In almost two years on asCPS ken pangborn hasn't had a SINGLE client vouch for his work here.
Dan Sullivan
name or email address so the information could be verified.
An even greater example of his lack of credibility is the fact that
ken pangborn is aware of and refuses to correct a website that lists
him as "Chairman of the Family Law Section, Association of Trial
Lawyers of America."
Firemonkey
Dan Sullivan
Can you explain?
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:f1495285-87c7-443f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Explain what Danny you MORON? A BOT? Let's see first god created the
heavens. Say Danny you are a DROOLING IDIOT. That site gives a link to the
whole text. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. You tried this same shit a year ago and got
all sorts of groans. And it does NOT say that YOU are a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
YOU added your own punctuation and altered the text. BAD BOY!
You are the MOST DISHONEST PRICK on USENET. It says right in the right hand
column the REAL TEXT. That I was "TRAINED" by the Chairman.
But Danny Sullivan is a LIAR.
NO Danny I have not had anyone post in your little SHIT HOLE.
Firemonkey
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
This is the only thing I found by clicking on the small 5 after your
claim piggy.
Chairman of the Family Law Section5
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Headquarters Address:
The Leonard M. Ring Law Center • 1050 31St Street , Nw
Washington, DC 20007
Website: www.atla.org
Phone: (202) 965-3500
Fax: (202) 965-0355
Established in 1946, ATLA is the world's largest trial bar with more
than 60,000 members in the U.S., Canada and abroad. ATLA was founded
to safeguard victims' rights, strengthen America's civil justice
system, promote injury prevention, and foster the disclosure of
information crucial to. More
Ther also is a link to this web site.
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=8342933&cs=QEf02VyA
ken pangborn is a fraud and a liar.
krp
"Firemonkey" <firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0024f1ca-f6e8-4b14...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Was HE chairman in 1976????????? Roberta you give the term "DUMB BROAD" an
entire new dimension.
Firemonkey
> "Firemonkey" <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cram it pigborn, you have been exposed as the fraud you are.
krp
Bobbbbbbbbbie don't you have a computer to HATCH?
ivan...@yahoo.ca
> name or email address so the information could be verified.
Why would anyone in his right mind bother posting
"testimonials" to his bona fides at the request of raving
nutjobs such as you, Firemonkey, George Orwell and
his sock puppet, "Non scrivetemi?"
Firemonkey
You are a little nutty and scary yourself Ivan.
ango...@yahoo.ca View profile
More options Jun 20 2006, 2:20 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.current-events.usa
From: ivango...@yahoo.ca
Date: 20 Jun 2006 12:20:43 -0700
Local: Tues, Jun 20 2006 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: TWO SOLDIER KILLED
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
The always insane FRANKIE wrote:
Who cares?
I must express my delight in hearing that two American
invaders in Iraq have been separated from their heads.
Americans must -- and will -- learn that there's a price to
be paid for invading innocent countries, deposing their
leaders and killing and torturing their citizens.
My sincere congratulations to the intrepid Iraqi resistance
fighters who have shown the world Iraqis will not be defeated
or cowed by the forces of attempted American world
domination.
Along with millions of other freedom-loving people in the
world, I anticipate with pleasure many more stories of
American
thugs getting shortened by a foot or so by the vengeful
knives
of Iraqi patriots.
The only good invader is a dead invader.
Kill them all.
I'm an American citizen, and I approved this message.
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
No asshole, and neither were you.
krp
And BOBBIEEEEEE I never said I was!!!! Only your IDIOT pal Sullivan
tries to suggest it and HE is insane.
Has your computer HATCHED yet Roberta?
krp
patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website. We saw a GREAT example
of what would happen when you guys learned of a website praising my work as
your little coven ganged up on the woman who owned the site and TRIED rto
harass her into changing the content. Which included putting her home phone
on the newsgroups inviting people to call and express their OUTRAGE for
endorsing my work. Most of all I was amused by all the ratonalizations that
doing that was justified.
Dan Sullivan
> Why would I have them vouch for me here in a room full of retards and mental
> patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website.
Several what, kenny boy?
Phony testimonials.
Follow this... you claim on your website that more than 99.9% of your
clients not only don't get convicted of the crime they were charged
with... 90% of them receive SOLE CUSTODY of their children!!!
From pangborn's website,
"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. But more than that, we are able to win custody for over 90%
of our clients. Sole custody."
Now here's your mistake, kenny boy, if 90% of your clients received
sole custody of their children, why is it that NOT ONE of them mention
getting custody of their children in the anonymous testimonials???
And not one of the anonymous testimonials from attorneys mention
winning SOLE CUSTODY for their clients???
There are over 20 testimonies on your website.
Yet NOT ONE mentions getting SOLE CUSTODY of their children.
Can you explain that?
Dragon's Girl
I think it would be more fun for him to explain how that sole custody
thing goes.
I know of at least a few states that don't even allow sole custody
unless one of the parents has had, or willingly chooses to have,
their parental rights terminated.
Take my state for example: One parent gets physical custody, but both
parents get legal custody. This ensures that the rights of the parent
the child doesn't live with aren't trampled on and that they have the
legal right to gain physical custody in the death or incapacitation of
the other parent. (well, that's what it's SUPPOSED to do, but it
rarely really works that way). The only way a parent, here, is likely
to get sole custody is under extenuating circumstances, such as
extreme abuse by the other parent, permanent severe disability by the
other parent, etc.
So....how do these people get sole custody?
I know I did with my two oldest kids, but that wasn't so much simply a
matter of 'lets go do it', as having the 47 abuse reports I have
previously mentioned on record (making his concern for the best
interests of the kids kinda sketchy).
I don't get it. Don't know how Ken's managed to get sole custody,
which is almost non existent these days.
krp
>> Why would I have them vouch for me here in a room full of retards and
>> mental
>> patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website.
>
> Several what, kenny boy?
Clever edition dipshit. The SUBJECT - oh great MORON. People who have
stepped forward abut my services. You suffered severe vaginal bleeding at
the website (not mine) that DARED to disagree with your MANIA..
> Phony testimonials.
> Follow this... you claim on your website that more than 99.9% of your
> clients not only don't get convicted of the crime they were charged
> with... 90% of them receive SOLE CUSTODY of their children!!!
Well DANNNY DIPSHIT - that's true in cases involving divorces.
> From pangborn's website,
> "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. But more than that, we are able to win custody for over 90%
> of our clients. Sole custody."
Chafes a little don't it dipshit? When 100% of YOUR clients have to sign
a "performance agreement" allowing the state to supervise them FOR THE REST
OF THEIR LIVES! WHAT A WIN!
> Now here's your mistake, kenny boy, if 90% of your clients received
> sole custody of their children, why is it that NOT ONE of them mention
> getting custody of their children in the anonymous testimonials???
Is that a REQUIREMENT Danny boy? Is that a FEDERAL LAW? Care to quote
the section of the Federal Code?
> And not one of the anonymous testimonials from attorneys mention
> winning SOLE CUSTODY for their clients???
My GOD, send out SWAT and have the bastards ARRESTED!!
> There are over 20 testimonies on your website.
> Yet NOT ONE mentions getting SOLE CUSTODY of their children.
ARREST the fukkers! CALL THE FBI Danny! This MUST be reported.
> Can you explain that?
Explain WHAT, dingbat? Did Congress pass a law requiring the folks to
talk about it all? Look you STUPID WEENIE - look at the photos on the TWO
pages.
See folks with their kids????? Now MORON what do YOU think that means?
Christ you are RETARDED!
>
krp
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7616db1f-9195-49e1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> I think it would be more fun for him to explain how that sole custody
> thing goes.
Really the judge signs an order THAT is how it goes Betty!!!
> I know of at least a few states that don't even allow sole custody
> unless one of the parents has had, or willingly chooses to have,
> their parental rights terminated.
NAME THEM!
> Take my state for example: One parent gets physical custody, but both
> parents get legal custody. This ensures that the rights of the parent
> the child doesn't live with aren't trampled on and that they have the
> legal right to gain physical custody in the death or incapacitation of
> the other parent. (well, that's what it's SUPPOSED to do, but it
> rarely really works that way). The only way a parent, here, is likely
> to get sole custody is under extenuating circumstances, such as
> extreme abuse by the other parent, permanent severe disability by the
> other parent, etc.
Really Betty? You know- SOME judges feel, especially after hearing
EVIDENCE, that a parent who makes up FALSE ALLEGATIONS and then embroils
their children in them, generally tend to find those parents UNFIT and
presenting a danger until they can show they have changed their ways. Do
you have some bitch with that?
> So....how do these people get sole custody?
The judge hears the evidence and then signs an order.
> I know I did with my two oldest kids, but that wasn't so much simply a
> matter of 'lets go do it', as having the 47 abuse reports I have
> previously mentioned on record (making his concern for the best
> interests of the kids kinda sketchy).
> I don't get it. Don't know how Ken's managed to get sole custody,
> which is almost non existent these days.
Betty don't look now but, you're full of shit again!
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e1728e79-331e-47e8...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Why would I have them vouch for me here in a room full of retards and
> >> mental
> >> patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website.
>
> > Several what, kenny boy?
>
> Clever edition dipshit. The SUBJECT - oh great MORON. People who have
> stepped forward abut my services.
Correct.
And I'm referring to the anonymous testimonials you have posted on
your website.
> You suffered severe vaginal bleeding at
> the website (not mine) that DARED to disagree with your MANIA..
Obviously you want to change the subject at hand.
> > Phony testimonials.
> > Follow this... you claim on your website that more than 99.9% of your
> > clients not only don't get convicted of the crime they were charged
> > with... 90% of them receive SOLE CUSTODY of their children!!!
>
> Well DANNNY DIPSHIT - that's true in cases involving divorces.
You don't mention divorces in you statement (see below), you mention
cases "dismissed prior to trial."
> > From pangborn's website,
> > "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. But more than that, we are able to win custody for over 90%
> > of our clients. Sole custody."
>
> Chafes a little don't it dipshit? When 100% of YOUR clients have to sign
> a "performance agreement" allowing the state to supervise them FOR THE REST
> OF THEIR LIVES! WHAT A WIN!
None of the people that I've helped EVER had to sign a "performance
agreement."
> > Now here's your mistake, kenny boy, if 90% of your clients received
> > sole custody of their children, why is it that NOT ONE of them mention
> > getting custody of their children in the anonymous testimonials???
>
> Is that a REQUIREMENT Danny boy? Is that a FEDERAL LAW? Care to quote
> the section of the Federal Code?
I can't imagine anyone not mentioning they got SOLE CUSTODY of their
children when writing a testimonial for the person responsible.
Did all 24 people who wrote the testimonials on your website simple
forget the best part of what you did for them?
They got SOLE CUSTODY of the children?
> > And not one of the anonymous testimonials from attorneys mention
> > winning SOLE CUSTODY for their clients???
>
> My GOD, send out SWAT and have the bastards ARRESTED!!
I can't believe they'd forget to mention it, too!
> > There are over 20 testimonies on your website.
> > Yet NOT ONE mentions getting SOLE CUSTODY of their children.
>
> ARREST the fukkers! CALL THE FBI Danny! This MUST be reported.
>
> > Can you explain that?
>
> Explain WHAT, dingbat?
Explain how 24 people who wrote supposedly wrote testimonials for you
forgot the best part about hiring ken pangborn!
That they got SOLE CUSTODY of their children.
> Did Congress pass a law requiring the folks to
> talk about it all?
Just how did all of them fail to mention getting SOLE CUSTODY of their
children?
> Look you STUPID WEENIE - look at the photos on the TWO
> pages.
There's a color picture of a lady in a pony tail.
And a black and white picture of a lady by a tree.
> See folks with their kids?????
No.
> Now MORON what do YOU think that means?
You don't know what's on your web pages.
Ivan Gowch
<firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
==>On Jun 27, 11:52 am, ivango...@yahoo.ca wrote:
==>> On Jun 24, 9:12 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
==>>
==>> > And not one of the "testimonials" on his websites is listed with a
==>> > name or email address so the information could be verified.
==>>
==>> Why would anyone in his right mind bother posting
==>> "testimonials" to his bona fides at the request of raving
==>> nutjobs such as you, Firemonkey, George Orwell and
==>> his sock puppet, "Non scrivetemi?"
==>You are a little nutty and scary yourself Ivan.
You must be pretty easily scared, then.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Firemonkey
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Firemonkey
>
You forgot this hon,
You are a little nutty and scary yourself Ivan.
ango...@yahoo.ca View profile
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his usual insanity in message
news:d7344826-17a4-4af3-8600-
>> >> Why would I have them vouch for me here in a room full of retards and
>> >> mental
>> >> patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website.
>> > Several what, kenny boy?
>> Clever edition dipshit. The SUBJECT - oh great MORON. People who have
>> stepped forward about my services.
> Correct.
> And I'm referring to the anonymous testimonials you have posted on
> your website.
And for good reason nutjob. Look at what happened to poor Joy. She made
the mistake of endorsing my work on her website (there are a bunch more that
do too BUT you psycho I am NOT going to help you) and what did she get?
First your pal KILLER KANE tracked her down. Then she was harassed day and
night for weeks. Her personal info placed on the net with her phone number.
Calls to "WARN" her about me. How many people, do you think there are,
SULLIVAN, that really want to contend with psychopaths like you, Kane, Wills
and Moore? How many people would feel comfortable knowing YOU have their
names, addresses, places of employment, and so on? Along with Kane, Wills
and Moore. Not to mention Betty's not always pretty history.
>> You suffered severe vaginal bleeding at
>> the website (not mine) that DARED to disagree with your MANIA..
> Obviously you want to change the subject at hand.
No Danny Joy's website had an unabashed endoresement of me. She was
unbelievable harassed after you and your coven learned about it and your
campaign to try to FORCE her to alter it into a DAN SULLIVAN attack on me.
Or a DAVID MOORE Attack.
>> > Phony testimonials.
>> > Follow this... you claim on your website that more than 99.9% of your
>> > clients not only don't get convicted of the crime they were charged
>> > with... 90% of them receive SOLE CUSTODY of their children!!!
>
>> Well DANNNY DIPSHIT - that's true in cases involving divorces.
> You don't mention divorces in you statement (see below), you mention
> cases "dismissed prior to trial."
Danny - borrowing your intellect - GFYS.
krp
>> See folks with their kids?????
>
> No.
>
>> Now MORON what do YOU think that means?
>
> You don't know what's on your web pages.
Danny - of course I was referring to the photos on MY website NOT your gay
lover (DAVID MOORE'S) website
http://www.a-team.org/why_we_exist.html
See the PEOPLE Danny boy?
Say you REALLY REALLY REALLY wowed Phil Lewis with your CLEVER repartee!
Ivan Gowch
<firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
==>On Jun 28, 11:00 am, Ivan Gowch <ivango...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
==>> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:58:45 -0700 (PDT), Firemonkey
==>>
==>> <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
==>>
==>> ==>On Jun 27, 11:52 am, ivango...@yahoo.ca wrote:
==>> ==>> On Jun 24, 9:12 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
==>> ==>>
==>> ==>> > And not one of the "testimonials" on his websites is listed with a
==>> ==>> > name or email address so the information could be verified.
==>> ==>>
==>> ==>> Why would anyone in his right mind bother posting
==>> ==>> "testimonials" to his bona fides at the request of raving
==>> ==>> nutjobs such as you, Firemonkey, George Orwell and
==>> ==>> his sock puppet, "Non scrivetemi?"
==>>
==>> ==>You are a little nutty and scary yourself Ivan.
==>>
==>> You must be pretty easily scared, then.
==>>
==>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
==>
==>You forgot this hon,
==>
==>You are a little nutty and scary yourself Ivan.
==>Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.misc, alt.current-events.usa
==>From: ivango...@yahoo.ca
==>Date: 20 Jun 2006 12:20:43 -0700
==>Subject: Re: TWO SOLDIER KILLED
==> I must express my delight in hearing that two American
==> invaders in Iraq have been separated from their heads.
==>
==> Americans must -- and will -- learn that there's a price to
==> be paid for invading innocent countries, deposing their
==> leaders and killing and torturing their citizens.
==>
==> My sincere congratulations to the intrepid Iraqi resistance
==> fighters who have shown the world Iraqis will not be defeated
==> or cowed by the forces of attempted American world
==> domination.
==>
==> Along with millions of other freedom-loving people in the
==> world, I anticipate with pleasure many more stories of
==> American thugs getting shortened by a foot or so by
==> the vengeful knives of Iraqi patriots.
==>
==> The only good invader is a dead invader.
==>
==> Kill them all.
==>
==> I'm an American citizen, and I approved this message.
Aaaw, you went and looked me up. That's
so cute.
So what's your problem with the above?
You find THAT scarier than sending a bunch of
heavily armed psychopaths to an inoffensive
Middle East country to kill women and children?
I meant what I wrote then and I stand by it now.
If you find those words scary, you need to grow
a backbone.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:d7344826-17a4-4af3...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> See folks with their kids?????
>
> > No.
>
> >> Now MORON what do YOU think that means?
>
> > You don't know what's on your web pages.
>
> Danny - of course I was referring to the photos on MY website NOT your gay
> lover (DAVID MOORE'S) website
>
> http://www.a-team.org/why_we_exist.html
>
> See the PEOPLE Danny boy?
YES... a woman with a pony tail and a woman by a tree!
I was referring to your website, piggy.
Specifically the pages of the anonymous testimonials...
see "testimonials from our clients" http://www.a-team.org/testimonials.html
and "what our clients say" http://www.a-team.org/clients_say.html
As I said, you don't know what's on your webpages, piggy.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote his usual insanity in message
> news:d7344826-17a4-4af3-8600-
>
> >> >> Why would I have them vouch for me here in a room full of retards and
> >> >> mental
> >> >> patients? Several are listed on the A-Team website.
> >> > Several what, kenny boy?
> >> Clever edition dipshit. The SUBJECT - oh great MORON. People who have
> >> stepped forward about my services.
> > Correct.
> > And I'm referring to the anonymous testimonials you have posted on
> > your website.
>
> And for good reason nutjob. Look at
<<<snip piggy attempting to change the subject>>>
> >> You suffered severe vaginal bleeding at
> >> the website (not mine) that DARED to disagree with your MANIA..
> > Obviously you want to change the subject at hand.
>
> No Danny Joy's website had an unabashed endoresement of me.
A vague anonymous email that was posed on a website that had nothing
to do with you or the A-Team, piggy.
> >> > Phony testimonials.
> >> > Follow this... you claim on your website that more than 99.9% of your
> >> > clients not only don't get convicted of the crime they were charged
> >> > with... 90% of them receive SOLE CUSTODY of their children!!!
>
> >> Well DANNNY DIPSHIT - that's true in cases involving divorces.
> > You don't mention divorces in you statement (see below), you mention
> > cases "dismissed prior to trial."
>
> Danny - borrowing your intellect - GFYS.
OOOPS!!!
Piggy can't handle his owns words... like that's something new!!
Firemonkey
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Firemonkey
>
My views on Iraq are none of your business Ivan. Run along now, I am
done with you.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh come on Roberta. Don't you want to share your secret desire to
have CPS rush in and take all of the children away from the war zone
to keep them safely hidden away from their militant parents in foster
care? Maybe you can have the U.N. play babysitter.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-27-voa25.cfm
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Silly boy. The only time I want CPS to rush in and take any children
is if they are being abused or neglected.
Ivan Gowch
<firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
==>My views on Iraq are none of your business Ivan. Run along now, I am
==>done with you.
TRANSLATION: I am left without an intelligent
rejoinder and must flee the field of rhetorical
battle.
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:22 -0700 (PDT), Firemonkey
>
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>My views on Iraq are none of your business Ivan. Run along now, I am
> ==>done with you.
>
> TRANSLATION: I am left without an intelligent
> rejoinder and must flee the field of rhetorical
> battle.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
Ivan Gowch posted...
"I must express my delight in hearing that two American invaders in
Iraq have been separated from their heads.
Americans must -- and will -- learn that there's a price to be paid
for invading innocent countries, deposing their leaders and killing
and torturing their citizens.
My sincere congratulations to the intrepid Iraqi resistance fighters
who have shown the world Iraqis will not be defeated or cowed
by the forces of attempted American world domination.
Along with millions of other freedom-loving people in the world, I
anticipate with pleasure many more stories of American thugs getting
shortened by a foot or so by the vengeful knives of Iraqi patriots.
The only good invader is a dead invader.
Kill them all.
I'm an American citizen, and I approved this message."
You don't think the US soldiers went to Iraq on their own, do you,
Ivan?
They were ordered to by the President of the United States.
HE is the Commander in Chief.
HE is responsible for ordering the troops to invade Iraq.
Being that the President of the United States ordered the invasion, do
you still stand by your claim that "The only good invader is a dead
invader?"
I anxiously await your intelligent rejoinder.
Ivan Gowch
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[snip]
==>You don't think the US soldiers went to Iraq on their own, do you,
==>Ivan?
==>They were ordered to by the President of the United States.
Thanks for the revelation. And here I was, thinking
they'd just booked it as a vacation.
==>HE is the Commander in Chief.
HE is a liar and war criminal (as well as a military
deserter and self-parodying braggart).
==>HE is responsible for ordering the troops to invade Iraq.
Which is why HE should stand trial before an
international court of justice for his egregious
violation of international law.
==>Being that the President of the United States ordered the invasion, do
==>you still stand by your claim that "The only good invader is a dead
==>invader?"
Oh, Danny, you are so transparent. I'll bet
you think you're being devious.
But to answer your oh-so-clever question: Why
wouldn't I (although it's not a "claim," but an
opinion)?
Sovereign people have the absolute, natural right
to repel and kill outsiders who invade their territory
by force. It has been thus since the dawn of time
and is certainly a right the United States claims.
Why should it be different for Iraq?
Do you believe that sovereign nations do not have the
right to kill invaders if the invaders are Americans?
--
Every time Europe looks across the Atlantic
to see the American Eagle, it observes only
the rear end of an ostrich.
-H.G. Wells
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:37:58 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>
>
> [snip]
>
> ==>You don't think the US soldiers went to Iraq on their own, do you,
> ==>Ivan?
> ==>They were ordered to by the President of the United States.
>
> Thanks for the revelation. And here I was, thinking
> they'd just booked it as a vacation.
>
> ==>HE is the Commander in Chief.
>
> HE is a liar and war criminal (as well as a military
> deserter and self-parodying braggart).
>
> ==>HE is responsible for ordering the troops to invade Iraq.
>
> Which is why HE should stand trial before an
> international court of justice for his egregious
> violation of international law.
You want President Bush to be let off the hook while the troops he
send to Iraq should be killed?
> ==>Being that the President of the United States ordered the invasion, do
> ==>you still stand by your claim that "The only good invader is a dead
> ==>invader?"
>
> Oh, Danny, you are so transparent. I'll bet
> you think you're being devious.
I was hoping to be as transparent as possible.
And I expected you to choke.
> But to answer your oh-so-clever question: Why
> wouldn't I (although it's not a "claim," but an
> opinion)?
Here you go, Ivan.
Thinking that you asking a question answers my question.
It doesn't.
> Sovereign people have the absolute, natural right
> to repel and kill outsiders who invade their territory
> by force. It has been thus since the dawn of time
> and is certainly a right the United States claims.
> Why should it be different for Iraq?
>
> Do you believe that sovereign nations do not have the
> right to kill invaders if the invaders are Americans?
Do you think President Bush should be killed because he was
responsible for ordering the troops into Iraq, yes or no, Ivan?
Keeping in mind your claim that "A good invader is a dead invader."
Ivan Gowch
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
DS:
==>> ==>You don't think the US soldiers went to Iraq on their own, do you,
==>> ==>Ivan?
==>> ==>They were ordered to by the President of the United States.
IG:
==>> Thanks for the revelation. And here I was, thinking
==>> they'd just booked it as a vacation.
DS:
==>> ==>HE is the Commander in Chief.
IG:
==>> HE is a liar and war criminal (as well as a military
==>> deserter and self-parodying braggart).
DS:
==>> ==>HE is responsible for ordering the troops to invade Iraq.
==>> Which is why HE should stand trial before an
==>> international court of justice for his egregious
==>> violation of international law.
==>You want President Bush to be let off the hook while the troops he
==>send to Iraq should be killed?
You have a readng comprehension problem, Danny?
Perhaps your Alzheimer's caused you to forget
the previous paragraph?
DS:
==>> ==>Being that the President of the United States ordered the invasion, do
==>> ==>you still stand by your claim that "The only good invader is a dead
==>> ==>invader?"
IG:
==>> Oh, Danny, you are so transparent. I'll bet
==>> you think you're being devious.
DS:
==>I was hoping to be as transparent as possible.
Suuuure, you were. But if so, you succeeded
brilliantly.
[snip]
IG:
==>> Sovereign people have the absolute, natural right
==>> to repel and kill outsiders who invade their territory
==>> by force. It has been thus since the dawn of time
==>> and is certainly a right the United States claims.
==>> Why should it be different for Iraq?
==>>
==>> Do you believe that sovereign nations do not have the
==>> right to kill invaders if the invaders are Americans?
==>Do you think President Bush should be killed because he was
==>responsible for ordering the troops into Iraq, yes or no, Ivan?
Grow up, Danny. You're such a *tool.*
--
"America is just a nation of two-hundred million
used car salesmen with all the money we need to
buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else
in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."
-Hunter S. Thompson
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:38:35 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>
>
> DS:
> ==>> ==>You don't think the US soldiers went to Iraq on their own, do you,
> ==>> ==>Ivan?
> ==>> ==>They were ordered to by the President of the United States.
>
> IG:
> ==>> Thanks for the revelation. And here I was, thinking
> ==>> they'd just booked it as a vacation.
>
> DS:
> ==>> ==>HE is the Commander in Chief.
>
> IG:
> ==>> HE is a liar and war criminal (as well as a military
> ==>> deserter and self-parodying braggart).
>
> DS:
> ==>> ==>HE is responsible for ordering the troops to invade Iraq.
>
> ==>> Which is why HE should stand trial before an
> ==>> international court of justice for his egregious
> ==>> violation of international law.
>
> ==>You want President Bush to be let off the hook while the troops he
> ==>send to Iraq should be killed?
>
> You have a readng comprehension problem, Danny?
> Perhaps your Alzheimer's caused you to forget
> the previous paragraph?
Not at all.
I'm simply wondering why you want the troops to suffer more serious
consequences that the Commander In Chief who sent them there.
> DS:
> ==>> ==>Being that the President of the United States ordered the invasion, do
> ==>> ==>you still stand by your claim that "The only good invader is a dead
> ==>> ==>invader?"
>
> IG:
> ==>> Oh, Danny, you are so transparent. I'll bet
> ==>> you think you're being devious.
>
> DS:
> ==>I was hoping to be as transparent as possible.
>
> Suuuure, you were. But if so, you succeeded
> brilliantly.
TY.
> [snip]
>
> IG:
> ==>> Sovereign people have the absolute, natural right
> ==>> to repel and kill outsiders who invade their territory
> ==>> by force. It has been thus since the dawn of time
> ==>> and is certainly a right the United States claims.
> ==>> Why should it be different for Iraq?
> ==>>
> ==>> Do you believe that sovereign nations do not have the
> ==>> right to kill invaders if the invaders are Americans?
>
> ==>Do you think President Bush should be killed because he was
> ==>responsible for ordering the troops into Iraq, yes or no, Ivan?
>
> Grow up, Danny. You're such a *tool.*
As I said, Ivan, I knew you'd choke.
Greegor
If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
To demonstrate the extent to which CPS will go to make a positive
determination.
Claiming something is credible and then documenting the fact that they
don't understand what was said.
BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
Greegor
to be posting from outside the USA.
In all likelyhood Ivan is just some wise-ass
12 year old internet misfit using an overseas remailer.
LK
To demonstrate how good you are at getting away with these things.
Dan Sullivan
> To demonstrate how good you are at getting away with these things.
What I "get away with" is having CPS fail over and over in all my
cases and the great majority of cases I work on for other people, to
produce credible evidence of abuse or neglect.
TY so much for giving me the opportunity to clarify my successes, LK.
Greegor
G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
So this was your best example of how
rediculously caseworkers LIE?
With all of your claimed experience,
why is THAT your best example?
DS > Claiming something is credible and
DS > then documenting the fact that they
DS > don't understand what was said.
DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
LK > To demonstrate how good you
LK > are at getting away with these things.
If you look at most instances where Dan
asserted this puppet bear story, he's
actually trying to brag up his skill and
experience at fighting caseworkers
in or before court.
If he's got so damned much experience
wouldn't he have MUCH better stories
of caseworkers caught up in LIES
to tell than that one over and over?
My favorite example of caseworkers
lying their ass off is when I cross
examined one in court about the
"underlying threats" she referred to
in various documents over quite some time.
The caseworker claimed I had
sent her an e-mail threatening that if
she showed up at my door I was gonna
roll her up in a rug, as in Sopranos,
as in a dead body.
Couldn't produce this e-mail.
Never mentioned this e-mail in any
of the quarterly agency reports.
Never filed a Police Report.
The Judge never insisted she produce it!
I never even mentioned that such
an e-mail is NOT an "underlying threat"
but would of course be a DIRECT THREAT
if it wasn't a complete fairy tale.
Tell me, Dan, if a caseworker, especially
a HOSTILE one got an e-mail making
such a threat, she'd have made a Police
Report, wrote it up in quarterly reports
at least once, and sure as HELL would
not have misplaced it.
Isn't that a much better example of
a lying caseworker than your "puppet bear"
story, Dan?
Much more solid than some game of
vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
Dan Sullivan
> DS > Piggy can't handle his owns words... like that's something new!!
>
> G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
> G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
>
> DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
> DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
>
> So this was your best example of how
> rediculously caseworkers LIE?
I never said it was the best.
> With all of your claimed experience,
> why is THAT your best example?
It's just one example.
> DS > Claiming something is credible and
> DS > then documenting the fact that they
> DS > don't understand what was said.
>
> DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
>
> LK > To demonstrate how good you
> LK > are at getting away with these things.
> DS > What I "get away with" is having CPS fail
> DS > over and over in all my cases and the great
> DS > majority of cases I work on for other people,
> DS > to produce credible evidence of abuse or neglect.
>
> DS > TY so much for giving me the opportunity
> DS > to clarify my successes, LK.
> If you look at most instances where Dan
> asserted this puppet bear story, he's
> actually trying to brag up his skill and
> experience at fighting caseworkers
> in or before court.
And your point is?
> If he's got so damned much experience
> wouldn't he have MUCH better stories
> of caseworkers caught up in LIES
> to tell than that one over and over?
I've mentioned many instances in my cases where the CWs lied.
Such as being founded for slapping my son in the face on a weekend I
was denied visitation... and I had a police report to prove it!
> My favorite example of caseworkers
> lying their ass off is when I...
<<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
> Isn't that a much better example of
> a lying caseworker than your "puppet bear"
> story, Dan?
Well, my case workers lie would have resulted in me being listed on
the Child Abuse Registry for 25 years, and I probably wouldn't have
ever seen my children again..
BTW wouldn't it have been better to have the CW admit under oath that
there wasn't any credible evidence that you abused Lisa Watkins'
daughter, greg?
Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you completely missed your chance to
have CPS' case blow up in their faces because you chose to focus on
something OTHER THAN the evidence that they used to justify removing
Lisa Watkins' daughter.
Right, greg?
> Much more solid than some game of
> vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign from
government service.
And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
> As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
> Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
evidence used to support the CPS determination..
Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the case.
LK
> On Jun 30, 10:35 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To demonstrate how good you are at getting away with these things.
>
> What I "get away with" is having CPS fail over and over in all my
> cases and the great majority of cases I work on for other people, to
> produce credible evidence of abuse or neglect.
>
Got any proof? No? Didn't think so.
CPS doesn't need any credible evidence of abuse or neglect to steal a
child. Just a worker with a suspicion and a judge with a rubber
stamp.
> TY so much for giving me the opportunity to clarify my successes, LK.
Don't you mean an opportunity to self-glorify your bullshit?
LK
> DS > Piggy can't handle his owns words... like that's something new!!
>
> G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
> G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
>
> DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
> DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
>
> So this was your best example of how
> rediculously caseworkers LIE?
>
> With all of your claimed experience,
> why is THAT your best example?
>
> DS > Claiming something is credible and
> DS > then documenting the fact that they
> DS > don't understand what was said.
>
> DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
>
> LK > To demonstrate how good you
> LK > are at getting away with these things.
>
> If you look at most instances where Dan
> asserted this puppet bear story, he's
> actually trying to brag up his skill and
> experience at fighting caseworkers
> in or before court.
From what I gathered from this story, there wasn't much of a fight.
According to him, they caved under an administrative review. It's
possible I suppose, but from what I have seen, the people who do these
ad-reviews typically rubber stamp the original finding without a
thorough review of the evidence. They don't have that much time or
manpower to work on one case at that level when they have a stack of
contested findings on their desks and time limits to get to them all,
so they just skim through the juicy parts. It's just a formality and
lots of parents won't push it any further.
LK
Why didn't you show this police report to the worker?
> > My favorite example of caseworkers
> > lying their ass off is when I...
>
> <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
>
> > Isn't that a much better example of
> > a lying caseworker than your "puppet bear"
> > story, Dan?
>
> Well, my case workers lie would have resulted in me being listed on
> the Child Abuse Registry for 25 years, and I probably wouldn't have
> ever seen my children again..
>
> BTW wouldn't it have been better to have the CW admit under oath that
> there wasn't any credible evidence that you abused Lisa Watkins'
> daughter, greg?
>
> Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you completely missed your chance to
> have CPS' case blow up in their faces because you chose to focus on
> something OTHER THAN the evidence that they used to justify removing
> Lisa Watkins' daughter.
>
> Right, greg?
>
> > Much more solid than some game of
> > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
>
> Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign from
> government service.
>
Why would she be "forced to resign," over having a founding overturned
during an administrative review? All she has to prove is a good faith
effort under the Good Samaritan laws. How hard is that? In order to
have her "forced to resign," you'd have to prove that she was flat out
lying and that her intent was malicious. And they typically don't
force workers to resign for botching a single case because they
misinterpreted the words of a 3 year old. If they did, there wouldn't
be any workers left. Also, if you had a clue about any of the reform
efforts that have been going on in this country then you would know
that one of the biggest complaints of parents involved with the system
is the lack of accountability for workers. So why would this one
worker be forced to resign over your case based on, "Well I'm not sure
exactly what she was trying to say, but it sounded like..."? And
how do you know that she was forced to resign because of your case
specifically, especially since you didn't even have to face her at a
hearing to prove that her intent was malicious? Did you get to
review her employment record with the department?
> And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the case.- Hide quoted text -
Dan Sullivan
> On Jun 30, 11:16 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DS > Piggy can't handle his owns words... like that's something new!!
>
> > G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
> > G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
>
> > DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
> > DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
>
> > So this was your best example of how
> > rediculously caseworkers LIE?
>
> > With all of your claimed experience,
> > why is THAT your best example?
>
> > DS > Claiming something is credible and
> > DS > then documenting the fact that they
> > DS > don't understand what was said.
>
> > DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
>
> > LK > To demonstrate how good you
> > LK > are at getting away with these things.
>
> > If you look at most instances where Dan
> > asserted this puppet bear story, he's
> > actually trying to brag up his skill and
> > experience at fighting caseworkers
> > in or before court.
>
> From what I gathered from this story, there wasn't much of a fight.
Really?
Being as I wrote the "story" and I lived thru it, maybe you can show
me where "it wasn't much of a fight."
BTW I have never seen CPS NOT give much of a fight on a finding of
child sexual abuse.
> According to him, they caved under an administrative review.
A CPS Ad Review is done by the State CFS.
It is simply a review of the documentation.
I was not present, nor was anyone from Suffolk County CPS.
So the decision was based on the credible evidence.
No one "caved."
> It's
> possible I suppose, but from what I have seen, the people who do these
> ad-reviews typically rubber stamp the original finding without a
> thorough review of the evidence.
Wrong.
I have been thru Ad Review three times myself, WITHOUT AN ATTNY, and
have won all three times.
Where have you "seen" this, LK?
> They don't have that much time or
> manpower to work on one case at that level when they have a stack of
> contested findings on their desks and time limits to get to them all,
> so they just skim through the juicy parts.
HOW do you know this?
How many times have you been founded for CAN by CPS in New York, LK?
> It's just a formality and
> lots of parents won't push it any further.
In NY it is NOT "just a formality," and the next step after an Ad
Review (if the parents don't prevail) is a Fair Hearing, which is
scheduled without the parents asking for it.
The parents don't have to "push it" at all.
AND the Fair Hearing (trial) is done locally, rather than in the state
capital of Albany... AND the parents (or their attny, if they want
one) can bring in or subpoena any witnesses they want.
And then challenge CPS to produce the credible evidence.
Dragon's Girl
Where do you find these social workers who are under oath?
I have never seen a social worker, nor a GAL, put under oath before
testifying in family court.
LK
Stop being such a freekin drama queen Dan.
> BTW I have never seen CPS NOT give much of a fight on a finding of
> child sexual abuse.
>
> > According to him, they caved under an administrative review.
>
> A CPS Ad Review is done by the State CFS.
>
So? These people get their paychecks from the same place.
> It is simply a review of the documentation.
>
To answer your question.
DS > Being as I wrote the "story" and I lived thru it, maybe you can
show
DS > me where "it wasn't much of a fight."
Right there Dan.
> I was not present, nor was anyone from Suffolk County CPS.
>
And there.
> So the decision was based on the credible evidence.
>
> No one "caved."
>
> > It's
> > possible I suppose, but from what I have seen, the people who do these
> > ad-reviews typically rubber stamp the original finding without a
> > thorough review of the evidence.
>
> Wrong.
>
Bullshit.
> I have been thru Ad Review three times myself, WITHOUT AN ATTNY, and
> have won all three times.
>
> Where have you "seen" this, LK?
>
> > They don't have that much time or
> > manpower to work on one case at that level when they have a stack of
> > contested findings on their desks and time limits to get to them all,
> > so they just skim through the juicy parts.
>
> HOW do you know this?
>
I have my ways.
> How many times have you been founded for CAN by CPS in New York, LK?
>
I've never been founded for abuse or neglect at all Dan. Not in any
state. Never. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
> > It's just a formality and
> > lots of parents won't push it any further.
>
> In NY it is NOT "just a formality," and the next step after an Ad
> Review (if the parents don't prevail) is a Fair Hearing, which is
> scheduled without the parents asking for it.
>
> The parents don't have to "push it" at all.
>
> AND the Fair Hearing (trial) is done locally, rather than in the state
> capital of Albany... AND the parents (or their attny, if they want
> one) can bring in or subpoena any witnesses they want.
>
> And then challenge CPS to produce the credible evidence.
And that's where you would have had to put up a fight right?
Dan Sullivan
I thought you said you read about my experiences with CPS in the
archives.
Apparently you did a poor job.
The answer is there.
Let me know when you find it.
> > > My favorite example of caseworkers
> > > lying their ass off is when I...
>
> > <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
>
> > > Isn't that a much better example of
> > > a lying caseworker than your "puppet bear"
> > > story, Dan?
>
> > Well, my case workers lie would have resulted in me being listed on
> > the Child Abuse Registry for 25 years, and I probably wouldn't have
> > ever seen my children again..
>
> > BTW wouldn't it have been better to have the CW admit under oath that
> > there wasn't any credible evidence that you abused Lisa Watkins'
> > daughter, greg?
>
> > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you completely missed your chance to
> > have CPS' case blow up in their faces because you chose to focus on
> > something OTHER THAN the evidence that they used to justify removing
> > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
>
> > Right, greg?
>
> > > Much more solid than some game of
> > > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
>
> > Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign from
> > government service.
>
> Why would she be "forced to resign," over having a founding overturned
> during an administrative review?
I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
I thought you said you read about my experiences with CPS in the
archives.
Apparently you did a poor job.
The answer is there.
Let me know when you find it.
> All she has to prove is a good faith
> effort under the Good Samaritan laws. How hard is that? In order to
> have her "forced to resign," you'd have to prove that she was flat out
> lying and that her intent was malicious. And they typically don't
> force workers to resign for botching a single case because they
> misinterpreted the words of a 3 year old. If they did, there wouldn't
> be any workers left. Also, if you had a clue about any of the reform
> efforts that have been going on in this country then you would know
> that one of the biggest complaints of parents involved with the system
> is the lack of accountability for workers.
I've been aware of that problem since 1987.
> So why would this one
> worker be forced to resign over your case based on, "Well I'm not sure
> exactly what she was trying to say, but it sounded like..."?
I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
> And
> how do you know that she was forced to resign because of your case
> specifically, especially since you didn't even have to face her at a
> hearing to prove that her intent was malicious?
It's in the archives.
Look it up.
> Did you get to
> review her employment record with the department?
Why would I need to do that?
> > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> > > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> > > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> > > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> > > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> > Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the case.
No comments on my response to greg, LK?
Dan Sullivan
So you can't show me... that's what I expected.
> > BTW I have never seen CPS NOT give much of a fight on a finding of
> > child sexual abuse.
>
> > > According to him, they caved under an administrative review.
>
> > A CPS Ad Review is done by the State CFS.
>
> So? These people get their paychecks from the same place.
Wrong.
One gets paid from NY State and the other from Suffolk County.
> > It is simply a review of the documentation.
>
> To answer your question.
>
> DS > Being as I wrote the "story" and I lived thru it, maybe you can
> show
> DS > me where "it wasn't much of a fight."
>
> Right there Dan.
>
> > I was not present, nor was anyone from Suffolk County CPS.
>
> And there.
How do you think the person doing the Ad Review knew CPS had no
credible evidence?
They used MY documentation!
The info contained in MY challenge to CPS' decision.
Because I had a copy of my CPS case record.
> > So the decision was based on the credible evidence.
>
> > No one "caved."
>
> > > It's
> > > possible I suppose, but from what I have seen, the people who do these
> > > ad-reviews typically rubber stamp the original finding without a
> > > thorough review of the evidence.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Bullshit.
And how do you know this for a fact?
> > I have been thru Ad Review three times myself, WITHOUT AN ATTNY, and
> > have won all three times.
>
> > Where have you "seen" this, LK?
>
> > > They don't have that much time or
> > > manpower to work on one case at that level when they have a stack of
> > > contested findings on their desks and time limits to get to them all,
> > > so they just skim through the juicy parts.
>
> > HOW do you know this?
>
> I have my ways.
oooOOOooo!!!!!
Did greg hanson tell you?
> > How many times have you been founded for CAN by CPS in New York, LK?
>
> I've never been founded for abuse or neglect at all Dan. Not in any
> state. Never. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
So you have zero personal experience with CPS in any state.
That figures.
> > > It's just a formality and
> > > lots of parents won't push it any further.
>
> > In NY it is NOT "just a formality," and the next step after an Ad
> > Review (if the parents don't prevail) is a Fair Hearing, which is
> > scheduled without the parents asking for it.
>
> > The parents don't have to "push it" at all.
>
> > AND the Fair Hearing (trial) is done locally, rather than in the state
> > capital of Albany... AND the parents (or their attny, if they want
> > one) can bring in or subpoena any witnesses they want.
>
> > And then challenge CPS to produce the credible evidence.
>
> And that's where you would have had to put up a fight right?
The documentation contained in the request for the Ad Review or the
documentation submitted subsequent to the request is where it starts.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, just ask.
LK
I have Dan, and you're like a broken record, spewing the same bullshit
over and over again.
> Apparently you did a poor job.
>
> The answer is there.
>
> Let me know when you find it.
>
>
I know Dan, you told them that you knew that this finding wouldn't
stand. Good for you.
>
>
>
> > > > My favorite example of caseworkers
> > > > lying their ass off is when I...
>
> > > <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
>
> > > > Isn't that a much better example of
> > > > a lying caseworker than your "puppet bear"
> > > > story, Dan?
>
> > > Well, my case workers lie would have resulted in me being listed on
> > > the Child Abuse Registry for 25 years, and I probably wouldn't have
> > > ever seen my children again..
>
> > > BTW wouldn't it have been better to have the CW admit under oath that
> > > there wasn't any credible evidence that you abused Lisa Watkins'
> > > daughter, greg?
>
> > > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you completely missed your chance to
> > > have CPS' case blow up in their faces because you chose to focus on
> > > something OTHER THAN the evidence that they used to justify removing
> > > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
>
> > > Right, greg?
>
> > > > Much more solid than some game of
> > > > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
>
> > > Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign from
> > > government service.
>
> > Why would she be "forced to resign," over having a founding overturned
> > during an administrative review?
>
> I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
You implied it when you said...
DS > > > Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to
resign from
DS > > > government service.
And if that was not the reason, then what was? Be specific.
>
> I thought you said you read about my experiences with CPS in the
> archives.
I read enough to know that you're full of shit.
>
> Apparently you did a poor job.
>
> The answer is there.
>
> Let me know when you find it.
What makes you think that you're worth the effort?
>
> > All she has to prove is a good faith
> > effort under the Good Samaritan laws. How hard is that? In order to
> > have her "forced to resign," you'd have to prove that she was flat out
> > lying and that her intent was malicious. And they typically don't
> > force workers to resign for botching a single case because they
> > misinterpreted the words of a 3 year old. If they did, there wouldn't
> > be any workers left. Also, if you had a clue about any of the reform
> > efforts that have been going on in this country then you would know
> > that one of the biggest complaints of parents involved with the system
> > is the lack of accountability for workers.
>
> I've been aware of that problem since 1987.
Then you understand why your story doesn't add up.
>
> > So why would this one
> > worker be forced to resign over your case based on, "Well I'm not sure
> > exactly what she was trying to say, but it sounded like..."?
>
> I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
>
But you did say
DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign
from
DS > government service.
And now you claim that you didn't say that? You're next response will
be that you don't know what I'm talking about.
> > And
> > how do you know that she was forced to resign because of your case
> > specifically, especially since you didn't even have to face her at a
> > hearing to prove that her intent was malicious?
>
> It's in the archives.
>
> Look it up.
>
> > Did you get to
> > review her employment record with the department?
>
> Why would I need to do that?
Because you are trying to take credit for a worker being forced to
resign.
>
> > > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> > > > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> > > > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> > > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> > > > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> > > > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> > > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> > > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> > > Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the case.
>
> No comments on my response to greg, LK?
Isn't that what you have Roberta for?
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Greegor
G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
G > So this was your best example of how
G > rediculously caseworkers LIE?
DS > I never said it was the best.
Yet it was good enough that you reposted it over and over!
G > With all of your claimed experience,
G > why is THAT your best example?
DS > It's just one example.
DS > Claiming something is credible and
DS > then documenting the fact that they
DS > don't understand what was said.
DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
LK > To demonstrate how good you
LK > are at getting away with these things.
DS > What I "get away with" is having CPS fail
DS > over and over in all my cases and the great
DS > majority of cases I work on for other people,
DS > to produce credible evidence of abuse or neglect.
DS > TY so much for giving me the opportunity
DS > to clarify my successes, LK.
G > If you look at most instances where Dan
G > asserted this puppet bear story, he's
G > actually trying to brag up his skill and
G > experience at fighting caseworkers
G > in or before court.
DS > And your point is?
You posted the puppet bear story as part of your BRAGGING!
G > If he's got so damned much experience
G > wouldn't he have MUCH better stories
G > of caseworkers caught up in LIES
G > to tell than that one over and over?
DS > I've mentioned many instances in my cases where the CWs lied.
DS > Such as being founded for slapping my son in the face on a
weekend I
DS > was denied visitation... and I had a police report to prove it!
DS <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
That's the best you can do, to reject my story out of hand?
And you're not factoring in just how stupid or obvious the lie
is, but the potential outcome of the lie, is that correct, Dan?
DS > BTW wouldn't it have been better
DS > to have the CW admit under oath that
DS > there wasn't any credible evidence
DS > that you abused Lisa Watkins'
DS > daughter, greg?
Did you forget that I was shut OUT
of court and refused standing for
many years?
Please describe where this "credible evidence"
standard is used and where it's defined.
My impression is that to caseworkers,
if another caseworker SAID it, it's credible.
If a caseworker dreamt it, to them it's "credible".
DS > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you
DS > completely missed your chance to
DS > have CPS' case blow up in their faces
DS > because you chose to focus on
DS > something OTHER THAN the evidence
DS > that they used to justify removing
DS > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
In a court process where I was accused
but not allowed to even be a party?
DS > Right, greg?
G > Much more solid than some game of
G > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker
DS > being forced to resign from government service.
Nice fantasy. Got any proof?
DS > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
Got any proof?
G > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
G > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
DS > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
Your story of the resigning caseworker is good for your EGO.
It just doesn't "ring true" to anybody who has dealt with
real cases.
G > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
G > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
DS > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
DS > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
RES JUDICATA
DS > Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the
case.
There was never any crux of the case.
There was a long list of accusations.
If you fend off 11 of them there is always a 12th one
to maintain the case.
It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
And if you beat them all, they can always
come up with NEW ONES as needed.
They never had any one thing that amounted to
any sort of legal basis.
I find it ODD that someone with as much
supposed experience as you have, doesn't
recognize this tactic by the agency people.
Dan Sullivan
I believe that was from a different investigation.
I didn't imply it, you inferred it.
And you are wrong.
> And if that was not the reason, then what was? Be specific.
Check the archives or ask greg.
> > I thought you said you read about my experiences with CPS in the
> > archives.
>
> I read enough to know that you're full of shit.
>
> > Apparently you did a poor job.
>
> > The answer is there.
>
> > Let me know when you find it.
>
> What makes you think that you're worth the effort?
YOU told me you read all about it in the archives.
> > > All she has to prove is a good faith
> > > effort under the Good Samaritan laws. How hard is that? In order to
> > > have her "forced to resign," you'd have to prove that she was flat out
> > > lying and that her intent was malicious. And they typically don't
> > > force workers to resign for botching a single case because they
> > > misinterpreted the words of a 3 year old. If they did, there wouldn't
> > > be any workers left. Also, if you had a clue about any of the reform
> > > efforts that have been going on in this country then you would know
> > > that one of the biggest complaints of parents involved with the system
> > > is the lack of accountability for workers.
>
> > I've been aware of that problem since 1987.
>
> Then you understand why your story doesn't add up.
Explain why not.
> > > So why would this one
> > > worker be forced to resign over your case based on, "Well I'm not sure
> > > exactly what she was trying to say, but it sounded like..."?
>
> > I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
>
> But you did say
> DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker being forced to resign
> from
> DS > government service.
>
> And now you claim that you didn't say that?
Of course I said that.
> You're next response will
> be that you don't know what I'm talking about.
NO, YOU don't know what YOU are talking about.
> > > And
> > > how do you know that she was forced to resign because of your case
> > > specifically, especially since you didn't even have to face her at a
> > > hearing to prove that her intent was malicious?
>
> > It's in the archives.
>
> > Look it up.
>
> > > Did you get to
> > > review her employment record with the department?
>
> > Why would I need to do that?
>
> Because you are trying to take credit for a worker being forced to
> resign.
The worker's improper behavior caused her to resign.
All I did was bring it to CPS' attention.
> > > > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> > > > > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> > > > > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> > > > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> > > > > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> > > > > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> > > > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> > > > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> > > > Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the case.
>
> > No comments on my response to greg, LK?
>
> Isn't that what you have Roberta for?
I don't have Roberta for anything.
Dan Sullivan
> DS > Piggy can't handle his owns words... like that's something new!!
>
> G > If your own "puppet bear" stuff wasn't true, then
> G > why did you mention it so many times, Dan?
>
> DS > To demonstrate the extent to which
> DS > CPS will go to make a positive determination.
>
> G > So this was your best example of how
> G > rediculously caseworkers LIE?
>
> DS > I never said it was the best.
>
> Yet it was good enough that you reposted it over and over!
As an example of how far a CW would go to make a finding.
> G > With all of your claimed experience,
> G > why is THAT your best example?
>
> DS > It's just one example.
>
> DS > Claiming something is credible and
> DS > then documenting the fact that they
> DS > don't understand what was said.
>
> DS > BTW if it were true, why would I mention it at all?
>
> LK > To demonstrate how good you
> LK > are at getting away with these things.
>
> DS > What I "get away with" is having CPS fail
> DS > over and over in all my cases and the great
> DS > majority of cases I work on for other people,
> DS > to produce credible evidence of abuse or neglect.
>
> DS > TY so much for giving me the opportunity
> DS > to clarify my successes, LK.
>
> G > If you look at most instances where Dan
> G > asserted this puppet bear story, he's
> G > actually trying to brag up his skill and
> G > experience at fighting caseworkers
> G > in or before court.
>
> DS > And your point is?
>
> You posted the puppet bear story as part of your BRAGGING!
I posted the story as an example of how ridiculous CPS is.
> G > If he's got so damned much experience
> G > wouldn't he have MUCH better stories
> G > of caseworkers caught up in LIES
> G > to tell than that one over and over?
>
> DS > I've mentioned many instances in my cases where the CWs lied.
>
> DS > Such as being founded for slapping my son in the face on a
> weekend I
> DS > was denied visitation... and I had a police report to prove it!
>
> DS <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
>
> That's the best you can do, to reject my story out of hand?
Your story is pathetic.
> And you're not factoring in just how stupid or obvious the lie
> is, but the potential outcome of the lie, is that correct, Dan?
An eye roll??
BFD.
> DS > BTW wouldn't it have been better
> DS > to have the CW admit under oath that
> DS > there wasn't any credible evidence
> DS > that you abused Lisa Watkins'
> DS > daughter, greg?
>
> Did you forget that I was shut OUT
> of court and refused standing for
> many years?
No.
> Please describe where this "credible evidence"
> standard is used and where it's defined.
Asking that question is as stupid as pigborn claiming that reasonable
doubt is bullshit.
> My impression is that to caseworkers,
> if another caseworker SAID it, it's credible.
An allegation isn't credible until it has been proven.
> If a caseworker dreamt it, to them it's "credible".
You haven't a clue.
> DS > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you
> DS > completely missed your chance to
> DS > have CPS' case blow up in their faces
> DS > because you chose to focus on
> DS > something OTHER THAN the evidence
> DS > that they used to justify removing
> DS > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
>
> In a court process where I was accused
> but not allowed to even be a party?
No, when you were questioning the CW about her big "eye rolling" lie.
> DS > Right, greg?
>
> G > Much more solid than some game of
> G > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
>
> DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker
> DS > being forced to resign from government service.
>
> Nice fantasy. Got any proof?
>
> DS > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> Got any proof?
>
> G > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> G > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> DS > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> Your story of the resigning caseworker is good for your EGO.
> It just doesn't "ring true" to anybody who has dealt with
> real cases.
As you said you weren't a party and LK never was founded for anything
in any state.
So who's your expert???
PIGBORN!!!
> G > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> G > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> DS > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> DS > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> RES JUDICATA
A CPS determination is NOT a decision made by a Judge, greg.
> DS > Instead you focused on a point irrelevant to the crux of the
> case.
>
> There was never any crux of the case.
Sure there was.
You just weren't smart enough to see it.
You were focussed on suing CPS.
> There was a long list of accusations.
>
> If you fend off 11 of them there is always a 12th one
> to maintain the case.
So you didn't attempt to fend off any?
> It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
>
> And if you beat them all, they can always
> come up with NEW ONES as needed.
>
> They never had any one thing that amounted to
> any sort of legal basis.
Then you or Lisa should have focussed on that and she would have won.
> I find it ODD that someone with as much
> supposed experience as you have, doesn't
> recognize this tactic by the agency people.
I do recognize that tactic.
And I use it against them all the time.
And then I, or the people I'm helping, prevail.
Greegor
LK > over having a founding overturned
LK > during an administrative review?
DS > I didn't say that was the reason she resigned.
LK > You implied it when you said...
--------------
DS > Well, my story ends with the case
DS > worker being forced to resign from
DS > government service.
--------------
DS > I didn't imply it, you inferred it.
DS > And you are wrong.
Dan, WHO do you think you are
impressing with these juvenile
"Larry Loophole" games you play like this?
Dan Sullivan
LK, AKA Lacking Knowledge, claimed I said the case worker resigned
because her decision was reversed in an Ad Review.
I never said that, which makes his claim inaccurate and untrue.
No loopholes, greg, just the real facts.
Ivan Gowch
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gee, what a clever subject line. I've never
heard THAT one before.
==>Ivan claims to be a US citizen, but also claims
==>to be posting from outside the USA.
Are you saying this is not possible?
Are you really as stupid as you seem to be?
==>In all likelyhood Ivan is just some wise-ass
==>12 year old internet misfit using an overseas remailer.
Yep, that nails it. You ARE as stupid as you
seem to be.
Greegor
G > Yet it was good enough that you reposted it over and over!
DS > As an example of how far a CW would go to make a finding.
Then why edit out my story, where they
made fools of themselves on the witness stand?
They went pretty far to tell that rediculous
lie on the witness stand wouldn't you say?
But, then, I recall that you tried to talk me out
of such words as "evidenciary interviewer"
and "perjury" didn't you?
How do you explain the way you tried
to soften those expressions, Dan?
G > You posted the puppet bear story as part of your BRAGGING!
DS > I posted the story as an example of how ridiculous CPS is.
Do you deny that there was a BRAGGING component
when you told this story so many times?
DS <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
G > That's the best you can do, to reject my story out of hand?
DS > Your story is pathetic.
Is there a REASON that you can't be more specific than that?
G > And you're not factoring in just how stupid or obvious the lie
G > is, but the potential outcome of the lie, is that correct, Dan?
DS > An eye roll??
DS > BFD.
You didn't answer the question.
Any particular reason, Dan?
You want to redefine a standard for how
egregious a caseworker LIE is, is that right?
The Judge's eye roll indicates the
caseworker LIES were stupid and obvious.
You want to belittle that? LOL
DS > BTW wouldn't it have been better
DS > to have the CW admit under oath that
DS > there wasn't any credible evidence
DS > that you abused Lisa Watkins'
DS > daughter, greg?
G > Did you forget that I was shut OUT
G > of court and refused standing for
G > many years?
DS > No.
G > Please describe where this "credible evidence"
G > standard is used and where it's defined.
DS > Asking that question is as stupid as
DS > pigborn claiming that reasonable
DS > doubt is bullshit.
G > My impression is that to caseworkers,
G > if another caseworker SAID it, it's credible.
DS > An allegation isn't credible until it has been proven.
Is this described or documented somewhere, Dan?
G > If a caseworker dreamt it, to them it's "credible".
DS > You haven't a clue.
Explain it to me!
So far I'm enjoying your assertion that
an allegation isn't credible until it has been proven!
But you're being SHY about providing the
standards as far as the burden of proof,
hearsay, and any legal standards involved.
Is this "allegation isn't credible until it has been proven"
thing something you just came up with YOURSELF
or is this documented or described somewhere?
DS > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you
DS > completely missed your chance to
DS > have CPS' case blow up in their faces
DS > because you chose to focus on
DS > something OTHER THAN the evidence
DS > that they used to justify removing
DS > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
G > In a court process where I was accused
G > but not allowed to even be a party?
DS > No, when you were questioning the CW about her big "eye rolling"
lie.
Different process, one which did not allow
me to go over RES JUDICATA.
5 years after the first court BS.
DS > Right, greg?
G > Much more solid than some game of
G > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker
DS > being forced to resign from government service.
G > Nice fantasy. Got any proof?
Got any proof, Dan?
DS > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
G > Got any proof?
Got any proof, Dan?
G > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
G > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
DS > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
G > Your story of the resigning caseworker is
G > good for your EGO. It just doesn't
G > "ring true" to anybody who has dealt
G > with real cases.
DS > As you said you weren't a party and
DS > LK never was founded for anything
DS > in any state.
Dan, The more you tell me yours is bigger,
the more everybody knows you're full of it.
DS > So who's your expert???
DS > PIGBORN!!!
Dan I was doing this long before I ever
knew of Ken Pangborn's existence.
And I think you actually KNOW that.
G > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
G > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
DS > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
DS > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
G > RES JUDICATA
DS > A CPS determination is NOT a decision made by a Judge, greg.
Are you denying that they use "res judicata"?
Because they DO.
DS > Instead you focused on a point
DS > irrelevant to the crux of the case.
G > There was never any crux of the case.
DS > Sure there was.
DS > You just weren't smart enough to see it.
DS > You were focussed on suing CPS.
G > There was a long list of accusations.
G >
G > If you fend off 11 of them there is always a 12th one
G > to maintain the case.
DS > So you didn't attempt to fend off any?
As a non-party?
Did you forget that a caseworker got
embarassed in court for not answering
e-mail questions, basically snubbing
all communication?
G > It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
G > And if you beat them all, they can always
G > come up with NEW ONES as needed.
G > They never had any one thing that
G > amounted to any sort of legal basis.
DS > Then you or Lisa should have focussed on that and she would have
won.
I was a non party and she stipulated, remember?
You've been told this.
G > I find it ODD that someone with as much
G > supposed experience as you have, doesn't
G > recognize this tactic by the agency people.
DS > I do recognize that tactic.
DS > And I use it against them all the time.
DS > And then I, or the people I'm helping, prevail.
RIGHT! And you never see any cases
where the parent got conned into "stipulating", right?
By their own lame-ass public pretender attorney?
Dan Sullivan
> DS > I never said it was the best.
>
> G > Yet it was good enough that you reposted it over and over!
>
> DS > As an example of how far a CW would go to make a finding.
>
> Then why edit out my story, where they
> made fools of themselves on the witness stand?
My caseworker resigned and her determination that I sexually abused my
daughter was reversed.
Your caseworker supposedly lying resulted in... the Judge rolling his
eyes?
What does your story prove?
Did the CW suffer any consequences?
Was the CPS decision reversed?
Did it disprove their decision?
> They went pretty far to tell that rediculous
> lie on the witness stand wouldn't you say?
It meant NOTHING to Lisa Watkins CPS case.
> But, then, I recall that you tried to talk me out
> of such words as "evidenciary interviewer"
> and "perjury" didn't you?
No.
> How do you explain the way you tried
> to soften those expressions, Dan?
>
> G > You posted the puppet bear story as part of your BRAGGING!
>
> DS > I posted the story as an example of how ridiculous CPS is.
>
> Do you deny that there was a BRAGGING component
> when you told this story so many times?
>
> DS <<<snip greg's stupid story>>>
>
> G > That's the best you can do, to reject my story out of hand?
>
> DS > Your story is pathetic.
>
> Is there a REASON that you can't be more specific than that?
OK, it's VERY pathetic.
> G > And you're not factoring in just how stupid or obvious the lie
> G > is, but the potential outcome of the lie, is that correct, Dan?
>
> DS > An eye roll??
> DS > BFD.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
> Any particular reason, Dan?
>
> You want to redefine a standard for how
> egregious a caseworker LIE is, is that right?
What good is it if the CPS decision still stands?
> The Judge's eye roll indicates the
> caseworker LIES were stupid and obvious.
> You want to belittle that? LOL
oooOOOooo, eye rolling!!!!!
> DS > BTW wouldn't it have been better
> DS > to have the CW admit under oath that
> DS > there wasn't any credible evidence
> DS > that you abused Lisa Watkins'
> DS > daughter, greg?
>
> G > Did you forget that I was shut OUT
> G > of court and refused standing for
> G > many years?
>
> DS > No.
>
> G > Please describe where this "credible evidence"
> G > standard is used and where it's defined.
>
> DS > Asking that question is as stupid as
> DS > pigborn claiming that reasonable
> DS > doubt is bullshit.
>
> G > My impression is that to caseworkers,
> G > if another caseworker SAID it, it's credible.
>
> DS > An allegation isn't credible until it has been proven.
>
> Is this described or documented somewhere, Dan?
You involvement with CPS started in Feb of 2001 and you STILL haven't
a clue about how the system works!!!
> G > If a caseworker dreamt it, to them it's "credible".
>
> DS > You haven't a clue.
>
> Explain it to me!
>
> So far I'm enjoying your assertion that
> an allegation isn't credible until it has been proven!
>
> But you're being SHY about providing the
> standards as far as the burden of proof,
> hearsay, and any legal standards involved.
>
> Is this "allegation isn't credible until it has been proven"
> thing something you just came up with YOURSELF
> or is this documented or described somewhere?
:- )))))))))))))))
> DS > Here's the BIG PICTURE, greg, you
> DS > completely missed your chance to
> DS > have CPS' case blow up in their faces
> DS > because you chose to focus on
> DS > something OTHER THAN the evidence
> DS > that they used to justify removing
> DS > Lisa Watkins' daughter.
>
> G > In a court process where I was accused
> G > but not allowed to even be a party?
>
> DS > No, when you were questioning the CW about her big "eye rolling"
> lie.
>
> Different process, one which did not allow
> me to go over RES JUDICATA.
> 5 years after the first court BS.
So a Judge determined that you abused Lisa Watkins daughter?
What was the date of that?
> DS > Right, greg?
>
> G > Much more solid than some game of
> G > vague interpretation, wouldn't you say, Dan?
>
> DS > Well, my story ends with the case worker
> DS > being forced to resign from government service.
>
> G > Nice fantasy. Got any proof?
>
> Got any proof, Dan?
>
> DS > And her determination that I abused my daughter was reversed.
>
> G > Got any proof?
>
> Got any proof, Dan?
>
> G > As you know, Dan, one is a ""mistake""
> G > whereas the other was a malicious lie under oath.
>
> DS > And what were the consequences your case worker had to suffer?
>
> G > Your story of the resigning caseworker is
> G > good for your EGO. It just doesn't
> G > "ring true" to anybody who has dealt
> G > with real cases.
>
> DS > As you said you weren't a party and
> DS > LK never was founded for anything
> DS > in any state.
>
> Dan, The more you tell me yours is bigger,
> the more everybody knows you're full of it.
Who constitutes "everybody?"
> DS > So who's your expert???
> DS > PIGBORN!!!
>
> Dan I was doing this long before I ever
> knew of Ken Pangborn's existence.
>
> And I think you actually KNOW that.
OK, who are you referring to when you say "It just doesn't "ring true"
to anybody who has dealt with real cases."
It can't be you because you weren't a party to Lisa Watkins case.
And it can't be LK because he admitted having no personal involvement
with CPS.
So who are you talking about?
> G > Even the Judge rolled his eyes over the
> G > threatening e-mail story, it was so assenine.
>
> DS > What was asinine was the fact that you failed to challenge the
> DS > evidence used to support the CPS determination..
>
> G > RES JUDICATA
>
> DS > A CPS determination is NOT a decision made by a Judge, greg.
>
> Are you denying that they use "res judicata"?
> Because they DO.
Who is "they?"
And when did they use RES JUDICATA in regards to Lisa Watkins case?
> DS > Instead you focused on a point
> DS > irrelevant to the crux of the case.
>
> G > There was never any crux of the case.
>
> DS > Sure there was.
> DS > You just weren't smart enough to see it.
> DS > You were focussed on suing CPS.
>
> G > There was a long list of accusations.
> G >
> G > If you fend off 11 of them there is always a 12th one
> G > to maintain the case.
>
> DS > So you didn't attempt to fend off any?
>
> As a non-party?
When you had the CW on the witness stand.
> Did you forget that a caseworker got
> embarassed in court for not answering
> e-mail questions, basically snubbing
> all communication?
Oh!!!
Eye rolling and embarrassment!!!
What a feat!!
> G > It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
>
> G > And if you beat them all, they can always
> G > come up with NEW ONES as needed.
> G > They never had any one thing that
> G > amounted to any sort of legal basis.
>
> DS > Then you or Lisa should have focussed on that and she would have
> won.
>
> I was a non party and she stipulated, remember?
> You've been told this.
Stipulated to what exactly???
And why did she do that?
And when?
> G > I find it ODD that someone with as much
> G > supposed experience as you have, doesn't
> G > recognize this tactic by the agency people.
>
> DS > I do recognize that tactic.
>
> DS > And I use it against them all the time.
>
> DS > And then I, or the people I'm helping, prevail.
>
> RIGHT! And you never see any cases
> where the parent got conned into "stipulating", right?
Not the cases I help on.
> By their own lame-ass public pretender attorney?
Was that before or after your infamous Motion?
LK
I never said that Dan.
What I said was that I've never been founded for abuse or neglect of a
child.
You can assume whatever you want about me or my experience with the
system, but Greg is right. Your story is a little farfetched. A "Nice
fantasy." They're not going to "force a worker to resign," based on
your version of the events. There have been much worse cases where
the worker screwed up and still kept her job. Some even get
promoted.
Maybe she resigned because the job sucked.
> Was that before or after your infamous Motion?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dan Sullivan
.
>
> You can assume whatever you want about me or my experience with the
> system, but Greg is right. Your story is a little farfetched.
WTF does greg know?
He still has no idea how the system works.
> A "Nice
> fantasy." They're not going to "force a worker to resign," based on
> your version of the events.
You don't know my version of the events because you haven't read my
account in the archives as you claimed you did.
It's there... find it and read it.
> There have been much worse cases where
> the worker screwed up and still kept her job.
How do you know there are worse cases when you don't know the reason
she resigned in my case?
LK
> On Jul 2, 1:09 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > You can assume whatever you want about me or my experience with the
> > system, but Greg is right. Your story is a little farfetched.
>
> WTF does greg know?
>
> He still has no idea how the system works.
Yeah I know Dan. You're all wise and knowing.
>
> > A "Nice
> > fantasy." They're not going to "force a worker to resign," based on
> > your version of the events.
>
> You don't know my version of the events because you haven't read my
> account in the archives as you claimed you did.
>
What? Your account of your puppet bear story? Sure I have. All you
have to do is search for puppet bear and you get all kinds of stuff.
> It's there... find it and read it.
>
It's not that good of a story Dan, really. I have a life. Better
things to do. If you have anything specific to point out about this
that you think is so important that I should know, then please do.
> > There have been much worse cases where
> > the worker screwed up and still kept her job.
>
> How do you know there are worse cases when you don't know the reason
> she resigned in my case?
Because kids have died under CPS watch and the workers still keep
their jobs. How many other workers have been forced to resign or
fired because of your involvement Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 2, 7:07 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 1:09 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .
>
> > > You can assume whatever you want about me or my experience with the
> > > system, but Greg is right. Your story is a little farfetched.
>
> > WTF does greg know?
>
> > He still has no idea how the system works.
>
> Yeah I know Dan. You're all wise and knowing.
I'm not all wise and knowing.
But I do know far more than you and greg put together.
> > > A "Nice
> > > fantasy." They're not going to "force a worker to resign," based on
> > > your version of the events.
>
> > You don't know my version of the events because you haven't read my
> > account in the archives as you claimed you did.
>
> What? Your account of your puppet bear story? Sure I have.
Then you should know why the case worker resigned.
But you don't.
Greegor
Dan, What PROOF do you have of the worker resigning?
Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
Dan Sullivan
Why do you ask?
> Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
???
Greegor
DS > Why do you ask?
You played "Larry Loophole" and accused LK of "inferring" wrong.
Did you think that enhanced your credibility with somebody?
Seems more like you've given up on credibility.
G > Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
DS > ???
Is it a problem when you're asked to PROVE
a story you asserted over and over again, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Dan, What PROOF do you have of the worker resigning?
>
> DS > Why do you ask?
>
> You played "Larry Loophole" and accused LK of "inferring" wrong.
That would be "inferring incorrectly."
> Did you think that enhanced your credibility with somebody?
>
> Seems more like you've given up on credibility.
Not at all.
> G > Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
>
> DS > ???
>
> Is it a problem when you're asked to PROVE
> a story you asserted over and over again, Dan?
Not at all.
Ask away!
Greegor
DS > Why do you ask?
G > You played "Larry Loophole" and accused LK of "inferring" wrong.
DS > That would be "inferring incorrectly."
G > Did you think that enhanced your credibility with somebody?
G > Seems more like you've given up on credibility.
DS > Not at all.
You make wild claims, toot your own horn,
but refuse to post PROOF.
You think you don't have credibility
issues for playing these games?
G > Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
DS > ???
G > Is it a problem when you're asked to PROVE
G > a story you asserted over and over again, Dan?
DS > Not at all.
DS > Ask away!
I get it.
I can ask all I want and you won't post PROOF.
More Larry Loophole games.
You stoke up your ego on that kinda stuff??
Firemonkey
gag>G > Did you think that enhanced your credibility with somebody?
G > Seems more like you've given up on credibility.
Dans credibility stands. It is yours that all readers have given up
on. Any intelligent person reading this group sees you for who you are
gag.
Dan Sullivan
> G > Dan, What PROOF do you have of the worker resigning?
>
> DS > Why do you ask?
>
> G > You played "Larry Loophole" and accused LK of "inferring" wrong.
>
> DS > That would be "inferring incorrectly."
>
> G > Did you think that enhanced your credibility with somebody?
> G > Seems more like you've given up on credibility.
>
> DS > Not at all.
>
> You make wild claims, toot your own horn,
> but refuse to post PROOF.
Which wild claims?
> You think you don't have credibility
> issues for playing these games?
Issues with?
> G > Or the reason WHY she supposedly resigned?
>
> DS > ???
>
> G > Is it a problem when you're asked to PROVE
> G > a story you asserted over and over again, Dan?
>
> DS > Not at all.
> DS > Ask away!
>
> I get it.
Hoo-freakin-raYYY!!!
> I can ask all I want and you won't post PROOF.
You are free to believe or not believe anything I write.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2756fa43-1e04-4686...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> > > > > You can assume whatever you want about me or my experience with
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > system, but Greg is right. Your story is a little farfetched.
>>
>> > > > WTF does greg know?
>>
>> > > > He still has no idea how the system works.
>>
>> > > Yeah I know Dan. You're all wise and knowing.
>>
>> > I'm not all wise and knowing.
>>
>> > But I do know far more than you and greg put together.
>>
>> > > > > A "Nice
>> > > > > fantasy." They're not going to "force a worker to resign,"
>> > > > > based on
>> > > > > your version of the events.
>>
>> > > > You don't know my version of the events because you haven't read my
>> > > > account in the archives as you claimed you did.
>>
>> > > What? Your account of your puppet bear story? Sure I have.
>>
>> > Then you should know why the case worker resigned.
>>
>> > But you don't.
>>
>> Dan, What PROOF do you have of the worker resigning?
>
> Why do you ask?
I suppose he asked for the same reasons YOU ask people the same kind of
questions. Suppose you answer him?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web sites
that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying you
thousands of dollars.
> Suppose you answer him?
Suppose I do.
krp
> I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web sites
> that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying you
> thousands of dollars.
>
>> Suppose you answer him?
>
> Suppose I do.
Okay - since you volunteer - we'll wait.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Please do.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied in message
news:27922403-d8b0-45de...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
How long do we have to wait? How thick must the ice be in hell before you
do?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> lied in messagenews:27922403-d8b0-45de...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Wait and see.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
One doesn’t require credibility with you in order to speak the truth
Roberta.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
No worries Ken. I don't expect anything regarding proof of any of
Dan's claims and neither should you. Like he says, we are free to
believe or disbelieve anything he says. The burden of proof is on
him. If he can't come up with anything substantial then he has been
proven for what he is.
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
No sh*t lk? This is the first I have heard of it.
krp
>
>> >>news:1b399a09-944c-4c07...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web
>> >> > sites
>> >> > that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying
>> >> > you
>> >> > thousands of dollars.
>>
>> >> >> Suppose you answer him?
>>
>> >> > Suppose I do.
>>
>> >> Okay - since you volunteer - we'll wait.
>>
>> > Please do.
>>
>> How long do we have to wait? How thick must the ice be in hell before you
>> do?
>
> Wait and see.
In other words, VERY thick.
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30ae102-b096-4b99...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web
> > >> > sites
> > >> > that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying
> > >> > you
> > >> > thousands of dollars.
> > >> >> Suppose you answer him?
> > >> > Suppose I do.
> > >> Okay - since you volunteer - we'll wait.
> > > Please do.
> > How long do we have to wait? How thick must the ice be in hell before
> > you
> > do?
> Wait and see.
< No worries Ken. I don't expect anything regarding proof of any of
< Dan's claims and neither should you. Like he says, we are free to
< believe or disbelieve anything he says. The burden of proof is on
< him. If he can't come up with anything substantial then he has been
< proven for what he is.
I am STILL waiting for his PROOF that I have an extensive criminal
history and a strong of DUI's. That one has been going on for years too. He
is certainly obsessed with me, isn't he?
Dan Sullivan
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
My proof?
I never made any claims about your criminal history or DUI's, piggy..
As long as you paid your debt to society, it's fine by me, piggy.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his OBSESSION in message
news:388a7706-7da9-4768...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>> > > >> > I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web
>> > > >> > sites
>> > > >> > that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying
>> > > >> > you
>> > > >> > thousands of dollars.
>> > > >> >> Suppose you answer him?
>> > > >> > Suppose I do.
>> > > >> Okay - since you volunteer - we'll wait.
>> > > > Please do.
>> > > How long do we have to wait? How thick must the ice be in hell before
>> > > you
>> > > do?
>> > Wait and see.
>>
>> < No worries Ken. I don't expect anything regarding proof of any of
>> < Dan's claims and neither should you. Like he says, we are free to
>> < believe or disbelieve anything he says. The burden of proof is on
>> < him. If he can't come up with anything substantial then he has been
>> < proven for what he is.
>>
>> I am STILL waiting for his PROOF that I have an extensive criminal
>> history and a strong of DUI's.
>
> My proof?
>
> I never made any claims about your criminal history or DUI's, piggy..
SURE YOU DID DANNY. Love to see you are still on PATROL tonight. Long DAY
eh?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote his OBSESSION in messagenews:388a7706-7da9-4768...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> > > >> > I ask you questions about information posted on your A-Team web
> >> > > >> > sites
> >> > > >> > that you use to entice (trick) people into hiring you and paying
> >> > > >> > you
> >> > > >> > thousands of dollars.
> >> > > >> >> Suppose you answer him?
> >> > > >> > Suppose I do.
> >> > > >> Okay - since you volunteer - we'll wait.
> >> > > > Please do.
> >> > > How long do we have to wait? How thick must the ice be in hell before
> >> > > you
> >> > > do?
> >> > Wait and see.
>
> >> < No worries Ken. I don't expect anything regarding proof of any of
> >> < Dan's claims and neither should you. Like he says, we are free to
> >> < believe or disbelieve anything he says. The burden of proof is on
> >> < him. If he can't come up with anything substantial then he has been
> >> < proven for what he is.
>
> >> I am STILL waiting for his PROOF that I have an extensive criminal
> >> history and a strong of DUI's.
>
> > My proof?
>
> > I never made any claims about your criminal history or DUI's, piggy..
>
> SURE YOU DID DANNY.
greg???
LK???
Being that your buddy pigborn won't post the citation where I
supposedly made a claim about his criminal history or DUI's, maybe
you'd like to help raise his credibility rating up from the negative
number system by posting the citation for him.
You can prove me a liar if you do it!!!
Fun, fun, fun!!!!!
where I said what
he claims I said."
Kent Wills
<Giggle>
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, LYING
and claiming David Moore is his gay lover. Message-ID:
<_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>