Dad insists on signed warrant, caseworker threatens removal instead
Greegor
Notice how this caseworker really has
NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
would be removed because of the
Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Firemonkey
The man in this video did exactly as Dan has suggested people do when
in this situation. He remained calm, explained to the worker he would
need a warrant. From the video it was clear that the worker had seen
the baby and the inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
Get a life gag.
Dan Sullivan
Post your opinion, grag.
joe
wrote:
The holy grail of how to treat a CW at your door can be found in
CPSWatch's Parents Guide to the System.
A copy can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/family_rights_wv/cpswatch/parents_guide.html
Dealing With CPS:
Demand a Copy of the Search Warrant
You do not have to speak with a Government Agent or allow them to enter
your home without a search warrant!
When a government agent (social worker, police officer, etc) comes to
your door, they are seeking your consent to allow them into your home.
Remain calm. Say something like:
I understand your concerns and I'm happy to cooperate. May I see
your search warrant please?
The agent may try to tell you that a search warrant isn't required
because you can give voluntary consent or he may try to make you believe
you are required to allow him into your home. The agent might say, I'm
required by law to come into your home to investigate." It is true that
the agent is required to make an investigation which may include
entering your home. However, this doesn't give the agent authority to
break the law. If the agent needs to enter your home as part of his
investigation, he needs to obtain a search warrant.
Remember that the agent is the one asking you to circumvent the law. You
are acting within the law and he is asking you to ignore the law, skip
procedure and just do things his way.
Don't be intimidated. Keep a proper perspective of the situation; you
are willing to cooperate within the law. The law dictates that a search
warrant is required before entering a private home. Your position should
be:
I do want to cooperate.
I do not want to ignore proper procedure.
Why would you want to circumvent clearly established laws and
procedures?
Do not allow the agent to peer inside of your home or view your
children. Do not answer any questions without seeing the search warrant
and verifying it's authenticity. Even minor questions such as your date
of birth, name, number of children, etc. should not be answered without
seeing a search warrant.
---------------------------------------------------
Another excellent resourse is Paula Werme's page:
http://nhdcyf.info/first_contact.html
And a good read is *Tricks of the Trade*
http://wermenh.com/dcyf_tricks.html
---------------------------------------------------
Or if you prefer to ignore the experts, there's always Dan's advice:
*It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and if
you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
Bwawawawawawwaw
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
LK
Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
answer it? I mean with your vast and superior knowledge of the system
and everything, you must be the only person in this group qualified to
give an accurate assessment. Wouldn't you agree?
I know Greg asked and you don't like to answer questions for him, so
do it for the benefit of the non-Greg readers of the group. Did this
dad do the right thing?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
>Notice how this caseworker really has
>NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>would be removed because of the
>Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
At roughly 38 seconds, "We're asking that you VOLENTARILY place
the child out." Emphasis added to prove, once again, Gregory Scott
Hanson can't tell the truth.
I note that the CW **NEVER** claims the child will be removed
because dad refuses to submit without a warrant. Why would you LIE
about this, then link to the proof that you lied?
>
>Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
In the video that dad was calm and rational. Something Dan
suggests. At times I could see where dad wanted to get combative, but
he wisely stayed calm.
Do you think remaining calm and rational is a bad thing? Dan
suggests people do this.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ba61db5-fdb0-4c73...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 20, 8:05 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > would be removed because of the
> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> Post your opinion, grag.
Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
answer it? I mean with your vast and superior knowledge of the system
and everything, you must be the only person in this group qualified to
give an accurate assessment. Wouldn't you agree?
Well you have a point. With DAN'S status as the FOREMOST ATTORNEY ion
America, answering Greg's question should be a snap.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 8:05 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 2:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > would be removed because of the
> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> answer it?
Because I've posted what I recommed people do when CPS is at their
door more times than I care to count.
And grag knows this.
He can copy and paste what I've already said.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ab38c46d-862e-4932...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
As a PRACTICING USENET LAWYER!!! :-))))))))))
Dan Sullivan
Dragon's Girl
We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > would be removed because of the
> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
I don't know where the vid was made.
But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an anonymous
report.
And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
LK
Bullshit, you love to repeat yourself.
> And grag knows this.
>
So does everybody else.
> He can copy and paste what I've already said.
You yourself said that every case is different Dan. Put your great
advice into the proper context. How would you have done things
differently from what the father did in this video, you know, that
would have given you the upper hand over CPS from the start? Think of
it as opportunity for you to prove your superior knowledge in a
specific context.
LK
Did the father do the right thing or not?
Dan Sullivan
From what I saw.
joe
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> > would be removed because of the
>> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
> anonymous
> report.
It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
take every kid in sight. Go figure.
To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
> And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
>
--
LK
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> > would be removed because of the
> >> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> >> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> >> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> > I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> > But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
> > anonymous
> > report.
>
> It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
> others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
> take every kid in sight. Go figure.
>
> To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
> belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
> report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
They don't even need reasonable belief.
Just an accusation and a worker.
>
> > And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> > Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> > The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LK
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if he is guilty of CAN this is how he gets away with it?
krp
>>>>
>>>> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>>>> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>>>> > > would be removed because of the
>>>> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>>>
>>>> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>>>
>>>> > Post your opinion, grag.
>>>>
>>>> Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
>>>> answer it?
>>>
>>> Because I've posted what I recommed people do when CPS is at their
>>> door more times than I care to count.
>>
>> As a PRACTICING USENET LAWYER!!! :-))))))))))
>
> I never said that.
Sullivan your BULLSHIT swagger on Usenet as a LEGAL AUTHORITY is legendary
as is the FACT of how often you are utterly full of shit.
krp
"joe" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
news:op.uelrj...@home.myhome.westell.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Dan Sullivan <dsul...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>>
>>> > Notice how this caseworker really has
>>> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>>> > would be removed because of the
>>> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>>
>>> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>>
>>> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>>
>> I don't know where the vid was made.
>>
>> But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
>> anonymous
>> report.
> It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
> others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
> take every kid in sight. Go figure.
>
> To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
> belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
> report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
EXACTLY!
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
I never claimed to be a legal authority anywhere.
You have a list of 100 lawyers you've worked with, pangborn?
And you've been in business over 30 years?
That's approx 3 a year, if you don't consider you're probably lying.
Why do you only have 3 or 4 dead and disbarred attornies listed on
your website?
The others don't want to be associated with you?
Greegor
G > Notice how this caseworker really has
G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
G > would be removed because of the
G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G >
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Roberta Firemonkey wrote
FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
FM > has suggested people do when in this
FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
insist on a signed warrant. Just the opposite,
I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
on a warrant?
What was it about the video that gave you
the impression he had let the worker see
the baby and the apartment?
If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
then why was he threatening the Dad with
a child removal order?
FM > Get a life gag.
Dan, One of your biggest supporters
has implied that this man's response
WAS to your specifications, but also
states that the man let the worker
look at the child and apartment.
Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
1.
Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
2.
Would you have advised this Dad to let the
caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
3.
Did you notice where the caseworker is
threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
4.
Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
Greegor
> >> Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> would be removed because of the
> >> Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
DS > Post your opinion, grag.
joe wrote
http://www.geocities.com/family_rights_wv/cpswatch/parents_guide.html
joe > Another excellent resourse is Paula Werme's page:
http://nhdcyf.info/first_contact.html
joe > And a good read is *Tricks of the Trade*
http://wermenh.com/dcyf_tricks.html
> ------------------------------------------------
Don't forget the advice online from HSLDA,
Home School Legal Defense Association.
joe > Or if you prefer to ignore the experts, there's always Dan's
advice:
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and if
> you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
joe > Bwawawawawawwaw
Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
*It will be best if you cooperate. You know
you're a good parent and if you just show
them they'll apologize and go away."
Doesn't that clash severely with what
Firemonkey asserts about your advice?
Are you evasive about answering questions
because it's ME or because there
is such a big conflict between your statements?
Greegor
> > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> > answer it?
DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
DS > people do when CPS is at their
DS > door more times than I care to count.
DS > And grag knows this.
DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.
joe did.
I have asked for confirmation from you.
Isn't that a fair request, Dan?
Greegor
The question was not that simple, Betty.
It was about whether the response conforms
to Dan's purported advice.
Please weigh in on that!
Since you are somebody who has posted
testimonials for Dan, your assistance could
be even more helpful than Firemonkey's.
Dan apparently caught some mention of the
DA's office, and expressed some concern
that the caseworker said that.
What advice has Dan given you that would
relate to the first contact situation in the video?
Dan Sullivan
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> > > answer it?
>
> DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
> DS > people do when CPS is at their
> DS > door more times than I care to count.
>
> DS > And grag knows this.
>
> DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.
>
> joe did.
No, he didn't.
Dan Sullivan
No.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > would be removed because of the
> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>
> It was about whether the response conforms
> to Dan's purported advice.
My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
That does seem to be what the father is telling the caseworker.
> Please weigh in on that!
> Since you are somebody who has posted
> testimonials for Dan, your assistance could
> be even more helpful than Firemonkey's.
Assistance in what?
> Dan apparently caught some mention of the
> DA's office, and expressed some concern
> that the caseworker said that.
Apparently you didn't watch the video, grag.
Typical.
> What advice has Dan given you that would
> relate to the first contact situation in the video?
I don't believe I ever gave FM direct advice.
If I'm not mistaken she used the advice I gave other people in her own
situation.
Dan Sullivan
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> G > Notice how this caseworker really has
> G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> G > would be removed because of the
> G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
> G >
> G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> Roberta Firemonkey wrote
> FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
> FM > has suggested people do when in this
> FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
> FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of "you do
what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."
I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.
> I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
> insist on a signed warrant.
Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned warrant?
> Just the opposite,
> I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
> that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
I don't recall saying or implying that.
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
> on a warrant?
>
> What was it about the video that gave you
> the impression he had let the worker see
> the baby and the apartment?
What from the vid gives you the impression the father let the worker
see the baby and the apartment?
The father said the worker saw the baby and the apartment, but the
father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
> If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
> then why was he threatening the Dad with
> a child removal order?
You didn't watch the video, grag.
Typical.
> FM > Get a life gag.
>
> Dan, One of your biggest supporters
> has implied that this man's response
> WAS to your specifications, but also
> states that the man let the worker
> look at the child and apartment.
FM didn't say that.
> Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
>
> 1.
> Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
When?
> 2.
> Would you have advised this Dad to let the
> caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
If the allegation was injury to the baby, I'd advise him to show the
baby to the case worker.
And opening the door to an apartment exposes the living room and
probably the kitchen.
So if the allegation was a cluttered or dangerous living condition,
the worker already saw the home was safe.
> 3.
> Did you notice where the caseworker is
> threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
You didn't watch the video, grag.
> 4.
> Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
Read my earlier comments.
Greegor
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> you're a good parent and if you just show
> them they'll apologize and go away."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f402304aaadfe9c0
DS > No.
Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e3459483671d5cc
DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
DS >
DS > But, if you really want to get your child
DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
DS > a good parent and that the child is
DS > safe in your home.
Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
Here are some questions you left out Dan.
G > Doesn't that clash severely with what
G > Firemonkey asserts about your advice?
Doesn't it, Dan?
G > Are you evasive about answering questions
G > because it's ME or because there
G > is such a big conflict between your statements?
Dan?
krp
> On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> > > would be removed because of the
>> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>>
>> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>>
>> It was about whether the response conforms
>> to Dan's purported advice.
>
> My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
> you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
> after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE" to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
Think it works well for your clients Danny?
As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and dispensing your legal advice sans license.
Firemonkey
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
>
> DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
> DS >
> DS > But, if you really want to get your child
> DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
> DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
> DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
> DS > a good parent and that the child is
> DS > safe in your home.
>
> Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
>
> Here are some questions you left out Dan.
>
> G > Doesn't that clash severely with what
> G > Firemonkey asserts about your advice?
>
> Doesn't it, Dan?
>
> G > Are you evasive about answering questions
> G > because it's ME or because there
> G > is such a big conflict between your statements?
>
> Dan?
gags up in the middle of the night feeling combative and agitated. I
wonder if he spent all his FEMA money on meth?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
>
> DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
> DS >
> DS > But, if you really want to get your child
> DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
> DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
> DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
> DS > a good parent and that the child is
> DS > safe in your home.
>
> Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
I have no idea.
Obviously in this situation the child was already removed.
And I didn't want the parents to be fighting over parenting classes.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> > > would be removed because of the
> >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> >> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>
> >> It was about whether the response conforms
> >> to Dan's purported advice.
>
> > My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
> > you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
> > after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
>
> That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE" to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
> Think it works well for your clients Danny?
> As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and dispensing your legal advice sans license.
That's not legal advice.
What would you advise people to do when CPS is at their door with an
allegation or CAN, pangborn?
Call you with thousands of dollars?
Dragon's Girl
Since Dan began supporting me AFTER the 'first contact', I have never
had a conversations with him in regard to 'first contact', so I cannot
tell you about advice that I never got, and never had a need for.
Dragon's Girl
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
LOL Greg, it doesn't sound to me like Dan was referring to first
contact.
He says 'if you really want to get your child back from foster care,',
meaning the child has already been taken, so first contact is not even
part of his reply.
Dan Sullivan
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f0c3b93-8aa9-4a8f...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 3:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>>
>> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
>> > you're a good parent and if you just show
>> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>>
>> DS > No.
>>
>> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> LOL Greg, it doesn't sound to me like Dan was referring to first
> contact.
> He says 'if you really want to get your child back from foster care,',
> meaning the child has already been taken, so first contact is not even
> part of his reply.
grag is the long time master of the inconsequential, irrelevant,
inappropriate and pointless question.
He LIVES for the eye rolls!
Dragon's Girl
> "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Of course. How else might he go about diverting readers and posters
from REAL discussions?
I think LK said it best when he told us the other day that Greg is
here to run people off.
Dan Sullivan
YES!!!
On to the copy and paste blogs that offer nothing but news stories and
youtube vids!!!
LK
Where and when did I say that Betty?
And how is this false accusation of yours not trying to "divert
readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice in reference to a YouTube
video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
assed CPS worker.
Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
LK
Dan
You forget that there is a little puppet bear with a Legally Kidnapped
t-shirt in the sidebar. You can each get your own for only $19.49 USD
plus shipping. http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
Greegor
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> you're a good parent and if you just show
> them they'll apologize and go away."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f402304aaadfe9c0
DS > No.
G > Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e3459483671d5cc
DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
DS >
DS > But, if you really want to get your child
DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
DS > a good parent and that the child is
DS > safe in your home.
G > Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
DS > I have no idea.
DS > Obviously in this situation the child was already removed.
DS > And I didn't want the parents to be fighting over parenting
classes.
Greegor
G > Notice how this caseworker really has
G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
G > would be removed because of the
G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G >
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Roberta Firemonkey wrote
FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
FM > has suggested people do when in this
FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
DS > Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of
"you do
DS > what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."
DS > I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.
G > I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
G > insist on a signed warrant.
DS > Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned
warrant?
Got a link to where you advised parents to insist on a warrant?
G > Just the opposite,
G > I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
G > that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
DS > I don't recall saying or implying that.
Failing to recall means what exactly?
In your Larry Loophole world, that
doesn't mean diddly squat does it?
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
G > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
G > on a warrant?
G > What was it about the video that gave you
G > the impression he had let the worker see
G > the baby and the apartment?
DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
DS > the father let the worker see the baby
DS > and the apartment?
You paraphrased my question.
DS > The father said the worker saw the
DS > baby and the apartment, but the
DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
G > If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
G > then why was he threatening the Dad with
G > a child removal order?
DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
DS > Typical.
You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.
FM > Get a life gag.
G > Dan, One of your biggest supporters
G > has implied that this man's response
G > WAS to your specifications, but also
G > states that the man let the worker
G > look at the child and apartment.
DS > FM didn't say that.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3d47edb660acbf79
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
G > 1.
G > Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
DS > When?
Is that advice you have issued?
G > 2.
G > Would you have advised this Dad to let the
G > caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
DS > I'd advise him to show the
DS > baby to the case worker.
Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.
DS > And opening the door to an apartment
DS > exposes the living room and
DS > probably the kitchen.
Forfeits 4th amendment protections.
DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
DS > or dangerous living condition,
DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.
Which joe paraphrased as:
*It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
if
you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
G > 3.
G > Did you notice where the caseworker is
G > threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?
I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
several times, saying that if the parent
doesn't let him look at the child, he has
no option but to do a child removal.
G > 4.
G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
DS > Read my earlier comments.
You complain a lot about technicalities
in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
so WHY are you so shy about taking
these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
falsely accused of child abuse, that you thing is to reveal your truth
about CPS, so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
a word about krp insane ravings.
Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
you claim are writting to you.
Greegor
> On Jul 21, 4:52 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
> > >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > >> > > would be removed because of the
> > >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
G > The question was not that simple, Betty.
G > It was about whether the response conforms
G > to Dan's purported advice.
DS > My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever
information
DS > you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney.
And
DS > after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
KRP > That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE"
KRP > to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/168130d2477c1ca5
DS > That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
SINCE WHEN is a COUNTY ADA a person
dispensing legal advice to the accused parent?
Tell me more about how you got this advice
from a county ADA, Dan! And WHY!
Are County Attorneys and DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
the same thing where you're at, Dan?
Districts and Counties aren't the same are they?
Either way though, why would an attorney
representing the STATE advise people
who are under attack form the state??
KRP > Think it works well for your clients Danny?
KRP > As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and
KRP > dispensing your legal advice sans license.
DS > That's not legal advice.
DS > What would you advise people to do when
DS > CPS is at their door with an
DS > allegation or CAN, pangborn?
DS > Call you with thousands of dollars?
LK
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> falsely accused of child abuse,
Liar.
> that you thing is to reveal your truth
> about CPS,
So?
> so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
I'm not backing anybody.
> You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> a word about krp insane ravings.
That's what we have you for.
> Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> you claim are writting to you.
GFYS Roberta.
Dragon's Girl
You=pot, kettle, black.
Dragon's Girl
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> Liar.
>
> > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > about CPS,
>
> So?
>
> > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> That's what we have you for.
>
> > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > you claim are writting to you.
>
> GFYS Roberta.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Oh sure.
You conveniently forget that it's officially 'paraphrase' week, troll
for money using the child protection industry to do so, and then tell
FM to go f*ck herself???
LOL
Divert indeed.
Dan Sullivan
I don't remember.
What was the question?
> In your Larry Loophole world, that
> doesn't mean diddly squat does it?
>
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> G > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
> G > on a warrant?
>
> G > What was it about the video that gave you
> G > the impression he had let the worker see
> G > the baby and the apartment?
>
> DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
> DS > the father let the worker see the baby
> DS > and the apartment?
>
> You paraphrased my question.
>
> DS > The father said the worker saw the
> DS > baby and the apartment, but the
> DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
>
> G > If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
> G > then why was he threatening the Dad with
> G > a child removal order?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
> DS > Typical.
>
> You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.
If you watched the vid you'd already know the answer, grag.
> FM > Get a life gag.
>
> G > Dan, One of your biggest supporters
> G > has implied that this man's response
> G > WAS to your specifications, but also
> G > states that the man let the worker
> G > look at the child and apartment.
>
> DS > FM didn't say that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
See.
I was right!
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
>
> G > 1.
> G > Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
>
> DS > When?
>
> Is that advice you have issued?
When?
And under what circumstance?
> G > 2.
> G > Would you have advised this Dad to let the
> G > caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
>
> DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
> DS > I'd advise him to show the
> DS > baby to the case worker.
>
> Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.
Protections of what?
Did you not see the police in the vid?
If the worker didn't see the baby and the allegation was an injury,
you don't think the police would have stepped in and taken over?
Maybe take the baby into custody?
Or to a hospital?
Or arrest the father?
> DS > And opening the door to an apartment
> DS > exposes the living room and
> DS > probably the kitchen.
>
> Forfeits 4th amendment protections.
If the living room and kitchen were visible from the open front door?
> DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
> DS > or dangerous living condition,
> DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.
>
> Which joe paraphrased as:
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
> if
> you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
I never said that.
> G > 3.
> G > Did you notice where the caseworker is
> G > threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
>
> Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?
Not at all.
> I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
> several times, saying that if the parent
> doesn't let him look at the child, he has
> no option but to do a child removal.
That's not true.
You didn't watch the vid.
> G > 4.
> G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
>
> DS > Read my earlier comments.
>
> You complain a lot about technicalities
> in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
> so WHY are you so shy about taking
> these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?
My position was clarified previously.
Check it out.
Dan Sullivan
>
> DS > That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
>
> SINCE WHEN is a COUNTY ADA a person
> dispensing legal advice to the accused parent?
It was a general discussion.
> Tell me more about how you got this advice
> from a county ADA, Dan! And WHY!
See above.
> Are County Attorneys and DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
> the same thing where you're at, Dan?
Not that I know of.
> Districts and Counties aren't the same are they?
I don't know.
> Either way though, why would an attorney
> representing the STATE advise people
> who are under attack form the state??
I wasn't under attack from the state.
LK
Noted: Betty couldn't answer the question.
> > And how is this false accusation of yours not trying to "divert
> > readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
> > about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice in reference to a YouTube
> > video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
>
Noted: Betty couldn't answer this question either.
> > I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
> > fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
> > assed CPS worker.
>
> You=pot, kettle, black.
>
>
Noted: Betty does not deny this but instead does exactly what I said.
>
>
>
> > Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
> > learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
> > trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
> > At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Firemonkey
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> Liar.
one family at at time? I remember you staying something along the line
of that NOT being your thing. I could be wrong, I am sometimes.
> > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > about CPS,
>
> So?
So ?? this news group is about helping people falsley accussed, so if
you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
> > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> That's what we have you for.
lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
anything.
Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
think and how they feel here at ascps?
You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
> > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > you claim are writting to you.
>
> GFYS Roberta.
No thanks.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
LK
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> > Liar.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood lk, wern't you just picking at Dan for helping
> one family at at time?
Perhaps you did misunderstand. I was suggesting something beyond your
comprehension, so it is entirely possible.
> I remember you staying something along the line
> of that NOT being your thing.
So. I'm looking at the bigger picture. BFD. You don't know what I
do when I'm not posting here.
> I could be wrong, I am sometimes.
>
True.
> > > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > > about CPS,
>
> > So?
>
> So ?? this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,
Then why do you post shit like this?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f00a126842de97fe?hl=en
Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed? How do you
intend to help them?
Dan can you get these people out of this?
> so if
> you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
> > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > That's what we have you for.
>
> lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> anything.
Sure we do.
> Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> think and how they feel here at ascps?
I have never done any such thing.
> You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
Firemonkey
You think a baby with disabilities being murdered is shit? I post a
few of these crimes to remind us all that children are murdered at the
hands of their parents or by their parents bad judgement calls. Why do
these stories piss you off so much? Does it interfere with your agenda
lk?
> Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed?
Absolutely not.
>How do you intend to help them?
I don't.
> Dan can you get these people out of this?
>
> > so if
> > you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
> What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
> discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
at the mouth with you.
> > > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > > That's what we have you for.
> You sound more like gag and pigborn
> > lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> > anything.
>
> Sure we do.
> > Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> > think and how they feel here at ascps?
>
> I have never done any such thing.
You do though, what do you think making statements like.."> Sure we
do." demonstrate?
> > You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
> Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
>
You have no idea what I am capable of understanding lk.
Dragon's Girl
<special paid announcer>
Legally Kidnapped teddy bears are the perfect gift for any occasion.
Birthdays (at the DFS office under supervision)
Christmas (at the group home under guard)
Anniversaries (when you get conjugal visits)
Even weddings! (including those that require the bride and groom to
get married to avoid testifying against one another.)
Order your Legally kidnapped teddy today.
<disclaimer> Teddy bears are made in China and may contain substances
after production that cause cancer and other serious medical
conditions. This toy should only be used under the strict supervision
by children under 20.
Dan Sullivan
"If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good."
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.support.foster-
parents, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, misc.legal
From: LK <Patis...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 1:30 am
Subject: Re: Child dragged away by police on command of CAS
You can't remember what you said less than a week ago, LK?
"...don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the truth, tells it
like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
doing is calling a spade a spade. So his method is not politically
correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality."
> And how is this false accusation of yours
Is it still false after you see that you did say what DG claimed?
> not trying to "divert
> readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
> about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice
I've never given "ass kissing method" advice.
> in reference to a YouTube
> video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
It's what YOU said greg does.
> I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
> fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
> assed CPS worker.
>
> Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
> learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
> trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
> At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
YOU'RE the one twisting a statement and making a bullshit claim about
it LK!
My daughter was interviewed.
So why is your "quote" "I'm not sure what HE was trying to say... "
I was never interviewed by the detectives.
Are you just playing stupid, LK?
Is that the way you have something to base your bullshit on???
LK
My God Roberta! Are you really that stupid that you can only pick out
a single word to call me on? I was suggesting that it has nothing to
do with your claim...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> I post a
> few of these crimes to remind us all that children are murdered at the
> hands of their parents or by their parents bad judgement calls.
And why do we need to be reminded of that in...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> Why do
> these stories piss you off so much?
Because a child was harmed.
> Does it interfere with your agenda
> lk?
>
No and neither do you.
> > Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
But you did say...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> >How do you intend to help them?
>
> I don't.
>
But you did say...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> > Dan can you get these people out of this?
>
> > > so if
> > > you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
> > What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
> > discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
>
> You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
> Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
> at the mouth with you.
>
I have never attacked anyone.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > > > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > > > That's what we have you for.
> > You sound more like gag and pigborn
> > > lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> > > anything.
>
> > Sure we do.
> > > Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> > > think and how they feel here at ascps?
>
> > I have never done any such thing.
>
> You do though, what do you think making statements like.."> Sure we
> do." demonstrate?> > You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
> > Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
>
> You have no idea what I am capable of understanding lk.
>
So?
>
>
> > > > > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > > > > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > > > > you claim are writting to you.
>
> > > > GFYS Roberta.
>
> > > No thanks.
>
> > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text- Hide quoted text -
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 21, 6:31 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
>
> Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
That isn't a denial of the allegation.
Duly noted!
> > Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
> > at the mouth with you.
>
> I have never attacked anyone.
You never claimed someone was full of sh*t?
Or told someone to GFYS?
krp
"Firemonkey" <firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c25dbc46-2721-403f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 21, 11:28 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You forget that there is a little puppet bear with a Legally Kidnapped
> t-shirt in the sidebar. You can each get your own for only $19.49 USD
> plus shipping. http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
< lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
< falsely accused of child abuse,
Maybe Roberta because HE unlike your HERO Sullivan does NOT pretend to be a
LAWYER on Usenet dispensing LEGAL ADVICE to his clients! He send them to
places where they can get REAL HELP.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b097e797-7e6c-43b7...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 4:52 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> >> > > would be removed because of the
>> >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a
>> >> > warrant.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
So NOW you are a Suffolk County ADA and NOT just an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
AMAZING!
LK
Yes you are.
> Or told someone to GFYS?
That's hardly an attack.
Dan Sullivan
Post the credible evidence, LK.
Not your speculations.
> > Or told someone to GFYS?
>
> That's hardly an attack.
Then GFYS.
Dragon's Girl
He can't.
He's too busy hawking teddy bears to heartbroken mommies and daddies
at the rate of seven dollars profit per.
LK
> On Jul 22, 10:53 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 7:15 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 4:15 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 21, 6:31 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything
> > > > > impossible.
>
> > > > Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
>
> > > That isn't a denial of the allegation.
>
> > > Duly noted!
>
> > > > > Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't
> > > > > foaming
> > > > > at the mouth with you.
>
> > > > I have never attacked anyone.
>
> > > You never claimed someone was full of sh*t?
>
> > Yes you are.
>
> Post the credible evidence, LK.
Post the credible evidence of you rescuing over 40 children from the
system.
>
> Not your speculations.
>
> > > Or told someone to GFYS?
>
> > That's hardly an attack.
>
> Then GFYS.
> - Hide quoted text -
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 22, 11:01 am, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 10:53 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 7:15 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 4:15 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 21, 6:31 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything
> > > > > > impossible.
>
> > > > > Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
>
> > > > That isn't a denial of the allegation.
>
> > > > Duly noted!
>
> > > > > > Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't
> > > > > > foaming
> > > > > > at the mouth with you.
>
> > > > > I have never attacked anyone.
>
> > > > You never claimed someone was full of sh*t?
>
> > > Yes you are.
>
> > Post the credible evidence, LK.
>
> Post the credible evidence of you rescuing over 40 children from the
> system.
I said I helped.
And you are free to believe it or not.
grag hanson conversed with a number of the families that got their
children back.
Jennifer Buckley.
Chuck Kimmel.
LK
Greegor
LK > rescuing over 40 children from the system.
Yeah, Dan!
What could you use as credible evidence?
Got any references from NY VOCAL?
LK
> On Jul 22, 12:06 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 11:01 am, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 10:53 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 7:15 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 22, 4:15 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 21, 6:31 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything
> > > > > > > impossible.
>
> > > > > > Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
>
> > > > > That isn't a denial of the allegation.
>
> > > > > Duly noted!
>
> > > > > > > Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't
> > > > > > > foaming
> > > > > > > at the mouth with you.
>
> > > > > > I have never attacked anyone.
>
> > > > > You never claimed someone was full of sh*t?
>
> > > > Yes you are.
>
> > > Post the credible evidence, LK.
>
> > Post the credible evidence of you rescuing over 40 children from the
> > system.
>
> I said I helped.
>
Is that another play on words?
> And you are free to believe it or not.
>
I don't.
> grag hanson conversed with a number of the families that got their
> children back.
>
Greg,
Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
> Jennifer Buckley.
>
> Chuck Kimmel.- Hide quoted text -
Dragon's Girl
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
LOL
I could weigh 500 pounds and it would STILL not, in any way, shape, or
form, take advantage of heartbroken families.
Can you say the same?
Dragon's Girl
And, don't forget, me.
Even though, at first, Greg didn't believe I was a 'real' person.
No matter.
Thanks again Dan.
Dragon's Girl
LOL "are you going to back Dan's claim here?'
ROFL
OMG.
It's like going to the circus.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't take advantage of anybody, I give them a voice.
Dan Sullivan
By doing a copy and paste job from one website to another?
That isn't a voice.
That's an echo.
Dragon's Girl
Who do you think you're kidding, LK?
First, your targeted consumer is a group of people that have been
affected by social services in some way.
We all know that this group would be comprised of those who have lost
their children, for good in some cases, struggling with DFS issues,
falsely accused, and more.
We all also know that even minor run ins with DFS can be traumatic and
hurtful.
When you target a group of consumers based on their heartaches it's
called taking advantage.
That's the reason that ambulance chasing is against the law.
Second, I've used Cafepress many times for projects and I know how it
works.
You upload an image and Cafepress will print that image on any item in
their stock that you choose.
Their price for the item is usually inflated to begin with because
they do not have a minimum order clause.
That inflated item becomes further inflated when you, as the
'creator', up the charge for the item.
In your case, and over priced teddy bear at $12.99 becomes $20 once
you are done.
That's $7 profit.
If, as you say, you're a guy just trying to give this targeted group a
voice, then you would have most likely kept the full price of the bear
at cost....$12.99.
Of course, my viewpoint would have been completely different if, for
instance, you had opened a non profit, and earmarked every dime of
profit to go to the legal defense of families falsely accused of child
abuse or neglect.
But, you didn't do that.
So, please don't give me a hard time for 'calling a spade a spade'.
LK
First I don't target anybody to sell them anything, lawyers and
shrinks do that. I just put a picture and a link on my blog.
> We all know that this group would be comprised of those who have lost
> their children, for good in some cases, struggling with DFS issues,
> falsely accused, and more.
> We all also know that even minor run ins with DFS can be traumatic and
> hurtful.
> When you target a group of consumers based on their heartaches it's
> called taking advantage.
You know what Betty? It really doesn't matter what you think of me or
of my blog. You can read it or not. It's up to you. I won't loose
any sleep over it either way. There is nothing you can do about it.
It's there, it's becoming successful, the traffic grows every month.
You can criticize it all you want. That doesn't change the fact that
the response to it has been overwhelmingly positive from the readers,
I have people participating, leaving comments, sending me emails,
talking etc. It is a controversial issue and I actually expected a
lot more hate mail. That just hasn't happened. It seems that I have
three people criticising it. You, Dan and Roberta. And what is your
biggest criticism now? The teddy bear?
> That's the reason that ambulance chasing is against the law.
I don't chase ambulances.
> Second, I've used Cafepress many times for projects and I know how it
> works.
So have I.
> You upload an image and Cafepress will print that image on any item in
> their stock that you choose.
That is correct.
> Their price for the item is usually inflated to begin with because
> they do not have a minimum order clause.
And it costs me nothing to add their service to my blog.
> That inflated item becomes further inflated when you, as the
> 'creator', up the charge for the item.
Yes.
> In your case, and over priced teddy bear at $12.99 becomes $20 once
> you are done.
True.
> That's $7 profit.
Wow, you can do math.
> If, as you say, you're a guy just trying to give this targeted group a
> voice, then you would have most likely kept the full price of the bear
> at cost....$12.99.
That's not the reason for the teddy bear Betty. I assure you, I have
hardly focused on promoting Cafepress products. I put stuff like that
in there because I can, I try it, if it works it works if it don't it
don't.
> Of course, my viewpoint would have been completely different if, for
> instance, you had opened a non profit, and earmarked every dime of
> profit to go to the legal defense of families falsely accused of child
> abuse or neglect.
Your viewpoint would have been completely different had I joined your
little system suck click against Greg from the beginning or if you had
asked where the revenue from sales of any products from that cafepress
shop goes.
Besides, you don't know what I do outside of this. You don't know
what I don't do. You don't know what I've accomplished. Nor do you
know anything else about me. All you know is that I have a blog and
the only reason you don't like it is because you are a system suck.
> But, you didn't do that.
True. Actually that Cafepress thing goes to a church run fund which
buys Christmas presents for local foster children. I don't get
anything from that teddy bear or anything else with Cafepress on
Legally Kidnapped. Nor do I claim that it's been overly successful.
Yes I opened the account, but I've used them before. I can also send
any sales revenue from any of the shops to wherever I want.
I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to your moral standards.
> So, please don't give me a hard time for 'calling a spade a spade'.
I won't.
LK
Don't you like my blog Dan?
> That isn't a voice.
>
> That's an echo.
Dan Sullivan
What the teddy bear does.
You suggest the Teddy Bear, which has your Legally Kidnapped name and
web address on it, be given for "Valentine’s Day, baby showers,
birthdays, get well-wishes, a pair of wedding bears, or any reason you
dream up."
Why not to a child in foster care?
I'll tell you why.
The label reads "Legally Kidnapped, exposing the child abuse industry
for what it is."
Do you think a parent who had a child in foster care could give their
child the bear as a gift?
Maybe if it said "I Love You" or something that CPS wouldn't object
to.
How much less inclined would a Judge be to reunify a child with their
parents if he/she learned the child got one of your "Legally
Kidnapped" bears as a gift from a parent?
For a parent it only serves to take their mind off of what they need
to do to get their child back.
And places their focus on the injustice of what's happened.
The first step in getting a parent on the road to reunification is
helping them get passed their anger.
The last thing a family advocate should want to do is keep the parent
stuck on anger.
THAT'S what CPS wants!
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So how is your witchcraft site doing? Do you think I could buy a
spell to keep you out of ascps? How much would that run? All of us
"system sucks" could pool our cash
Dragon's Girl
The link to the item stands on both your 'voice of family rights' web
site, and was advertised here, one a usenet group that focuses on
families dealing with DFS.
That's called 'targeting'.
>
> > We all know that this group would be comprised of those who have lost
> > their children, for good in some cases, struggling with DFS issues,
> > falsely accused, and more.
> > We all also know that even minor run ins with DFS can be traumatic and
> > hurtful.
> > When you target a group of consumers based on their heartaches it's
> > called taking advantage.
>
> You know what Betty? It really doesn't matter what you think of me or
> of my blog. You can read it or not. It's up to you. I won't loose
> any sleep over it either way. There is nothing you can do about it.
Do you think I care?
Have I ever complained about your blog?
Have I ever made even the slightest whimper about it?
I couldn't care less and have no drive to 'do anything about it'.
But, hey, you keep patting yourself on the back and telling yourself
you're that important, ok?
> It's there, it's becoming successful, the traffic grows every month.
> You can criticize it all you want.
I didn't criticize. You're letting your imagination run away with you
today.
I've never offered any opinion on your blog other than to say it's
mostly comprised of articles, and was when I last read it.
That doesn't change the fact that
> the response to it has been overwhelmingly positive from the readers,
> I have people participating, leaving comments, sending me emails,
> talking etc. It is a controversial issue and I actually expected a
> lot more hate mail.
Why would you expect hate mail? There isn't anything wrong with it.
Surely if you ever did get hate mail it would be from someone who
works for child services, wouldn't it?
That just hasn't happened. It seems that I have
> three people criticising it. You, Dan and Roberta. And what is your
> biggest criticism now? The teddy bear?
Ahem. Again with the fantasy.
I have never criticized your blog. Prove otherwise.
>
> > That's the reason that ambulance chasing is against the law.
>
> I don't chase ambulances.
Nope. You're chasing DFS families.
That's even better and MORE ethical, right?
>
> > Second, I've used Cafepress many times for projects and I know how it
> > works.
>
> So have I.
>
> > You upload an image and Cafepress will print that image on any item in
> > their stock that you choose.
>
> That is correct.
>
> > Their price for the item is usually inflated to begin with because
> > they do not have a minimum order clause.
>
> And it costs me nothing to add their service to my blog.
>
> > That inflated item becomes further inflated when you, as the
> > 'creator', up the charge for the item.
>
> Yes.
>
> > In your case, and over priced teddy bear at $12.99 becomes $20 once
> > you are done.
>
> True.
>
> > That's $7 profit.
>
> Wow, you can do math.
>
> > If, as you say, you're a guy just trying to give this targeted group a
> > voice, then you would have most likely kept the full price of the bear
> > at cost....$12.99.
>
> That's not the reason for the teddy bear Betty. I assure you, I have
> hardly focused on promoting Cafepress products.
I didn't say you were promoting Cafepress products.
Once your image is placed on the item and you promote it you are
promoting YOUR products, as the remainder after cost goes directly to
YOU.
I put stuff like that
> in there because I can, I try it, if it works it works if it don't it
> don't.
And what, exactly, is 'works'?
>
> > Of course, my viewpoint would have been completely different if, for
> > instance, you had opened a non profit, and earmarked every dime of
> > profit to go to the legal defense of families falsely accused of child
> > abuse or neglect.
>
> Your viewpoint would have been completely different had I joined your
> little system suck click against Greg from the beginning or if you had
> asked where the revenue from sales of any products from that cafepress
> shop goes.
LOL Silly LK, YOU, as the promoter, are supposed to PUBLICIZE where
the 'revenue' goes.
It's not my job to ask unless I am 'buying'.
As far as Greg goes, you apparently have not read the archives for
this group too well.
It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
offered support and help. NOT Greg.
Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
him when he is right, and defend him in such cases. Just as I do with
Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron, and even you.
If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
and show us what a big man you are.
>
> Besides, you don't know what I do outside of this. You don't know
> what I don't do. You don't know what I've accomplished. Nor do you
> know anything else about me. All you know is that I have a blog and
> the only reason you don't like it is because you are a system suck.
LOL I don't know what you do outside of 'this', but if your attitude
is any indication I'd say you're a pimp.
I don't know what you've accomplished, but if your mannerisms here are
any indication, I'd say you live in a cardboard box and use the
freebie computer at the local bar.
You're also obviously delusional because I don't care if you have ten
blogs, and don't care what they contain.
In fact, I rather like your blog, or haven't you noticed that I'm one
of the 'unique' hits?
As for being a 'system suck'...do explain how you come to that
conclusion.
Be specific now. We're all waiting for you words of wisdom!
>
> > But, you didn't do that.
>
> True. Actually that Cafepress thing goes to a church run fund which
> buys Christmas presents for local foster children. I don't get
> anything from that teddy bear or anything else with Cafepress on
> Legally Kidnapped. Nor do I claim that it's been overly successful.
> Yes I opened the account, but I've used them before. I can also send
> any sales revenue from any of the shops to wherever I want.
>
> I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to your moral standards.
Use of the program, I have no issue with.
Your targeted clients, hell yeah.
>
> > So, please don't give me a hard time for 'calling a spade a spade'.
>
> I won't.
Yeah you will, and then three days later you'll deny that you ever
said a word.
LK
That's child PROTECTIVE industry Dan. Get it right.
> Do you think a parent who had a child in foster care could give their
> child the bear as a gift?
>
I never said that.
> Maybe if it said "I Love You" or something that CPS wouldn't object
> to.
>
They can get those at Walmart
> How much less inclined would a Judge be to reunify a child with their
> parents if he/she learned the child got one of your "Legally
> Kidnapped" bears as a gift from a parent?
>
There is a time and a place for just about anything.
> For a parent it only serves to take their mind off of what they need
> to do to get their child back.
>
Then said parent should not get one if it would hold so much
psychological power over them.
> And places their focus on the injustice of what's happened.
>
My aren't we judgmental this evening. All I did was put the site logo
on teddy bears and stuck a link on my blog. It is hardly designed to
interfere with the reunification process in any way shape or form.
There is an appropriate time and place for everything. If your point
is just that the parent shouldn't focus on the injustice that's fine.
Perhaps that's not an appropriate time to get one. Ok, whatever. Yet
the injustice continues to be dished out on a regular basis. Sooner
or later that all needs to be addressed. And not necessarily by
system sucks.
> The first step in getting a parent on the road to reunification is
> helping them get passed their anger.
And the first step to fixing a broken system is to expose the problems
that need to be fixed. Time and place Dan. Is that a concept that you
can grasp? They are two aspects of the same problem. One is a more
objective view, the other being more subjective and individualized.
Yet they both have their time and their place. So you do your thing
and I'll do mine.
>
> The last thing a family advocate should want to do is keep the parent
> stuck on anger.
>
It's a cute little teddy bear Dan. My God aren't you anal-
retentive.
But I can understand your dislike in regards to teddy (or puppet)
bears. You must have had nightmares about them after that little
incident back in 93. I would imagine it must have been a horrible
thing to go through causing a traumatic psychological hatred for
anything like that.
LK
Great.
> Do you think I could buy a
> spell to keep you out of ascps?
Maybe you could write one. I've always kind of pictured you as
looking like the Wicked Witch of the West.
> How much would that run? All of us
> "system sucks" could pool our cash
We'll take it out in trade. How would that be?
Dan Sullivan
I just did.
> > Maybe if it said "I Love You" or something that CPS wouldn't object
> > to.
>
> They can get those at Walmart
OK.
> > How much less inclined would a Judge be to reunify a child with their
> > parents if he/she learned the child got one of your "Legally
> > Kidnapped" bears as a gift from a parent?
>
> There is a time and a place for just about anything.
To me it's always about the kids.
To you, apparently it's not.
> > For a parent it only serves to take their mind off of what they need
> > to do to get their child back.
>
> Then said parent should not get one if it would hold so much
> psychological power over them.
Yes.
> > And places their focus on the injustice of what's happened.
>
> My aren't we judgmental this evening. All I did was put the site logo
> on teddy bears and stuck a link on my blog. It is hardly designed to
> interfere with the reunification process in any way shape or form.
But it would.
> There is an appropriate time and place for everything. If your point
> is just that the parent shouldn't focus on the injustice that's fine.
> Perhaps that's not an appropriate time to get one. Ok, whatever. Yet
> the injustice continues to be dished out on a regular basis. Sooner
> or later that all needs to be addressed. And not necessarily by
> system sucks.
I just want the kids back to their families asap.
> > The first step in getting a parent on the road to reunification is
> > helping them get passed their anger.
>
> And the first step to fixing a broken system is to expose the problems
> that need to be fixed.
Which won't and hasn't gotten a single child reunified with their
parents.
> Time and place Dan. Is that a concept that you
> can grasp?
Better than you, lk.
> They are two aspects of the same problem. One is a more
> objective view, the other being more subjective and individualized.
> Yet they both have their time and their place. So you do your thing
> and I'll do mine.
Just don't make it more difficult for anyone to get their kids back.
> > The last thing a family advocate should want to do is keep the parent
> > stuck on anger.
>
> It's a cute little teddy bear Dan. My God aren't you anal-
> retentive.
Not at all.
I want NO bumps in the road.
> But I can understand your dislike in regards to teddy (or puppet)
> bears. You must have had nightmares about them after that little
> incident back in 93. I would imagine it must have been a horrible
> thing to go through causing a traumatic psychological hatred for
> anything like that.
There was nothing traumatic about it.
There was one nonsensical sentence, which I LOVE!!!
I love when CPS makes insane and/or wild claims.
AND the next sentence was she didn't understand what my daughter was
trying to say.
So my actual reaction went from a giggle to a BIG smile in two
sentences.
Nothing traumatic about it at all.
Greegor
> this group too well.
> It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
> offered support and help. NOT Greg.
> Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
> him when he is right, and defend him in such cases. Just as I do with
> Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron, and even you.
> If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
> and show us what a big man you are.
Betty poses as the "good cop" interceding when
one of the system sucks goes WAY too far in their
assertions about me. She has tried to ingratiate
herself much like the "good cop" of
"good cop, bad cop" fame. But she tries selling
this lame pretense so strongly that it is hilarious.
She also tried this "I'm your only friend" ruse
on Ken Pangborn which was hilarious as well.
It was particularly funny because most of Betty's
backchannel messages were pipelined to
the targets of the group attack.
Betty must be really bored, seeking INTRIGUE.
Greegor
DS > number of the families that got
DS > their children back.
DS > Jennifer Buckley.
DS > Chuck Kimmel
LK > Greg,
LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
that I interacted in the newsgroup with
people representing themselves by those names.
Dan is pretending that interacting with them
proves they are genuine.
I have publicly questioned whether or
not they were genuine, particularly after
""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
got her kid/kids back only to lose them
again and forever later on.
I'm suspicious even of the last names
since Buckley and Kimmel have been
high profile in the media.
The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f21df4d-2bbb-482a...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> DS > grag hanson conversed with a
> DS > number of the families that got
> DS > their children back.
> DS > Jennifer Buckley.
> DS > Chuck Kimmel
>
> LK > Greg,
> LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
>
> Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
> that I interacted in the newsgroup with
> people representing themselves by those names.
Lengthy onversations over a very long period of time.
> Dan is pretending that interacting with them
> proves they are genuine.
It proves you thought they were real people.
> I have publicly questioned whether or
> not they were genuine, particularly after
> ""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
What does Oliver have to do with the people you were talking to?
> Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
> got her kid/kids back only to lose them
> again and forever later on.
So that sounds like I made it up?
> I'm suspicious even of the last names
> since Buckley and Kimmel have been
> high profile in the media.
Hey!
Remember Ed Sullivan???
Or the woman astranaut named Sullivan?
Isn't that proof enough I'm not real?
Right, grag?
> The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
> as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
That was a name Chuck used because he was a hockey fan.
Look it up, grag.
Dragon's Girl
> > As far as Greg goes, you apparently have not read the archives for
> > this group too well.
> > It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
> > offered support and help. NOT Greg.
> > Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
> > him when he is right, and defend him in such cases. Just as I do with
> > Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron, and even you.
> > If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
> > and show us what a big man you are.
>
> Betty poses as the "good cop" interceding when
> one of the system sucks goes WAY too far in their
> assertions about me. She has tried to ingratiate
> herself much like the "good cop" of
> "good cop, bad cop" fame. But she tries selling
> this lame pretense so strongly that it is hilarious.
Wow.
He's a friggin mind reader!
>
> She also tried this "I'm your only friend" ruse
> on Ken Pangborn which was hilarious as well.
That was Ken's delusion.
>
> It was particularly funny because most of Betty's
> backchannel messages were pipelined to
> the targets of the group attack.
Excuse me?
>
> Betty must be really bored, seeking INTRIGUE.
Oh my, here he goes with his 'Kanespiracy' theories again.
Greegor
DS > number of the families that got
DS > their children back.
DS > Jennifer Buckley.
DS > Chuck Kimmel
LK > Greg,
LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
G > Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
G > that I interacted in the newsgroup with
G > people representing themselves by those names.
DS > Lengthy onversations over a very long period of time.
G > Dan is pretending that interacting with them
G > proves they are genuine.
DS > It proves you thought they were real people.
How does it prove that?
G > I have publicly questioned whether or
G > not they were genuine, particularly after
G > ""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
DS > What does Oliver have to do with the people you were talking to?
Goes to your credibility regarding ""real people"".
G > Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
G > got her kid/kids back only to lose them
G > again and forever later on.
G > So that sounds like I made it up?
Oliver Sutton.
G > I'm suspicious even of the last names
G > since Buckley and Kimmel have been
G > high profile in the media.
DS > Hey!
DS > Remember Ed Sullivan???
DS > Or the woman astranaut named Sullivan?
DS > Isn't that proof enough I'm not real?
DS > Right, grag?
Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
G > The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
G > as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
DS> That was a name Chuck used because
DS > he was a hockey fan. Look it up, grag.
Dan Sullivan
> DS > grag hanson conversed with a
> DS > number of the families that got
> DS > their children back.
> DS > Jennifer Buckley.
> DS > Chuck Kimmel
>
> LK > Greg,
> LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
>
> G > Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
> G > that I interacted in the newsgroup with
> G > people representing themselves by those names.
>
> DS > Lengthy onversations over a very long period of time.
>
> G > Dan is pretending that interacting with them
> G > proves they are genuine.
>
> DS > It proves you thought they were real people.
>
> How does it prove that?
>
> G > I have publicly questioned whether or
> G > not they were genuine, particularly after
> G > ""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
>
> DS > What does Oliver have to do with the people you were talking to?
>
> Goes to your credibility regarding ""real people"".
Oliver is real.
> G > Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
> G > got her kid/kids back only to lose them
> G > again and forever later on.
>
> G > So that sounds like I made it up?
>
> Oliver Sutton.
Is greegor real?
> G > I'm suspicious even of the last names
> G > since Buckley and Kimmel have been
> G > high profile in the media.
>
> DS > Hey!
> DS > Remember Ed Sullivan???
> DS > Or the woman astranaut named Sullivan?
> DS > Isn't that proof enough I'm not real?
> DS > Right, grag?
>
> Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
Your problem, grag, is if I'm not a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
Dragon's Girl
> On Jul 21, 12:18 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 10:23 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 21, 8:25 am, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:9f0c3b93-8aa9-4a8f...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Jul 21, 3:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > > > >> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > > > >> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > > > >> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
> > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > > > >> DS > No.
>
> > > > >> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
> > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> > > > > LOL Greg, it doesn't sound to me like Dan was referring to first
> > > > > contact.
> > > > > He says 'if you really want to get your child back from foster care,',
> > > > > meaning the child has already been taken, so first contact is not even
> > > > > part of his reply.
>
> > > > grag is the long time master of the inconsequential, irrelevant,
> > > > inappropriate and pointless question.
>
> > > > He LIVES for the eye rolls!
>
> > > Of course. How else might he go about diverting readers and posters
> > > from REAL discussions?
> > > I think LK said it best when he told us the other day that Greg is
> > > here to run people off.
>
> > Where and when did I say that Betty?
>
> "If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good."
>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.support.foster-
> parents, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, misc.legal
> From: LK <Patis...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 1:30 am
> Subject: Re: Child dragged away by police on command of CAS
>
> You can't remember what you said less than a week ago, LK?
>
> "...don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the truth, tells it
> like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
> political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
> proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
> doing is calling a spade a spade. So his method is not politically
> correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality."
>
> > And how is this false accusation of yours
>
> Is it still false after you see that you did say what DG claimed?
>
> > not trying to "divert
> > readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
> > about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice
>
> I've never given "ass kissing method" advice.
>
> > in reference to a YouTube
> > video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
>
> It's what YOU said greg does.
>
> > I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
> > fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
> > assed CPS worker.
>
> > Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
> > learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
> > trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
> > At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
>
> YOU'RE the one twisting a statement and making a bullshit claim about
> it LK!
>
> My daughter was interviewed.
>
> So why is your "quote" "I'm not sure what HE was trying to say... "
>
> I was never interviewed by the detectives.
>
> Are you just playing stupid, LK?
>
> Is that the way you have something to base your bullshit on???
LK must have missed this response to his denial.
Firemonkey
Your fantasy is dead wrong. I look more like the wicked witch of the
east, you silly boy.
> > How much would that run? All of us
> > "system sucks" could pool our cash
>
> We'll take it out in trade. How would that be?
Good idea but it won't work. You don't have anything that interests
me.
LK
So you're a marketing expert now?
>
> > > We all know that this group would be comprised of those who have lost
> > > their children, for good in some cases, struggling with DFS issues,
> > > falsely accused, and more.
> > > We all also know that even minor run ins with DFS can be traumatic and
> > > hurtful.
> > > When you target a group of consumers based on their heartaches it's
> > > called taking advantage.
>
> > You know what Betty? It really doesn't matter what you think of me or
> > of my blog. You can read it or not. It's up to you. I won't loose
> > any sleep over it either way. There is nothing you can do about it.
>
> Do you think I care?
I don't care if you do.
> Have I ever complained about your blog?
You're complaining about the teddy bear.
> Have I ever made even the slightest whimper about it?
You just did.
> I couldn't care less and have no drive to 'do anything about it'.
> But, hey, you keep patting yourself on the back and telling yourself
> you're that important, ok?
>
ok.
> > It's there, it's becoming successful, the traffic grows every month.
> > You can criticize it all you want.
>
> I didn't criticize. You're letting your imagination run away with you
> today.
Well my deepest and most sincere apologies. You're right Betty, it
was Dan who criticized what I post to it. I just lump the three of
you together. Kind of like you do me with Greg.
> I've never offered any opinion on your blog other than to say it's
> mostly comprised of articles, and was when I last read it.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that
>
> > the response to it has been overwhelmingly positive from the readers,
> > I have people participating, leaving comments, sending me emails,
> > talking etc. It is a controversial issue and I actually expected a
> > lot more hate mail.
>
> Why would you expect hate mail? There isn't anything wrong with it.
> Surely if you ever did get hate mail it would be from someone who
> works for child services, wouldn't it?
>
> That just hasn't happened. It seems that I have
>
> > three people criticising it. You, Dan and Roberta. And what is your
> > biggest criticism now? The teddy bear?
>
> Ahem. Again with the fantasy.
> I have never criticized your blog. Prove otherwise.
>
See above.
>
>
> > > That's the reason that ambulance chasing is against the law.
>
> > I don't chase ambulances.
>
> Nope. You're chasing DFS families.
Bullshit.
> That's even better and MORE ethical, right?
>
I'm not chasing anybody. Prove otherwise.
A word. Look it up.
>
>
> > > Of course, my viewpoint would have been completely different if, for
> > > instance, you had opened a non profit, and earmarked every dime of
> > > profit to go to the legal defense of families falsely accused of child
> > > abuse or neglect.
>
> > Your viewpoint would have been completely different had I joined your
> > little system suck click against Greg from the beginning or if you had
> > asked where the revenue from sales of any products from that cafepress
> > shop goes.
>
> LOL Silly LK, YOU, as the promoter, are supposed to PUBLICIZE where
> the 'revenue' goes.
I just did.
> It's not my job to ask unless I am 'buying'.
Don't bother.
> As far as Greg goes, you apparently have not read the archives for
> this group too well.
Is the intensive study of tens of thousands of NG posts a requirement
of posting here or something? Your posting history is not that
important to me. Just keep patting yourself on the back though.
> It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
> offered support and help. NOT Greg.
Maybe Greg saw through you.
> Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
> him when he is right, and defend him in such cases.
Got a link?
> Just as I do with
> Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron,
Not that I've seen.
> and even you.
Got a link?
> If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
> and show us what a big man you are.
>
>
>
> > Besides, you don't know what I do outside of this. You don't know
> > what I don't do. You don't know what I've accomplished. Nor do you
> > know anything else about me. All you know is that I have a blog and
> > the only reason you don't like it is because you are a system suck.
>
> LOL I don't know what you do outside of 'this', but if your attitude
> is any indication I'd say you're a pimp.
Didn't you just accuse me of slinging mud? Two wrongs don't make a
right Betty. Perhaps you could teach by example. Prove that you're
better than I am.
> I don't know what you've accomplished, but if your mannerisms here are
> any indication, I'd say you live in a cardboard box and use the
> freebie computer at the local bar.
> You're also obviously delusional because I don't care if you have ten
> blogs, and don't care what they contain.
> In fact, I rather like your blog, or haven't you noticed that I'm one
> of the 'unique' hits?
> As for being a 'system suck'...do explain how you come to that
> conclusion.
Greg told me.
> Be specific now. We're all waiting for you words of wisdom!
That's funny Betty. The phrase "system suck" is a lable that has been
placed on certain members of a newsgroup who are in support of a
certain view. It just so happens that you all work as sort of an
unofficial team against a certain person who supports a different
view, and anybody who doesn't support the view of this unofficial team
is automatically lumped in together with that other person although
they may or may not support any or all of the views of this other
person. The phrase, as I use it, simply identifies you as a part of
that unofficial team who participates by jumping on the bandwagon or
perhaps starting your own by twisting one little response out of
context and basing your false accusations on that, where the other
members stick right with you in whatever direction it goes. It's kind
of like watching a school of fish or a flock of birds where one turns
they all turn almost simutaniously. Go ahead and deny that you all
(meaning participating members of this NG) do this. Greg might have
an entirely different definition of the lable "System Suck." I use it
simply as an identification lable, which fits simply because, the way
I see it, that view enables others to make money off of families that
have been ripped appart.
Now I realize that the lable might seem to some to mean that you get
something from the system like money or whatever. Perhaps you do
perhaps you don't. Perhaps your buddy Dan gets paid for his services,
perhaps he doesn't. I make no claim either way. It doesn't matter to
me in the least where you get your money. I use the term entirely as
an identification lable, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>
> > > But, you didn't do that.
>
> > True. Actually that Cafepress thing goes to a church run fund which
> > buys Christmas presents for local foster children. I don't get
> > anything from that teddy bear or anything else with Cafepress on
> > Legally Kidnapped. Nor do I claim that it's been overly successful.
> > Yes I opened the account, but I've used them before. I can also send
> > any sales revenue from any of the shops to wherever I want.
>
> > I'm sorry if that doesn't conform to your moral standards.
>
> Use of the program, I have no issue with.
> Your targeted clients, hell yeah.
>
You'll get over it.
>
>
> > > So, please don't give me a hard time for 'calling a spade a spade'.
>
> > I won't.
>
> Yeah you will, and then three days later you'll deny that you ever
> said a word.
>
Well excuse me Mother Theresa, weren't you the one who claimed that I
told you all that Greg scares everybody away, which was originally
your claim, which I was responding too. I never denied what I said.
You simply misrepresented the meaning of my statement by taking it out
of context in an effort to bate me with a false accusation. IOW
lied. That seems to be your way and I don't even have to go into the
archives to see it. Spin it off in whatever direction you want to go
in.
Like your shit don't stink.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
What? He's just pulling the same bullshit you do.
LK
LK > Great.
FM > Do you think I could buy a
FM > spell to keep you out of ascps?
LK > Maybe you could write one. I've always kind of pictured you as
LK > looking like the Wicked Witch of the West.
FM > Your fantasy is dead wrong. I look more like the wicked witch of
the
FM > east, you silly boy.
So you're saying that you look like someone dropped a house on you?
Greegor
Please post proof.
G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
Could you diagram that logic?
Dan Sullivan
IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake, and my advice was as
effective as it seems to be with all the other "fake" people on asCPS
over the last seven years, Lisa COULD have taken my advice and gotten
her daughter home in a few weeks.
Greegor
> On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > DS > Oliver is real.
>
> > Please post proof.
>
> > G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
>
DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
G > Could you diagram that logic?
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
http://www.faustiandeal.com/about.php
To understand the nature of a 'Faustian Deal', one must first know the
history of Dr. John Faustus. The myth first appeared in the 16th
century; a German tale of a magician capable of amazing acts. Faustus
was reputed to have performed feats which implied powers supernatural
in origin. The real Faustus was likely nothing more than a charlatan-a
braggart and bullshit artist. However, the myth of Faust has formed
the basis for short stories, musical scores, and plays-the most
popular being Christopher Marlowe's "The Tragical History of Dr.
Faustus". Marlowe's Faust was a man of science who was intrigued by
the mysteries of life. Dissatisfied with the answers found in law,
medicine, and theology he turns to necromancy-forging an infernal pact
to discover the truth. A 'Faustian Deal' is an attempt to follow
Faust, signing a deal with the devil to exchange your soul for earthly
reward.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faustian+deal
1. faustian deal 22 up, 1 down
A bargain made or done for present gain without regard for future
cost or consequences.
A pact made with the Devil—selling one’s soul in order to gain power,
knowledge, wealth, beauty, youth, or some other desired goal. The
theme is an old one: one may gain short-term delights, but the Devil
comes to collect in the end. One must eventually ‘pay the piper’ –
bear the consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustian
Faustian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Something that is faustian refers to a wider interpretation of the
events of Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In part one of Goethe's
Faust, the central character's pact with the devil allows him to have
energy, life and youth unless he becomes so entranced by the passing
moment that he wishes that things will never change. When Faust
stumbles unthinkingly into that wish, his world and his life are
forfeit to Mephistopheles.
Faustian may be:
A work of fiction, or a fictional character, may be cited as being
"Faustian" if it involves a literal or proverbial "deal with the
devil", such as that portrayed in the story of Faust. Such dealings
are often referred to as "Faustian deals", and as such there is
usually short term gain (e.g. fame, fortune, knowledge) for long term
pain (i.e. the person's soul).
In history, since Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West the
Faustian society is synonymous with the western world. The word is
chosen since Spengler believed the entire western society follows a
trajectory similar to that of Faust.
In sociology, in the writings of Marshall Berman, Faustian refers to
the short-time perspective of society in modernity. It also refers to
Faust's desire in the second part of Goethe's Faust, especially act V,
to defeat the forces of nature and create a mechanical heaven on earth
by draining the seabed and using it for farming.
In the role-playing game Demon: The Fallen, the Faustians are a
faction of fallen angels. See Demon: The Fallen.
It is also mentioned that Vicktor Frankenstein in the Novel,
Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley, is considered a
Faustian character with his "deal with the devil" to gain strength and
energy to pursue and kill his creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust
Faust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Faust (disambiguation).
Faust depicted in an etching by Rembrandt van Rijn (circa 1650).Faust
(German for "fist") or Faustus (Latin for "auspicious" or "lucky") is
the protagonist of a classic German legend in which he makes a pact
with the Devil. The tale is the basis for many literary, artistic,
cinematic, and musical works, such as those by Christopher Marlowe,
Goethe, Mikhail Bulgakov, Thomas Mann, Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt,
Washington Irving, and Charles Gounod.
The name "Faust" has come to stand for a charlatan alchemist (some
claim "astrologer and necromancer") whose pride and vanity lead to his
doom. Similarly, the adjective "Faustian" has come to denote acts or
constellations involving human hubris which lead eventually to
nemesis.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical Faust
2 Sources of the Faust legend
3 Marlowe's Doctor Faustus
4 Goethe's Faust
4.1 Influence
4.2 Translations
5 See also
6 Sources
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Historical Faust
Main article: Johann Georg Faust
The origin of Faust's name and persona remains unclear, though it is
widely assumed to be based on the figure of German Dr. Johann Georg
Faust (approximately 1480–1540), a dubious magician and alchemist
probably from Knittlingen, Württemberg, who obtained a degree in
divinity from Heidelberg University in 1509. According to one account,
Faust's infamy became legendary while he was in prison, where, in
exchange for wine, he "offered to show a chaplain how to remove hair
from his face without a razor. The chaplain provided the wine and
Faustus provided the chaplain with a salve of arsenic, which removed
not only the hair but the flesh" (Barnett).
Some sources also connect the legendary Faust with Johann Fust (c.1400
- October 30, 1466), Johann Gutenberg's business partner[1], or
suggest that Fust is one of the multiple origins to the Faust
story[2].
In Polish folklore there is a tale with a Pan Twardowski in a role
similar to Faust's, and seems to have originated at roughly the same
time. It is unclear if and to what extent the two tales have a common
origin or influenced each other. The figure of Pan Twardowski is
supposedly based on a either a 16th century German emigrant to the
then-capital of Poland, Kraków, or possibly John Dee or Edward Kelley.
According to Melanchthon, the historic Johann Faust had studied in
Kraków, as well.[citation needed]
[edit] Sources of the Faust legend
Main article: Faust chapbooks
The first recorded Faust committed to print is a little chapbook
bearing the title Historia von D. Iohan Fausten published in 1587. The
book was re-edited and borrowed from throughout the 17th century.
Johann Spies: Historia von D. Johann Fausten (1587)
Das Wagnerbuch von (1593)
Das Widmann'sche Faustbuch von (1599)
Dr. Fausts großer und gewaltiger Höllenzwang (Frankfurt 1609)
Dr. Johannes Faust, Magia naturalis et innaturalis (Passau 1612)
Das Pfitzer'sche Faustbuch (1674)
Dr. Fausts großer und gewaltiger Meergeist (Amsterdam 1692)
Das Wagnerbuch (1714)
Faustbuch des Christlich Meynenden (1725)
With Marlowe's The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, written in the
early 1590s, it also received an early theatrical treatment. Plays and
comic puppet theatre loosely based on the legend were popular
throughout Germany, often reducing Faust to a figure of vulgar fun.
The 1725 chapbook was widely circulated, and also read by the young
Goethe.
It has been suggested Jacob Bidermann used such an earlier source for
his treatment of the legend of the Damnation of the Good Doctor of
Paris, Cenodoxus (published c. 1602). Possibly related tales of a pact
between man and the devil include that of Theophilus of Adana, and
Mary of Nijmegen,the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century Dutch
play attributed to Anna Bijns.
[edit] Marlowe's Doctor Faustus
Main article: The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
The early Faust chapbook, while already in circulation in Northern
Germany, found its way to England, where it was translated into
English by "P. F., Gent[leman]" in 1592 as The Historie of the
Damnable Life, and Deserved Death of Doctor Iohn Faustus. It was this
work that Christopher Marlowe used for his more ambitious play, The
Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (published c. 1604). Marlowe also
borrowed from Acts and Monuments by John Foxe, on the exchanges
between Pope Adrian and a rival pope. Another possible inspiration of
Marlowe's version is John Dee (1527-1609), who practiced forms of
alchemy and science and developed Enochian magic.
[edit] Goethe's Faust
Main article: Goethe's Faust
Goethe's Faust inverts and makes greatly more complex the simple
Christian moral of the original legend. A hybrid between a play and an
extended poem, Goethe's two part "closet drama" is epic in scope. It
gathers together references from Christian, medieval, Roman, eastern
and Hellenic poetry, philosophy and literature; ending in a Faust who
is saved, carried aloft to heaven, as Mephistopheles looks on.
The legend of Faust was an obsession of Goethe's. Although by no means
a constant pursuit, the composition and refinement of his own version
of the legend occupied him for over sixty years. The final version,
not completely published until after his death, is recognized as a
great work of German Literature.
The story concerns the fate of Faust in his quest for the true essence
of life ("was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhält"). Frustrated with
learning and the limits to his knowledge and power, he attracts the
attention of the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles), who agrees to
serve Faust until the moment he attains the zenith of human happiness,
at which point Mephistopheles may take his soul. Goethe's Faust is
pleased with the deal, as he believes the moment will never come.
In the first part, Mephistopheles leads Faust through experiences that
culminate in a lustful and destructive relationship with an innocent
and nubile woman named Gretchen. Gretchen and her family are destroyed
by Mephistopheles' deceptions and Faust's desires and actions. The
story ends in tragedy as Gretchen is saved and Faust is left in shame.
The second part begins with the spirits of the earth forgiving Faust
(and the rest of mankind) and progresses into rich allegorical poetry.
Faust and his devil pass through the world of politics and the world
of the classical gods, and meet with Helen of Troy (the
personification of beauty). Finally, having succeeded in taming the
very forces of war and nature Faust experiences a single moment of
happiness.
The devil Mephistopheles, trying to grab Faust's soul when he dies, is
frustrated as the Lord intervenes – recognizing the value of Faust's
unending striving.
[edit] Influence
Goethe's Faust was the source material for at least two successful
operas: Faust by Charles Gounod and Mefistofele by Arrigo Boito. It
has inspired numerous additional major musical works, such as the
"dramatic legend" The Damnation of Faust by Hector Berlioz, Robert
Schumann's Scenes from Goethe's Faust, the second part of Gustav
Mahler's Symphony No. 8, and Franz Liszt's Mephisto Waltzes.
[edit] Translations
In September 2006, Oxford University Press published an English, blank-
verse translation of Goethe's work entitled Faustus, From the German
of Goethe, now widely believed to be the production of Samuel Taylor
Coleridge. Although Coleridge famously insisted during his lifetime
that he "had never put pen to paper as a translator of Faust", he was
never the most trustworthy source for matters autobiographical.
Moreover, the volume's editors, UCLA Professor Emeritus Frederick
Burwick and University of Montana Professor James McCusick (both
renowned Coleridge scholars), have assembled over 800 verbal echoes
between the translation and Coleridge's other poems and dramatic
works, uncovered a wealth of circumstantial evidence, and used
computer-aided stylometric analysis in order to support their claim
that Coleridge was the author. The translation, which was published
anonymously in 1821, was previously attributed to George Soane.
Despite this evidence, the status of the translation as the work of
Coleridge is still disputed by some Coleridge authorities.[3]
[edit] See also
List of works which retell or strongly allude to the Faust tale
Phantom of the Paradise
Brajendra Nath Seal
Mephistopheles
Dr. Faustus
Brocken spectre
The Devil and Tom Walker, 15th-18th century local New England legend
with high similarities to Faust. Recorded in Washington Irving's 1842
"Tales of a Traveler" compilation.
Jonathan Moulton, the "Yankee Faust"
Pan Twardowski, the "Polish Faust", a German man comes to the then-
capital of Poland: Cracow
Friedrich Nietzsche
Rudolf Steiner
The Brocken
The Sorrows of Satan
Walpurgis Night
Damn Yankees
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1955) (play only)
Brazen Head
Staufen, Germany, a town in the extreme south-west of Germany, claims
to be where Faust died (ca. 1540); depictions appear on buildings etc.
The only historical source for this tradition is a passage in the
"Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern," which was written around 1565,
twenty-five years after Faust's presumed date of death. These
chronicles are generally considered reliable, and in the 16th century
there were still family ties between the lords of Staufen and the
counts of Zimmern in nearby Donaueschingen.
Ghost Rider. In the movie, there is a brief scene where the hero of
the movie, played by Nicholas Cage, is seen referring to a book about
Faust and learning to control his powers. An antagonist in the movie
is called both, The Devil and Mephistopheles, the name for the devil
that Faust sold his soul to. In the film Mephistopheles commands
Johnny Blaze to destroy his (Mephistopheles) son, Blackheart.
Bård Eithun, ex-drummer for Black metal band Emperor goes under the
pseudonym "Faust".
Ultraman Nexus, another entry in the Japanese long-running series
Ultraman, features a "Black Ultraman" by the name of Faust. Faust was
created by another dark Ulstra named Mephisto, another allusion to the
Faust tale.
[edit] Sources
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, Edited and with and
introduction by Sylvan Barnett (1969, Signet Classics)
J. Scheible, Das Kloster (1840s).
[edit] References
^ Meggs, Philip B.; Alston W. Purvis (2006). Meggs' History of Graphic
Design, Fourth Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 73. ISBN
0471699020.
^ Jensen, Eric (Autumn, 1982). "Liszt, Nerval, and "Faust"". 19th-
Century Music 6 (2): 153. University of California Press. Retrieved on
2008-07-18.
^ A review of the controversial edition, Times Literary Supplement,
Kelly Grovier
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
FaustFaust Study Guide
The Faust Tradition from Marlowe to Mann, California State University,
Chico
Pacts with the Devil: Faust and Precursors
E-texts:
Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe at Project Gutenberg
Tragical History of Dr. Faustus at Project Gutenberg (Quarto of 1604)
Tragical History of Dr. Faustus at Project Gutenberg (Quarto of 1616)
At Projekt Gutenberg-DE:
Goethe's Faust, part 1
Goethe's Faust, part 2
Heine's Der Doktor Faust
Faust full text in German and English side-by-side
Marlowe's Dr. Faustus
Jan Svankmajer's Faust
The Pre-Death Thoughts of Faust by Nikolai Berdyaev
A wiki page about Faust. Includes scene by scene commentary.
Phantom Regiment 2006
Did Coleridge translate Goethe's Faust? A an article by Kelly Grovier
in the Times Literary Supplement
Printed Editions:
Subculture Books' Edition of Faust[[Category:Faust| ]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust"
http://leanlitigation.typepad.com/weltman/2008/05/the-faustian-de.html
May 26, 2008
The Faustian Deal and Why We Litigators Must Change The Way We
Practice
Perhaps because I have a son who is about to enter the profession and
perhaps because he is a coveted recruit, I write this post as a small
and quiet call for a new paradigm in the treatment of litigation
associates and, in turn, a new paradigm for how law is practiced.
I am, of course, speaking in generalities, but these observations are
nevertheless generally true. The legal profession and, in particular,
the large to mid-size firms, are doing an abysmal job in training
their litigation associates to become trial lawyers.
Firms are now completely driven by the bottom line. It controls all
that is done. Lure top associates with ever increasing starting
salaries in order to lay claim that "our firm attracts the best
talent." Work those associates to death on make work tasks to pay for
those salaries and to produce the profits necessary to keep up with
the Jones to maintain or raise "profits per partner" in order to keep
and lure supposed rainmakers.
The result - few if any private sector associates are gaining any
concept of the big picture in the cases they work on. They are given
zounds of projects to work on as part of a larger group of pyramided
lawyers in various matters. But how many are actually an integral part
of any case's litigation team?
It is the rare [very rare] exception where a firm staffs its cases
with small teams; where the associates work closely with a senior
partner on all aspects of the case. As those who have read my other
posts or who have read my articles know [go to my web site for the
articles], even the largest cases are more effectively run with small
litigation teams. It is the best way to win and it costs less for the
client. It is also the best way for young lawyers to develop the
skills they will need to be case leaders.
Top law graduates - intelligent as they are - accept the current
Faustian deal only because the money seems to be too good to pass up.
But as everyone knows, most associates will be gone within 4-5 years,
and most of these young litigators leave with little if any marketable
skills. Few have even taken a deposition let alone participated in
any meaningful way in a trial or some other form of contested
hearing. Those that stay have limited skills for their years and this
experience lag continues - with some "litigation" partners at large
firms never having tried a case either as a first or second chair!
How could so many smart people act so stupidly for a few extra short
term dollars?
There is only one end point for this trend - eventually the only
people capable of trying cases in large firms are going to be former
USDAs or State's Attorneys. But there are not enough USDA or State's
Attorney jobs available to provide the training for the private
sector's needs.
Moreover, let me tell you a little known secret - there is actually an
art - unfortunately a dying one - to handling large complex civil
litigation matters that one only learns from doing them in the private
sector. So even government trained attorneys - while having a leg up
on their private sector counterparts in terms of courtroom experience
- are at a disadvantage when they come up against seasoned private
sector civil litigators who know what they are doing. For example, it
is one thing when you have the FBI gathering your evidence for you and
another when you have to do it yourself.
Those firms currently drunk on the short term revenues from this
inefficient pyramid are going to be in for a rude awakening based upon
simple economics of supply and demand.
On the supply side, law school graduates aspiring to be litigators are
going to get smart and realize that they are better off tightening
their belts in their early years and gain in the trenches trial
experience at a smaller firm [say a litigation boutique] where, to
borrow a phrase, rather than giving them a fish the firms teach them
how to fish. There are already supply side organizations cropping up
such as "Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession" [click here]
that are starting to confront the issue of the quality of associate
life and training.
Yet, it still amazes me how the herd mentality takes over for most the
top law school grads. How else can one explain seemingly intelligent
people who, for a few extra short term dollars, knowingly squander all
that they have worked for to be worked to death for 4-5 years and walk
away with few meaningful marketable skills. It is a losing
proposition. If it were a case it would be dismissed out of court.
Here is absolute rule no. 1 for soon to be law school grads who aspire
to be litigators - if you want to have personal autonomy [e.g. control
your career arc] make sure that where ever you land you are going to
be given the opportunity to (1) take and defend depositions and argue
before courts within your first 2-3 years and (2) try cases as second
and first chair within the first 5 years of your practice. Ask the
associates who interview you how many depositions they have taken and
defended. Ask them how many trials they have worked on and what they
did.
They may not like these questions, but if you intend to make a career
out of asking the right questions, it makes sense to do so when you
are making an important career choice. You are entitled to know these
things. If someone is going to hold it against you for asking these
questions then you should think twice about why you want to work at
such a place.
For those litigation associates who now realize that their high paying
jobs are on a track to nowhere in terms of skill development, get out.
Get over the prestige issue and get over the money thing. Nine years
out, no one will care where you spent your first years of practice if
don't have needed skills, and whatever money you made upfront in your
early years will be quickly lost in diminished earning capacity later
on.
On the demand side, as large and mid-size general practice firms'
development of litigation talent continues on its diminished trend,
more and more top flight litigation boutiques are going to become the
norm - not only because smart law school grads who want to become real
trial lawyers are going to flock to them but also because clients big
and small are going to prefer to hire these firms.
In short, unless this trend reverses and large firms pay attention to
something other than short term profitability, the marketplace will
dictate a division - where the best/most talented litigation firms
and departments will be litigation only firms.
The trend has already begun - pioneered by firms like Susman Godfrey
and followed by firms like Barlit Beck. Yes, these firms are uber
versions of litigation only firms that currently have the luxury of
selecting only the cream of the crop law school grads. But one should
not write them off as one hit wonders - firms that only arose because
of the unique abilities of their founders.
There is a valid business model behind these firms, why they are so
successful and, most important, why they are more sought after than
large firm litigation departments time and again. The model is quite
simple - they get the talent, they develop the talent, and,as a
result, they provide a better product.
The model is being successfully followed. Numerous complex litigation
boutiques are sprouting up in every major metropolitan area.
Will the litigation boutique overtake large firm litigation
departments in my lifetime? Probably not. But having litigated my
fair share of antitrust matters, I am a firm believer in the
marketplace. You don't have to be a Nobel Laureate economist to
understand that both the supply side and demand side may very well
seek an alternative when law the large firms fail to provide what both
sides want.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:41�pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > DS > Oliver is real.
> >
> > > Please post proof.
> >
> > > G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
> >
> DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
> DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
> DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
>
> G > Could you diagram that logic?
>
> DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
> DS > and my advice was as effective as it
> DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
> DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
> DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
> DS > advice and gotten her daughter
> DS > home in a few weeks.
>
> By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
By getting rid of the cause of the problems, and that would have been
YOU, grag.
Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
Greegor
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
Very mature of you, Danny!
DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
In most states the accused parents don't stipulate TO anything
specificially.
There are no "stipulations" (in the usual legal/english sense) spelled
out.
The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED meaning is that
the parent stipulates to "dependency" and the authority
of the CPS agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
made by the agency in exchange for this are ignored completely.
The agency/prosecutor promises are NOT in "good faith"
and apparently there is no redress possible for this fraud.
It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
Dan Sullivan
> G > Could you diagram that logic?
>
> DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
> DS > and my advice was as effective as it
> DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
> DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
> DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
> DS > advice and gotten her daughter
> DS > home in a few weeks.
>
> G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
>
> DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
> DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
>
> DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
>
> Very mature of you, Danny!
Very manure of you, grag.
> DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
>
> In most states the accused parents don't stipulate TO anything
> specificially.
So Lisa stipulated but not to anything specific?
> There are no "stipulations" (in the usual legal/english sense) spelled
> out.
You did say Lisa stipulated to something.
Just a vague non-specific stipulation?
> The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED meaning is that
> the parent stipulates to "dependency" and the authority
> of the CPS agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
> made by the agency in exchange for this are ignored completely.
What did CPS ignore?
> The agency/prosecutor promises are NOT in "good faith"
> and apparently there is no redress possible for this fraud.
What did CPS promise?
> It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
> the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
Because YOU'RE such a bargain, grag?
This is too easy.
Greegor
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
G > Very mature of you, Danny!
DS > Very manure of you, grag.
DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
G > In most states the accused parents don't
G > stipulate TO anything specificially.
DS > So Lisa stipulated but not to anything specific?
Correct. This has been stated before.
G > There are no "stipulations" (in the usual
G > legal/english sense) spelled out.
DS > You did say Lisa stipulated to something.
Got a link?
DS > Just a vague non-specific stipulation?
I've complained about this several times before.
G > The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED
G > meaning is that the parent stipulates to
G > "dependency" and the authority of the CPS
G > agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
G > made by the agency in exchange for this
G > are ignored completely.
DS > What did CPS ignore?
Their promise of an easy service plan
with only two items. It was a lie.
G > The agency/prosecutor promises are
G > NOT in "good faith" and apparently
G > there is no redress possible for this fraud.
DS > What did CPS promise?
An easy 2 item service plan.
When it arrived, it had at least 8 items.
One was absolutely impossible.
G > It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
G > the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
DS > Because YOU'RE such a bargain, grag?
DS > This is too easy.
The promised easy service plan
and the delivered 8+ item service plan
are much like the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN.