to the foster parents and
> babystealers, after all, they're falling for the same joke you are
> right? It's always the pee-on’s that get stuck with the dirty work.
The more I read your reply here the more I realize what the most
important thing is.
>
> > It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
> > an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
>
> Sounds like you're talking about Dan. I guess you'd have to "listen"
> to realize that, huh.
I listened. Specifically, to Dan and to Kane.
I have my grandchild.
>
> > I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
> > those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
> > group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
>
> Maybe it's time for that. Hell, they've tried everything else right?
'They' have?
Coulda fooled me LK.
>
> > Disgusts me.
>
> That's because you're playing for the wrong team Betty.
I'm not 'playing', number one, number two, I'm not on any 'team'.
It's not a game. Real lives, and real people, real families, real
heartbreak and destruction.
I don't see any kind of game to it.
Apparently you do.
Firemonkey
Well said Betty.
Greegor
to do something he says would get her arrested:
Dan says she was not in trouble with CPS.
So WHY then was she was appearing in front of a Judge?
And the issue was an illegally made recording
that exposed how CPS lied/perjored.
The practical reality about such a recording
presented to a court is that sometimes they
are actually allowed, and sometimes they
are disallowed.
One interesting aspect of this recording is
that it was a recording of a government agent
in the performance of their duties, and NOT
any private citizen. I maintain that laws about
recording and privacy don't apply to PUBLIC
officials in the performance of their duties.
I highly doubt that the prosecutor would dare
prosecute a criminal charge against a citizen
for protecting themself against dishonest
caseworkers by recording them, PARTICULARLY
in a case where there actually was such dishonesty.
Do you think a JURY of US Citizens would like that?
Dan played down the value of proving that a
caseworker commmitted perjury and exaggerated
the risk of prosecution for recording.
Dan Sullivan
> In regard to Dan's story of how I advised somebody
> to do something he says would get her arrested:
>
> Dan says she was not in trouble with CPS.
>
> So WHY then was she was appearing in front of a Judge?
The CPS case was against her ex-husband and she had already had
custody of the children.
What difference would it make if she WAS appearing in Court or not?
Admitting in Court that you committed a crime is NEVER a good idea, is
it, grag?
Have you not heard "You have the right to remain silent???"
Or the 5th amendment???
The right not to incriminate oneself in Court?
> And the issue was an illegally made recording
> that exposed how CPS lied/perjored.
Even if a CPS case worker lied in a telephone conversation, it's not a
CRIME is it, grag?
But recording that conversation in that state WAS a crime, wasn't it,
grag?
And advising someone to admit committing that crime in court wasn't a
good idea, was it, grag?
> The practical reality about such a recording
> presented to a court is that sometimes they
> are actually allowed, and sometimes they
> are disallowed.
Why would the mother even mention the recording when she already had
custody of her children?
> One interesting aspect of this recording is
> that it was a recording of a government agent
> in the performance of their duties, and NOT
> any private citizen.
Is it not still a crime to make the recording?
Is there a "government agent exception" to the law?
> I maintain that laws about
> recording and privacy don't apply to PUBLIC
> officials in the performance of their duties.
So that would be the "greg hanson exception" to that specific law...
in that state only?
Or is that for all states?
How many times has the "grag hanson exception" been successfully used
in court in the defense of the crime?
> I highly doubt that the prosecutor would dare
> prosecute a criminal charge against a citizen
> for protecting themself against dishonest
> caseworkers by recording them, PARTICULARLY
> in a case where there actually was such dishonesty.
So that would be the "greg hanson doubts I would be prosecuted for
breaking the law" defense.
How many times has that been successfully used in a criminal
trial?????
> Do you think a JURY of US Citizens would like that?
The recording wouldn't have to be played in court.
The issue is whether the illegal recording was made or not.
What was recorded, makes no difference.
> Dan played down the value of proving that a
> caseworker commmitted perjury and exaggerated
> the risk of prosecution for recording.
butthead, a CPS case worker lying in a telephone conversation isn't
perjury.
Perjury is lying in court under oath or in a sworn statement.
Again, how many times has the "greg hanson doubts I would be
prosecuted for breaking the law" defense been successfully used in a
criminal trial?????
Are you going to maintain your claim that admitting that crime in
court is a good idea, grag?
Is a Judge's eye roll, an admission of the crime on the record in
Court, an arrest and trial (probably plea bargained down to a lesser
offense) and the loss of her children worth admitting her crime?
Greegor
KW > valid proof, of any claim he's ever made?
BW > Yes.
BW > However, it's all been for things that really don't matter.
Predictable angling.
LK
Yes Dan.
> Why do you say the people who wanted to scare you away were from
> Betty's side?
because they were system sucks like you.
>
> Was Betty one of them?
>
Did I say Betty was one of them?
> And "a couple" tried to steer you to me to help you with your case.
>
Yes Dan.
> THAT sounds like Betty.
>
I didn't say it was Betty.
> What were the "most" out of several afraid of?
>
There was only one who expressed fear Dan. The rest were warnings.
> > Oh I
> > was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I can
> > tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
> > just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
> > my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
> > Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
>
> What difference would that make?
I was just stating an observation.
>
> BTW look at all the websites like your's, LK.
>
Show me one. Mine is actually fairly original.
> And how long they've been in existence.
>
How long?
> I don't see any of them with a decent success rate for getting
> children back to their parents.
>
We know Dan. You're the only one with all the answers.
> Why after all these years haven't they figured it out?
>
Lots of people have figured you out, I'm sure.
> Because they're dominated by people like grag.
>
There is only one Greg Dan.
> > If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good.
>
> Scares them away with his ridiculous comments?
>
I just think that your blaiming him for that which he's not entirely
responsible for.
> Or scares them away from other people's advice?
>
What advice? I've yet to see you offer anything good to anybody
who'se posted here.
> > I've seen it happen to people in other groups looking for support
> > online and having everything they posted turn up on the desk of a
> > judge.
>
> You've "seen it happen?"
>
Yes I have.
> Is that like grag's "I've heard????"
>
No it isn't.
> Which web site's postings ended up on the desk of a judge?
>
In other groups I've belonged too. Are you saying this doesn't
happen?
> > Besides, don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the
> > truth, tells it like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
> > political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
> > proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
> > doing is calling a spade a spade.
>
> Grag couldn't be a more perfect example of who NOT to listen to!!!
>
> He advises people to do things that would cause them to never get
> their children back.
>
Like what?
> He told one mother (who had custody) to do something in Court that
> would have gotten her arrested!
>
What was that?
> And she wasn't even in trouble with CPS!
>
Then what's her problem with the system?
> You haven't been around long enough to have read grag's years of
> advice that plays right into the hands of CPS.
>
Like the kiss ass approach that you suggest?
> > So his method is not politically
> > correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality.
>
> > And do you know what else? You all feed the fire. So if anything,
> > you're just as guilty as he is.
>
> So when grag advises a parent to do something that would get them
> arrested
for example?
> or cause them to never get their children back
for example?
> or lose their
> children,
for example?
> everyone else is supposed to remain silent?
>
Where did I say that?
> > > Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
> > > we were helped.
>
> > Uh huh. I kind of get the feeling that you all like the fight too.
> > Otherwise you wouldn't participate.
>
> Your advice is for everyone to remain silent when bad advice is
> posted?
>
No Dan what I said was that Greg isn't the only one scaring people
away from this group as Betty claimed. I also said that Greg tells it
like it is.
> Sounds like bad advice to me.
Point out where I said that.
>
> Or shouldn't I have said that?
>
> > You all would leave and snuggle
> > in warmly with a nice friendly moderated group in Yahoo or somewhere.
> > But for some reason you all just keep on going right? Or is it like
> > Greg says, this your last hope because you got kicked out of all the
> > others?
>
> Not at all.
>
> > > I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
> > > us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
> > > be a solution?' is never answered.
>
> > There are plenty of solutions Betty, you just have to start thinking
> > in those terms.
>
> Then why haven't you posted the solutions on your website, LK?
>
How do you know I haven't? Have you looked through all 2000 + posts?
> Why haven't you asked grag to post his advice on your web site?
>
Greg hasn't claimed to have all the answers. That's your claim.
> Call it "grag's corner!"
>
Do you know what Dan? I've been looking into this issue for a while
now. Since then I've read many posts from several news groups. Some
are frequented by experienced lawyers. Some are frequented by foster
parents and a couple even included social workers. And do you know
what? You are the first person who makes the bullshit claim to "Know
the system better then the people in the system." You are the first
person who I have ever heard of that claims to have single handedly
rescued over 40 children from the system. Yet you can't prove a
single one. Your claims are wild and unrealistic. Shit, you can't
even get your own puppet bear story straight, what with the recent
development, for example, the detectives from the DA's office being
from the sex crimes unit and all.
> > And you can't do so until you're willing to listen to
> > and discuss the truth for what it is instead of arguing against it
> > simply because it was stated by Greg.
>
> Specifically what truths from grag are you referring to?
>
Google it.
> > > You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
> > > can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
> > > There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd.
>
> > Listen to who Betty? Dan? Ron? Get real!
> > You Betty, being the one system suck that seems to have half a brain
> > must at least realize that Dan's one family at a time approach just
> > isn't enough to solve the problem for the thousands going through it
> > at any given time.
>
> Your complaint about what I do is that I only help "one family at a
> time?"
>
No Dan. What I am saying here is that if you do actually help
families, that it just isn't enough. Great, you rescue one kid from
the system what about the other half a million stuck in there? What
about all the people who never hear of you and your brilliant advice?
As soon as one family is helped another 100 fall victim. It happens
on a massive scale. There just aren't enough of you to go around.
While you're helping one family at a time Congress is getting ready to
pass a new version of the adoption and safe families act (ASFA ends
this September BTW) which will make it harder for you to do that
because it makes it even easier to adopt kids out from foster care and
provides more money for the adoptive parents, bigger adoption bonuses,
etc. I have been encouraging people to contact their congressmen and
senators about this. Is that the wrong thing to do? Hell your own
Senator (Hillary) is one of the biggest advocates for it. Have you
contacted her office?
> You can be sure the family's that I help don't complain.
>
About what? Your help or the injustice dished out by the system? I
hardly doubt that their experience with false accusations strengthens
their support for CPS and the injustice they dish out on a regular
basis. What's your success rate? 100%? What about the families you
couldn't help? Or wouldn't help? How do you pick and choose?
> Each and every defeat of CPS demonstrates to them and the Family Court
> Judge that returns the children that someone knows how to expose the
> people in CPS for what they really are.
>
And what are they really Dan?
And who are you exposing them too?
> And if I knew how to "solve the problems for the thousands going
> through it at any given time," do you really think I wouldn't?
>
You'd be out of a job.
> Why don't you tell me how, and I'll start right now.
>
I can get you in front of thousands. I can make you famous either way
Dan, as a system suck or as the hero you claim to be. You're just
haven't proved that you're worth the blog space and I'm not going to
risk the quality of Legally Kidnapped in order to expose you for the
bullshit artist that you are. You haven't written anything specific,
that I've seen anyway that would be useful.
I'd make that offer to anybody. You got the answers? Send them to me
and I'll post it for the whole world to see.
> What should I tell the people who get referred to me from FightCPS,
> and the local people, and the people who get recommended to me from
> the internet?
>
That you are a system suck.
> That I don't work with families anymore... I'm only working on the
> "big picture?"
>
See Dan, this is where your arguement fails. Where did I say that the
one family at a time approach is unimportant? Yes Dan, some families
need to be helped individually. All need the system fixed as a
whole. This is a problem with multiple levels. Do you deny that? Do
you really think that the problem will be solved one family at a time?
> >Hell, they've tried everything else right?
> > You also have to expose the truth and educate the
> > people so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole.
>
> Every time someone gets their CPS finding reversed, or their children
> returned, it exposes the truth about CPS.
>
To who? The judge? Do all of these families get to the front page of
the newspapers?
> You want to educate the people?
>
That's the attempt I'm making.
> Fine, me too.
>
Really?
> You want the people to "cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
>
Yes.
> Is that what your blog is for?
That's the attempt.
>
> How many children went back to their parents because of the newspaper
> stories posted on your blog?
>
Again you fail to see the purpose of my blog. I'd like to turn it
into something like that, but I'm not the one making the claim to have
all the answers. I've said before that if I had all the answers I'd
post them, but you're the only one who makes that claim.
> > Greg is
> > at least the one person in here making an attempt to do that.
>
> You really think grag is "exposing the truth and educating the people
> so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
>
I think he's made the attempt.
> If grag is exposing the truth, why did he go back and remove his
> messages that detailed what he did to his girlfriend's seven year old
> daughter that caused her to be removed by the authorities?
>
Why didn't you tell us until recently that the detectives from the
DA's office were from the sex crimes unit? Others were under the
impression that the worker brought them there with her. Now you
change your story.
> BTW if you don't know, grag was an unrelated adult male living with
> the little girl's mother.
>
So?
> Reading what he did (spank the little girl, force her to take cold
> showers as punishment, and be present in the bathroom every time she
> got out of the shower) and didn't do (like clean up the clutter in his
> girlfriend's trailer which he claims was the cause of the removal)
> would be QUITE an education.
>
And you post that story every time someone in here comes looking for
info. The minute Greg posts a response, you copy and paste your anti-
Greg bullshit.
Is that how you help families?
> The mother lost custody for more than seven years.
>
Yet she stays with him anyway.
> Now THERE'S an injustice for the public to cry out against!!!!
>
I agree. If everything you say about Greg is true and there was such
a concern, he should have been removed, not the child.
> > Look what he gets for it.
>
> What he deserves.
I'll bet you say that to all the parents.
>
> > > They only wish to
> > > berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
>
> > That's where you're dead wrong. People like you want to cover up the
> > severity or quantity of their failures as well as their motives.
>
> What evidence is there that's what Betty wants?
I said people like her.
>
> > You
> > all want to believe deep in your hearts that they're really trying to
> > do the right thing when you know damn well that it's all about
> > money. Sure maybe not totally to the foster parents and
> > babystealers, after all, they're falling for the same joke you are
> > right? It's always the pee-on’s that get stuck with the dirty work.
>
> Who are the "pee-ons?"
That was a metaphore Dan. In the context I was refering to the foster
parents and babystealers who aren't paid all that much. When you
compair the child protective industry to any other industry in a
capitalist society, the lowest paid members of the society are the
ones who do the dirty work while the "smart people" rake in the
profits off of their backs. In the child protective industry the
product is children. You have the product aquisition team, ie
babystealers, you have storage, ie foster and group homes, you have
sales, ie adoption agencies and even a liquidization team dealing with
children who aren't a quality product for the sales team, ie older or
special needs children who age out.
>
> BTW IMO if CPS concentrated on the cases that needed their attention,
> their workload could be reduced by 90% or more.
>
And I agree with you on that.
> > > It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
> > > an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
>
> > Sounds like you're talking about Dan. I guess you'd have to "listen"
> > to realize that, huh.
>
> Has grag a single success against CPS?
>
Make that caseworker to caseworker call and find out. You really
should get an update.
> > > I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
> > > those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
> > > group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
>
> > Maybe it's time for that.
>
> Usually the first reactions a family has to a CPS intervention ARE
> fear, rebellion and a distraction from the goal, which is getting
> their children back.
>
And some are beaten down psychologically so much that they never
overcome that.
> > Hell, they've tried everything else right?
>
> No.
>
> Everything else is what I advise them to do.
>
> Calm down, don't show anger, do what's appropriate and necessary, and
> focus on reunification.
Well there is a time for everything, isn't there?
>
> > Disgusts me.
>
> > That's because you're playing for the wrong team Betty.
>
> Betty was mistaken when she tried to resolve her family's problems
> with CPS?
>
No. Betty is mistaken now that her families problems are resolved to
her satisfaction.
> In your opinion she should have focused on "exposing the truth and
> educating the people so that they cry out against the injustice as a
> whole," rather than what CPS did to her family?
Now that her problem with CPS is resolved, she should be screaming out
against the injustice of what she had to go through to make that
happen. If the removal was the right thing to do and Betty was always
an adequate placement for her grandson, as I assume she was probably
from day one, she shouldn't have had to fight them to win.
There is a time and a place for everything. I agree with you that
people who have open cases should be focused on getting the kids back,
and not be crying out against the system in the same way I am, but
only because of the way the system is set up and operates currently
where they can get fucked for doing so.
I've come across lots of blogs with just that purpose and the problem
that I have with these is that these people tend to fill them with
personal info, they name judges and lawyers and workers, etc.
Although I have no ethical problem with that, the concern is
retaliation and the legal consiquences for doing so. They try to use
their own stories as a means for crying out against the injustice and
are limited in knowledge to what they are going through. They're all
over the internet I come across them all the time. I've actually been
trying to talk a woman into deleting her myspace page because she's
crying out for help and trying to expose the workers and the lawyers
and the judge and everybody else by name. She names them and they
know that she's been writing all of this in her little myspace blog
and THEY have told her that it's not helping her case, not to mention
they know about it and she gives away her strategy, her plans, etc. in
it. So you're right, there is a time and a place for everything.
It's just that too many people are beaten down into the pavement
psychologically, so they don't have what it takes.
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed5beb1a-1640-4e0e...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > Oh I was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I
> > can
> > tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
> > just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
> > my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
> > Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
>
> What difference would that make?
I was just stating an observation.
>
> BTW look at all the websites like your's, LK.
>
Show me one. Mine is actually fairly original.
> And how long they've been in existence.
>
How long?
> I don't see any of them with a decent success rate for getting
> children back to their parents.
>
< We know Dan. You're the only one with all the answers.
The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success rate of
the A-Team. How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS... Never offers
any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway. I'd sure love him to
answer fro a source OTHER than his GAY LOVER David Moore. Can you DO that
Danny boy?
Dan Sullivan
I don't understand why you think I would want to scare people away
from here.
> > Was Betty one of them?
>
> Did I say Betty was one of them?
That doesn't answer my question.
> > And "a couple" tried to steer you to me to help you with your case.
>
> Yes Dan.
>
> > THAT sounds like Betty.
>
> I didn't say it was Betty.
I didn't say it was. I said it sounds like Betty.
> > What were the "most" out of several afraid of?
>
> There was only one who expressed fear Dan. The rest were warnings.
Interesting.
> > > Oh I
> > > was going to get attacked and on and on. And the one thing that I can
> > > tell you is that there are lots of people who read this group. They
> > > just don't post here. In my first post to this group, I put a link to
> > > my website and over 60 unique hits came from this group that night.
> > > Do you know who all of these people are Betty?
>
> > What difference would that make?
>
> I was just stating an observation.
To what end?
> > BTW look at all the websites like your's, LK.
>
> Show me one. Mine is actually fairly original.
Isn't your blog a copy and paste job of info from the internet?
How could that be original?
> > And how long they've been in existence.
>
> How long?
>
> > I don't see any of them with a decent success rate for getting
> > children back to their parents.
>
> We know Dan.
It's a shame.
> You're the only one with all the answers.
Not all, but enough to beat CPS on a regular basis.
> > Why after all these years haven't they figured it out?
>
> Lots of people have figured you out, I'm sure.
And they got their children back.
And like Betty and Bobbe got their family back together and helped
other families do the same.
> > Because they're dominated by people like grag.
>
> There is only one Greg Dan.
No, unfortunately there's a lot like grag.
> > > If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good.
>
> > Scares them away with his ridiculous comments?
>
> I just think that your blaiming him for that which he's not entirely
> responsible for.
He's not responsible for what he says?
Why is that?
> > Or scares them away from other people's advice?
>
> What advice? I've yet to see you offer anything good to anybody
> who'se posted here.
You said you read the archives.
Guess not, huh?
> > > I've seen it happen to people in other groups looking for support
> > > online and having everything they posted turn up on the desk of a
> > > judge.
>
> > You've "seen it happen?"
>
> Yes I have.
Interesting.
> > Is that like grag's "I've heard????"
>
> No it isn't.
Interesting.
> > Which web site's postings ended up on the desk of a judge?
>
> In other groups I've belonged too. Are you saying this doesn't
> happen?
I just thought you could prove your claim.
Guess not, huh?
> > > Besides, don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the
> > > truth, tells it like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
> > > political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
> > > proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
> > > doing is calling a spade a spade.
>
> > Grag couldn't be a more perfect example of who NOT to listen to!!!
>
> > He advises people to do things that would cause them to never get
> > their children back.
>
> Like what?
Like what he did in Lisa Watkins' case.
> > He told one mother (who had custody) to do something in Court that
> > would have gotten her arrested!
>
> What was that?
Tell the Judge she made an illegal recording off the telephone of a
CPS case worker.
> > And she wasn't even in trouble with CPS!
>
> Then what's her problem with the system?
It was her ex-husband that had the problem
> > You haven't been around long enough to have read grag's years of
> > advice that plays right into the hands of CPS.
>
> Like the kiss ass approach that you suggest?
That's never been my approach.
Guess you never read the archives, huh?
> > > So his method is not politically
> > > correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality.
>
> > > And do you know what else? You all feed the fire. So if anything,
> > > you're just as guilty as he is.
>
> > So when grag advises a parent to do something that would get them
> > arrested
>
> for example?
>
> > or cause them to never get their children back
>
> for example?
>
> > or lose their
> > children,
>
> for example?
>
> > everyone else is supposed to remain silent?
>
> Where did I say that?
You said you wanted to "discuss the truth for what it is instead of
arguing against it simply because it was stated by Greg."
As if what greg says has anything to do with the truth!
> > > > Few of us have stayed on...myself, FM, wishing to help people just as
> > > > we were helped.
>
> > > Uh huh. I kind of get the feeling that you all like the fight too.
> > > Otherwise you wouldn't participate.
>
> > Your advice is for everyone to remain silent when bad advice is
> > posted?
>
> No Dan what I said was that Greg isn't the only one scaring people
> away from this group as Betty claimed. I also said that Greg tells it
> like it is.
YOU don't have any solutions and certainly greg doesn't have any, so
how could you possibly say "greg tells it like it is?"
That's one of the most stupid statements I've ever read on asCPS.
> > Sounds like bad advice to me.
>
> Point out where I said that.
I said it sounds like bad advice to ME.
> > Or shouldn't I have said that?
>
> > > You all would leave and snuggle
> > > in warmly with a nice friendly moderated group in Yahoo or somewhere.
> > > But for some reason you all just keep on going right? Or is it like
> > > Greg says, this your last hope because you got kicked out of all the
> > > others?
>
> > Not at all.
>
> > > > I find it ironic that the question is posed, time and time again 'Tell
> > > > us your strategy', and yet, a simple question 'What do you think would
> > > > be a solution?' is never answered.
>
> > > There are plenty of solutions Betty, you just have to start thinking
> > > in those terms.
>
> > Then why haven't you posted the solutions on your website, LK?
>
> How do you know I haven't? Have you looked through all 2000 + posts?
I thought you said your website was original.
Guess not, huh?
I bet if you had a solution or two you would have featured them some
place prominent.
Guess not, huh?
> > Why haven't you asked grag to post his advice on your web site?
>
> Greg hasn't claimed to have all the answers. That's your claim.
But if greg "tells it like it is," as you claim, surely you could post
his messages on your "not so" original website.
> > Call it "grag's corner!"
>
> Do you know what Dan? I've been looking into this issue for a while
> now. Since then I've read many posts from several news groups. Some
> are frequented by experienced lawyers. Some are frequented by foster
> parents and a couple even included social workers. And do you know
> what? You are the first person who makes the bullshit claim to "Know
> the system better then the people in the system." You are the first
> person who I have ever heard of that claims to have single handedly
> rescued over 40 children from the system. Yet you can't prove a
> single one.
The stories are all thru the asCPS and FightCPS archives.
Ask Betty, Bobbe, Lostintranslation.
> Your claims are wild and unrealistic.
A claim from someone who has no idea how the CPS system works.
What a surprise.
> Shit, you can't
> even get your own puppet bear story straight, what with the recent
> development, for example, the detectives from the DA's office being
> from the sex crimes unit and all.
That's what I was told.
Prove I wasn't told that.
> > > And you can't do so until you're willing to listen to
> > > and discuss the truth for what it is instead of arguing against it
> > > simply because it was stated by Greg.
>
> > Specifically what truths from grag are you referring to?
>
> Google it.
Got nothing, huh?
> > > > You can't know the solution if you don't know the problem, and you
> > > > can't know the problem if you aren't willing to listen.
> > > > There is no listening by the 'kill CPS' crowd.
>
> > > Listen to who Betty? Dan? Ron? Get real!
> > > You Betty, being the one system suck that seems to have half a brain
> > > must at least realize that Dan's one family at a time approach just
> > > isn't enough to solve the problem for the thousands going through it
> > > at any given time.
>
> > Your complaint about what I do is that I only help "one family at a
> > time?"
>
> No Dan. What I am saying here is that if you do actually help
> families, that it just isn't enough.
Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME!!!!
> Great, you rescue one kid from
> the system what about the other half a million stuck in there? What
> about all the people who never hear of you and your brilliant advice?
I've never turned anyone away.
> As soon as one family is helped another 100 fall victim. It happens
> on a massive scale. There just aren't enough of you to go around.
Sad to say.
> While you're helping one family at a time Congress is getting ready to
> pass a new version of the adoption and safe families act (ASFA ends
> this September BTW) which will make it harder for you to do that
> because it makes it even easier to adopt kids out from foster care and
> provides more money for the adoptive parents, bigger adoption bonuses,
> etc. I have been encouraging people to contact their congressmen and
> senators about this.
Is that the "cry out against the injustice as a whole" part of your
plan?
> Is that the wrong thing to do? Hell your own
> Senator (Hillary) is one of the biggest advocates for it. Have you
> contacted her office?
Has CPS removed Chelsea?
> > You can be sure the family's that I help don't complain.
>
> About what?
My help.
Of course they complain about CPS.
What are you stupid?.
> Your help or the injustice dished out by the system? I
> hardly doubt that their experience with false accusations strengthens
> their support for CPS and the injustice they dish out on a regular
> basis.
Apparently you are.
> What's your success rate? 100%?
Higher than I could ever have hoped for.
> What about the families you couldn't help? Or wouldn't help?
I have never declined to help anyone.
> How do you pick and choose?
I have never declined to help anyone.
> > Each and every defeat of CPS demonstrates to them and the Family Court
> > Judge that returns the children that someone knows how to expose the
> > people in CPS for what they really are.
>
> And what are they really Dan?
If the parents prevail in a Family Court Hearing that means CPS lost.
That means the Judge believed the family and NOT CPS!
> And who are you exposing them too?
To themselves and the Family Court Judge, just like it says in the
sentence.
> > And if I knew how to "solve the problems for the thousands going
> > through it at any given time," do you really think I wouldn't?
>
> You'd be out of a job.
Helping people involved with CPS isn't my job.
> > Why don't you tell me how, and I'll start right now.
>
> I can get you in front of thousands. I can make you famous either way
> Dan, as a system suck or as the hero you claim to be. You're just
> haven't proved that you're worth the blog space and I'm not going to
> risk the quality of Legally Kidnapped in order to expose you for the
> bullshit artist that you are.
First, Legally Kidnapped is a copy and paste web site.
Certainly NOT "original" as you seem to think.
And if there is any quality it's from the news stories and other
websites that you suck your copy from.
Being that you believe grag "tells it like it is" YOU should have HIM
be the hero of your Legally Kidnapped web site.
> You haven't written anything specific,
> that I've seen anyway that would be useful.
Never read the archives, huh?
> I'd make that offer to anybody. You got the answers? Send them to me
> and I'll post it for the whole world to see.
Every case is different.
> > What should I tell the people who get referred to me from FightCPS,
> > and the local people, and the people who get recommended to me from
> > the internet?
>
> That you are a system suck.
That the guy who had the Legally Kidnapped web site hasn't a clue
about how to beat CPS... I DO!!!
> > That I don't work with families anymore... I'm only working on the
> > "big picture?"
>
> See Dan, this is where your arguement fails. Where did I say that the
> one family at a time approach is unimportant? Yes Dan, some families
> need to be helped individually.
What a monumental horses ass you are!
They ALL need to be helped individually!
> All need the system fixed as a
> whole. This is a problem with multiple levels. Do you deny that? Do
> you really think that the problem will be solved one family at a time?
That's how I'm doing it.
Constitutional Bob from Pennsylvania "wrote" two laws he thought fixed
all the CPS problems in Pennsylvania.
The Family Preservation Act of 2006 and the Family Advocate Act.
They were originally referred to as the 2005 laws.
He switched the name to 2006 when he failed to submit them to the
legislature in 2005.
And then came 2007.
And then 2008.
In a few months it will be 2009.
The guy is so caught up in his own bullshit he doesn't have any idea
what he should do.
And then YOU say you "have to expose the truth and educate the people
so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole."
Well what HAVE you done and have you gotten a SINGLE child back from
CPS foster care?
AND you claim "Greg is at least the one person in here making an
attempt to do that."
So why would you NOT feature grag and his "tell it like it is"
messages on your website???
Just let me know when you have actually accomplished something, other
than your "not-so-original" website.
> > >Hell, they've tried everything else right?
> > > You also have to expose the truth and educate the
> > > people so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole.
>
> > Every time someone gets their CPS finding reversed, or their children
> > returned, it exposes the truth about CPS.
>
> To who? The judge?
And to CPS themselves.
> Do all of these families get to the front page of the newspapers?
I really don't think that's where they'd want to be.
> > You want to educate the people?
>
> That's the attempt I'm making.
And what have you accomplished so far.
Your website isn't an answer.
> > Fine, me too.
>
> Really?
>
> > You want the people to "cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
>
> Yes.
>
> > Is that what your blog is for?
>
> That's the attempt.
Well, I'm WAYYYYY past attempting to do something.
I have been helping people prevail over CPS since 1993.
> > How many children went back to their parents because of the newspaper
> > stories posted on your blog?
>
> Again you fail to see the purpose of my blog.
So the answer is ZERO!
> I'd like to turn it
> into something like that, but I'm not the one making the claim to have
> all the answers. I've said before that if I had all the answers I'd
> post them, but you're the only one who makes that claim.
Every case is different.
> > > Greg is
> > > at least the one person in here making an attempt to do that.
>
> > You really think grag is "exposing the truth and educating the people
> > so that they cry out against the injustice as a whole?"
>
> I think he's made the attempt.
By saying what, exactly?
> > If grag is exposing the truth, why did he go back and remove his
> > messages that detailed what he did to his girlfriend's seven year old
> > daughter that caused her to be removed by the authorities?
>
> Why didn't you tell us until recently that the detectives from the
> DA's office were from the sex crimes unit?
Was it not obvious that they were investigating a sex crime?
Do you think they were traffic detectives?
> Others were under the
> impression that the worker brought them there with her.
Others?
Where?
In the same car?
> Now you change your story.
Not at all.
> > BTW if you don't know, grag was an unrelated adult male living with
> > the little girl's mother.
>
> So?
Parents are the primary disciplinarians.
Live in sponges don't make the list.
> > Reading what he did (spank the little girl, force her to take cold
> > showers as punishment, and be present in the bathroom every time she
> > got out of the shower) and didn't do (like clean up the clutter in his
> > girlfriend's trailer which he claims was the cause of the removal)
> > would be QUITE an education.
>
> And you post that story every time someone in here comes looking for
> info. The minute Greg posts a response, you copy and paste your anti-
> Greg bullshit.
People should know what greg is all about.
> Is that how you help families?
To get them to not listen to a word greg says is a start.
> > The mother lost custody for more than seven years.
>
> Yet she stays with him anyway.
You're claiming Lisa Watkins still lives with greg?
greg has hinted that Lisa got physical custody of her daughter back.
Have you proof of any of that?
> > Now THERE'S an injustice for the public to cry out against!!!!
>
> I agree. If everything you say about Greg is true and there was such
> a concern, he should have been removed, not the child.
Looks like we're coming to a meeting of the minds.
> > > Look what he gets for it.
>
> > What he deserves.
>
> I'll bet you say that to all the parents.
Looks like your mind is leaking out of the jello mold.
> > > > They only wish to
> > > > berate and use failures as examples of their 'right'.
>
> > > That's where you're dead wrong. People like you want to cover up the
> > > severity or quantity of their failures as well as their motives.
>
> > What evidence is there that's what Betty wants?
>
> I said people like her.
So they're people like Betty... only she's not like them because she
doesn't want what they want?
Looks like the jello mold is empty.
> > > You
> > > all want to believe deep in your hearts that they're really trying to
> > > do the right thing when you know damn well that it's all about
> > > money. Sure maybe not totally to the foster parents and
> > > babystealers, after all, they're falling for the same joke you are
> > > right? It's always the pee-on’s that get stuck with the dirty work.
>
> > Who are the "pee-ons?"
>
> That was a metaphore Dan. In the context I was refering to the foster
> parents and babystealers who aren't paid all that much. When you
> compair the child protective industry to any other industry in a
> capitalist society, the lowest paid members of the society are the
> ones who do the dirty work while the "smart people" rake in the
> profits off of their backs. In the child protective industry the
> product is children. You have the product aquisition team, ie
> babystealers, you have storage, ie foster and group homes, you have
> sales, ie adoption agencies and even a liquidization team dealing with
> children who aren't a quality product for the sales team, ie older or
> special needs children who age out.
>
>
>
> > BTW IMO if CPS concentrated on the cases that needed their attention,
> > their workload could be reduced by 90% or more.
>
> And I agree with you on that.
OK someone's scraping the stuff off the floor and is slowly trying to
refill the jello mold.
> > > > It's pretty pathetic. What is supposed to be a support group becomes
> > > > an obsession in winning the pissing contest.
>
> > > Sounds like you're talking about Dan. I guess you'd have to "listen"
> > > to realize that, huh.
>
> > Has grag a single success against CPS?
>
> Make that caseworker to caseworker call and find out. You really
> should get an update.
Ya got nothing, huh?
> > > > I've always felt this group could serve as a wealth of information for
> > > > those in need, but, as unfortunate as it is, Greg, et al, use this
> > > > group to create fear, rebellion, distraction, and more.
>
> > > Maybe it's time for that.
>
> > Usually the first reactions a family has to a CPS intervention ARE
> > fear, rebellion and a distraction from the goal, which is getting
> > their children back.
>
> And some are beaten down psychologically so much that they never
> overcome that.
I'm working on two cases where I've had to SPEAK VERY LOUDLY at BOTH
people to get them to do certain things.
> > > Hell, they've tried everything else right?
>
> > No.
>
> > Everything else is what I advise them to do.
>
> > Calm down, don't show anger, do what's appropriate and necessary, and
> > focus on reunification.
>
> Well there is a time for everything, isn't there?
That's my basic "secret" plan.
Post it on your website.
Claim it as your own and start getting kids home.
When Chuck Kimmel got the call that his daughter was coming home the
night before her first birthday, he passed out on the phone.
Then he called me... crying.
Get a call from a guy in Texas who only had the stones because I told
him to, to refuse any plea bargain. The DA kept him, his wife and his
attny in the hallway of the courthouse for THREE days, with one plea
bargain after another. Finally his lawyer said, this is the last plea
bargain (no jail time, just listed on a sex abuser web site for life)
if you don't take it we start choosing the jury. He said "no" and five
minutes later the ADA dropped the charges. The lawyer got $28,000 for
the "trial" that I told him would never happen. I got involved AFTER
he paid the attny, so don't blame me. His total expenses were about
$80,000.
He said if it wasn't for me, he would have taken a plea bargain.
Get a call from a guy who was founded for molesting is daughter.
Founded for six or seven years. I wrote out what he was to say at the
Fair Hearing. He read it word for word. A few months later I answered
the phone. "I f'n WON. I f'n WON!!!!!!!"
Get a few calls like that under your belt and you'll know how
important what I do is.
> > > Disgusts me.
>
> > > That's because you're playing for the wrong team Betty.
>
> > Betty was mistaken when she tried to resolve her family's problems
> > with CPS?
>
> No. Betty is mistaken now that her families problems are resolved to
> her satisfaction.
And how do you know that?
> > In your opinion she should have focused on "exposing the truth and
> > educating the people so that they cry out against the injustice as a
> > whole," rather than what CPS did to her family?
>
> Now that her problem with CPS is resolved, she should be screaming out
> against the injustice of what she had to go through to make that
> happen. If the removal was the right thing to do and Betty was always
> an adequate placement for her grandson, as I assume she was probably
> from day one, she shouldn't have had to fight them to win.
Shouldn't have had to fight (CPS) to win?
OMG!
How many times have to heard of or seen that happen?
> There is a time and a place for everything. I agree with you that
> people who have open cases should be focused on getting the kids back,
> and not be crying out against the system in the same way I am,
What are you doing that you consider is "crying out against the
system?"
Other than your website.
> but
> only because of the way the system is set up and operates currently
> where they can get fucked for doing so.
And one call can place them right back in the mix.
And I've seen that happen on a case I was working on.
> I've come across lots of blogs with just that purpose and the problem
> that I have with these is that these people tend to fill them with
> personal info, they name judges and lawyers and workers, etc.
> Although I have no ethical problem with that, the concern is
> retaliation and the legal consiquences for doing so. They try to use
> their own stories as a means for crying out against the injustice and
> are limited in knowledge to what they are going through. They're all
> over the internet I come across them all the time. I've actually been
> trying to talk a woman into deleting her myspace page because she's
> crying out for help and trying to expose the workers and the lawyers
> and the judge and everybody else by name. She names them and they
> know that she's been writing all of this in her little myspace blog
> and THEY have told her that it's not helping her case, not to mention
> they know about it and she gives away her strategy, her plans, etc. in
> it.
Her strategy apparently is to have her kids stay in foster care.
She must not have an attny.
Or she's like greg and does things behind their back without their
knowledge.
> So you're right, there is a time and a place for everything.
> It's just that too many people are beaten down into the pavement
> psychologically, so they don't have what it takes.
I know what it takes, and I persuade them to do what it takes
(speaking VERY loudly to them on occasion).
First you get them passed their anger.
CPS loves to keep their "clients" at that point because they'll never
get their kids back.
Then you have them do what's necessary and appropriate ASAP without
signing an agreement if possible.
If they have to sign an agreement it should include services that are
appropriate to their situation and necessary for reunification.
And they should also understand that CPS has two plans running at the
same time.
It's called concurrent planning.
One plan ends with reunification.
The other with a TPR hearing.
If the family has been cooperative and has been doing what they
believe is necessary and appropriate without a court order or CPS
asking, and CPS hasn't started the reunification process, the family
should use CPS inactions against them with the GAL and whoever else
will listen. Therapists, parenting class teachers, etc, etc... And if
appropriate, in the Courtroom.
Dan Sullivan
> The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success rate of
> the A-Team.
All I know is what you've posted on your website.
> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
I never said that.
> Never offers
> any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
would take as a bold faced lie.
But it's consistent with almost everything else you say about yourself
there.
One lie after another.
Kent Wills
That you see truth as angling is your issue to address, not hers.
But see someone about addressing you low self esteem you have
first. Please see
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/bf3f9227e9d86067 where
your seeing yourself as a loser is shown.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Greegor
KW > valid proof, of any claim he's ever made?
BW > Yes.
BW > However, it's all been for things that really don't matter.
G > Predictable angling.
KW > That you see truth as angling is your
KW > issue to address, not hers.
KW > But see someone about addressing
KW > you low self esteem you have
KW > first. Please see
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/bf3f9227e9d86067
It's YOUR message, not mine!
KW > where your seeing yourself as a loser is shown.
Allegedly shown.
But you are Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
the infamous garage burglary felon.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In regard to Dan's story of how I advised somebody
>to do something he says would get her arrested:
>
>Dan says she was not in trouble with CPS.
>
>So WHY then was she was appearing in front of a Judge?
Are you so stone cold stupid that you think one appears before a
judge only if they are in trouble with CPS?
>
>And the issue was an illegally made recording
>that exposed how CPS lied/perjored.
>
>The practical reality about such a recording
>presented to a court is that sometimes they
>are actually allowed, and sometimes they
>are disallowed.
>
>One interesting aspect of this recording is
>that it was a recording of a government agent
>in the performance of their duties, and NOT
>any private citizen. I maintain that laws about
>recording and privacy don't apply to PUBLIC
>officials in the performance of their duties.
Does the law agree with you?
You can maintain whatever you wish. If the law doesn't agree, it
doesn't matter.
>
>I highly doubt that the prosecutor would dare
>prosecute a criminal charge against a citizen
>for protecting themself against dishonest
>caseworkers by recording them, PARTICULARLY
>in a case where there actually was such dishonesty.
>Do you think a JURY of US Citizens would like that?
If the recording was illegal, it probably wouldn't be allowed in
as evidence, even if it could prove the CW had committed perjury. The
rules of evidence holds the same for both sides.
If the prosecutor wanted to file for making the recording, it may
be allowed in that trial, since it would prove the recording was made.
>
>Dan played down the value of proving that a
>caseworker commmitted perjury and exaggerated
>the risk of prosecution for recording.
An illegal recording of a conversation isn't a great crime. Your
cases of committing abuse would be seen by most as far greater.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Has Greg ever offered proof, I mean actual,
>KW > valid proof, of any claim he's ever made?
>
>BW > Yes.
>BW > However, it's all been for things that really don't matter.
>
>G > Predictable angling.
>
>KW > That you see truth as angling is your
>KW > issue to address, not hers.
>KW > But see someone about addressing
>KW > you low self esteem you have
>KW > first. Please see
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/bf3f9227e9d86067
>
>It's YOUR message, not mine!
I didn't claim it was yours.
Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I claimed
it was?
>
>KW > where your seeing yourself as a loser is shown.
>
>Allegedly shown.
You claimed my using a name other than your own to reference you
means I'm loser. Since you started using a name other than mine to
reference me before I adopted your style, you MUST think YOU are a
loser.
Or do you think the standards you set for others do not apply to
you? If so, how long have you had this specific psychosis?
>
>But you are Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
>the infamous garage burglary felon.
Please prove that I am he.
I'm waiting...
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:00fbfd66-2ea1-4d50...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Danny it is fairly simple. Most folks have figured it out. You *work*
for CPS. Either as a paid agent or as the result of some sort of "DEAL" you
have made with them. You don't want folks hearing where REAL HELP is
available. Which is why you ATTACK - EVERY family rights group there is and
EVERY real source for help that exists for folks. It's part runaway EGO but
is also that you are a WHORE Danny boy. You work for the other guys. You are
dangerous.
MY GRANDMA WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE!!!!
krp
>> The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success rate of
>> the A-Team.
> All I know is what you've posted on your website.
COme on Danny you claim THAT is a lie and you state you know EXACTLY how
many cases we "really win and lose." Cough it up Danny.
>> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
>> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
> I never said that.
Sure you have. Not in those exact words. But you claim "ABSOLUTE
KNOWLEDGE." Cough it up Danny!
>> Never offers any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
> Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
Oh Danny does my website say I LOSE lots of cases??
> I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
> would take as a bold faced lie.
Anyone like YOU - who NEEDS desperately to believe we aren't successful
would. Anybody like You and Davey Moore who have such personal stakes in
attacking NEEDS to believe that. Actually I believe it says 95%.You claim
to have PROOF that it's a lie. SHOW US!! You obviously have LINKS, give us
ther "goddddamn LINKS Danny.." By implication your stand that it is a LIE -
requires that you have some proof of what our win loss ratio is Danny. SHOW
US!
And PLEASE use a source more credible than your gay lover DAVID MOORE.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4070e502-c258-4a7b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success rate of
> >> the A-Team.
> > All I know is what you've posted on your website.
>
> COme on Danny you claim THAT is a lie
Is it?
http://www.a-team.org/history.html
"We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
our cases."
"Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
Is that accurate and true, pangborn?
> and you state you know EXACTLY how
> many cases we "really win and lose." Cough it up Danny.
Is that posted on your website, too?
> >> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
> >> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
> > I never said that.
>
> Sure you have. Not in those exact words. But you claim "ABSOLUTE
> KNOWLEDGE." Cough it up Danny!
>
> >> Never offers any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
> > Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
>
> Oh Danny does my website say I LOSE lots of cases??
>
> > I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
> > would take as a bold faced lie.
>
> Anyone like YOU - who NEEDS desperately to believe we aren't successful
> would. Anybody like You and Davey Moore who have such personal stakes in
> attacking NEEDS to believe that. Actually I believe it says 95%.
You don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website!
See the link and the lie posted above.
> You claim
> to have PROOF that it's a lie.
You did lie... it's not a 95% success rate... YOU claim your success
rate is better than 99%!
See the link and the original lie above.
> SHOW US!! You obviously have LINKS, give us
> ther "goddddamn LINKS Danny.."
http://www.a-team.org/history.html
> By implication your stand that it is a LIE -
> requires that you have some proof of what our win loss ratio is Danny. SHOW
> US!
OK, it's NOT 95% as you claim.
http://www.a-team.org/history.html
"We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
our cases."
"Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
Is that accurate and true, pangborn?
> And PLEASE use a source more credible than your gay lover DAVID MOORE.
Obviously YOUR website is out of the question, pangborn, if
credibility is what you're looking for..
Dan Sullivan
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:zeFfk.360$Cw5.254@trnddc01...
Every CPS in the country?
> MY GRANDMA WHAT BIG TEETH YOU HAVE!!!!
If you want to troll for old women to date... do it somewhere else.
Dragon's Girl
Well, Greg, does it really matter that you offered us all proof of
your letter to the Ways And Means Committee?
I don't see you proving much else. Not that I really want or expect
any proof of anything from you.
When the subject of workers using investigation forms came up I was
part of that discussion, and I offered real proof...I scanned a copy
of one and give it to anyone who asked. Even you.
That's 'real proof'.
I don't see much of that kind of stuff from you.
krp
> On Jul 17, 6:40 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4070e502-c258-4a7b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success rate
>> >> of
>> >> the A-Team.
>> > All I know is what you've posted on your website.
>>
>> COme on Danny you claim THAT is a lie
>
> Is it?
>
> http://www.a-team.org/history.html
>
> "We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
> dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
> our cases."
>
> "Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
>
> That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
Your MATH SUCKS.. 95 + 98 divided by 2 equals 99 GOOD MATH DANNY!
> Is that accurate and true, pangborn?
YOU CLAIM to have PROOF that it's not. COUGH IT UP DANNY!
>> and you state you know EXACTLY how
>> many cases we "really win and lose." Cough it up Danny.
> Is that posted on your website, too?
No i don't post YOUR bullshit Sullivan. You claim to have PROOF that it
is false. COUGH IT UP BOZO!
>> >> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
>> >> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
>> > I never said that.
>> Sure you have. Not in those exact words. But you claim "ABSOLUTE
>> KNOWLEDGE." Cough it up Danny!
>> >> Never offers any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
>> > Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
>>
>> Oh Danny does my website say I LOSE lots of cases??
>>
>> > I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
>> > would take as a bold faced lie.
>>
>> Anyone like YOU - who NEEDS desperately to believe we aren't
>> successful
>> would. Anybody like You and Davey Moore who have such personal stakes in
>> attacking NEEDS to believe that. Actually I believe it says 95%.
> You don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website!
You say that the stats on our website are "FALSE" stated as a "FACT."
So OBVIOUSLY you are claming to have PROOF that we do NOT win the number of
cases we claim. LET'S SEE IT- LIAR!
Kent Wills
As of my writing this, I've never seen any proof of any claim
Greg has made. He's offered some items that, upon investigation, fail
to support, let alone prove, any claim he's made.
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:a4502fe3-5c38-41c4...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 17, 6:40 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:4070e502-c258-4a7b...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> The GREAT Dan Sullivan. He CLAIMS to know the "EXACT" success
>>> >> rate of
>>> >> the A-Team.
>>> > All I know is what you've posted on your website.
>>>
>>> COme on Danny you claim THAT is a lie
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> http://www.a-team.org/history.html
>>
>> "We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
>> dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
>> our cases."
>>
>> "Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
>>
>> That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
>
> Your MATH SUCKS.. 95 + 98 divided by 2 equals 99 GOOD MATH DANNY!
You're too good to be true.
It's like I PAY you to be stupid.
If over 95% are dismissed prior to trial.
And you have a "win rate" of better than 98% on the 5% that went to trial.
That's (at the least) 95 + (better than 98% of 5, which equals better than
4.5) 4.5, which adds up to... better that 99.5%.
Did you follow that, pangborn?
>> Is that accurate and true, pangborn?
>
> YOU CLAIM to have PROOF that it's not. COUGH IT UP DANNY!
But I just proved it is.
>>> and you state you know EXACTLY how
>>> many cases we "really win and lose." Cough it up Danny.
>
>> Is that posted on your website, too?
>
> No i don't post YOUR bullshit Sullivan. You claim to have PROOF that it
> is false.
I never said that.
>>> >> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
>>> >> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
>>> > I never said that.
>
>>> Sure you have. Not in those exact words. But you claim "ABSOLUTE
>>> KNOWLEDGE." Cough it up Danny!
>
>>> >> Never offers any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
>>> > Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
>>>
>>> Oh Danny does my website say I LOSE lots of cases??
>>>
>>> > I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
>>> > would take as a bold faced lie.
>>>
>>> Anyone like YOU - who NEEDS desperately to believe we aren't
>>> successful
>>> would. Anybody like You and Davey Moore who have such personal stakes in
>>> attacking NEEDS to believe that. Actually I believe it says 95%.
>
>> You don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website!
>
> You say that the stats on our website are "FALSE"
Again, you don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website, as
evidenced by your incorrect calculations of your own success rate.
Kent Wills
You're asking a guy who thinks one equals any number greater than
one. Kenny-Bob has honestly presented this as true.
>
>>> Is that accurate and true, pangborn?
>>
>> YOU CLAIM to have PROOF that it's not. COUGH IT UP DANNY!
>
>But I just proved it is.
But it proves Kenny-Bob wrong, which in his mind means you didn't
offer it.
>
>>>> and you state you know EXACTLY how
>>>> many cases we "really win and lose." Cough it up Danny.
>>
>>> Is that posted on your website, too?
>>
>> No i don't post YOUR bullshit Sullivan. You claim to have PROOF that it
>> is false.
>
>I never said that.
He'll say you did and demand that you prove he didn't.
>
>>>> >> How many cases we have done over the past 30 years within ONE
>>>> >> case and the EXACT numbers of wins and loses. SO HE SAYS...
>>>> > I never said that.
>>
>>>> Sure you have. Not in those exact words. But you claim "ABSOLUTE
>>>> KNOWLEDGE." Cough it up Danny!
>>
>>>> >> Never offers any SOURCE for his CLAIMS, but he makes them anyway.
>>>> > Anything I claimed came from your website, pangborn, and I've said so.
>>>>
>>>> Oh Danny does my website say I LOSE lots of cases??
>>>>
>>>> > I believe you claim your success rate is better than 99%, which anyone
>>>> > would take as a bold faced lie.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone like YOU - who NEEDS desperately to believe we aren't
>>>> successful
>>>> would. Anybody like You and Davey Moore who have such personal stakes in
>>>> attacking NEEDS to believe that. Actually I believe it says 95%.
>>
>>> You don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website!
>>
>> You say that the stats on our website are "FALSE"
>
>Again, you don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website, as
>evidenced by your incorrect calculations of your own success rate.
>
It's those darned Ukrainians again. :-)
--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
krp
>>> "We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
>>> dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
>>> our cases."
>>>
>>> "Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
>>>
>>> That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
>>
>> Your MATH SUCKS.. 95 + 98 divided by 2 equals 99 GOOD MATH DANNY!
>
> You're too good to be true.
>
> It's like I PAY you to be stupid.
>
> If over 95% are dismissed prior to trial.
>
> And you have a "win rate" of better than 98% on the 5% that went to trial.
>
> That's (at the least) 95 + (better than 98% of 5, which equals better
> than 4.5) 4.5, which adds up to... better that 99.5%.
REALLY Danny? Isn't the 95% part of that 98%???? Or are they separate? As
they say "figures don't lie, but LIARS (Sullivan) do figure!"
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:487fd69d$0$5024$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
> >>> "We have built a track record where over 95% of our cases will be
> >>> dismissed prior to trial, and one where we win at trial in over 98% of
> >>> our cases."
>
> >>> "Over 95% dismissed" and an "over 98%" win rate at trial.
>
> >>> That means in more than 99% of your "cases" your client prevails.
>
> >> Your MATH SUCKS.. 95 + 98 divided by 2 equals 99 GOOD MATH DANNY!
>
> > You're too good to be true.
>
> > It's like I PAY you to be stupid.
>
> > If over 95% are dismissed prior to trial.
>
> > And you have a "win rate" of better than 98% on the 5% that went to trial.
>
> > That's (at the least) 95 + (better than 98% of 5, which equals better
> > than 4.5) 4.5, which adds up to... better that 99.5%.
>
> REALLY Danny? Isn't the 95% part of that 98%????
NOT according to YOU, pangborn!!!
> Or are they separate?
YOU separated the rates into two distinct groups.
The first group were cases that were dismissed prior to trial.
YOU wrote "over 95% of our cases will be dismissed PRIOR to trial..."
Dismissed cases.
And the second group were the cases that went to trial.
YOU wrote "...and one where we win at trial in over 98% of our cases."
See where you wrote 'AND (my emphasis) one???"
Which indicates a second group, distinct from the first.
You could NOT have included the first group in the cases that went to
trial figures, because the cases in the first group were dismissed
PRIOR to trial!
> As they say "figures don't lie, but LIARS do figure!"
I bet you hear that A LOT, pangborn!!!
Again, you don't even know the BS you have posted on your own website,
as evidenced by your incorrect calculations of your own BS success
rate.