CPS Being Paid to BreakUp Families?
Greegor
CPS Being Paid to BreakUp Families?
February 05, 2011 06:56 PM EST (Updated: February 05, 2011 07:05 PM
EST)
views: 216 | 11 people recommend this
Do you remember when the politician in California caught media
attention talking about the corruption of CPS? He said that if he was
elected, he would show how local governments were benefiting - big
time - for the "legal" abduction of children.
From: The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation
"Most people are not aware of how much profit many of these services
provide the county," John Van Doorn told a San Diego newspaper. "These
profits are hard to ignore and even more difficult to pass up.
Counties can bring in thousands of dollars in excess revenue for each
child in foster care, Van Doorn said – which means they have more
incentive to remove children from their families than to keep families
intact. "As such … our county government is a major factor in the
dismantling of families and/or destruction of children's lives," he
said.
He then cited San Diego CPS for "egregious behaviors" that included
accusing parents of child abuse without any evidence.
The ugly truth is that San Diego isn't the only community where false
accusations of child abuse occur. Across the nation, the practice has
become so blatant that some of the leading experts on child abuse and
foster care have started to cry "foul."
Here's only part of the story:
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is the federal
law on which almost all state and local legislation and funding for
child protective services are based. Enacted in 1988, CAPTA directs
the U.S. Health and Human Services' Administration for Children &
Families to provide grants to communities for child abuse prevention
programs.
As a federal mandate, CAPTA mandates states to implement child abuse
laws on their own, so they can align themselves for the massive
funding and grants that go along with the law.
In theory as the years went by, if the goal for this law – to reduce
child abuse in this country – had been successful, then today we
should need less funding for these programs, not more. Success also
should have resulted in fewer children in foster care and even fewer
being put up for adoption.
But in reality, the opposite happened. Instead of less children in
foster care, the numbers went up for nine years after CAPTA was
passed. And, layers and layers of state and federal government
programs and agencies whose funding depends solely on child abuse
occurring were created.
In 1999 foster care numbers started dropping – but only because of new
laws that encouraged states to move children out of foster care and
into adoptive homes.
Of course, that legislation came with funding too, giving CPS a new
avenue for making more money and creating more jobs and more programs.
The tragedy is what Van Doorn pointed out in his campaign: the
financial incentives for rooting out child abuse actually encourage
agencies to make false accusations against parents, and to tear
families apart for something that did not occur.
How this Law Actually has Increased Child Abuse Reports
What happened in San Diego is not an anomaly, nor is it new. In 1991,
the bi-partisan National Commission on Children had already figured
out that children were being taken from their families "prematurely or
unnecessarily" because federal formulas give states "a strong
financial incentive" to do so rather than provide services to keep
families together."
As a result, the federal government and a number of states created
legislation that was supposed to keep more families together. But as
the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform (NCCPR) reports,
those efforts only disrupted more families, and encouraged more
adoptions.
Again, the reason is financial: the new laws give "bounties to states
of up to $8,000 or more per child for every adoption they finalize
over a baseline number," NCCPR reports. And again, all the help goes
to foster and adoptive parents. "About the only parents the federal
government won't help indefinitely are birth parents," NCCPR found.
But the injustices don't stop there, because in order to get that
money, states have to have children to take away and place – and
therein lies the incentive to falsely accuse parents of harming their
children and to forcibly remove children even when there is no
evidence to do so.
"CPS nationally are doing a job they've never been trained to do,"
says Kim Hart, a trial strategist and facilitator who has been
assisting attorneys in defending persons accused of child abuse for
more than 18 years. They're investigating people who have never been
charged, and calling them child abusers, and taking kids away, and
they get paid to do it.
This mechanism is bigger than what most people know. It goes all the
way back to the 1980s with legislation that told states they had to
develop registries with mandatory child abuse reporting."
The money that follows a child abuse accusation and subsequent
placement of the so-called endangered children into foster care or
adoption is the real catalyst for the epidemic of child abuse
accusations, Hart said.
"And there is no incentive for any physician or anybody involved to be
intellectually honest about this because the law also gives them
immunity if they're wrong," she said.
"So what happens is that the minute CPS is involved – or the second
the EMTs are called (for example, in sudden infant death or alleged
shaken baby cases), parents are already labeled as child abusers."
How are States Spending this Extra Money?
According to NCCPR, in FY 2010 the federal government is expected to
spend at least $7 more on foster care and $4 more on adoption for
every dollar spent to prevent foster care or speed reunification. This
is based on President Obama's $4.681 billion foster care budget for
FY2010 – an increase of $21 million over FY2009. The number represents
a decrease of 4,300 children a month in foster care.
But this decrease is based on "placement of children in more permanent
settings." In other words, states are getting more money to take care
of fewer children by placing more of them in adoptive homes.
The law also increases incentives for adoption by paying out $1,000 to
$8,000 extra for certain types of children who are placed for
adoption.
The twist is that states are not required to put this money back in to
keeping families intact or even for preventing child abuse. Instead,
by law, they can use it for non-child-related things, such as
delivering meals to senior citizens or for transportation services, or
a range of other home-based services!
In San Diego, Van Doorn couldn't get a direct answer when he demanded
that city officials tell him where their $4,000 per adopted child was
going. But a look at any state's budget – from Minnesota to Florida to
Connecticut and back to California – can tell you that local
governments and states are cutting back or flat-lining children's
services and using these extra federal dollars to balance their
budgets .
Click above to read more.
This might explain how the family in New Jersey had their children
taken from them.
A family needing our prayer and support
Abuse is a serious thing and when CPS takes children from their
parents for no reason, they are participating in abuse themselves.
Besides, while they're busy concentrating on families that don't need
help, they are neglecting the children and families who do need help.
This is why the federal government needs to be reduced, not expanded.
This would not be happening if there were not "rewards" being issued
by the federal government.
Virtual
WHAT REALLY GOES ON IN UK SECRET FAMILY COURTS!!!
http://towardchange.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/what-really-goes-on-in-uk-secret-family-courts/
Greegor
http://towardchange.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/what-really-goes-on-in-uk-secret-family-courts/
Does the government in the UK send spies
to snoop on or disrupt Family Rights groups?
Frank McCoy
Just like the people they don't like, the people in THIS video are
accusing others of wrongdoing without the slightest HINT of evidence.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
>Does the government in the UK send spies
>to snoop on or disrupt Family Rights groups?
Who knows?
That video just makes unsubstantiated accusations.
If it's wrong for another group to do something, that doesn't make it
right for your group to do the same thing in retaliation.
Some people might THINK so; but it doesn't.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Greegor
>
> Just like the people they don't like, the people in THIS video are
> accusing others of wrongdoing without the slightest HINT of evidence.
>
> "Do as I say, not as I do."
>
> >Does the government in the UK send spies
> >to snoop on or disrupt Family Rights groups?
>
> Who knows?
> That video just makes unsubstantiated accusations.
> If it's wrong for another group to do something, that doesn't make it
> right for your group to do the same thing in retaliation.
>
> Some people might THINK so; but it doesn't.
>
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
When a government actor LIES, they get a LOT of immunity.
PROVING that a government actor lied about you to destroy
your family is extremely difficult because of other
obstructionist laws.
A caseworker swore on paper to lies about me,
in reference to an investigation 6 years before.
I had the unusual fortune to be able to prove that it
was a LIE (not a mistake) using old documents
from the very same office of the very same agency
from 6 years before. Nobody gave a crap.
Not the liar, not the other caseworkers and
not even the Judges gave a crap.
MOST people wronged like that would NOT
have the ability to prove that the caseworker
outright LIED to make a case.
It's totally understandeable that a citizen so badly
screwed over by a government actor would
be extremely angry and would use their
First Amendment Rights to express their anger.
But to speak out like that in the UK is
treated almost like treason in itself.
If CPS tried their usual in some less peaceful
places, they would experience a LOT of
violence.
It's my understanding that CPS is as loathe
to go into certain neighborhoods as Police are.
And an amazing number of Cops hate CPS.
The article that I reposted referred to code sections
that you can easily look up and read, although
they are in legalese and documents "refer out"
to the point of madness.
Greegor
G > to snoop on or disrupt Family Rights groups?
KBW > Since you've been outted as a SHILL for
KBW > CPS in the United States, you probably
KBW > do need to look to other countries to do
KBW > what you can to tear apart families.
KBW > Do you think the people in England
KBW > will buy your cover story?
mythomaniac
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)
http://www.spokeo.com/phone/search?p=479-633-8823
http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Kent%20Wills%2C%20Rogers%2C%20arkansas
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies (7/28/2010)
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
5. Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
6. Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
7. Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ
J. strawman
1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument
2. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards
K. OUTRIGHT LIE ( doesn't fit other designations )
L. IDENTITY
1. The court records were faked as a prank. ( On 3 official sites? )
2. Anonymity - That's not my name at all!
3. Doppelganger defense - " That was some OTHER Kent B Wills."
4. Never gone to prison ( convict didn't go either! mental case? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.
R. LaCasse
wrote:
|>When a government actor LIES, they get a LOT of immunity.
|>
Waayyyy Toooo Much of it too!
|>PROVING that a government actor lied about you to destroy
|>your family is extremely difficult because of other
|>obstructionist laws.
|>
This has been a problem since they got into the business........some
have resorted to taking the law in their own hands and just eliminating the
virus that plagues them......
These cases are always dumbed down and the facts are obfuscated...
|>A caseworker swore on paper to lies about me,
|>in reference to an investigation 6 years before.
|>I had the unusual fortune to be able to prove that it
|>was a LIE (not a mistake) using old documents
|>from the very same office of the very same agency
|>from 6 years before. Nobody gave a crap.
They only care about their personal ego and your feelings and
rights, are of no concern to them......the old biddys are just snotty bug
cases anyway.
|>Not the liar, not the other caseworkers and
|>not even the Judges gave a crap.
|>
They are ALL crapless, they never cared when I lost the use of my
office and home due to a RENOVICTION based on ceiling height...they never
cared when they surprise locked me out of my life/home for 5 months
threatening to send a bailiff, and locking me out illegally because they are
de lockoutsociety....homeless industry and scabs for every commerce in BC.
|>MOST people wronged like that would NOT
|>have the ability to prove that the caseworker
|>outright LIED to make a case.
|>
Right, they have all the cards stacked against you and their support
agency is a cushy job worth their capacity to hassle you and beat their
chests all over the place.
|>It's totally understandeable that a citizen so badly
|>screwed over by a government actor would
|>be extremely angry and would use their
|>First Amendment Rights to express their anger.
|>But to speak out like that in the UK is
|>treated almost like treason in itself.
|>
They are selling a lot of that police state to Canada as well...see
the UK now, everything is illegal, so riots are the only answer.
|>If CPS tried their usual in some less peaceful
|>places, they would experience a LOT of
|>violence.
|>
Lots get assaulted or shanked .....the motive is never too clear
after the fact, there is always an ^ongoing investigation^ blah about it.
|>It's my understanding that CPS is as loathe
|>to go into certain neighborhoods as Police are.
|>
They have committed most of their crimes there, and facing justice
is no fun....
|>And an amazing number of Cops hate CPS.
|>
They got tired of being used as a punching bag for these parasites.
|>The article that I reposted referred to code sections
|>that you can easily look up and read, although
|>they are in legalese and documents "refer out"
|>to the point of madness.
hmmmm one of those heh.....wayy too much work right?
Bob
Greegor
RLC > Waayyyy Toooo Much of it too!
G > PROVING that a government actor lied about
G > you to destroy your family is extremely difficult
G > because of other obstructionist laws.
RLC > This has been a problem since they got
RLC > into the business........some have resorted
RLC > to taking the law in their own hands and
RLC > just eliminating the virus that plagues them......
RLC > These cases are always dumbed down and the facts are
obfuscated...
G > A caseworker swore on paper to lies about me,
G > in reference to an investigation 6 years before.
G > I had the unusual fortune to be able to prove that it
G > was a LIE (not a mistake) using old documents
G > from the very same office of the very same agency
G > from 6 years before. Nobody gave a crap.
RLC > They only care about their personal ego and
RLC > your feelings and rights, are of no concern
RLC > to them......the old biddys are just snotty
RLC > bug cases anyway.
We had one who actually looked just like
the wicked witch/nasty neighbor from the
Wizard Of Oz.
G > Not the liar, not the other caseworkers and
G > not even the Judges gave a crap.
RLC > They are ALL crapless, they never cared
RLC > when I lost the use of my office and home
RLC > due to a RENOVICTION based on
RLC > ceiling height...they never cared when
RLC > they surprise locked me out of my
RLC > life/home for 5 months threatening to
RLC > send a bailiff, and locking me out illegally
RLC > because they are de lockoutsociety....
RLC > homeless industry and scabs for every
RLC > commerce in BC.
G > MOST people wronged like that would NOT
G > have the ability to prove that the caseworker
G > outright LIED to make a case.
RLC > Right, they have all the cards stacked against
RLC > you and their support agency is a cushy job
RLC > worth their capacity to hassle you and beat
RLC > their chests all over the place.
G > It's totally understandeable that a citizen so badly
G > screwed over by a government actor would
G > be extremely angry and would use their
G > First Amendment Rights to express their anger.
G > But to speak out like that in the UK is
G > treated almost like treason in itself.
RLC > They are selling a lot of that police
RLC > state to Canada as well...see
RLC > the UK now, everything is illegal,
RLC > so riots are the only answer.
G > If CPS tried their usual in some less peaceful
G > places, they would experience a LOT of
G > violence.
RLC > Lots get assaulted or shanked .....the
RLC > motive is never too clear after the fact,
RLC > there is always an ^ongoing investigation^ blah about it.
G > It's my understanding that CPS is as loathe
G > to go into certain neighborhoods as Police are.
RLC > They have committed most of their crimes
RLC > there, and facing justice is no fun....
G > And an amazing number of Cops hate CPS.
RLC > They got tired of being used as a
RLC > punching bag for these parasites.
G > The article that I reposted referred to code sections
G > that you can easily look up and read, although
G > they are in legalese and documents "refer out"
G > to the point of madness.
RLC > hmmmm one of those heh.....wayy too much work right?
Certainly a difficulty.
US Federal Social Services codes use "agency speak"
and "refer out" to codes which themselves refer out.
Dan Sullivan
> G >When a government actor LIES, they get a LOT of immunity.
>
> RLC > Waayyyy Toooo Much of it too!
>
> G > PROVING that a government actor lied about
> G > you to destroy your family is extremely difficult
> G > because of other obstructionist laws.
>
> RLC > This has been a problem since they got
> RLC > into the business........some have resorted
> RLC > to taking the law in their own hands and
> RLC > just eliminating the virus that plagues them......
>
> RLC > These cases are always dumbed down and the facts are
> obfuscated...
>
> G > A caseworker swore on paper to lies about me,
> G > in reference to an investigation 6 years before.
> G > I had the unusual fortune to be able to prove that it
> G > was a LIE (not a mistake) using old documents
> G > from the very same office of the very same agency
> G > from 6 years before. Nobody gave a crap.
Because your claims weren't true, grag.
> RLC > They only care about their personal ego and
> RLC > your feelings and rights, are of no concern
> RLC > to them......the old biddys are just snotty
> RLC > bug cases anyway.
>
> We had one who actually looked just like
> the wicked witch/nasty neighbor from the
> Wizard Of Oz.
Now THERE'S a pantload of evidence.
You're admitting that you're not smart enough to understand what the
words mean, grag?
Examples?
Greegor
> On Mar 10, 4:00 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > G >When a government actor LIES, they get a LOT of immunity.
>
> > RLC > Waayyyy Toooo Much of it too!
>
> > G > PROVING that a government actor lied about
> > G > you to destroy your family is extremely difficult
> > G > because of other obstructionist laws.
>
> > RLC > This has been a problem since they got
> > RLC > into the business........some have resorted
> > RLC > to taking the law in their own hands and
> > RLC > just eliminating the virus that plagues them......
>
> > RLC > These cases are always dumbed down and the facts are
> > obfuscated...
>
> > G > A caseworker swore on paper to lies about me,
> > G > in reference to an investigation 6 years before.
> > G > I had the unusual fortune to be able to prove that it
> > G > was a LIE (not a mistake) using old documents
> > G > from the very same office of the very same agency
> > G > from 6 years before. Nobody gave a crap.
>
> Because your claims weren't true, grag.
>
> > RLC > They only care about their personal ego and
> > RLC > your feelings and rights, are of no concern
> > RLC > to them......the old biddys are just snotty
> > RLC > bug cases anyway.
G > We had one who actually looked just like
G > the wicked witch/nasty neighbor from the
G > Wizard Of Oz.
DJS3 > Now THERE'S a pantload of evidence.
G > Certainly a difficulty.
G > US Federal Social Services codes use
G > "agency speak" and "refer out" to codes
G > which themselves refer out.
DJS3 > You're admitting that you're not smart
DJS3 > enough to understand what the words
DJS3 > mean, grag? Examples?
Can you guess who Dan works for, Mr. LaCasse?
Dan Sullivan
>
> Can you guess who Dan works for, Mr. LaCasse?
If you guess self-employed, you'd be right.
Guess how many times grag has been convicted for abusing a mentally
ill woman.
Twice.
Guess how long grag's going to be listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse
Registry.
11 more years.
grag claims the maltreatment was a victim precipitated event.
The little girl was seven years old.
Kent Wills
While I am replying to Greg's post, I am actually addressing R.
LaCasse.
>G > Certainly a difficulty.
>G > US Federal Social Services codes use
>G > "agency speak" and "refer out" to codes
>G > which themselves refer out.
>
>DJS3 > You're admitting that you're not smart
>DJS3 > enough to understand what the words
>DJS3 > mean, grag? Examples?
>
>Can you guess who Dan works for, Mr. LaCasse?
Greg, one of Usenet's most notorious liars (he will attempt to
distract from the TRUTH I'm presenting by claiming I am someone he's
already admitted I am not), is hoping you won't review the TRUTH, and
counts on you not reviewing his and Dan Sullivan's posting histories.
They tell quite a different story than he insinuates with his cowardly
unsupported questions.
Greg repeatedly advised people -- families, parents -- to do
things that would not only get them criminally charged, but would most
assuredly cause them to lose their children, permanently.
Greg is a well established CPS shill, and trolls for families to
feed to his beloved CPS.
He pretend to be a crusader, but when ask to provide, as he
DEMANDS others provide, proof of his claims, he offers nothing.
Usually he runs and HIDES, but occasionally he'll try to distract.
He may or may not be paid in money, but he definitely is paid in
the feeling he's superior and can successfully cover up his real
motives.
He makes a habit of attacking those families or persons coming to
ASCPS for help and advice if they do not buy his line of BS
immediately. If you opened a conversation with Dan asking for help,
you'd see him immediately turn on you an start lying to you about Dan.
He's a coward that bragged HE would go to another state, break
their laws, and fight the system as he advises others to.
So far he's not provided an itinerary for these travels and court
confrontations.
Dan, on the other hand, has repeatedly beaten CPS and there are
posts from grateful families in the archives of
alt.support.child-protective-services that prove it. Greg knows this
as he communicated with some of these families, unless he lied. Greg
knows also that families that did follow his (Greg's) advice ended up
with long prison sentences and lost children.
All his posturing is an attempt to one - cover up his real
motives, and two - keep anyone else from using the effective advice
and help Dan can provide.
Don't take my word for it. Read the posting archives. They tell
the story that I'm telling you better than I can ever hope to do,
since no subconscious bias can enter in.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"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 "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011:
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.
Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.
Greegor
> If you guess self-employed, you'd be right.
>
> Guess how many times grag has been convicted for
> abusing a mentally ill woman.
>
> Twice.
>
> Guess how long grag's going to be listed on the
> Iowa State Child Abuse Registry.
>
> 11 more years.
Prove I am even on the registry, Dan!
And even if I was, Iowa only keeps them for
10 years from the alleged incident.
Where do you get this 11 more years bologna?
DJS3 > grag claims the maltreatment was a victim precipitated event.
Dan's not content with what I actually say,
it's just not lurid enough for him, so he feels
he has to lie, exaggerate and twist what I say.
Recognize that behavior Mr. LaCasse?
DJS3 > The little girl was seven years old.
Dan has been kicked OUT of at least 4 different Family Rights groups.
Dan badmouthed them all on usenet.
He posted that he was investigated for child abuse
15+ times, but that revised up to 20+ in time.
Dan posted that 5 of those were FOUNDED,
one of those for Child Sexual Abuse.
Dan posted claims that he miraculously got all
5 FOUNDEDS reversed, even though New York
got CAUGHT for an SOP of shredding all such appeals!
Yet Dan tried the old "Where there's smoke there's fire."
canard on me, forgetting his own scorecard??
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
[...]
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." ' - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." - Dan
Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
Greegor
SEAN MICHAEL BILYEU DOB 12/18/1985
as an accomplice to a felony garage burglary
05771 FECR176876. It was Kent's second
felony for thieving, and he got a misdemenor
conviction for using a minor as an accomplice.
https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/index.php?advanced=1
Type in the right blanks: Kent Wills Jan 8 1969 and hit the search
button.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Click on the "Start a Case Search Here" button (underlined)
Click on "Case Search" button (underlined) (You get the search
blanks)
Type in the right blanks Wills, Kent, B and hit the Search button.
Compressed form with DATES for display on usenet:
OffenseDate County Case Number
Jan 7 2008 02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE WILLS, KENT
Jan 24 2000 05771 FECR145250 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969
Aug 12 2003 05771 FECR176876 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969
Mar 30 1999 05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS v WILLS Created
Dec 7 2000 05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL v WILLS dism 90 days
Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE v WILLS rents dism
Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III v WILLS dism "FED"?
April 9, 2002 05771 STAN201670 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 exp DL
Jan 9 2003 05771 STAN210929 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 veh reg
Aug 23 2003 05771 SWCR177169 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 Srch Warr
http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/img_0271.jpg
http://gis.co.benton.ar.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm
Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in
Wills Family Trust and hit enter.
Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank
marked parcel ID and then hit enter.
15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28
Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)
http://www.spokeo.com/phone/search?p=479-633-8823
http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Kent%20Wills%2C%20Rogers%2C%20arkansas
Look for the red chair!
G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
Sat, Sep 19 2009 4:52 pm
KBW > One of the buildings I've owned in my life.
KBW > Very old news.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/9181902a00641f9a?hl=en&dmode=source
G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
KBW > It's gone through at least three owners since I sold it. Deal
with it.
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/web/inven/query/queryHome.html
202 NW College Avenue
CRITELLI PROPERTIES, LC RAMSEY, DENNIS 2004-10-29 165,000 D/Deed
10809/630
SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST CRITELLI PROPERTIES 1998-11-30 179,500
D/Deed 8079/99
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R. THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
SHELDAHL, ERIC A. WILLS, FRED 1990-01-02 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
Greegor
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Context restored at no additional cost.
>
> Thank you for admitting, by the very standards you DEMAND be held
> to others, EVERYTHING I claim about you above is 100% true and
> accurate.
> Since you slipped and admitted the information you post as if it
> is about me is not about me, why do you continue to post it?
> Have you told your psychologist/psychiatrists that you firmly
> believe Moe and I fabricated you and that you're fictional?
> Do you still believe abusing children is a LIBERTY INTEREST
> protected by the U.S. Constitution?
> Why do you OBSESSIVELY add groups to the list?
> I have other questions you've run away from. I'll be asking them
> as I respond to any and all lies you present.
And you say you're not being pissy, Kent? ROFL
Greegor
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Thank you for admitting, by the very standards you DEMAND be held
> >> to others, EVERYTHING I claim about you above is 100% true and
> >> accurate.
> >> Since you slipped and admitted the information you post as if it
> >> is about me is not about me, why do you continue to post it?
> >> Have you told your psychologist/psychiatrists that you firmly
> >> believe Moe and I fabricated you and that you're fictional?
> >> Do you still believe abusing children is a LIBERTY INTEREST
> >> protected by the U.S. Constitution?
> >> Why do you OBSESSIVELY add groups to the list?
> >> I have other questions you've run away from. I'll be asking them
> >> as I respond to any and all lies you present.
G > And you say you're not being pissy, Kent? ROFL
KBW > Answer the questions asked, coward.
KBW > Unless honest answers fill you with too much fear.
Or laughter?
> What, specifically, causes you to believe Moe and I invented you?
> Why have you claimed to have "Fully ID'd" me as being four
> different people named Kent Wills?
Making idiotic straw man arguments for your opponent, Kent?
J. strawman
1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument
> Why did you claim my parents died, leaving me an inheritance paid
> via a trust fund, then claim they are alive and, presumably, well?
Full header quote where I said your folks are dead please?
J. strawman
1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument
> I know you'll want to run away and HIDE, or attempt to distract,
> from the TRUTH my questions present, but I think you should address
> them.
What if I'm just laughing too hard?
> At the very least, mention them to your mental health care
> professional at your next session.
Just because you have or need one, does not mean that I do.
R. LaCasse
wrote:
|>
|>DJS3 > grag claims the maltreatment was a victim precipitated event.
|>
|>Dan's not content with what I actually say,
|>it's just not lurid enough for him, so he feels
|>he has to lie, exaggerate and twist what I say.
|>
|>Recognize that behavior Mr. LaCasse?
Yeah we all twist or misconstrue the bearings of the post if we
can't answer the question properly....so without losing face, we tend to
evade the truth of the posted subject, to facsimile of the question posted.
Bob
Greegor
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:33:14 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
We're not all as blatantly dishonest as Dan.
The array of fabrication and distortion is
standard for ""Child Protection"" caseworkers.
G > Dan's not content with what I actually say,
G > it's just not lurid enough for him, so he feels
G > he has to lie, exaggerate and twist what I say.
Dan Sullivan
> On Aug 4, 12:36 am, R. LaCasse <rkba@castle_doctrine.info> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:33:14 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > |>
> > |>DJS3 > grag claims the maltreatment was a victim precipitated event.
> > |>
> > |>Dan's not content with what I actually say,
> > |>it's just not lurid enough for him, so he feels
> > |>he has to lie, exaggerate and twist what I say.
> > |>
> > |>Recognize that behavior Mr. LaCasse?
>
> > Yeah we all twist or misconstrue the bearings of the post if we
> > can't answer the question properly....so without losing face, we tend to
> > evade the truth of the posted subject, to facsimile of the question posted.
>
> > Bob
>
> We're not all as blatantly dishonest as Dan.
grag claimed he forced his girlfriend's seven year old daughter to
take cold showers as punishment.
grag claimed he forced the little girl into the shower when she hadn't
rinsed off enough.
grag claimed he went into the bathroom to hand the little girl a towel
whenever she finished showering.
grag claimed he spanked the little girl.
grag claimed he brought the little girl around Cedar Rapids, Iowa, so
she could collect bottles and cans from the garbage for the deposit
money, which he claimed was HIS contribution to the household
expenses.
The authorities removed the little girl for her safety and the little
girl's mother agreed that the girl should live with her grandparents.
If grag can disprove anything I wrote, he can be my guest.