This is who investigates sexual crimes against children in New York, pangborn, NOT CPS case workers as you claimed.
Dan Sullivan
The Special Victims Unit is housed in the detective borough commands
of the NYPD. The Special Victims Unit is part of the Detective Bureau
and investigates the following types of cases:
1 - Any child under 13 years of age that is the victim of any sex
crime or attempted sex crime by any person.
2 - Any child under 11 years of age who is the victim of abuse by a
parent or person legally responsible for the care of the child.
3 - Any victim of Rape (all degrees) or Attempted Rape (all degrees)
4 - Any victim of Criminal Sexual Act (all degrees) or Attempted
Criminal Sexual Act (all degrees)
5 - Victims of Aggravated Sexual Abuse (all degrees)
6 - Victims of sexual abuse 1st Degree
============
Ron
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ea5d563d-ab52-480a...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Well honestly Dan ...... Most of us already know that kenny is totally
incapable of stating facts correctly. Its one of the reasons we all find
him so endearing!
Ron
Greegor
to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
was in that case, or whether or not they were
mandatory reporters.
Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
a case that supposedly did not rise to the
level where they should have been called in.
Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
get all of the ones who "got away" by
starting a Dependency Court action
and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
Are you pretending that the detective's determination
would stop CPS?
Dan Sullivan
> This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
Wrong.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> was in that case, or whether or not they were
> mandatory reporters.
Doesn't make a difference.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
> but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
> a case that supposedly did not rise to the
> level where they should have been called in.
That's not what I said.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
> are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
Yes.
> Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
> Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
All sex crimes against children are investigated by law enforcement.
> It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>
> In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
> pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
>
> LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
> or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
> get all of the ones who "got away" by
> starting a Dependency Court action
> and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
>
> The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
>
> Are you pretending that the detective's determination
> would stop CPS?
From doing what?
Greegor
G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
DS > Wrong.
Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
You'll have to do better than that.
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
DS > claim that sex crimes against children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
extras special "puppet bear" story!
Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
G > mandatory reporters.
DS > Doesn't make a difference.
How could it not matter in a discussion
where reporting comes up?
You've tried to diffuse the discussion
into a digression of knit picking generalities
rather than your specific "puppet bear" case!
You tried to generalize it to death.
Anything to avoid your extra special "puppet bear"
specific case, right?
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
DS > that sex crimes against children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
You think the discussion didn't start with
your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
G > level where they should have been called in.
DS > That's not what I said.
What's not what you said?
I didn't present anything as a quote.
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
DS > that sex crimes against children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
this pertains to the state where your specific
extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
DS > claim that sex crimes against children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
Um, Dan, You've never considered the
possibility of parallel investigations.
G > Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
DS > that sex crimes against children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
Answer the simple ass question f-wad.
G > Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
G > are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
DS > Yes.
Please explain WHY you believe such BS!
G > Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
G > Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
DS > All sex crimes against children are investigated by law
enforcement.
I love it when you make absolutist assertions, Dan!
CPS agencies run their own witch hunts all the time!
You think they don't in NY?
G > > It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
G > In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
G > pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
G > LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
G > or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
G > get all of the ones who "got away" by
G > starting a Dependency Court action
G > and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
G > The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
G > Are you pretending that the detective's
G > determination would stop CPS?
DS > From doing what?
Making a dependency case.
Removing children.
Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
You know, the crap that CPS does!
Kent Wills
wrote:
>This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
Why do you ALWAYS divert from discussions about you touching
Lisa's daughter's genital area?
Why, exactly, did you feel it necessary to touch her genital area
with your bare hands? By YOUR standards, someone in authority made
the accusation, so it MUST be true, you did so.
>Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
>was in that case, or whether or not they were
>mandatory reporters.
Does it matter? The accusation was made, and you consistently
claim, directly and through implication, that it was valid.
>
>Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
>but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
>a case that supposedly did not rise to the
>level where they should have been called in.
Do you have anything to present that would counter the claim?
>
>Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
I would guess CPS, since you state in the paragraph above that Dan
has implied such. This is, of course, a guess.
>
>Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
Huh?
Above you state, "Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on a case that supposedly
did not rise to the level where they should have been called in."
Now you think the DA called in CPs.
Pick a lane.
>
>Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
>are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
More plausible is that they are trained to handle a few types of
cases.
>
>Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
>Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
>
>It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>
>In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
>pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
Especially when dealing with a twice convicted wife and founded
child abuser, such as you, GregWhore Hanson.
You're just lucky they opted NOT to prosecute you for the acts of
child abuse you committed. A mistake, IMO, but they didn't ask me,
and it's probably too late now.
>
>LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
>or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
>get all of the ones who "got away" by
>starting a Dependency Court action
>and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
Only if there is evidence to support it.
>
>The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
Different burdens, simpleton.
If there is insufficient evidence to warrant a trial, prosecution
isn't going to happen.
Personally, I think the standard should be the same for both.
But what I think and a dollar won't buy you a lattee at Starbucks.
>
>Are you pretending that the detective's determination
>would stop CPS?
They're doing different jobs, dullard.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child
abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Dan Sullivan
> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> DS > Wrong.
>
> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
> You'll have to do better than that.
See the title of the thread.
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
> extras special "puppet bear" story!
>
> Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
See the title of the thread.
> G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
> G > mandatory reporters.
>
> DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>
> How could it not matter in a discussion
> where reporting comes up?
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> You've tried to diffuse the discussion
> into a digression of knit picking generalities
> rather than your specific "puppet bear" case!
The subject isn't my case.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> You tried to generalize it to death.
>
> Anything to avoid your extra special "puppet bear"
> specific case, right?
The subject isn't my case.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> DS > that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> You think the discussion didn't start with
> your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
> G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
> G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
> G > level where they should have been called in.
>
> DS > That's not what I said.
>
> What's not what you said?
> I didn't present anything as a quote.
I didn't say "that CPS called in the DA's detectives on a case that
supposedly did not rise to the level where they should have been
called in."
Besides the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
children in NY are investigated by CPS.
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> DS > that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
No, that is the topic, subject and title of the thread.
> Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
> this pertains to the state where your specific
> extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
>
> G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> Um, Dan, You've never considered the
> possibility of parallel investigations.
The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
in NY are investigated by CPS.
> G > Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
>
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> DS > that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> Answer the simple ass question f-wad.
Yes, greg, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
children in NY are investigated by CPS.
> G > Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
> G > are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
>
> DS > Yes.
>
> Please explain WHY you believe such BS!
>
> G > Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
> G > Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
>
> DS > All sex crimes against children are investigated by law
> enforcement.
>
> I love it when you make absolutist assertions, Dan!
> CPS agencies run their own witch hunts all the time!
>
> You think they don't in NY?
>
> G > > It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>
> G > In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
> G > pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
>
> G > LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
> G > or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
> G > get all of the ones who "got away" by
> G > starting a Dependency Court action
> G > and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
>
> G > The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
>
> G > Are you pretending that the detective's
> G > determination would stop CPS?
>
> DS > From doing what?
>
> Making a dependency case.
That's civil court, not criminal court.
> Removing children.
>
> Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
> You know, the crap that CPS does!
But sex crimes against children are investigated by law enforcement.
Ron
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f626726d-09cb-4fc2...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
>
> Removing children.
Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
>
> Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts. Based upon the
information provided by LEO's, doctors, and a whole plethora of others who
are involved in the case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
to the courts.
>
> You know, the crap that CPS does!
Dan knows quite a bit about that, as do I. So, after hanging around here
for the last 7 years or so can you tell me why you have not picked up on
some of the basics of the issue?
Ron
Dan Sullivan
> Dan knows quite a bit about that, as do I. So, after hanging around here
> for the last 7 years or so can you tell me why you have not picked up on
> some of the basics of the issue?
greg hasn't picked up on the basics because nothing about CPS fits his
delusions.
krp
"Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:LEPbk.17830$oY2....@newsfe21.lga...
Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office???????? Oh and *I* said CPS AND
NYPD.... Danny's argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
investigate these crimes. ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
krp
> This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> was in that case, or whether or not they were
> mandatory reporters.
>
> Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
> but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
> a case that supposedly did not rise to the
> level where they should have been called in.
>
> Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
>
> Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
> are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
>
> Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
> Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
>
> It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>
> In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
> pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
Danny's argument was that ***ONLY*** The DA's office detectives handled
the cases and NOT NYPD at all and NOT CPS for sure.
krp
> On Jul 5, 4:52 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> Wrong.
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
IF you are going to quote me, dipshit, at least do it accurately. I said
CPS and NYPD!!!!! Sometimes initially an investogation may start with patrol
officers and then detectives. OUR disagreement was YOUR CLAIM that "ONLY the
DA's office detectives" investoigated these cases and NEITHER CPS nor MYP{D
had ANYTHING to do with that whatsoever!
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
LIAR! I said that INITIALLY they are by CPS and/or NYPD depending on how
a case comes in. YOU said that ONLY the DA's office detectives did ANY of
the work on the cases. When I said NYPD that INCUDES the SVU squads.
krp
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> DS > that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
(NOT WHAT I SAID)
> You think the discussion didn't start with
> your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
> G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
> G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
> G > level where they should have been called in.
>
> DS > That's not what I said.
No Sullivan said that *ONLY* the DA's office detectives investigated the
cases. That neither CPS nor NYPD have ANYTHING to do with the cases art all.
> What's not what you said?
> I didn't present anything as a quote.
>
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> DS > that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
(SULLIVAN IS DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE - NOT WHAT I SAID)
> That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
> Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
> this pertains to the state where your specific
> extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
>
> G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
(NOT WHAT I SAID NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES SULLIVAN CLAIMS IT IS)
> DS > All sex crimes against children are investigated by law
> enforcement.
(Eventually YES if investigations are warranted. But the NYPD handles those
NOT the DA's detectives typically.)
krp
> On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>
>> DS > Wrong.
>>
>> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
>> Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
>> You'll have to do better than that.
>
> See the title of the thread.
>
>> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
>> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
>> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
((DANNY IS LYING- NOT WHAT I SAID))
>> Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
>> extras special "puppet bear" story!
>>
>> Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
>
> See the title of the thread.
>
>> G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
>> G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
>> G > mandatory reporters.
>>
>> DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>>
>> How could it not matter in a discussion
>> where reporting comes up?
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
(NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING)
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The subject, pangborn, is your claim that sex crimes against children
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5411613c-6e62-41ed...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 5, 4:52 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> >> to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> IF you are going to quote me, dipshit, at least do it accurately. I said
> CPS and NYPD!!!!!
Not until the second exchange.
Here it is again...
=================
In the first exchange you were very specific in acknowledging "They
have a poorly trained case worker do the initial investigation of a
sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially trained detective
steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?" by responding with
"A sad reality Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
And in the first exchange to the question "And when it goes to trial
the CW testifies that he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the
children, parents and alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence...
and that farther "down the road" the detectives stepped in." you
responded with
"Typical - and many bad cases are lost as a result."
While in the second exchange you claim "Depending on the genesis of
the case, generally it starts with the NYPD and CPS."
=======================
I'll repeat that as many times as necessary.
> Sometimes initially an investogation may start with patrol
> officers and then detectives. OUR disagreement was YOUR CLAIM that "ONLY the
> DA's office detectives" investoigated these cases and NEITHER CPS nor MYP{D
> had ANYTHING to do with that whatsoever!
No, pangborn, read what you said above.
> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> LIAR! I said that INITIALLY they are by CPS and/or NYPD depending on how
> a case comes in.
That's not true.
Read your direct quote above.
> YOU said that ONLY the DA's office detectives did ANY of
> the work on the cases. When I said NYPD that INCUDES the SVU squads.
No, no no, pangborn.
To my question ""They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
You responded with ""A sad reality Danny. That's why the system is
such a MESS."
I'll repeat the exchange as many times as necessary.
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f626726d-09cb-4fc2...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> (NOT WHAT I SAID)
Exactly what you said.
> > You think the discussion didn't start with
> > your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> > G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
> > G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
> > G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
> > G > level where they should have been called in.
>
> > DS > That's not what I said.
>
> No Sullivan said that *ONLY* the DA's office detectives investigated the
> cases. That neither CPS nor NYPD have ANYTHING to do with the cases art all.
>
> > What's not what you said?
> > I didn't present anything as a quote.
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> (SULLIVAN IS DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE - NOT WHAT I SAID)
Exactly what you said.
> > That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
> > Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
> > this pertains to the state where your specific
> > extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
>
> > G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> > DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> (NOT WHAT I SAID NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES SULLIVAN CLAIMS IT IS)
Exactly what you said.
> > DS > All sex crimes against children are investigated by law
> > enforcement.
>
> (Eventually YES if investigations are warranted.
A report of a sex crime against a child warrants an investigation by
law enforcement, namely the Special Victims Unit.
> But the NYPD handles those NOT the DA's detectives typically.)
The NYPD as in policemen from the local precinct?
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied again in message
news:ca927c60-1b4e-4533...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Here it is again... (It's STILL a LIE Danny.)
> =================
>
> In the first exchange you were very specific in acknowledging "They
> have a poorly trained case worker do the initial investigation of a
> sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially trained detective
> steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?" by responding with
>
> "A sad reality Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
>
> And in the first exchange to the question "And when it goes to trial
> the CW testifies that he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the
> children, parents and alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence...
> and that farther "down the road" the detectives stepped in." you
> responded with
>
> "Typical - and many bad cases are lost as a result."
>
> While in the second exchange you claim "Depending on the genesis of
> the case, generally it starts with the NYPD and CPS."
>
> =======================
>
> I'll repeat that as many times as necessary.
And every time you do you are LYING.Those claims inside the quotes above
are YOUR SPIN on what I said and NOT at all what *I* said,. You are
DISHONEST SULLIVAN!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied in message
news:6de10687-da81-40ef...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>
>> > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
>> > was in that case, or whether or not they were
>> > mandatory reporters.
>>
>> > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
>> > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
>> > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
>> > level where they should have been called in.
>>
>> > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>>
>> > Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
>>
>> > Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
>> > are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
>>
>> > Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
>> > Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
>>
>> > It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>>
>> > In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
>> > pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
>>
>> Danny's argument was that ***ONLY*** The DA's office detectives
>> handled
>> the cases and NOT NYPD at all and NOT CPS for sure.
>
> The subject, pangborn, is your claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
DAN SULLIVAN IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
krp
> On Jul 5, 9:31 pm, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f626726d-09cb-4fc2...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
>> > DS > that sex crimes against children
>> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> (NOT WHAT I SAID)
>
> Exactly what you said.
No Danny it is what YOU SAID I SAID and NOT what *I* actually said. TYWO
VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!
>> > You think the discussion didn't start with
>> > your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>
>> > G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
>> > G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
>> > G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
>> > G > level where they should have been called in.
>>
>> > DS > That's not what I said.
>>
>> No Sullivan said that *ONLY* the DA's office detectives investigated
>> the
>> cases. That neither CPS nor NYPD have ANYTHING to do with the cases art
>> all.
>>
>> > What's not what you said?
>> > I didn't present anything as a quote.
>>
>> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
>> > DS > that sex crimes against children
>> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> (SULLIVAN IS DELIBERATELY DECEPTIVE - NOT WHAT I SAID)
> Exactly what you said.
Nope it is YOUR SPIN on what I said. You show quotation marks but it is
not what *I* said it is what YOU SAID I SAID.
>> But the NYPD handles those NOT the DA's detectives typically.)
> The NYPD as in policemen from the local precinct?
Hey WEENIE - almost all precincts in NYC have SVU units. But sometimes
patrolmen are FIRST RESPONDERS.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e5bfd20d-b1ed-4ecd...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> >> DS > Wrong.
>
> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
> >> Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
> >> You'll have to do better than that.
>
> > See the title of the thread.
>
> >> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> >> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> >> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> ((DANNY IS LYING- NOT WHAT I SAID))
How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
> >> Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
> >> extras special "puppet bear" story!
>
> >> Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
>
> > See the title of the thread.
>
> >> G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> >> G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
> >> G > mandatory reporters.
>
> >> DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>
> >> How could it not matter in a discussion
> >> where reporting comes up?
>
> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> (NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING)
How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
Here it is AGAIN!!!
========================
I summarized your position by asking "They have a poorly trained case
worker do the initial investigation of a sex crime and some time "down
the road" a specially trained detective steps in and gathers the
evidence from the CW?"
And you responded with "A sad reality Danny. That's why the system is
such a MESS."
And next to this statement of mine "And when it goes to trial the CW
testifies that he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the
children, parents and alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence...
and that farther "down the road" the detectives stepped in."
you responded in the affirmative with "Typical - and many bad cases
are lost as a result."
Exact quotes.
krp
> On Jul 5, 9:32 pm, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:e5bfd20d-b1ed-4ecd...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>
>> >> DS > Wrong.
>>
>> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>
>> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
> How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan you are posting what YOU
said I said!! And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> lied again in messagenews:9dd5e4fd-e4a7-4d92...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 9:32 pm, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:e5bfd20d-b1ed-4ecd...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>
> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>
> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:5411613c-6e62-41ed...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 5, 4:52 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>>> to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> IF you are going to quote me, dipshit, at least do it accurately. I said
>CPS and NYPD!!!!!
That came later. After Dan made you look the fool you are.
>Sometimes initially an investogation may start with patrol
>officers and then detectives. OUR disagreement was YOUR CLAIM that "ONLY the
>DA's office detectives" investoigated these cases and NEITHER CPS nor MYP{D
>had ANYTHING to do with that whatsoever!
>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> LIAR! I said that INITIALLY they are by CPS and/or NYPD depending on how
>a case comes in.
Liar.
>YOU said that ONLY the DA's office detectives did ANY of
>the work on the cases. When I said NYPD that INCUDES the SVU squads.
>
Liar.
"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>
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:e5bfd20d-b1ed-4ecd...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>>> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>>
>>> DS > Wrong.
>>>
>>> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>>> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>>> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>
>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
Liar.
>>
>>> Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
>>> You'll have to do better than that.
>>
>> See the title of the thread.
>>
>>> DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
>>> DS > claim that sex crimes against children
>>> DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
>((DANNY IS LYING- NOT WHAT I SAID))
Liar.
>
>>> Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
>>> extras special "puppet bear" story!
>>>
>>> Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
>>
>> See the title of the thread.
>>
>>> G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
>>> G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
>>> G > mandatory reporters.
>>>
>>> DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>>>
>>> How could it not matter in a discussion
>>> where reporting comes up?
>>
>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
>(NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING)
>
Liar.
--
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
AFTER Dan made you look the fool for claiming CPS alone did it.
> Danny's argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
>investigate these crimes. ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
That's not the claim Dan made. What is the specific reason
you're lying about this?
--
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies?"
Ken Pangborn expressing his fondness for child porn in Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> Danny's argument was that ***ONLY*** The DA's office detectives
>>> handled
>>> the cases and NOT NYPD at all and NOT CPS for sure.
>>
>> The subject, pangborn, is your claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
>DAN SULLIVAN IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
If so, why have you been UNABLE to prove just one lie from him?
Kent Wills
Make it real easy for everyone, Pangborn. Post the MID and.or
Google link to your first post on the matter. If it states both, then
you'll have proved yourself correct.
Do keep in mind that some of the readers may opt to check for
accuracy.
If, as is the case, you're lying, then continue to play the
avoidance game.
"3 year old GIRL Kunt."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team,
commenting on a three-year-old girl's vagina.
Message-ID: <78RZj.7110$3j.6866@trnddc05>
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more insane bullshit in
message
news:a0941c1b-7159-4062...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>
>> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>>
>> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>
>> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>>
>> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>>
>> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>
> Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said. Two VERY VERY
VERY different things. What *I* said and your INSANE interpretation of what
I said and your frantic efforts to hide what I *DID* say and hide whet YOU
claimed.
>> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
>> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
>
> I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
No Danny you did NOT. What you placed in QUOTATIONS is what YOU SAID I
said. YOU LIED YET AGAIN!
It's what you do best.
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more insane bullshit in
>message
>news:a0941c1b-7159-4062...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>>> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>>>
>>> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>>>
>>> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>>> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>>> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>>
>>> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>>> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>>
>>> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>>>
>>> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>>>
>>> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>>
>> Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>
> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
Post the MID and/or Google link to your original post on the
matter. If you're telling the truth, it would settle the matter.
If you're lying, you'll not do it, since it would prove you are,
once again, lying.
>Two VERY VERY
>VERY different things. What *I* said and your INSANE interpretation of what
>I said and your frantic efforts to hide what I *DID* say and hide whet YOU
>claimed.
He's quoting you.
>
>>> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
>>> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
>>
>> I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>
> No Danny you did NOT. What you placed in QUOTATIONS is what YOU SAID I
>said. YOU LIED YET AGAIN!
>It's what you do best.
>
>
You can deny the truth all you wish. The truth will forever
remain the truth, Kenny-Bob.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote more insane bullshit in
> messagenews:a0941c1b-7159-4062...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> >> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> >> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>
> >> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> >> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> >> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> >> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> >> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> >> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
> >> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>
> >> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>
> > Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>
> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
See below.
> Two VERY VERY VERY different things.
> What *I* said and your INSANE interpretation of what
> I said and your frantic efforts to hide what I *DID* say and hide whet YOU
> claimed.
I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
See below.
> >> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
> >> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
>
> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>
> No Danny you did NOT. What you placed in QUOTATIONS is what YOU SAID I
> said.
It's exactly what you said.
See below.
> YOU LIED YET AGAIN!
> It's what you do best.
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that he/she
did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And later ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly
trained CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit
whether the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of
life. LIVE WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
=======
Ken pangborn wrote "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
they HAVE the job!"
And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more insane bullshit in
message
news:67eb0220-dce4-4cad...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
>> >> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear"
>> >> >> >> case.
>>
>> >> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>>
>> >> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
>> >> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
>> >> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>>
>> >> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
>> >> >> > children
>> >> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> >> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>>
>> >> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>>
>> >> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>>
>> > Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>>
>> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
>
> I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
NO Danny you quoted yourself.!!! LIAR!
> See below.
(All context removed by deceitful Dan Sullivan)
>> Two VERY VERY VERY different things. What *I* said and your INSANE
>> interpretation of what
>> I said and your frantic efforts to hide what I *DID* say and hide whet
>> YOU
>> claimed.
> I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
Nope you did NOT!!!! YOUI LIED!
> See below.
>> >> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
>> >> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
>>
>> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>>
>> No Danny you did NOT. What you placed in QUOTATIONS is what YOU SAID I
>> said.
> It's exactly what you said.
NOPE it's what YOU said I said.
> See below.
>> YOU LIED YET AGAIN!
>> It's what you do best.
> I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
> investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
> trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
But you TRIED very hard to make it appear that *I* said that.
> Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
> Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
> Then I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that he/she
> did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
> alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
> "down the road" the detectives stepped in."
AGAIN you tried to make it appear that *I* wrote that. WHen in reality
it is what YOU said I was saying NOT what I actually did say.
> And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
> bad cases are lost as a result."
Typical, Danny that CPS workers are most often the first responders. CPS
gets the hot line calls and NOT the detectives at the DA's office as YOU
claimed. I said that first calls are initially responded to by CPS AND ...
AND Danny which YOU keep DISHONESTLY editing out - AND the NYPD. ANd tghe
last I looked SVU is part of the NYPD and NOT as you claim part of the DA's
office detectives you INSANE DOLT!
> And later ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly
> trained CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shit
> whether the GREAT Dan Sullivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of
> life. LIVE WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
CPS has the hotline and n o matter your little pany hissy fits Danny,
the DA's office does NOT! They PROSECUTE the cases and only RARELY do much
of any "invesigation" on them.
> =======
>
> Ken pangborn wrote "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
> they HAVE the job!"
>
> And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> children?"
> And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
Danny as I have asked before . . WHO maintains the hotline? WHICH
agency gets initial calls? WHICH agency do mandatory reporters contact? Is
it the detectives for the DA's office as YOU CLAIM????? Or is it CPS and the
NYPD as I said??????
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote
>
> >> >> >> >> G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> >> >> >> >> G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear"
> >> >> >> >> case.
>
> >> >> >> >> DS > Wrong.
>
> >> >> >> >> Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> >> >> >> >> this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> >> >> >> >> is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> >> >> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> >> >> >> > children
> >> >> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> >> >> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>
> >> >> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>
> >> >> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>
> >> > Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>
> >> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
>
> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>
> NO Danny you quoted yourself.!!! LIAR!
And then I quoted your exact responses.
> > See below.
>
> (All context removed by deceitful Dan Sullivan)
>
> >> Two VERY VERY VERY different things. What *I* said and your INSANE
> >> interpretation of what
> >> I said and your frantic efforts to hide what I *DID* say and hide whet
> >> YOU
> >> claimed.
> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>
> Nope you did NOT!!!! YOUI LIED!
>
> > See below.
> >> >> you are posting what YOU said I said!!
> >> >> And you are LYING your fat ass off in so doing.
>
> >> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>
> >> No Danny you did NOT. What you placed in QUOTATIONS is what YOU SAID I
> >> said.
> > It's exactly what you said.
>
> NOPE it's what YOU said I said.
>
> > See below.
> >> YOU LIED YET AGAIN!
> >> It's what you do best.
> >
> > I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
> > investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
> > trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
>
> But you TRIED very hard to make it appear that *I* said that.
Sorry, pangborn, I was very specific who said what.
> > Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
> > Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
> >
> > Then I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that he/she
> > did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
> > alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
> > "down the road" the detectives stepped in."
>
> AGAIN you tried to make it appear that *I* wrote that. WHen in reality
> it is what YOU said I was saying NOT what I actually did say.
No, you can claim that, pangborn, but it isn't accurate or true.
> > And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
> > bad cases are lost as a result."
>
> Typical, Danny that CPS workers are most often the first responders. CPS
> gets the hot line calls and NOT the detectives at the DA's office as YOU
> claimed. I said that first calls are initially responded to by CPS AND ...
> AND Danny which YOU keep DISHONESTLY editing out - AND the NYPD. ANd tghe
> last I looked SVU is part of the NYPD and NOT as you claim part of the DA's
> office detectives you INSANE DOLT!
>
> > And later ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly
> > trained CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shit
> > whether the GREAT Dan Sullivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of
> > life. LIVE WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
>
> CPS has the hotline and n o matter your little pany hissy fits Danny,
> the DA's office does NOT!
Law enforcement has 911 in NY.
And a sex CRIME against a child gets reported to law enforcement.
And the SVU unit does the criminal investigation.
If the perp isn't someone legally responsible for the care of the
child or is unknown, the crime doesn't fall under CPS' purview.
> They PROSECUTE the cases and only RARELY do much
> of any "invesigation" on them.
>
> > =======
>
> > Ken pangborn wrote "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
> > they HAVE the job!"
>
> > And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> > children?"
> > And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
>
> Danny as I have asked before . . WHO maintains the hotline?
I know you want to change the premise, but that's not the question.
CRIMES GET REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT!!!!!
Who answers the 911 hotline???
Law enforcement.
> WHICH agency gets initial calls?
For the report of a CRIME???
Law enforcement.
> WHICH agency do mandatory reporters contact?
If it's a crime against a child???
Law enforcement.
And the hotline number is 911.
> Is it the detectives for the DA's office as YOU CLAIM?????
It's the detectives of the SVU squad, and they come right away, NOT
"farther down the road" as you claim.
> Or is it CPS and the NYPD as I said??????
It is the job of law enforcement to investigate sex CRIMES against
children.
CPS only conducts CIVIL investigations of any "parent or other person
legally responsible for a child's care who is alleged to have abused
or neglected such child."
That's the law in NY.
Ron
make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not ever
recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be researched,
quoted, and linked for proof?
Kenny, when was the last time you had a full mental status evaluation?
Maybe its time for one, maybe you can get some help somewhere for those
issues, something that will at least make it appear that you are a fully
functioning adult.
Ron
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:340c7c8e-1752-4368...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more psycho bullshit in
message
news:340c7c8e-1752-4368...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
>> >> >> >> > children
>> >> >> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> >> >> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>>
>> >> >> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said, pangborn?
>>
>> >> >> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>>
>> >> > Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>>
>> >> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
>>
>> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>>
>> NO Danny you quoted yourself.!!! LIAR!
> And then I quoted your exact responses.
Danny you are a VERY ill man. Check yourself into the nearest
psychiatric hospital IMMEDIATELY.
krp
> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues that
> make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not ever
> recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
Sure Ron. Now look at what *I* said versus your buddy Sullivan's claims
that "ONLY" the District Attorney's office Detective investigate child
sexual abuse cases. ONLY them. His original claims were that CPS and NYPD
never had ANYTHING to do with the cases. NOW he claims SVU. Well RON BFD.
Last time I checked the SVU squads were part of the NYPD,. Please make your
case that they are REALLY part of the DA's office if you can.
krp
news:Guwck.18272$%q.1...@newsfe24.wga...
> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues that
> make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not ever
> recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
Suwe Won, uh-hah-hah-hah. Now wook at what *I* said wewsus youw buddy
Suwwiwan's cwaims th-th-that "ONWY" th-th-the Distwict Attowney's office
Detectiwe inwestigate chiwd sexuaw abuse cases. ONWY th-th-them. His
owiginaw cwaims wewe th-th-that CPS and NYPD newew had ANYDING t-t-t-to
do wif th-th-the cases. NOW he cwaims SVU. Weww WON BFD. Wast time I
checked th-th-the SVU sqwads wewe pawt of th-th-the NYPD,. Pwease make
youw case th-th-that th-th-they awe WEAWWY pawt of th-th-the DA's office
if you can, uh-hah-hah-hah.
Dan Sullivan
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:NqJck.814$Ae3.640@trnddc05...
>
> "Ron" <apositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Gurck.18272$%q.1...@newsfe24.lga...
>
>> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues that
>> make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not ever
>> recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
>> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
>
> Sure Ron. Now look at what *I* said versus your buddy Sullivan's claims
> that "ONLY" the District Attorney's office Detective investigate child
> sexual abuse cases.
Anyone can read what you said, pangborn.
And anyone can see what I said.
It's prefaced by the words "I wrote."
> ONLY them.
I didn't say that.
> His original claims were that CPS and NYPD never had ANYTHING to do with
> the cases.
I didn't say that.
> NOW he claims SVU. Well RON BFD. Last time I checked the SVU squads were
> part of the NYPD,. Please make your case that they are REALLY part of the
> DA's office if you can.
The DA's office prosecutes crimes.
The investigations of sex crimes against children are investigated by law
enforcement, namely the SVU squad.
Dan Sullivan
I get it pangborn.
You think people who expose you, with your own words, for the fool and liar
that you are, should be in a psych hospital.
krp
>>
>>> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues that
>>> make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not ever
>>> recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
>>> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
>>
>> Sure Ron. Now look at what *I* said versus your buddy Sullivan's
>> claims that "ONLY" the District Attorney's office Detective investigate
>> child sexual abuse cases.
>
> Anyone can read what you said, pangborn.
>
> And anyone can see what I said.
>
> It's prefaced by the words "I wrote."
>
>> ONLY them.
>
> I didn't say that.
You sure as shit did. That ***ONLY** the DA's office detectives did it and
NOT the NYPD or CPS. ONLY the DA's office was your claim.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote more drivel in message
news:48736896$0$7337$607e...@cv.net...
...
>>
>>
>>>> >> >> >> > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
>>>> >> >> >> > children
>>>> >> >> >> > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> >> ((NOT WHAT I SAID DANNY IS LYING))
>>>>
>>>> >> >> > How many times do I need to post exactly what you said,
>>>> >> >> > pangborn?
>>>>
>>>> >> >> But you are NOT posting what *I* said Sullivan
>>>>
>>>> >> > Sure I am. Exactly what you said.
>>>>
>>>> >> No Danny you are putting forward what YOU said I said.
>>>>
>>>> > I quoted you exactly, pangborn.
>>>>
>>>> NO Danny you quoted yourself.!!! LIAR!
>>
>>> And then I quoted your exact responses.
>>
>>
>> Danny you are a VERY ill man. Check yourself into the nearest
>> psychiatric hospital IMMEDIATELY.
>
> I get it pangborn.
The hail a cab and ask them to take you to Belleview!!! There's a padded
room with your name on it Danny!
krp
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.nuts> wrote in message
news:o1dssr$9ox$p...@rec.arts.emasculated-chunder-thunder.org.sierra-leone...
> Suwwiwan's cwaims th-th-that "ONWY" th-th-the Distwict Attowney's office
> Detectiwe inwestigate chiwd sexuaw abuse cases. ONWY th-th-them. His
> owiginaw cwaims wewe th-th-that CPS and NYPD newew had ANYDING t-t-t-to
> do wif th-th-the cases. NOW he cwaims SVU. Weww WON BFD. Wast time I
> checked th-th-the SVU sqwads wewe pawt of th-th-the NYPD,. Pwease make
> youw case th-th-that th-th-they awe WEAWWY pawt of th-th-the DA's office
> if you can, uh-hah-hah-hah.
MOORE;;;;; GROW THE FUKKK UP!!!!
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied again in message
> news:487367dc$0$7340$607e...@cv.net...
>>>
>>>> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues
>>>> that make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not
>>>> ever recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
>>>> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
>>>
>>> Sure Ron. Now look at what *I* said versus your buddy Sullivan's
>>> claims that "ONLY" the District Attorney's office Detective investigate
>>> child sexual abuse cases.
>>
>> Anyone can read what you said, pangborn.
>>
>> And anyone can see what I said.
>>
>> It's prefaced by the words "I wrote."
>>
>>> ONLY them.
>>
>> I didn't say that.
>
> You sure as shit did.
Prove it.
> That ***ONLY** the DA's office detectives did it and NOT the NYPD or CPS.
> ONLY the DA's office was your claim.
First, it couldn't be the NYPD because I live more than 60 miles from NYC on
Long Island.
Second, the subject is your claim that CPS investigates sex crimes aginst
children and "farther down the road" the specially trained detectives step
in.
Greegor
> On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> > DS > Wrong.
>
> > Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> > this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> > is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
G > You'll have to do better than that.
DS > See the title of the thread.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> > DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
> > extras special "puppet bear" story!
G > Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
DS > See the title of the thread.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
> > G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> > G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
> > G > mandatory reporters.
>
> > DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>
> > How could it not matter in a discussion
> > where reporting comes up?
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > You've tried to diffuse the discussion
> > into a digression of knit picking generalities
> > rather than your specific "puppet bear" case!
DS > The subject isn't my case.
How nice FOR YOU.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > You tried to generalize it to death.
G > Anything to avoid your extra special "puppet bear"
G > specific case, right?
G > The subject isn't my case.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > You think the discussion didn't start with
G > your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
G > level where they should have been called in.
DS > That's not what I said.
G > What's not what you said?
G > I didn't present anything as a quote.
Larry Loophole games again?
> I didn't say "that CPS called in the DA's detectives on a case that
> supposedly did not rise to the level where they should have been
> called in."
What part of that did you not say, paraphrased?
> Besides the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children in NY are investigated by CPS.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
>
> No, that is the topic, subject and title of the thread.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
>
> > Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
> > this pertains to the state where your specific
> > extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
>
> > G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> > DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Um, Dan, You've never considered the
> > possibility of parallel investigations.
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
>
> > G > Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Answer the simple ass question f-wad.
>
> Yes, greg, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children in NY are investigated by CPS.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
Playing Larry Loophole again, Dan?
Most would call that DISHONESTY.
G > Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
G > are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
DS > Yes.
G > Please explain WHY you believe such BS!
Whatamatter, Dan, no Larry Loophole potential there?
> > G > Much of this argument has been an either/or thing.
> > G > Aren't a lot of cases handled by BOTH CPS and the DA?
DS > All sex crimes against children
DS > are investigated by law enforcement.
G > I love it when you make absolutist assertions, Dan!
G > CPS agencies run their own witch hunts all the time!
G > You think they don't in NY?
G > > It's not like they are mortal enemies of each other!
>
> > G > In fact CPS and prosecutors seem to be
> > G > pretty strong cohorts in most areas!
>
> > G > LOTS of prosecutions are either dropped
> > G > or NIFONG'd (FAIL) but CPS can still
> > G > get all of the ones who "got away" by
> > G > starting a Dependency Court action
> > G > and tearing up the family ANYWAY.
>
> > G > The failure of the criminal prosecution doesn't stop them!
>
> > G > Are you pretending that the detective's
> > G > determination would stop CPS?
>
> > DS > From doing what?
>
> > Making a dependency case.
>
> That's civil court, not criminal court.
>
> > Removing children.
>
> > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
> > You know, the crap that CPS does!
>
> But sex crimes against children are investigated by law enforcement.
Even deciding that it IS a crime is up
to the prosecutor's descretion.
How about the huge number of cases that
start to be criminal, but are dropped because
they have no merit (ala Mike Nifong, they are BS!)?
Often, rather than just dropping the crap case
they pretend they are doing the accused and
family such a BIG favor by pleading it down
to a stipulation in Dependency Court.
In other words, they use a completely BS
criminal case as a bargaining chip to con
some poor saps into stipulating in dependency
court and make them (falsely) feel like
they got a huge break!
Are you going to Larry Loophole this one
and pretend such creepy bargains are taking place?
Do you think it's ethical for the prosecutors
to run these fake garbage criminal proesecutions
simply as a bargaining chip for that scam?
Your simple ass statement about ALL sex abuse
being prosecuted by the DA's office is
naive at best, disinformation at worst.
Greegor
RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
G > Removing children.
RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
RVD > to the courts.
You said it's not done by CPS.
Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
and presents it to the courts.
Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
racket that is Child Protective Services.
Greegor
KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
KRP > investigate these crimes.
KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63bb4b0c-9f97-4b6f...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 5, 5:34 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 5:58 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > G > This whole argument is about Dan's attempt
> > G > to divert away from his own extra special "puppet bear" case.
>
> > DS > Wrong.
>
> > Are you pretending it's a coincidence that
> > this stuff about detectives from the DA's office
> > is straight out of your extra special "puppet bear" case?
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > Declaring me wrong is just not cricket.
G > You'll have to do better than that.
DS > See the title of the thread.
grag> So what?
So the subject is ken pangborn's claim that CPS case workers investigate sex
crimes against children, when it's law enforcement, namely the SVU squad ..
greg> Most would call that DISHONESTY.
Sticking to the subject isn't dishonest.
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> > DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Um, Dan! That came straight out of your
> > extras special "puppet bear" story!
G > Are you going to pretend it's a coincidence?
DS > See the title of the thread.
grag> So what?
> > G > Dan has not specifically said who the reporter
> > G > was in that case, or whether or not they were
> > G > mandatory reporters.
>
> > DS > Doesn't make a difference.
>
> > How could it not matter in a discussion
> > where reporting comes up?
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > You've tried to diffuse the discussion
> > into a digression of knit picking generalities
> > rather than your specific "puppet bear" case!
DS > The subject isn't my case.
grag> How nice FOR YOU.
grag>So what?
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > You tried to generalize it to death.
I was extremely specific.
I even used quotes.
G > Anything to avoid your extra special "puppet bear"
G > specific case, right?
G > The subject isn't my case.
grag> So what?
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
G > You think the discussion didn't start with
G > your own extra special "puppet bear" case?
DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
children
DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
grag> So what?
G > Dan has implied that the case started with CPS
G > but that CPS called in the DA's detectives on
G > a case that supposedly did not rise to the
G > level where they should have been called in.
DS > That's not what I said.
G > What's not what you said?
G > I didn't present anything as a quote.
> I didn't say "that CPS called in the DA's detectives on a case that
> supposedly did not rise to the level where they should have been
> called in."
grag> What part of that did you not say, paraphrased?
> Besides the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children in NY are investigated by CPS.
grag> So what?
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > That's where you want to DIGRESS the topic.
>
> No, that is the topic, subject and title of the thread.
grag> So what?
> > Are you gonna pretend it was a mere coincidence
> > this pertains to the state where your specific
> > extra special "puppet bear" case took place.
>
> > G > Who called in the DA's office, Dan?
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's
> > DS > claim that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Um, Dan, You've never considered the
> > possibility of parallel investigations.
>
> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> in NY are investigated by CPS.
grag> So what?
> > G > Are you saying that the DA's office called in CPS?
>
> > DS > The subject is ken pangborn's claim
> > DS > that sex crimes against children
> > DS > in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> > Answer the simple ass question f-wad.
>
> Yes, greg, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children in NY are investigated by CPS.
grag> So what?
G > Do you REALLY think those DA detectives
G > are "specially trained" to handle such cases?
DS > Yes.
G > Please explain WHY you believe such BS!
grag> Whatamatter, Dan, no Larry Loophole potential there?
grag> Even deciding that it IS a crime is up
grag> to the prosecutor's descretion.
So?
Grag> How about the huge number of cases that
start to be criminal, but are dropped because
they have no merit (ala Mike Nifong, they are BS!)?
What about them?
They still could be criminal, but there isn't enough evidence for a
conviction.
grag> Often, rather than just dropping the crap case
they pretend they are doing the accused and
family such a BIG favor by pleading it down
to a stipulation in Dependency Court.
Dependency Court isn't the forum for the DA's office.
grag> In other words, they use a completely BS
criminal case as a bargaining chip to con
some poor saps into stipulating in dependency
court and make them (falsely) feel like
they got a huge break!
Do you have credible evidence that prosecutors from any DA's office
bargained with people into stipulating to something in Dependency Court?
grag> Are you going to Larry Loophole this one
and pretend such creepy bargains are taking place?
Are or aren't?
I think you want to say aren't.
Looks like your usual "talk before you think" mental problem got the best of
you.
grag> Do you think it's ethical for the prosecutors
to run these fake garbage criminal proesecutions
simply as a bargaining chip for that scam?
I've never seen or heard of it being done.
grag> Your simple ass statement about ALL sex abuse
being prosecuted by the DA's office is
naive at best, disinformation at worst.
All sex crimes against children AREN'T prosecuted by the DA's office?
Who then?
And how is my statement "sex crimes against chilkdren are prosecuted by the
DA's office" disinformation?
Dan Sullivan
grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
First, I didn't make that claim.
After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim you'd
think he might actually have provided proof.
But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
children are investigated by CPS case workers.
Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE, they
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > Making a dependency case.
>
>RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
>
>G > Removing children.
>
>RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
>
>G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
>RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
>RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
>RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
>RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
>RVD > to the courts.
>
>You said it's not done by CPS.
>Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
>and presents it to the courts.
He did.
>
>Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
>Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
You have many delusions.
You are one person. It's possible LK agrees with you (I've not
seen a post from him stating a position). If he does, that makes two.
>
>The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
>stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
>
>It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
>racket that is Child Protective Services.
How long have you held the position that children who have been
sexually, physically and/or mentally abused should remain with their
abusers?
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child
abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
Kenny-Bob can post the same lie, and you can quote the same lie,
as often as either of you wish. The truth will remain that Dan
stated, accurately so, that SVU investigates sex crimes against
children.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Kent Wills
Post the MID and/or Google link to his post where the claim is
made. Unless you're lying, of course.
--
Me:
>> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
>> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn:
>NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <kjsf449973e8lmqj9...@4ax.com>
Kent Wills
Post the MID and/or Google link to his post with the claims you
attribute to him.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" it's ALL about ME<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4873b209$0$5023$607e...@cv.net...
>>>> I'm concerned about kenny. Does he have some sort of mental issues
>>>>> that make it difficult for him to tell fact from fiction? Can he not
>>>>> ever recognize that when he writes something on Usenet that it can be
>>>>> researched, quoted, and linked for proof?
>>>>
>>>> Sure Ron. Now look at what *I* said versus your buddy Sullivan's
>>>> claims that "ONLY" the District Attorney's office Detective investigate
>>>> child sexual abuse cases.
>>>
>>> Anyone can read what you said, pangborn.
>>>
>>> And anyone can see what I said.
>>>
>>> It's prefaced by the words "I wrote."
>>>
>>>> ONLY them.
>>>
>>> I didn't say that.
>>
>> You sure as shit did.
>
> Prove it.
>
>> That ***ONLY** the DA's office detectives did it and NOT the NYPD or CPS.
>> ONLY the DA's office was your claim.
>
> First, it couldn't be the NYPD because I live more than 60 miles from NYC
> on Long Island.
It's ALL about YOU isn't it Danny? The subject was NEW YORK as in the
CITY..............
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4873beec$0$11637$607e...@cv.net...
>
> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> KRP > investigate these crimes.
> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> First, I didn't make that claim.
You sure as shit DID!
krp
ead.
So what?
Any a-hole who doesn't like how a conversation
is going can start a new thread and attempt
to deny the true ORIGINS of the discussion.
========
Danny first claimed that ONLY detectives from the DA's office handled the
cases. I said CPS and NYPD. NOW Danny is TRYING to say SVU all along. Last
time I checked the sex crimes units were PART of the NYPD and NOT the DA's
Office as Danny initially claimed. He's just trying to smokescreen his
mistake AGAIN.
krp
>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
together)
> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
Yes you were and did. The only PROBLEM Danny is that what you put in
quotes TRYING desperately to make it seem to the reader that it was things
*I* said, were in fact things YOU SAID! In other words you were LING Danny!
AT first when I attacked your QUOTES you TRIED to claim that they were
VERBATIM QUOTES of ME. Finally you admitted they were things YOU said and
then you relied on my single sentence answers to justify your INSANITY.
Dan Sullivan
Then grag must be wrong.
HE claims the subject was my case out here on Long Island.
Dan Sullivan
Then why haven't you posted the credible evidence that I DID????????????????
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4873bcff$0$11600$607e...@cv.net...
>
>>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
> together)
>
>> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
>
> Yes you were and did.
Thank you for clearing that up!
Not ONCE did I attribute a quote to you that wasn't yours, pangborn.
Dan Sullivan
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10537a8f-0468-4fcc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 8, 3:24 pm, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> KRP > investigate these crimes.
> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> First, I didn't make that claim.
>
> After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim
> you'd
> think he might actually have provided proof.
>
> But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
>
> Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children are investigated by CPS case workers.
LK> Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
I'm not leaving out the word "initially" when I quote what pangborn said.
In fact the quote of ken pangborn's that contains that word is only a few
lines down in the message you're responding to.
Why don't you read the entire message first and stop making a fool out of
yourself.
DS > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes
against
DS > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
> Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
> they
> HAVE the job!"
>
> And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> children?"
>
> And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK> All you're doing is taking things out of context, putting emphasis on
the word "crime" and disregarding the word "Initially." That twists
the meaning of the claim.
CRIME is the operative word.
LK> "Initially" means that CPS may get the call and send a worker out to
investigate. Are you saying that this does not happen?
A call about what?
A sex crime against a child?
Send the worker out to investigate a report that a sex crime has been
committed against a child?
The recorded message that is played when making a call to the NY child abuse
hotline states "If this is AN EMERGENCY, such as young children left alone
or children being beaten, hang up NOW and call the police. They are able to
respond IMMEDIATELY!"
In fact I just made a call to the NY hotline... they would take the
information regarding the sexual abuse of a child and and make a referral to
law enforcement and the local CPS.
LK> If the worker
determines that sexual abuse may have happened, that raises it to the
level of a criminal investigation, does it not? Then they call in Law
Enforcement, SVU, whatever. Technically, that would mean that CPS
might handle the initial investigation of sex crimes against children,
would it not?
If a call is received at the CPS hotline about a sex crime against a child,
CPS notifies law enforcement. See above. Keep in mind that CPS takes reports
about parents and people who are legally responsible for the child's care.
Chance are they live in the same house or apartment as the child. Would it
not be in the best interest of the child to have law enforcement respond
immediately?
Or would you rather have the hotline print up the report and fax it (or
email it) to the local CPS and then have it be assigned to a case worker
who is only required to see the child within 24 hours of receiving the
report?
LK> Also earlier in this same arguement you did say...
DS > In my case the detectives from the DA's office and CPS
interviewed my
DS > daughter together about the alleged sexual abuse.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/b352656402f082ce
LK> And then here you claim
DS > SVU investigate ALL sex crimes against children.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/165d15a8e837854e
And your point is?
LK> Please explain the contradiction. Especially the part of it where Ken
Pangborn is wrong when he says...
KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK> In response to your question...
DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
DS > children?"
What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same rules,
regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who conduct CRIMINAL
investigations.
Maybe you'd like to explain what led up to that exchange, LK.
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial investigation
of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially trained detective
steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality Danny.
That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that he/she
did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and alleged
perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther "down the road"
the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many bad
cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS
workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether the GREAT
Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE WITH IT. I didn't
make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
Care to explain, LK?
Maybe grag can help.
LK
>
> news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> KRP > investigate these crimes.
> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> First, I didn't make that claim.
>
> After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim you'd
> think he might actually have provided proof.
>
> But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
>
> Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children are investigated by CPS case workers.
>
Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
DS > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes
against
DS > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
> Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE, they
> HAVE the job!"
>
> And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> children?"
>
> And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
All you're doing is taking things out of context, putting emphasis on
the word "crime" and disregarding the word "Initially." That twists
the meaning of the claim.
"Initially" means that CPS may get the call and send a worker out to
investigate. Are you saying that this does not happen? If the worker
determines that sexual abuse may have happened, that raises it to the
level of a criminal investigation, does it not? Then they call in Law
Enforcement, SVU, whatever. Technically, that would mean that CPS
might handle the initial investigation of sex crimes against children,
would it not?
Also earlier in this same arguement you did say...
DS > In my case the detectives from the DA's office and CPS
interviewed my
DS > daughter together about the alleged sexual abuse.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/b352656402f082ce
And then here you claim
DS > SVU investigate ALL sex crimes against children.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/165d15a8e837854e
Please explain the contradiction. Especially the part of it where Ken
Pangborn is wrong when he says...
KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
In response to your question...
DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
DS > children?"
Greegor
RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
G > Removing children.
RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
RVD > to the courts.
G > You said it's not done by CPS.
G > Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
G > and presents it to the courts.
KW > He did.
G > Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
G > Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
KW > You have many delusions.
KW > You are one person. It's possible
KW > LK agrees with you (I've not seen a
KW > post from him stating a position).
KW > If he does, that makes two.
G > The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
G > stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
G > It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
G > racket that is Child Protective Services.
KW > How long have you held the position that
KW > children who have been sexually, physically
KW > and/or mentally abused should remain
KW > with their abusers?
You attached a quote but it doesn't support this assertion/
attribution.
G > "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
G > in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
G > the Child Abuse registry, for example."
KW > GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet
KW > he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
KW > Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Interesting that Kent blurs abuse and neglect.
What was the DATE on that statement, Kent?
Do you think the date of that statement might be important?
These statements contain dates.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary
contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure
from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we
must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing
to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient
evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an
attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the
garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2)
failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument.
Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills’ trial
counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report
that a car alarm sounded in the resident’s neighborhood. The city
dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of
blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed
someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person
walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he
had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he
had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the
minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and
informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom
was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor’s residence. She observed the heavier-set
individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor’s attached
garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a
smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor’s
driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a
large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket
organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police
officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two
suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two
daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket
organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner’s daughter
reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor’s parents, who
informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers
questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied
involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the information to include two
additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a
juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of
burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using
a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance
of counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed.
2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of
the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d
818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct
appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v.
Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the
present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills’ ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed
to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id.
Prejudice results when “there is a reasonable probability that, but
for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
would have been different.” State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills’ arguments also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law.
State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had
to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary “in or upon an occupied
structure in which one or more persons are present . . . .” Iowa Code
§ 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was
insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied
structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but
argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have
found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of
the burglary.
The Code defines an “occupied structure” as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures,
land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight
accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or
safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an “occupied
structure” whether or not a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to
argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent
occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same
structure. 590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two
burglaries by entering each business because “[t]he facility’s
construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the
portions are independent working units which constitute ‘[a]
combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or]
use.’” Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the
living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units
of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-
car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The
same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no
different from any other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of
the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used
two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the
living quarters are a single “structure” or “building” functioning as
an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single “occupied structure” under section
702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 (Ct. App.
1995) (holding defendant’s entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house;
therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited
dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding “ordinarily an attached garage is a ‘dwelling’
because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant
lives”); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding
“burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house
because the garage was a part of the structure used as living
quarters”); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
(holding “[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part
of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons,
it must be considered as part of a dwelling”); White v. State, 630 S.W.
2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the
purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure
appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d
551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington’s burglary statute included an attached garage).
Had Wills’ trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the
basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the
time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon
the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court
because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the
time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground;
that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied
structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the
Second Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August, 2003, the defendant or someone
he aided and abetted broke into or entered the residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied structure as defined in
Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did not have
permission or authority to break into the residence at . . . .
4. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did so with the
specific intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present in or upon the occupied
structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty
of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted
Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills’ claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is
the one and only “occupied structure” under the facts of this case.
Had Wills’ trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it
would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills’ trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because
there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v.
Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills’ trial
counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
KRP > investigate these crimes.
KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
G > Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
DS > First, I didn't make that claim.
DS > After all the times ken pangborn has
DS > posted that I did make that claim you'd
DS > think he might actually have provided proof.
Have you denied saying it?
Or are you just denying some technicality, Loophole Larry style?
DS > But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
How could he try if you haven't
posted a denial, strong and specific?
> > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
LK > Why do you leave out the word
LK > "initially" every time you repeat this
LK > supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
Dan thinks me a master debater when he pulls that stuff.
DS > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's
DS > claim that sex crimes against children
DS > are investigated by CPS case workers.
DS > Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of
DS > how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
DS > they HAVE the job!"
DS > And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to
DS > investigate sex crimes against children?"
DS > And ken pangborn responded
DS > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK > All you're doing is taking things out of
LK > context, putting emphasis on the word
LK > "crime" and disregarding the word
LK > "Initially." That twists the meaning of the claim.
Lately, Dan is all about attempting to redefine
the subject or question rather than answering.
LK > "Initially" means that CPS may get
LK > the call and send a worker out to
LK > investigate. Are you saying that
LK > this does not happen? If the worker
LK > determines that sexual abuse may
LK > have happened, that raises it to the
LK > level of a criminal investigation,
LK > does it not? Then they call in Law
LK > Enforcement, SVU, whatever.
LK > Technically, that would mean that
LK > CPS might handle the initial
LK > investigation of sex crimes against
LK > children, would it not?
How would that be different in NY from
any other state in the USA?
In a notorious sex abuse case here in Iowa,
a nonrelated male molested a little girl and
later his brother killed her before she could
testify. In the effort to convict the first brother
for the molestation, the state introduced a
video tape made at our local Child Protection
Center at the behest of Iowa DHS.
The video interviewers that DHS uses
at CPC are NOT trained or qualified enough
to be admissable in a criminal court.
Apparently, even though the CPC is
all about sex crimes against children,
their methods are not up to standards
admissible in a criminal court.
The molestor in that case had an
attorney who realized a day too late
that the video tape could be thrown
out because of the low standards and
lack of qualifications of the video
"evidenciary interviewer".
I had predicted this kind of a problem
as Dan can attest, I warned that
this lame-o use of unqualified interviewers
might actually help a bonafide child
molestor escape conviction by basically
contaminating the case against them.
I warned they could mess up serious cases.
At least in part, that came to pass.
By the way, I haven't confirmed it yet,
but supposedly the video tape WAS
actually ruled inadmissable and kicked out.
States and these Child Protection Centers
need to hire trained, licensed and certified
"evidenciary interviewers" that make a
BIG DEAL out of investigating epistemology.
(How the kid came to believe something.)
A big part of this has to do with finding
out how many times the kid was actually
interviewed. Apparently repeated interviews
contaminate child witnesses by "telegraphing"
to the kid what the interviewer wants to hear.
Is any of this familiar to you, Dan?
LK > Also earlier in this same arguement
LK > you did say...
DS > In my case the detectives from the
DS > DA's office and CPS interviewed my
DS > daughter together about the alleged
DS > sexual abuse.
LK > And then here you claim
DS > SVU investigate ALL sex crimes against children.
LK > Please explain the contradiction.
LK > Especially the part of it where Ken
LK > Pangborn is wrong when he says...
KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK > In response to your question...
DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate
DS > sex crimes against children?"
Dan, Is there ANY state where sex crimes
against kids are NOT the domain of LEOs?
Are there any states like that where it's
the domain of Law Enforcement and
NOT Child Protective Services?
If in your own case you were interviewed
by both CPS and the DA's investigators,
why did you later assert that it would
be the domain of the NYPD SVU?
You DO realize that you've contradicted
yourself, ( DA Det vs. SUV ) right Danny Boy?
Dan Sullivan
KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
KRP > investigate these crimes.
KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
G > Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
DS > First, I didn't make that claim.
DS > After all the times ken pangborn has
DS > posted that I did make that claim you'd
DS > think he might actually have provided proof.
grag> Have you denied saying it?
Only more times than I'd care to count.
grag> Or are you just denying some technicality, Loophole Larry style?
DS > But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
grag> How could he try if you haven't
grag> posted a denial, strong and specific?
> > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
LK > Why do you leave out the word
LK > "initially" every time you repeat this
LK > supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
grag> Dan thinks me a master debater when he pulls that stuff.
Thinks "ME???"
You're getting more stupid by the minute, grag.
DS > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's
DS > claim that sex crimes against children
DS > are investigated by CPS case workers.
DS > Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of
DS > how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
DS > they HAVE the job!"
DS > And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to
DS > investigate sex crimes against children?"
DS > And ken pangborn responded
DS > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK > All you're doing is taking things out of
LK > context, putting emphasis on the word
LK > "crime" and disregarding the word
LK > "Initially." That twists the meaning of the claim.
grag> Lately, Dan is all about attempting to redefine
grag> the subject or question rather than answering.
Not redefine.
The subject is pangborn's claim that CPS case workers investigate sex CRIMES
against children in NY.
LK > "Initially" means that CPS may get
LK > the call and send a worker out to
LK > investigate. Are you saying that
LK > this does not happen? If the worker
LK > determines that sexual abuse may
LK > have happened, that raises it to the
LK > level of a criminal investigation,
LK > does it not? Then they call in Law
LK > Enforcement, SVU, whatever.
LK > Technically, that would mean that
LK > CPS might handle the initial
LK > investigation of sex crimes against
LK > children, would it not?
grag> How would that be different in NY from
grag> any other state in the USA?
I don't know.
grag> In a notorious sex abuse case here in Iowa,
a nonrelated male molested a little girl and
later his brother killed her before she could
testify. In the effort to convict the first brother
for the molestation, the state introduced a
video tape made at our local Child Protection
Center at the behest of Iowa DHS.
grag> The video interviewers that DHS uses
at CPC are NOT trained or qualified enough
to be admissable in a criminal court.
grag> Apparently, even though the CPC is
all about sex crimes against children,
their methods are not up to standards
admissible in a criminal court.
grag> The molestor in that case had an
attorney who realized a day too late
that the video tape could be thrown
out because of the low standards and
lack of qualifications of the video
"evidenciary interviewer".
grag> I had predicted this kind of a problem
as Dan can attest,
Don't tell me what I can attest to, grag.
grag> I warned that
this lame-o use of unqualified interviewers
might actually help a bonafide child
molestor escape conviction by basically
contaminating the case against them.
grag> I warned they could mess up serious cases.
Who did you warn, grag?
grag> At least in part, that came to pass.
grag> By the way, I haven't confirmed it yet,
but supposedly the video tape WAS
actually ruled inadmissable and kicked out.
grag> States and these Child Protection Centers
need to hire trained, licensed and certified
"evidenciary interviewers" that make a
BIG DEAL out of investigating epistemology.
(How the kid came to believe something.)
That's what the Special Victims Unit people are for.
grag> A big part of this has to do with finding
out how many times the kid was actually
interviewed. Apparently repeated interviews
contaminate child witnesses by "telegraphing"
to the kid what the interviewer wants to hear.
grag> Is any of this familiar to you, Dan?
You bullshitting?
Unfortunately yes, grag.
LK > Also earlier in this same arguement
LK > you did say...
DS > In my case the detectives from the
DS > DA's office and CPS interviewed my
DS > daughter together about the alleged
DS > sexual abuse.
LK > And then here you claim
DS > SVU investigate ALL sex crimes against children.
LK > Please explain the contradiction.
LK > Especially the part of it where Ken
LK > Pangborn is wrong when he says...
KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK > In response to your question...
DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate
DS > sex crimes against children?"
grag> Dan, Is there ANY state where sex crimes
against kids are NOT the domain of LEOs?
I doubt it.
grag> Are there any states like that where it's
the domain of Law Enforcement and
NOT Child Protective Services?
CPS conducts civil investigations...NOT CRIMINAL!!!!!
grag> If in your own case you were interviewed
by both CPS and the DA's investigators,
No, I wasn't.
grag> why did you later assert that it would
be the domain of the NYPD SVU?
I was told my daughter was interviewed by detectives from the sex crimes
unit of the DA's office.
That was 1993.
And I live in Long Island.
Far from the jurisdiction of the NYPD SVU.
grag> You DO realize that you've contradicted
yourself, ( DA Det vs. SUV ) right Danny Boy?
We're discussing the current state of investigations of sex crimes committed
against children.
I don't know if it was the same in 1993, a full 15 years ago.
The SVU squad might have been called sex crimes back then.
Dan Sullivan
BTW, grag, you deleted this part of my message.
Talk it up!!!
Don't be bashful.
Post your comments on all of it!!!
LK> Please explain the contradiction. Especially the part of it where
Ken
Pangborn is wrong when he says...
KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
LK> In response to your question...
DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
DS > children?"
What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
Maybe you'd like to explain what led up to that exchange, LK.
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained
CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether
the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE
WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes
against children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
krp
G > Making a dependency case.
RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
G > Removing children.
RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
RVD > to the courts.
I hate to correct that statement, but all over the country CPS removes
children BEFORE a court order. Maybe out EXPERT may wish to see some of the
cases from North Carolina where the practice was halted by the NC Supreme
Court???? Other states have yet to follow suit.
G > You said it's not done by CPS.
G > Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
G > and presents it to the courts.
KW > He did.
G > Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
G > Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
KW > You have many delusions.
KW > You are one person. It's possible
KW > LK agrees with you (I've not seen a
KW > post from him stating a position).
KW > If he does, that makes two.
G > The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
G > stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
G > It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
G > racket that is Child Protective Services.
KW > How long have you held the position that
KW > children who have been sexually, physically
KW > and/or mentally abused should remain
KW > with their abusers?
Again Kent Wills reads through the eyes of an EX-CON! That is not what
Greg said at all. It;'s just Kunt's INSANE mischaracterization of it.
The abuses by CPS agencies nation wide and not merely legion they are
extremely well documented. One MIGHT want to read the Investigation Report
of the Minnesota Attorney general, and that of the San Diego County grand
jury's investogation into CPS practices. That KENT would argue FOR CPS and
CLAIM that anyone who feels CPS has done a bad job actually SUPPORTS child
abuse. In Kent's little EX CONVICT mind one can't see the problems with CPS
and still want to end child abuse. That's because Wills IS a polack ane
always will be nothing more but a STUPID polack!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> LIED in message
news:48653d4d-b9c7-4748...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Again you LIE Sullivan that is NOT what I said it is your heavily edited
version TOTALLY misrepresenting what I said on purpose. In other words,
Danny you are LYING again. I said CPS and the NYPD. You snipped off the
reference to NYPD and DISHONESTLY put a period after CPS.
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10537a8f-0468-4fcc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> KRP > investigate these crimes.
> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> First, I didn't make that claim.
> After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim
> you'd
> think he might actually have provided proof.
> But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
> Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> children are investigated by CPS case workers.
< Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
< supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
Because Dan Sullivan is a "PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!" Why does he chop a
sentence I wrote saying that it is CPS and NYPD that investigate the cases,
and remove reference to NYPD and place a PERIOD ofter the word CPS? If not
to deliberately misrepresent what I said? Also WHY does he HIDE that HE
claimed that ONLY the DA's office detectives investigate the cases??????
DS > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
DS > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
> Ken pangborn claims "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS workers ARE,
> they
> HAVE the job!"
(Again that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. It is just
Sullivan's INSANE spin on what I said.)
> And I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> children?"
>
> And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
< All you're doing is taking things out of context, putting emphasis on
< the word "crime" and disregarding the word "Initially." That twists
< the meaning of the claim.
< "Initially" means that CPS may get the call and send a worker out to
< investigate. Are you saying that this does not happen?
That was EXACTLY what he was saying at thew start of this little
squabble. DANNY claimed that ***ONLY*** The DA's office Detectioves
investigated cases of child sexual abuse. ONLY the DA's detectives. And I
said it was CPS and the NYPD. THAT is, LK, when we STARTED this. Danny was
ADAMANT that NEITHER the CPS workers NOR NYPD had ANY role at all. Did I use
SVU as the squad that investigated the allegations initially? NO! Why?
Because many times the CPS worker visits the child with a UNIFORMED patrol
officer. DANNY the LEADING EXPERT has NO ability to understand that SVU
officers are not always available, ANY that some patrol offices actually
KNOW what they are doing!!! He just can't understand it.
< If the worker determines that sexual abuse may have happened, that raises
it to the
< level of a criminal investigation, does it not? Then they call in Law
< Enforcement, SVU, whatever. Technically, that would mean that CPS
< might handle the initial investigation of sex crimes against children,
< would it not?
Often the CPS workers work WITH law enforcement at the INTAKE stage of a
situation. If it appears to be a CRIMINAL case then NYPD takes over.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> LIED in messagenews:48653d4d-b9c7-4748...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Show me where I put that period.
================
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained
CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether
the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE
WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes
against children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
=============
Where's that period?
Dan Sullivan
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:10537a8f-0468-4fcc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 8, 3:24 pm, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> > KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> > KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> > KRP > investigate these crimes.
> > KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> > grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> > First, I didn't make that claim.
> > After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim
> > you'd
> > think he might actually have provided proof.
> > But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
> > Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
> > children are investigated by CPS case workers.
>
> < Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
> < supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
>
> Because Dan Sullivan is a "PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!" Why does he chop a
> sentence I wrote saying that it is CPS and NYPD that investigate the cases,
> and remove reference to NYPD and place a PERIOD ofter the word CPS?
Where's that period you claim I put after the word CPS??
===========
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained
CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether
the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE
WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes
against children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
===================
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> dishonestlywrote in message
news:487502b7$0$7321$607e...@cv.net...
.
>> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
>> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
>> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
>> KRP > investigate these crimes.
>> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>>
>> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>>
>> First, I didn't make that claim.
>>
>> After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim
>> you'd
>> think he might actually have provided proof.
>>
>> But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
>>
>> Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
>> children are investigated by CPS case workers.
>
> LK> Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
> supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
> I'm not leaving out the word "initially" when I quote what pangborn said.
Sure you do Danny. CONSTANTLY. And you remove my reference to CPS AND
NYPD and place a period after CPS. Danny, that is what would be called
LYING!
> In fact the quote of ken pangborn's that contains that word is only a few
> lines down in the message you're responding to.
But you TOTALLY MISREPRESENT what i said again and again and here above.
> Why don't you read the entire message first and stop making a fool out of
> yourself.
Well Danny why don't you go back to the FIRST exchanges on this subject
between us WITHOUT ALTERING them? I realize I am asking the impossible.
> If a call is received at the CPS hotline about a sex crime against a
> child, CPS notifies law enforcement. See above. Keep in mind that CPS
> takes reports about parents and people who are legally responsible for the
> child's care. Chance are they live in the same house or apartment as the
> child. Would it not be in the best interest of the child to have law
> enforcement respond immediately?
So NOW you admit that CPS operates the hotline. You have been VEHEMENTLY
DENYING it up to now. Danny DIPSHIT Mr. Horseshit merchant, I HAVE to ask
you this. If step-daddy is fukking 9 year old Suzie isn't it a CRIME?????
Dan please tell me, just HOW in the hell do you manage to get your head THAT
FAR up your ass?
> Or would you rather have the hotline print up the report and fax it (or
> email it) to the local CPS and then have it be assigned to a case worker
> who is only required to see the child within 24 hours of receiving the
> report?
Isn't that approximately how it works most of the time? Or in some
urgest cases, such as (example ONLY) when a child is in a hospital ER by
telephone?
> LK> Please explain the contradiction. Especially the part of it where Ken
> Pangborn is wrong when he says...
> KRP > "Initially, yes as I understand it."
> LK> In response to your question...
> DS > "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> DS > children?"
> What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same rules,
> regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who conduct
> CRIMINAL investigations.
BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BUL:LSHIOT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT! You're INSANE
Sullivan. REALLY REALLY INSANE? Are you saying that when Step-daddy is
FUKKKING little 9 year old Suzie that it is NOT a crime? Or are we back to
your INSANE claim that if it is a sexual abuse case ONLY the DA's detectives
investigate them? Maybe NOW you concede that NYPD has a role through SVU.
DS> Maybe you'd like to explain what led up to that exchange, LK.
Maybe YOU would Danny - without your "SPECIAL" editing?
> I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
> investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
> trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
> Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality Danny.
> That's why the system is such a MESS."
> Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
> he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
> alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther "down
> the road" the detectives stepped in."
> And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many bad
> cases are lost as a result."
>
> And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained CPS
> workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shit whether the GREAT
> Dan Sullivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE WITH IT. I
> didn't make the rules."
> And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes against
> children?"
> And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
> Care to explain, LK?
What does he need to explain Danny? Aside from the fact that your SPIN
isn't what I said. In many cases CPS workers DO the initial interviews with
child victims. In many cases they have NYPD officers with them. Most often
SVU detectives but on occasion patrol officers.. Whether the GREAT DAN
SULLIVAN likes it or not. In most cases the CPS workers interviews are NOT
recorded for good reason. They have learned the HARD WAY how many cases are
dismssed
because of the way they did them. That's a sad reality Danny. But it is a
vexing problem still with us today because social workers refuse to admit
their limitations.
As to what "farther down the road" means Danny - often that path may
occur minutes into the process when it is discovered that a substantial
criminal case exists and that the allegation is founded and a serious
criminal situation. Which they don't generally KNOW at first response Danny.
Except in YOUR CASE!
What PART of INITIALLY don't you get SULLIVAN? That INITIAL contacts are
most frequently CPS and the NYPD whether it is SVU or a patrol officer? What
part of that are you INCAPABLE of understanding? Thanks for admitting that
CPS gets the HOTLINE calls.And despite your original claims it is NOT -
REPEAT - NOT the DA's office detectives.
krp
KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
KRP > investigate these crimes.
KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
G > Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
DS > First, I didn't make that claim.
(Sure you DID Sullivan and you are LYING now because you not understabd HOW
full of shit you were.)
DS > After all the times ken pangborn has
DS > posted that I did make that claim you'd
DS > think he might actually have provided proof.
< Have you denied saying it? Or are you just denying some technicality,
Loophole Larry style?
Sure he is denying it Greg. He HAS to. His only reinforcement on it is
KUNT WILLS the EX-CON. Proof of it is as easy as looking as the morphine of
his posts. Firt he was TRYING to foist off what HE said as MY comments until
it became clear it was what HE said I said and NOT what *I* said and the
corner was getting uncomfortably close. Then more recently he has
DISHONESTLY snipped what I said (CPS AND NYPD) and places a period after CPS
and removed NYPD references. He RIDICULED initially my references to the
NYPD. Now he's eating shit with the special victims unit. (not EVERY precint
calls it SVU - some still call it the "sex crimes division.")
krp
>
> What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
> rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
> conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
BULLSHIT Danny! Are you INSANE enough to claim that when Step-daddy RAPES 9
year old Suzie that it is NOT a crime? That he won't be prosecuted? Are you
THAT insane Sullivan? Are we back to your original claim that "ONLY the DA's
Detectives" investigate sex crimes against children and NOT CPS and the NYPD
as I stated??? CPS still has its function even in criminal cases and is NOT
as you insanely claim confined only to CIVIL matters. When is the RAPE of a
child simply a CIVIL MATTER Danny? I am going to enjoy the living shit out
of your answer IF you ever give an honest one.
krp
>
> " krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:6C0dk.866$Ae3.123@trnddc05...
>>
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4873bcff$0$11600$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>>>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>>>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
>> together)
>>
>>> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
>>
>> Yes you were and did.
>
> Thank you for clearing that up!
As ever your POST EDITS are amazing Sullivan, and I used to think that David
Moore was the most DISHONEST prick on Usenet. You've stolen his crown.
krp
I don't have to Danny - you keep proving it FOR ME.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2a10bb7c-4ade-407e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
> > rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
> > conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
>
> BULLSHIT Danny! Are you INSANE enough to claim that when Step-daddy RAPES 9
> year old Suzie that it is NOT a crime?
Of course not.
Law enforcement investigates crimes.
Their hotline number in NY is 911.
And if the assailant isn't a parent of someone legally responsible for
the child, CPS won't be involved at all.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4874a714$0$7335$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:6C0dk.866$Ae3.123@trnddc05...
>
> >> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4873bcff$0$11600$607e...@cv.net...
>
> >>>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> >>>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> >> NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
> >> together)
>
> >>> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
>
> >> Yes you were and did.
>
> > Thank you for clearing that up!
>
> As ever your POST EDITS are amazing Sullivan, and I used to think that David
> Moore was the most DISHONEST prick on Usenet. You've stolen his crown.
Where is that period you claim I put in one of your quotes, pangborn?
=========
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained
CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether
the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE
WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes
against children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
=================
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4874a58c$0$7321$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:Pu0dk.864$Ae3.834@trnddc05...
>
> >> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >>news:4873beec$0$11637$607e...@cv.net...
>
> >>> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
> >>> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
> >>> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
> >>> KRP > investigate these crimes.
> >>> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
> >>> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
> >>> First, I didn't make that claim.
>
> >> You sure as shit DID!
>
> > Then why haven't you posted the credible evidence that I
> > DID????????????????
>
> I don't have to Danny - you keep proving it FOR ME.
And ken pangborn, once again, fails to substantiate his claims... as
USUAL!!!
If I had a nickel for every time you lied or failed to substantiate
one of your ridiculous claims, pangborn... I could hire Bill Gates to
tune up my computer.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied in message
news:7c3e0218-2e52-4918...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
>> >>>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>>
>> >> NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
>> >> together)
>>
>> >>> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
>>
>> >> Yes you were and did.
>>
>> > Thank you for clearing that up!
>>
>> As ever your POST EDITS are amazing Sullivan, and I used to think that
>> David
>> Moore was the most DISHONEST prick on Usenet. You've stolen his crown.
>
> Where is that period you claim I put in one of your quotes, pangborn?
I said CPS AND NYPD. You SNIPPED the "& NYPD" and placed a period after
CPS. LYING DANNY. YOU ARE LYING!
krp
> On Jul 10, 6:30 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2a10bb7c-4ade-407e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
>> > rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
>> > conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
>>
>> BULLSHIT Danny! Are you INSANE enough to claim that when Step-daddy RAPES
>> 9
>> year old Suzie that it is NOT a crime?
>
> Of course not.
>
> Law enforcement investigates crimes.
>
> Their hotline number in NY is 911.
NO Danny it is: 1-800-342-3720
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> lied in messagenews:7c3e0218-2e52-4918...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >>>> The subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against children
> >> >>>> in NY are investigated by CPS.
>
> >> >> NOT correct Danny. You are LYING. I said CPS and NYPD. (usually
> >> >> together)
>
> >> >>> I was extremely specific. I even used quotes.
>
> >> >> Yes you were and did.
>
> >> > Thank you for clearing that up!
>
> >> As ever your POST EDITS are amazing Sullivan, and I used to think that
> >> David
> >> Moore was the most DISHONEST prick on Usenet. You've stolen his crown.
>
> > Where is that period you claim I put in one of your quotes, pangborn?
>
> I said CPS AND NYPD. You SNIPPED the "& NYPD" and placed a period after
> CPS.
Show me exactly where I did that.
Dan Sullivan
>
> "LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:10537a8f-0468-4fcc...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 8, 3:24 pm, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bb69c1e3-ca9e-4fbc...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
>> KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
>> KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
>> KRP > investigate these crimes.
>> KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>>
>> grag> Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>>
>> First, I didn't make that claim.
>
>> After all the times ken pangborn has posted that I did make that claim
>> you'd
>> think he might actually have provided proof.
>
>> But since there is no proof, he can't... and hasn't even tried.
>
>> Besides, the subject is ken pangborn's claim that sex crimes against
>> children are investigated by CPS case workers.
>
>
> < Why do you leave out the word "initially" every time you repeat this
> < supposed "claim" of Ken Pangborn's?
>
> Because Dan Sullivan is a "PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!"
My description of your claim, pangborn, is accurate and true.
> Why does he chop a sentence I wrote saying that it is CPS and NYPD that
> investigate the cases, and remove reference to NYPD and place a PERIOD
> ofter the word CPS?
Show me where this period is you're referring to.
=============
I wrote "They have a poorly trained case worker do the initial
investigation of a sex crime and some time "down the road" a specially
trained detective steps in and gathers the evidence from the CW?"
Then ken pangborn responded to that question with "A sad reality
Danny. That's why the system is such a MESS."
Then to that I wrote "And when it goes to trial the CW testifies that
he/she did all the preliminary interviews of the children, parents and
alleged perpetrator and gathered the evidence... and that farther
"down the road" the detectives stepped in."
And ken pangborn responded to that statement with "Typical - and many
bad cases are lost as a result."
And ken pangborn explained further "Regardless of how poorly trained
CPS workers ARE, they HAVE the job! I don't much give a shbit whether
the GREAT Dan SUllivan likes it or not. That is a FACT of life. LIVE
WITH IT. I didn't make the rules."
And to that I asked "It's CPS' job in NY to investigate sex crimes
against children?"
And ken pangborn responded "Initially, yes as I understand it."
==============
> If not to deliberately misrepresent what I said? Also WHY does he HIDE
> that HE claimed that ONLY the DA's office detectives investigate the
> cases??????
I believe all I said was detectives from sex crimes of the DA's office
interviewed my daughter.
If you can PROVE that I said "ONLY the DA's office detectives investigate
the cases," please do.
<<<snip ken pangborn's lies and whines>>>
> Often the CPS workers work WITH law enforcement at the INTAKE stage of
> a situation. If it appears to be a CRIMINAL case then NYPD takes over.
If a report of a sex crime against a child is made to law enforcement and
the alleged perp isn't a parent or someone LEGALLY responsible for the
child's care, CPS isn't involved.
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:a192f7b6-9543-4522...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 10, 6:30 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2a10bb7c-4ade-407e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
>>> > rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
>>> > conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT Danny!
Really?
You're claiming that CPS has the same rules, regulations, policies and
procedures as law enforcement?
krp
>>>>
>>>> > What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
>>>> > rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
>>>> > conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
>>>>
>>>> BULLSHIT Danny!
>
> Really?
>
> You're claiming that CPS has the same rules, regulations, policies and
> procedures as law enforcement?
NOPE - - - YOU ARE!!! And you are trying to claim that I am! LIAR!
Dan Sullivan
Quite the feeble and unintelligible response, pangborn.
Kent Wills
wrote:
There is no quote attached from me. I asked a question. One you
haven't answered, opting instead to try, and fail, to deflect from the
truth that you are an abuse of females.
So, how long, exactly, have you held the position that children
who have been sexually, physically and/or mentally abused should
remain with their abusers? If you didn't hold this position, you
would have made a comment indicating such.
Would you like to know what can happen when CPS does as you want
(allows the abuser to have unrestricted access to the victim)?
Fortunately, CPS rarely screws up this bad.
Below you include one of the sigs I use when I reply to you. It's
not a quote, as you deceptively claim above. Of course, your limited
intellect may see a sig as a quote as you are using the term.
If this is a case of your limited intellect and not really an act
of deception, I apologize.
>
>G > "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
>G > in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
>G > the Child Abuse registry, for example."
>
>KW > GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet
>KW > he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
>KW > Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
>
>Interesting that Kent blurs abuse and neglect.
Neglect is a form of abuse, as you must know by now.
>What was the DATE on that statement, Kent?
>
January 11, 2004, as anyone checking the MID can see.
Does it matter?
>Do you think the date of that statement might be important?
No. You abused Lisa's daughter. Your victim was around six years
of age at the time. That the abuse complaint was made, and founded,
more than six years ago does not matter at all.
That you were able to overcome your deep rooted psychological
need to lie (you have the unique ability to make Pangborn look honest)
on January 11, 2004 doesn't matter. The date doesn't alter that you
let the readers of Usenet know that you abused Lisa's daughter.
>
>
>These statements contain dates.
Pretending the items pertain to me, or anyone else you know, does
any of it alter the truth that you were, and probably still are,
listed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry due to your abusing Lisa's
daughter?
No amount of deflection on your part will alter the truth that you
are a predator who seeks to harm women who you see as weaker than you.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
GregWhore Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Kent Wills
>
>"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:c0740fae-b50a-4901...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>G > Making a dependency case.
>
>RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
>
>G > Removing children.
>
>RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
>
>G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
>RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
>RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
>RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
>RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
>RVD > to the courts.
>
> I hate to correct that statement, but all over the country CPS removes
>children BEFORE a court order.
Removal is not termination.
>Maybe out EXPERT may wish to see some of the
>cases from North Carolina where the practice was halted by the NC Supreme
>Court???? Other states have yet to follow suit.
>
Removal is not termination.
>G > You said it's not done by CPS.
>G > Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
>G > and presents it to the courts.
>
>KW > He did.
>
>G > Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
>G > Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
>
>KW > You have many delusions.
>KW > You are one person. It's possible
>KW > LK agrees with you (I've not seen a
>KW > post from him stating a position).
>KW > If he does, that makes two.
>
>G > The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
>G > stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
>G > It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
>G > racket that is Child Protective Services.
>
>KW > How long have you held the position that
>KW > children who have been sexually, physically
>KW > and/or mentally abused should remain
>KW > with their abusers?
>
> Again Kent Wills reads through the eyes of an EX-CON!
Pretending I have a conviction, wouldn't it still exist, or do
you live with the delusion that they expire? How long after someone
has been convicted does it appear as if they never were?
If the conviction you dishonestly claim I have no longer exists,
then what's the point in mentioning it?
>That is not what
>Greg said at all.
If I was in error, GregWhore would have indicated such. Note that
he tried, and failed, to divert attention from the truth of his views.
>It;'s just Kunt's INSANE mischaracterization of it.
Odd that GregWhore doesn't see it that way.
>The abuses by CPS agencies nation wide and not merely legion they are
>extremely well documented. One MIGHT want to read the Investigation Report
>of the Minnesota Attorney general, and that of the San Diego County grand
>jury's investogation into CPS practices. That KENT would argue FOR CPS and
>CLAIM that anyone who feels CPS has done a bad job actually SUPPORTS child
>abuse.
When have I made such a claim?
Hint: Outside of the mental illness you've twice admitted came
about due to your alcoholism, I haven't.
>In Kent's little EX CONVICT mind one can't see the problems with CPS
>and still want to end child abuse. That's because Wills IS a polack ane
>always will be nothing more but a STUPID polack!
>
>
You're bigotry is well known and documented. There's no need for
you to keep posting the proof of it.
--
Me:
>> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
>> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn:
>NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <kjsf449973e8lmqj9...@4ax.com>
Kent Wills
>
>"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:898a05cf-fd33-4f08...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>KRP > Ronny is SVU part of the DA's office????????
>KRP > Oh and *I* said CPS AND NYPD.... Danny's
>KRP > argument is that ONLY the DA's office detectives
>KRP > investigate these crimes.
>KRP > ONLY the DA's office!! NOBODY ELSE.
>
>G > Oh Snap! Right Ronald?
>
>DS > First, I didn't make that claim.
>
>(Sure you DID Sullivan and you are LYING now because you not understabd HOW
>full of shit you were.)
Post the MID and/or Google link to his post making the claim.
Doing so would enable you to prove your claim.
>
>DS > After all the times ken pangborn has
>DS > posted that I did make that claim you'd
>DS > think he might actually have provided proof.
>
>< Have you denied saying it? Or are you just denying some technicality,
>Loophole Larry style?
>
> Sure he is denying it Greg. He HAS to. His only reinforcement on it is
>KUNT WILLS the EX-CON.
Presuming you mean me, how would you know?
Oops. You just showed that, again, I'm not in your kill file. Of
course, you proved that less than 12 hours after you claimed you put
me in.
>Proof of it is as easy as looking as the morphine of
>his posts.
If you'd post the MID and/or Google link, it would settle the
matter.
>Firt he was TRYING to foist off what HE said as MY comments until
>it became clear it was what HE said I said and NOT what *I* said and the
>corner was getting uncomfortably close.
He quoted you verbatim.
>Then more recently he has
>DISHONESTLY snipped what I said (CPS AND NYPD) and places a period after CPS
>and removed NYPD references.
You added the NYPD after he made you look the fool you are.
>He RIDICULED initially my references to the
>NYPD. Now he's eating shit with the special victims unit. (not EVERY precint
>calls it SVU - some still call it the "sex crimes division.")
>
Everyone reading will probably know what is meant by SVU. That
some call it by a different name doesn't matter.
"3 year old GIRL Kunt."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team,
commenting on a three-year-old girl's vagina.
Message-ID: <78RZj.7110$3j.6866@trnddc05>
Greegor
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:44:12 GMT, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c0740fae-b50a-4901...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >G > Making a dependency case.
>
> >RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
>
> >G > Removing children.
>
> >RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
>
> >G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
> >RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
> >RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
> >RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
> >RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
> >RVD > to the courts.
>
> > I hate to correct that statement, but all over the country CPS removes
> >children BEFORE a court order.
>
> Removal is not termination.
>
> >Maybe out EXPERT may wish to see some of the
> >cases from North Carolina where the practice was halted by the NC Supreme
> >Court???? Other states have yet to follow suit.
>
> Removal is not termination.
It's the beginning intrusion into the arena of LIBERTY INTERESTS,
a huge driving force throughout the Bill Of Rights and US
Constitution.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
KRP > That is not what
KRP > Greg said at all.
KW > If I was in error, GregWhore would
KW > have indicated such. Note that
KW > he tried, and failed, to divert
KW > attention from the truth of his views.
WHY must I slavishly retort?
You ARE after all, Kent Bradley Wills.
> >It;'s just Kunt's INSANE mischaracterization of it.
>
> Odd that GregWhore doesn't see it that way.
Because I didn't slavishly retort?
You ARE Kent Bradley Wills.
> >The abuses by CPS agencies nation wide and not merely legion they are
> >extremely well documented. One MIGHT want to read the Investigation Report
> >of the Minnesota Attorney general, and that of the San Diego County grand
> >jury's investogation into CPS practices. That KENT would argue FOR CPS and
> >CLAIM that anyone who feels CPS has done a bad job actually SUPPORTS child
> >abuse.
>
> When have I made such a claim?
> Hint: Outside of the mental illness you've twice admitted came
> about due to your alcoholism, I haven't.
You make up such utter crap that I do not feel compelled to
refute it. You ARE after all, Kent Bradley Wills.
> >In Kent's little EX CONVICT mind one can't see the problems with CPS
> >and still want to end child abuse. That's because Wills IS a polack ane
> >always will be nothing more but a STUPID polack!
>
> You're bigotry is well known and documented. There's no need for
> you to keep posting the proof of it.
Kent, Pollack is a word in Polska, isn't it?
Do you think Ken invented the word?
Wasn't the word pollack invented BY Polish people??
> >> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
> >> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Fairy tales made up by Kent Bradley Wills,
convicted Garage Burglary Felon.
Greegor
DS > Their hotline number in NY is 911.
DS > And if the assailant isn't a parent of someone legally
responsible for
DS > the child, CPS won't be involved at all.
Dan, That's technically the way it's supposed
to be in EVERY state isn't it?
Yet the only evidence to convict the notorious
child molester here was a lame interview
with the child done by CPS at the behest of
Iowa DHS.
Which got thrown out of court!
How something is supposed to work technically
isn't always exactly how the system actually works.
It's a bit more like that "ticket fixing" stuff.
A lot more soap opera and "Peyton Place"
gossipy crap runs the show than is supposed to.
But, then, isn't that why you throw all
of this ad hom stuff around all the time Dan?
'Cause to you that BS matters, right?
Greegor
krp
> DA Det or SVU Dan?
I loved the part when ANGRY "EXPERT" Sullivan offered a source to PROVE that
CPS - - - "NEVER" does any investigations of child sexual abuse that proves
they DO! I fell off my chair laughing.
krp
> DS > Law enforcement investigates crimes.
> DS > Their hotline number in NY is 911.
> DS > And if the assailant isn't a parent of someone legally
> responsible for
> DS > the child, CPS won't be involved at all.
> Dan, That's technically the way it's supposed
> to be in EVERY state isn't it?
Well according to the WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT - ATTORNEY DAN SULLIVAN of
Usen et fame it is! You see, according to Danny, CPS - NEVER does ANY
investigations of child abuse. They only hold knitting classes and the DA'sd
detective handle 100% of the investigations.
> Yet the only evidence to convict the notorious
> child molester here was a lame interview
> with the child done by CPS at the behest of
> Iowa DHS.
> Which got thrown out of court!
> How something is supposed to work technically
> isn't always exactly how the system actually works.
The problem for Danny is that HIS rather "STRANGE" views on how things
work are just rather otherworldly. Planet Sullivan!
krp
On Jul 10, 7:57 pm, SUPREME SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Kent Wills
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:44:12 GMT, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c0740fae-b50a-4901...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >G > Making a dependency case.
>
> >RVD > Based on the reports and investigations of the police. Hmmm.
>
> >G > Removing children.
>
> >RVD > Not done by CPS gregg, you know that. LEO or the courts do it.
>
> >G > Heading for Termination of Parental Rights.
>
> >RVD > Also not done by CPS gregg. Once again its the courts.
> >RVD > Based upon the information provided by LEO's, doctors,
> >RVD > and a whole plethora of others who are involved in the
> >RVD > case. CPS just coordinates the effort and presents it
> >RVD > to the courts.
>
> > I hate to correct that statement, but all over the country CPS removes
> >children BEFORE a court order.
>
> Removal is not termination.
Well Kunt seems to be back on his verbal menstruation. Removal isn't
termination - it is just a legal precursor to termination. AND as we know
SUPRE|ME SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILLS in his BENCH RULINGS is aware of cases
that say that a removal IS a form of termination of parental rights even IF
temporary. Maybe the ASSHOLE ahould actually READ some of the case law on
the subject. NAW the polack LOVES making hsi rulings with NO information of
ANY kind.
> >Maybe our EXPERT may wish to see some of the
> >cases from North Carolina where the practice was halted by the NC Supreme
> >Court???? Other states have yet to follow suit.
> Removal is not termination.
Junt seems to THINK that if me makes that STUPID STGUPID STUPID (and
incorrect) staterment often enough that he's POLISH PROVED something. He
wonders why I and others call hnim a "STUPID POLACK!"
< It's the beginning intrusion into the arena of LIBERTY INTERESTS,
< a huge driving force throughout the Bill Of Rights and US Constitution.
Greg - what our resident SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILLS doesn't get are the
cases that rule that the parent - child relationships are a FUNDAMENTAL
Constitutional issue. That even taking children from parents on a temporary
basis MUST be justified by something more than the thinnest "suspicion" as
ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE Sullivan claims.
> >G > You said it's not done by CPS.
> >G > Then you say CPS coordinates the effort
> >G > and presents it to the courts.
>
> >KW > He did.
>
> >G > Ron, It's just too late for that kind of disinformation.
> >G > Too many people know that it IS "done by CPS".
>
> >KW > You have many delusions.
> >KW > You are one person. It's possible
> >KW > LK agrees with you (I've not seen a
> >KW > post from him stating a position).
> >KW > If he does, that makes two.
>
> >G > The Family or Dependency Courts that rubber
> >G > stamp all CPS requests are a blight on the USA.
> >G > It's a fraud erected to ""legitimize"" the
> >G > racket that is Child Protective Services.
>
> >KW > How long have you held the position that
> >KW > children who have been sexually, physically
> >KW > and/or mentally abused should remain
> >KW > with their abusers?
>
> > Again Kent Wills reads through the eyes of an EX-CON!
KW> Pretending I have a conviction, wouldn't it still exist, or do
KW> you live with the delusion that they expire? How long after someone
KW> has been convicted does it appear as if they never were?
KW> If the conviction you dishonestly claim I have no longer exists,
KW> then what's the point in mentioning it?
Wills trying to bullshit and claim you do NOT have that criminal history
is now well past the laugh stage. The more you deny the more an IDIOT you
make yourself appear.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> incoherantly babbled in message
news:487695a6$0$7364$607e...@cv.net...
>>
>>>>>> > What CPS does falls under civil codes and they don't have the same
>>>>>> > rules, regulations, policies and procedures as law enforcement who
>>>>>> > conduct CRIMINAL investigations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BULLSHIT Danny!
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> You're claiming that CPS has the same rules, regulations, policies and
>>> procedures as law enforcement?
>>
>>
>> NOPE - - - YOU ARE!!! And you are trying to claim that I am! LIAR!
>
> Quite the feeble and unintelligible response, pangborn.
A quite accurate response Danny. YOU make these INSANE claims and TRY so
franticly to pin them on ME when they are the product of YOU disturbed mind.
Want to quote the NY hotline source again to me Danny? The one you THOUGHT
"proved" that CPS doesn't do ANY "investigations" of ANY kind, that ONLY the
DA's detectives do? Or now you allow that NYPD (in the form of SVU) does.
You should have learned from Kunt Wills screwups from NOT reading his
sources that you SHOULD HAVE. BUT you didn't. So again we have you as part
of Monty Python's Flying Circus, the knight at the bridge who talks a good
STREET PUNK line just like you. As part after part is hacked off him he
sounds TOUGHER and TOUGHER. DANNY SULLIVAN TO A "T!"
Dan Sullivan
Excuse me, but grag just pointed out how the legal system DOESN'T work when
a sex crime is investigated by CPS rather than the people who are SUPPOSED
to do the investigation... LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Dan Sullivan
> DA Det or SVU Dan?
???
Dan Sullivan
grag just proved that CPS doesn't conduct investigations of sex crimes
against children properly.
He pointed out that a notorious child molester couldn't be convicted because
CPS screwed up an interview.
And the interview was thrown out of court.
All this demonstrates that CPS does criminal investigations WHEN THEY'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO... and child molesters go free!
So don't tell me CPS is supposed to conduct criminal investigations... when
they're NOT!!!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> babbled in message
news:48773db5$0$7321$607e...@cv.net...
>>> DS > Law enforcement investigates crimes.
>>> DS > Their hotline number in NY is 911.
>>> DS > And if the assailant isn't a parent of someone legally
>>> responsible for
>>> DS > the child, CPS won't be involved at all.
>>
>>> Dan, That's technically the way it's supposed
>>> to be in EVERY state isn't it?
>> Well according to the WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT - ATTORNEY DAN SULLIVAN
>> of Usenet fame it is! You see, according to Danny, CPS - NEVER does ANY
>> investigations of child abuse. They only hold knitting classes and the
>> DA'sd detective handle 100% of the investigations.
>>> Yet the only evidence to convict the notorious
>>> child molester here was a lame interview
>>> with the child done by CPS at the behest of
>>> Iowa DHS.
>>
>>> Which got thrown out of court!
>>
>>> How something is supposed to work technically
>>> isn't always exactly how the system actually works.
>>
>> The problem for Danny is that HIS rather "STRANGE" views on how things
>> work are just rather otherworldly. Planet Sullivan!
> Excuse me, but grag just pointed out how the legal system DOESN'T work
> when a sex crime is investigated by CPS rather than the people who are
> SUPPOSED to do the investigation... LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Danny I said from the start that many BAD cases are hopelessly screwed
up by CPS workers. But if you think LE is a whole bunch better THINK AGAIN.
You can bluster all you want Sullivan isn't your ass sore enough from
yesterday's follies? Your own source clearly showed that CPS does at least
PART of the investigations on child sexual abuse cases. DESPITE YOUR INSANE
CLAIMS to the contrary. As to who "SHOULD" be doing them, if you want
PERFECT results, leave it to Jesus. CPS workers AND cops are human beings.
Human brings bring in their own personal baggage when doing these cases.
Sometimes investigators see what they want to see and NOT what is actually
there.
Okay weenie a REAL LIFE CASE one sorted out by a psychologist at Cornell
University brought in by the court. The DETECTIVES in the case brought to
the DA for prosecution because litte 4 year old Debbie had reported that
"Daddy put his pee pee in MY pee pee" and thre DETECTIVE got her to say; "I
asked him to stop but he wouldn't!"
Based on that the father was brought up on child rape charges. Now
REMEMBER this was a case where DETECTIVE had done the interviews and NOT
CPS. Tell me Danny how many YEARS should he get for that CRIME??
(continued next message)