Re: Danny Sullivan over 20 ALLEGATIONS of giving childrfen HANDS-ON demonstrations of his puppet bear condoms
krp
Mister Puppet Bear condom demonstrator
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:315720e2-34f6-484b...@r1g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> > >> So tell me this, Ken. Why is it then that there were many times that
>> > >> you were slurring your words when we were on the phone? Why is it
>> > >> then that you would call me, ramble on about something or another,
>> > >> only to call me back a little while later with no recollection that
>> > >> you had already called me? Why is it that you insulted Greg each and
>> > >> everytime we talked yet, you still play him when you are holding a
>> > >> losing hand? "Greg has some serious deviant behavior. I wouldn't let
>> > >> him near a child" At least we agree on one thing, Ken.
>>
>> > > pangborn is only verifying what everyone on asCPS already knows.
>>
>> > Small problem, dickhead, I NEVER said any of that bullshit. Kim must be
>> > having a reaction to her medication.
>>
>> DJS#3> Obviously you'd HAVE to deny saying what you said, pangborn.
>>
>> I didn't say those things, Sullivan.
>
> DJS#3> Where does your current wife's son live, pangborn?
>
> Not that it is ANY of your STALKING business, DANNY, but he livwa
> reight here.
>
>
Greegor
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 "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 "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
lostintranslation
>
> Feb 2002
> 'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
>
> How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
> she lists publicly as being 25 now?
>
>
> April 2004 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> July 2007 "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26...
Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse Registry for sexually
abusing your ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter. You were also
founded for forcing said child to live in squalid conditions. You
were also founded for forcing her to take cold showers and throwing
her out in the cold with no protective outer clothing on. You sick
bastard.
Greegor
LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
Nope.
I was never founded for anything sexual.
Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb 2002.
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
LIT > You were also founded for forcing said
LIT > child to live in squalid conditions.
Nope.
LIT > You were also founded for forcing her
LIT > to take cold showers
Nope.
LIT > and throwing her out in the cold with
LIT > no protective outer clothing on.
Nope.
LIT > You sick bastard.
Kim E. Olson, Where is the love?
Why did you get divorced from JoeyO, Kim?
Did he make you mop out the beer cooler?
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 "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 "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
Dan Sullivan
> LIT > Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse
> LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
> LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
> Nope.
> I was never founded for anything sexual.
> Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
> Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb 2002.
>
And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign, and the Family Court
Judge threw the CPS petition out of court and the State reversed the
county's decision because there was no credible evidence I did
anything inappropriate.
Greegor
LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
G > Nope.
G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
G > Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb
2002.
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
DJS3 > And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign,
DJS3 > and the Family Court Judge threw the CPS
DJS3 > petition out of court and the State reversed the
DJS3 > county's decision because there was no
DJS3 > credible evidence I did anything inappropriate.
Yes, Dan, Those are AMAZING claims! Got some proof?
The following statement would be true EITHER WAY!
"Daniel J. Sullivan III had 20+ investigations for child
abuse and was FOUNDED at least 5 times,
one FOUNDED was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE"
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LIT > Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse
>LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
>LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
>G > Nope.
>G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
>G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
>G > Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb
>2002.
>
>Feb 2002
>"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
>DJS3 > And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign,
>DJS3 > and the Family Court Judge threw the CPS
>DJS3 > petition out of court and the State reversed the
>DJS3 > county's decision because there was no
>DJS3 > credible evidence I did anything inappropriate.
>
>Yes, Dan, Those are AMAZING claims! Got some proof?
Whereas you've accepted his claim that the allegations were made,
he doesn't have to prove the rest. You've accepted his word is
enough.
>
>The following statement would be true EITHER WAY!
>
>"Daniel J. Sullivan III had 20+ investigations for child
>abuse and was FOUNDED at least 5 times,
>one FOUNDED was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE"
Please prove such a person has such a record.
If you would rather admit you're lying, that is acceptable to me.
>
>
>Feb 2002
>"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
>Feb 2002
>'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
>daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
>How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
>she lists publicly as being 25 now?
You've already admitted, by your own standards, the KLS about
whom you are so obsessed isn't related in any way to the Dan we know.
Unless you're UNABLE to hold yourself to the same standards you
DEMAND of others, you must admit you've been lying.
Which do you wish to choose? Is there another option I'm not
seeing? If so, detail it, please.
Greegor
LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
G > Nope.
G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
G > Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY
G > said so himself in Feb 2002.
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
DJS3 > And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign,
DJS3 > and the Family Court Judge threw the CPS
DJS3 > petition out of court and the State reversed the
DJS3 > county's decision because there was no
DJS3 > credible evidence I did anything inappropriate.
G > Yes, Dan, Those are AMAZING claims! Got some proof?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/ec0e6e254751eaeb
DJS3 > Nothing amazing about it, shit-for-brains.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Just because you haven't a single CLUE
DJS3 > about how to beat CPS doesn't mean
DJS3 > everyone else is as monumentally STUPID as YOU!
G > The following statement would be true EITHER WAY!
G >
G > "Daniel J. Sullivan III had 20+ investigations
G > for child abuse and was FOUNDED at least
G > 5 times, one FOUNDED was for
G > CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE"
Granted, CPS caseworkers are monumentally stupid,
but your ""strategy"" as displayed here is not exactly
the stuff of brain trusts either!
You say you "have" no founded CPS reports?
Does that mean you threw the documents away
so you could claim you "have" no founded reports?
lostintranslation
> LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
> LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
> Nope.
> I was never founded for anything sexual.
> Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
> Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb 2002.
>
>
> LIT > You were also founded for forcing said
> LIT > child to live in squalid conditions.
>
> Nope.
>
> LIT > You were also founded for forcing her
> LIT > to take cold showers
>
> Nope.
>
> LIT > and throwing her out in the cold with
> LIT > no protective outer clothing on.
>
> Nope.
>
> LIT > You sick bastard.
>
> Kim E. Olson, Where is the love?
> Why did you get divorced from JoeyO, Kim?
> Did he make you mop out the beer cooler?
>
> Feb 2002
>
> Feb 2002
> 'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
>
> How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
> she lists publicly as being 25 now?
>
>
> April 2004 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> July 2007 "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26...
Who the hell is JoeyO, Greg? Related to Wendy O? I don't even have a
relative nor does my husband with the first name Joey, Joe, Joseph or
any other form of the name. Little doggy, you are barking up the
wrong tree again.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8966bb0e-5939-4bdb...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
But still not as stupid as you, grag.
YOU are STILL listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry because stupid
as the CPS case workers are, they have YOU BEAT!!!
LOL!!!
> but your ""strategy"" as displayed here is not exactly
> the stuff of brain trusts either!
Based on your history as NEVER have beated CPS???
LOL!!!
> You say you "have" no founded CPS reports?
Can't you comprehend the written word, grag?
> Does that mean you threw the documents away
> so you could claim you "have" no founded reports?
It means I'm not listed on any state's child abuse registry as having
maltreated a child.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LIT > Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse
>LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
>LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
>Nope.
>I was never founded for anything sexual.
You've never offered proof that you were founded for anything. I
think it was and is a lie you presented to con parents into trusting
you so that you could sabotage their cases.
If my belief is wrong, offer the proof. That would be a win for
you. If my belief is actually the truth of the matter, you'll never
offer anything since you can't prove your lie to be the truth. That
will be yet another lose for you.
The choice is yours.
>Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
Dan has NO founded reports on his record.
>Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY said so himself in Feb 2002.
He did?
>
>"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
>LIT >�You were also founded for forcing said
>LIT > child to live in squalid conditions.
>
>Nope.
It was unsafe conditions.
>
>LIT >�You were also founded for forcing her
>LIT > to take cold showers
>
>Nope.
So you lied?
>
>LIT > and throwing her out in the cold with
>LIT > no protective outer clothing on.
>
>Nope.
You didn't actually throw her, but you do claim you FORCED her to
endure the cold without proper attire.
>
>LIT > You sick bastard.
>
>Kim E. Olson, Where is the love?
>Why did you get divorced from JoeyO, Kim?
>Did he make you mop out the beer cooler?
Was Pangborn unavailable to suck up the spills?
>
>
>
>Feb 2002
>"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
LIT and Dan are not the same person.
Once again you go out of your way to allow me an opportunity to
PROVE you're mentally ill. You either have Fregoli or you're a
pathological liar. That you see LIT as being Dan offers you no other
realistic choice.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
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 "Piggly Wiggly" 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, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
Dan Sullivan
> LIT > Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse
> LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
> LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
> G > Nope.
> G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
> G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
> 2002.
>
> Feb 2002
> "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivanhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> DJS3 > And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign,
> DJS3 > and the Family Court Judge threw the CPS
> DJS3 > petition out of court and the State reversed the
> DJS3 > county's decision because there was no
> DJS3 > credible evidence I did anything inappropriate.
>
>
>
> abuse and was FOUNDED at least 5 times,
> one FOUNDED was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE"
That statement is absolutely not true, grag.
You could possibly demonstrate I'm wrong by proving every element, but
you can't because you're lying.
Greegor
LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
G > Nope.
G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
G > Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY
G > said so himself in Feb 2002.
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
DJS3 > And I also said I forced the CPS CW to resign,
DJS3 > and the Family Court Judge threw the CPS
DJS3 > petition out of court and the State reversed the
DJS3 > county's decision because there was no
DJS3 > credible evidence I did anything inappropriate.
G > Yes, Dan, Those are AMAZING claims! Got some proof?
DJS3 > Nothing amazing about it, shit-for-brains.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Just because you haven't a single CLUE
DJS3 > about how to beat CPS doesn't mean
DJS3 > everyone else is as monumentally STUPID as YOU!
G > The following statement would be true EITHER WAY!
G >
G > "Daniel J. Sullivan III had 20+ investigations
G > for child abuse and was FOUNDED at least
G > 5 times, one FOUNDED was for
G > CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE"
Granted, CPS caseworkers are monumentally stupid,
but your ""strategy"" as displayed here is not exactly
the stuff of brain trusts either!
You say you "have" no founded CPS reports?
Does that mean you threw the documents away
so you could claim that you "have" no founded reports?
Brilliant strategy, Dan!
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:23:37 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>
> <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >LIT > Yet you, Greg are on the Iowa Child Abuse
> >LIT > Registry for sexually abusing your
> >LIT > ex-girlfriend's 7 year old daughter.
>
> >G > Nope.
> >G > I was never founded for anything sexual.
> >G > Dan on the other hand, WAS founded for sexual abuse.
> >G > Daniel J. Sullivan III of Patchogue NY
> >G > said so himself in Feb 2002.
>
> >Feb 2002
>
>
> Since you are quoting Dan, and Dan is quoting the caseworker you
> admire so much, and the caseworker is quoting the child, AND ADMITTING
> she couldn't be sure what the child really said, AND that two law
> enforcement officers were present and stated they couldn't understand
> what the child said, why are you DECEPTIVELY claiming that which you
> KNOW is not true to be true?
> Dang, that was a LONG sentence for one question, huh?
Actually the LEO's documented in their report that my daughter made no
disclosures at all.
IOW the CPS case worker fabricated the so called statement.
Greegor
That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 as you claimed
Dan Sullivan
> Somebody once said where there's SMOKE there's fire.
>
> That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
You know it was, grag, and you know I said it about YOU because of all
the maltreatment you admitted you inflicted on your girlfriend's seven
year old daughter.
> You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
>
> According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
And every founded was reversed to unfounded because there was never
any maltreatment of any kind.
Greegor
G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3f39c0d036671671
DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
Yep.
DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
Yes. Quite ironic, really.
DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
Mostly the CAUSALITY for you is that
somebody had the audacity to question
your cultic authority!
You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
fiance'
DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
Tacit admission with "spin".
You said you "have" no founded reports.
You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
I remember how you LIED when you said you
weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
that you were. When the owner and a
moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
you started to argue about the meaning of an
e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
you were expelled for abuses. Suddenly you
had an e-mail that you had previously
denied even receiving, and you were
arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
But your very acknowledgement of it
proved that you LIED.
I believe you were FOUNDED 5 times
and worse, but I do not believe that you
got 5 FOUNDEDS reversed.
You are both selective in your revelations and dishonest.
You made several babies with a
freakin' mental case over YEARS.
You KNEW she was a freakin' mental
case before you made babies with her.
How did you meet your psycho ex-wife, Dan?
Were you both in the same locked psycho ward?
Is your current wife a mental case also?
How many babies did you make with the
freakin' mental case and how many with Susan?
I only ask because YOU claimed that the little
girl in your Puppet Bear Child Sexual Abuse
FINDING was 3 in 1993 by your statements
yet she does not show up on public records
and KLS shows up as 26 years old in 2009.
Was your sexual abuse victim actually 10 year old, Dan?
Why is there no 19 year old showing up on public records, Dan?
Dan Sullivan
>G > Somebody once said where there's SMOKE there's fire.
> G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3f39c0d036671671
>
> DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
>
> Yep.
>
> DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
>
> Yes. Quite ironic, really.
Not really.
> DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
> DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
>
> Mostly the CAUSALITY for you is that
> somebody had the audacity to question
> your cultic authority!
I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling you what you did was maltreatment.
I happen to agree with him.
> You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
Disproving the allegation is the way to prove the children weren't
maltreated.
> You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
> a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
Kane wasn't a CPS case worker.
> DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
>
> fiance'
Lisa Watkins only became your fiance' AFTER her daughter was removed by the
authorities in Iowa.
> DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
>
> G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
> G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
>
> DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
> DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
>
> Tacit admission with "spin".
>
> You said you "have" no founded reports.
> You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
> Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
I have all my records, grag.
> I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
>
> I remember how you LIED when you said you
> weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
> that you were. When the owner and a
> moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
> you started to argue about the meaning of an
> e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
> you were expelled for abuses. Suddenly you
> had an e-mail that you had previously
> denied even receiving, and you were
> arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
You've got the information all wrong, as usual, grag.
> But your very acknowledgement of it
> proved that you LIED.
>
> I believe you were FOUNDED 5 times
> and worse, but I do not believe that you
> got 5 FOUNDEDS reversed.
You can believe anything you want, grag.
> You are both selective in your revelations and dishonest.
You haven't the brains of cow flop, grag.
> You made several babies with a
> freakin' mental case over YEARS.
>
> You KNEW she was a freakin' mental
> case before you made babies with her.
>
> How did you meet your psycho ex-wife, Dan?
>
> Were you both in the same locked psycho ward?
>
> Is your current wife a mental case also?
>
> How many babies did you make with the
> freakin' mental case and how many with Susan?
>
> I only ask because YOU claimed that the little
> girl in your Puppet Bear Child Sexual Abuse
> FINDING was 3 in 1993 by your statements
> yet she does not show up on public records
> and KLS shows up as 26 years old in 2009.
What does that tell you, grag?
Greegor
G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
G > Yep.
DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
G > Yes. Quite ironic, really.
DJS3 > Not really.
A guy named Dan who had 25 investigations
for child abuse and 5 Foundeds, one founded
for child sexual abuse, yet he thinks it's smart
to say "Where there's smoke there's fire."
about a guy who was once founded for NEGLECT?
That seems a tad ironic!
DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
G > Mostly the CAUSALITY for you is that
G > somebody had the audacity to question
G > your cultic authority!
DJS3 > I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling
DJS3 > you what you did was maltreatment.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > I happen to agree with him.
I see you used the term maltreatment.
That term replaced CAN as in a big snowball
of NEGLECT with a BB of ABUSE and
they then pretend that it's ALL ABUSE.
NEGLECT is so overbroad that damn near
anybody could be ""FOUNDED"" for it.
You once pretended to be a Family Rights
advocate, but you use the anti-parent rhetoric.
You lump the slippery slope of NEGLECT
in with actual CHILD ABUSE.
Is that something that a Family Rights
advocate would really do, Dan?
How many Family Rights advocates would
lie or exaggerate about how good the
agency's case is against somebody?
Wait! You tried playing this in front of
Family Rights people in an attempt to
ridicule me and even though I was not
there to refute or rebut, NONE of them
fell for your puke and it actually BACKFIRED
on you MONTHS before I had any idea
it took place. Family Rights people asked
what is wrong with you!
G > You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
DJS3 > Disproving the allegation is the way to
DJS3 > prove the children weren't maltreated.
Is that really how the burden of proof works, Dan?
Guilty until proven innocent, Dan?
Is THAT why you argued so much against
the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE, Dan?
How do you prove a negative?
When the gyno finds nothing, the kid never
claims any sex or fondling, yet the caseworkers
(serrupticiously) mutter that the child still
could have been fondled, you don't see any
reason to invoke the US Constitution, right Dan?
G > You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
G > a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
DJS3 > Kane wasn't a CPS case worker.
He posted to usenet back in 1998 from
HIS state agency internet account!
And ran the identical SHILL scam
to try to sell himself as an adoption
consultant, at least twice, a YEAR apart!
Commonplace on usenet NOW, but this
little con game was not as easily
recognized back in 1998.
DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
G > fiance'
DJS3 > Lisa Watkins only became your fiance'
DJS3 > AFTER her daughter was removed by
DJS3 > the authorities in Iowa.
On what are you basing this statement?
And are you talking about the physical
removal for THREE WEEKS with no
court authority?
Or the official legal ""removal"" three
weeks later?
DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
G > Tacit admission with "spin".
You DID say this, RIGHT?
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
G > You said you "have" no founded reports.
G > You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
G > Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
DJS3 > I have all my records, grag.
G > I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
G >
G > I remember how you LIED when you said you
G > weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
G > that you were. When the owner and a
G > moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
G > you started to argue about the meaning of an
G > e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
G > you were expelled for abuses. Suddenly you
G > had an e-mail that you had previously
G > denied even receiving, and you were
G > arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
DJS3 > You've got the information all wrong, as usual, grag.
Should I LINK and repost the old messages, Dan?
G > But your very acknowledgement of it
G > proved that you LIED.
G >
G > I believe you were FOUNDED 5 times
G > and worse, but I do not believe that you
G > got 5 FOUNDEDS reversed.
DJS3 > You can believe anything you want, grag.
G > You are both selective in your revelations and dishonest.
DJS3 > You haven't the brains of cow flop, grag.
G > You made several babies with a
G > freakin' mental case over YEARS.
G >
G > You KNEW she was a freakin' mental
G > case before you made babies with her.
G >
G > How did you meet your psycho ex-wife, Dan?
G >
G > Were you both in the same locked psycho ward?
G >
G > Is your current wife a mental case also?
G > How many babies did you make with the
G > freakin' mental case and how many with Susan?
G > I only ask because YOU claimed that the little
G > girl in your Puppet Bear Child Sexual Abuse
G > FINDING was 3 in 1993 by your statements
G > yet she does not show up on public records
G > and KLS shows up as 26 years old in 2009.
DJS3 > What does that tell you, grag?
That you were FOUNDED in 1993 for CSA of a 10 year old..
G > Was your sexual abuse victim actually 10 year old, Dan?
G > Why is there no 19 year old showing up on public records, Dan?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Somebody once said where there's SMOKE there's fire.
>G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3f39c0d036671671
>
>DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
>
>Yep.
>
>DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
>
>Yes. Quite ironic, really.
>
>DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
>DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
>
>Mostly the CAUSALITY for you is that
>somebody had the audacity to question
>your cultic authority!
>
>You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
Post the MID and/or Google link to one post from Dan making such
a claim. One is all I ask.
Unless I've just exposed another of your lies, you'll be able to
offer the MID and/or Google link.
>
>You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
>a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
We'll come back to your OBSESSION with Kane (a man who hasn't
posted in YEARS) in a moment.
All evidence shows that Kane lives (if he's still alive) in
Kansas. Your buddy Michael happens to live, or at least lived, very
close to Carson, WA. That should make you think for a moment, Greg.
Now to your unhealthy obsession with Kane.
The man hasn't posted in years. Just tell yourself he ran away
in disgrace if it will make you feel better. Just get over your
obsession with him.
>
>DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
>
>fiance'
Why did you allow the newspaper to claim you and Lisa were
married?
>
>DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
>
>G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
>G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
>
>DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
>DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
>
>Tacit admission with "spin".
>
>You said you "have" no founded reports.
He does.
>You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
>Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
Once they were reversed, the founded reports no longer existed.
>
>I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
>
Double quotation marks still mean nothing at all. It's the same
as using nothing.
>I remember how you LIED when you said you
>weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
>that you were. When the owner and a
>moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
>you started to argue about the meaning of an
>e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
>you were expelled for abuses. Suddenly you
>had an e-mail that you had previously
>denied even receiving, and you were
>arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
What does any of this have to do with Dan not having any founded
reports for child abuse?
>
>But your very acknowledgement of it
>proved that you LIED.
>
>I believe you were FOUNDED 5 times
>and worse, but I do not believe that you
>got 5 FOUNDEDS reversed.
So you are willing to believe part of his claim but not the rest?
At least you are consistent in your selective acceptance. If a
claim will support what you want, you'll accept it without question.
If it doesn't, you'll claim it false without anything to support its
being false.
>
>You are both selective in your revelations and dishonest.
>
>You made several babies with a
>freakin' mental case over YEARS.
Attempt to distract from the TRUTH that Dan beat your precious
CPS noted.
[Snip of your remaining DESPERATE attempt to distract from the truth]
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>DJS3 > I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling
>DJS3 > you what you did was maltreatment.
>DJS3 >
>DJS3 > I happen to agree with him.
>
>I see you used the term maltreatment.
>That term replaced CAN as in a big snowball
>of NEGLECT with a BB of ABUSE and
>they then pretend that it's ALL ABUSE.
Neglect is abuse, stupid.
You'll recall my citing the specific laws for the State of Iowa
that make neglect abuse.
I can do it again and you can whine about Liberty Interests, just
as you did last time, if you NEED me to do so.
>
>NEGLECT is so overbroad that damn near
>anybody could be ""FOUNDED"" for it.
You have yet to explain why you use double quotation marks. Since
the use of them is the equivalent of using nothing at all (I learned
this when I asked some ESL teachers, just as you suggested [1]), I
have to ask, why do you bother wasting the time to use them?
>
>You once pretended to be a Family Rights
>advocate, but you use the anti-parent rhetoric.
You would KNOW anti-parent rhetoric, Greg. Your own words PROVE
you are nothing more than a pro-CPS SHILL!
>
>You lump the slippery slope of NEGLECT
>in with actual CHILD ABUSE.
Neglect is abuse, stupid.
Do you NEED me to cite the specific law again? Do you?
>
>Is that something that a Family Rights
>advocate would really do, Dan?
Yes.
That you try to present that you do not only serves to enforce
the TRUTH that you, Gregory Scott Hanson, are all about CPS winning
100% of the time.
>
>How many Family Rights advocates would
>lie or exaggerate about how good the
>agency's case is against somebody?
>
You would, and probably do, in the hopes that parents will trust
you. Once you've gained their trust, you then set about making sure
they LOSE their battle with CPS.
You've supplied the proof yourself.
>Wait! You tried playing this in front of
>Family Rights people in an attempt to
>ridicule me and even though I was not
>there to refute or rebut,
Fortunately you're psychic and KNOW what others are doing when you
aren't around. Or you're lying.
>NONE of them
>fell for your puke and it actually BACKFIRED
>on you MONTHS before I had any idea
>it took place. Family Rights people asked
>what is wrong with you!
No, they demand to know why, after you outted yourself as a CPS
shill, you still pretend like it's not well known.
>
>G > You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
>
>DJS3 > Disproving the allegation is the way to
>DJS3 > prove the children weren't maltreated.
>
>Is that really how the burden of proof works, Dan?
>Guilty until proven innocent, Dan?
You're confusing criminal court with family court.
Of course you KNOW the difference, but you extreme PRO-CPS stance
won't ever allow you to admit it.
>
>Is THAT why you argued so much against
>the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE, Dan?
There is no Constitutional right, or even Liberty Interest, to
abuse children, Greg.
>
>How do you prove a negative?
Seems Dan was able to do so. He prevailed against your precious
CPS, which is what you really HATE, Greg.
>
>When the gyno finds nothing, the kid never
>claims any sex or fondling, yet the caseworkers
>(serrupticiously) mutter that the child still
>could have been fondled, you don't see any
>reason to invoke the US Constitution, right Dan?
How does the Constitution factor into sexual abuse?
Where you actually charged for any crime?
>
>G > You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
>G > a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
>
>DJS3 > Kane wasn't a CPS case worker.
>
>He posted to usenet back in 1998 from
>HIS state agency internet account!
Uh huh. Tell us another one, Greg.
>
>And ran the identical SHILL scam
>to try to sell himself as an adoption
>consultant, at least twice, a YEAR apart!
Yet Kane, according to all available evidence, lived (maybe lives
if he's still alive) in Kansas.
As of my writing this, you've offered NOTHING to counter the
evidence.
Have you come to accept that Michael lives (or at least lives)
far closer to Carson, WA that Kane ever did?
Ponder on that truth for a moment, Greg.
>
>Commonplace on usenet NOW, but this
>little con game was not as easily
>recognized back in 1998.
Do people routinely claim to be adoption consultants on Usenet?
Really?
>
>DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
>
>G > fiance'
>
>DJS3 > Lisa Watkins only became your fiance'
>DJS3 > AFTER her daughter was removed by
>DJS3 > the authorities in Iowa.
>
>On what are you basing this statement?
I would imagine your own posts.
Of course, you may have been lying the whole time.
>
>And are you talking about the physical
>removal for THREE WEEKS with no
>court authority?
You have yet to offer any proof that the incident you describe
ever occurred. By your own standards, you've admitted you made it up
as a means to con parents dealing with CPS to trust you.
>
>Or the official legal ""removal"" three
>weeks later?
Which you've yet to prove occurred.
>
>DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
>
>G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
>G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
>
>DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
>DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
>
>G > Tacit admission with "spin".
>
>You DID say this, RIGHT?
Technically, he wrote it, but your meaning is clear.
>
>Feb 2002
>"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52=
>b49e5611d619ea
>
>G > You said you "have" no founded reports.
>G > You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
>G > Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
>
>DJS3 > I have all my records, grag.
>
>G > I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
>G >
>G > I remember how you LIED when you said you
>G > weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
>G > that you were. =A0When the owner and a
>G > moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
>G > you started to argue about the meaning of an
>G > e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
>G > you were expelled for abuses. =A0Suddenly you
>G > had an e-mail that you had previously
>G > denied even receiving, and you were
>G > arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
>
>DJS3 > You've got the information all wrong, as usual, grag.
>
>Should I LINK and repost the old messages, Dan?
I'd like to read them, if they exist.
Of curse, I'll check for context, something you consistently
PROVE you hate.
Prove it. Provide documentation that he has such a record.
>
>G > Was your sexual abuse victim actually 10 year old, Dan?
>G > Why is there no 19 year old showing up on public records, Dan?
Greg, why did you sexually molest Lisa's seven year old (at the
time) daughter? By your own standards of proof, it was PROVED you did
so. Please explain to me, and anyone else reading, the reason you
thought Lisa's little girl would be a proper sexual target for you.
[1] You suggested I ask one, but I chose to check with three, just to
be sure.
Greegor
G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
G > Yes. Quite ironic, really.
DJS3 > Not really.
DJS3 > All my foundeds were reversed to unfounded.
G > Got proof?
Are you afraid to post proof that you
reversed your FOUNDEDS, Dan?
DJS3 > YOUR founded CPS report for maltreatment
DJS3 > still stands and so do your convictions for
DJS3 > abusing your mentally ill ex-wife, grag.
G > Got proof?
DJS3 > Your word isn't credible, grag?
G > Is YOURS?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 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/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."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
G > Don't you have the records, Dan?
DJS3 > grag, you're obviously afraid to reveal the truth.
G > You FIRST, Mr 20 Investigations and 5 Foundeds one for sex abuse.
DJS3 > EVERY report was determined to be unfounded, grag.
Then why are you afraid to post the proof, Dan?
DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
G > Which you exaggerated and got hysterical about.
DJS3 > Would it be an exaggeration to say
DJS3 > Lisa Watkins was without the custody
DJS3 > of her daughter for more than a few years, grag?
DJS3 > YOU didn't get hysterical because you thought
DJS3 > the removal was going to make you rich!!!
If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
would that bother a Family Rights person?
How would that bother a system suck?
DJS3 > I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling
DJS3 > you what you did was maltreatment.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > I happen to agree with him.
G > I see you used the term maltreatment.
DJS3 > That is the correct term, grag.
G > Correct for the Child Protection INDUSTRY
G > or correct for parents fighting them?
DJS3 > Simply correct.
G > Orwellian newspeak vs. oldspeak.
G >
G > It wasn't even changed by legislation.
DJS3 > Was it supposed to be changed by legislation?
DJS3 > And which legislature was supposed to make the change?
G > The change was "promulgated" within the
G > Child Protection INDUSTRY.
DJS3 > When and in which states did that happen?
When and where did the attorney say "maltreatment" Dan?
Got a LINK?
That term was NOT in use at that the time
of the alleged attorney's comment.
The equivalent term in use at that time was CAN.
Why did it change, Dan?
WHO changed the terminology from CAN to "maltreatment"?
When?
G > Sorta like how caseworkers call themselves
G > ""Social Workers"" in every legal document, you mean?
DJS3 > I haven't seen "every legal document," have you, grag?
G > It's about a pattern and practice of caseworkers
G > calling themselves "Social Workers" on documents.
DJS3 > I've only seen them referred to as caseworkers.
G > Post some of YOUR documents, Dan!
G > Let's see what the caseworkers call themselves.
DJS3 > It's your claim, grag, post YOUR documents that prove your
claim.
[ section moved to a new thread for discussion ]
G > How many Family Rights advocates would
G > lie or exaggerate about how good the
G > agency's case is against somebody?
DJS3 > No exaggeration necessary, grag.
DJS3 > Conclusion are all based on your own disturbing admissions.
G > You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
DJS3 > Disproving the allegation is the way to
DJS3 > prove the children weren't maltreated.
G > Is that really how the burden of proof works, Dan?
G > Guilty until proven innocent, Dan?
DJS3 > What is your experience with CPS, grag?
G > Is THAT why you argued so much against
G > the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE, Dan?
DJS3 > No.
DJS3 > Did you "invoke" the US Constitution in your case, grag?
G > The Judge said "That's for another court."
DJS3 > Did you "invoke" the US Constitution in the other court, grag?
DJS3 > Or did you C-H-O-K-E???
G > You haven't checked out the case in YEARS, Dan!
DJS3 > So, that would mean you choked, grag.
G > I told you to get an update. Why didn't you?
DJS3 > If you had evidence to support your
DJS3 > claims, grag, you would post it.
Is that why you don't post proof that your
FOUNDEDS were reversed, Dan?
DJS3 > Lisa Watkins only became your fiance'
DJS3 > AFTER her daughter was removed by
DJS3 > the authorities in Iowa.
G > On what are you basing this statement?
DJS3 > Information you posted, grag.
G > Got a LINK then?
G > I THOUGHT not.
G > And are you talking about the physical
G > removal for THREE WEEKS with no
G > court authority?
G >
G > Or the official legal ""removal"" three
G > weeks later?
DJS3 > The initial removal, which was done
DJS3 > with Lisa Watkins permission.
G > That would be quite a trick since she wasn't home!
DJS3 > So YOU allowed the authorities
DJS3 > to remove Lisa Watkins' daughter, grag?
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Why did you do that?
G > What would you suggest, Dan?
DJS3 > If Lisa Watkins left her daughter in your
DJS3 > care, grag, why did you allow the
DJS3 > authorities to remove the little girl for
DJS3 > no reason, as you claim?
What would you suggest, Dan?
Interference with official acts?
Dan Sullivan
> If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
> would that bother a Family Rights person?
What you tried to do, grag, would bother any Family Rights activist
because you purposely did everything you could think of to keep the
child from being reunited with her mother with the hopes that the
longer the mother and daughter were separated the greater the "big
money" would be.
> DJS3 > So YOU allowed the authorities
> DJS3 > to remove Lisa Watkins' daughter, grag?
> DJS3 >
> DJS3 > Why did you do that?
>
> G > What would you suggest, Dan?
>
> DJS3 > If Lisa Watkins left her daughter in your
> DJS3 > care, grag, why did you allow the
> DJS3 > authorities to remove the little girl for
> DJS3 > no reason, as you claim?
>
> What would you suggest, Dan?
> Interference with official acts?
How could the removal have been an "official act" if you didn't do
anything wrong, grag?
Did you ask the police why they were removing Lisa's daughter?
Did the police tell you why they were removing Lisa's daughter?
Did you do or say nothing while the police removed Lisa's daughter,
grag?
At what point after the removal did you decide to sue for the "big
money?"
How's that law suit progressing?
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1ae36c93-818c-4f6a...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 1:45 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
> would that bother a Family Rights person?
DJS#3> What you tried to do, grag, would bother any Family Rights activist
DJS#3> because you purposely did everything you could think of to keep the
DJS#3> child from being reunited with her mother with the hopes that the
DJS#3> longer the mother and daughter were separated the greater the "big
DJS#3> money" would be.
I'd say anybody who sued the socks off CPS and won would be a hero, and
how big a hero would be defined by how much money he took away from the
crooks. I would think ANY - - <ahem> REAL family rights activist would be
happy if a CPS agency was tapped for a few million. We KNOW you think of
yourself as the MOST gifted lawyer on the planet, Sullivan, BUT I would hope
even YOU would understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get that "BIG MONEY"
you are bitching about unless he was legally in the right and all of YOUR
shit and that of a CPS worker even proved to have been a liar, were
disproved. You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you BITCH about the
possibility of Greg WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more you DEMONSTRATE
which side you are REALLY on here.
womanGoddess
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Translation Kennie. In Greg's case its about the money.
No mention from either of you the fact that Lisa has NOT been
reunited with her daughter, that Lisa and her daughter have been
robbed of some of the most important years of their lives.
Because Greg wants the money.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Greegor
G > Somebody once said where there's SMOKE there's fire.
G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
G > Yes. Quite ironic, really.
DJS3 > Not really.
DJS3 > All my foundeds were reversed to unfounded.
G > Got proof?
G > Are you afraid to post proof that you
G > reversed your FOUNDEDS, Dan?
Dan snipped this. Tacit admission that he is.
G > Got proof?
G > Is YOURS?
G > Then why are you afraid to post the proof, Dan?
Dan snipped this. Tacit admission that he is.
DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
G > Which you exaggerated and got hysterical about.
DJS3 > Would it be an exaggeration to say
DJS3 > Lisa Watkins was without the custody
DJS3 > of her daughter for more than a few years, grag?
DJS3 > YOU didn't get hysterical because you thought
DJS3 > the removal was going to make you rich!!!
G > If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
G > would that bother a Family Rights person?
G >
G > How would that bother a system suck?
DJS3 > What you tried to do, grag, would bother any
DJS3 > Family Rights activist because you purposely
DJS3 > did everything you could think of to keep the
DJS3 > child from being reunited with her mother with
DJS3 > the hopes that the longer the mother and
DJS3 > daughter were separated the greater the
DJS3 > "big money" would be.
DJS3 > I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling
DJS3 > you what you did was maltreatment.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > I happen to agree with him.
G > I see you used the term maltreatment.
DJS3 > That is the correct term, grag.
G > Correct for the Child Protection INDUSTRY
G > or correct for parents fighting them?
DJS3 > Simply correct.
G > Orwellian newspeak vs. oldspeak.
G >
G > It wasn't even changed by legislation.
DJS3 > Was it supposed to be changed by legislation?
DJS3 > And which legislature was supposed to make the change?
G > The change was "promulgated" within the
G > Child Protection INDUSTRY.
DJS3 > When and in which states did that happen?
G > When and where did the attorney say "maltreatment" Dan?
G > Got a LINK?
G > That term was NOT in use at that the time
G > of the alleged attorney's comment.
G > The equivalent term in use at that time was CAN.
G > Why did it change, Dan?
G > WHO changed the terminology from CAN to "maltreatment"?
G > When?
Snipped by Dan. Tacit admission.
G > Sorta like how caseworkers call themselves
G > ""Social Workers"" in every legal document, you mean?
DJS3 > I haven't seen "every legal document," have you, grag?
G > It's about a pattern and practice of caseworkers
G > calling themselves "Social Workers" on documents.
DJS3 > I've only seen them referred to as caseworkers.
In most states they call themselves ""Social Worker II" etc.
Is NY different?
G > Post some of YOUR documents, Dan!
G > Let's see what the caseworkers call themselves.
DJS3 > It's your claim, grag, post YOUR documents that prove your
claim.
[ section moved to a new thread for discussion ]
[ Restored for continuity and context. ]
G > That term replaced CAN as in a big snowball
G > of NEGLECT with a BB of ABUSE and
G > they then pretend that it's ALL ABUSE.
G >
G > NEGLECT is so overbroad that damn near
G > anybody could be ""FOUNDED"" for it.
DJS3 > Do you not know that more children die
DJS3 > of neglect and suffer serious damage
DJS3 > from neglect than all other causes combined, grag?
G > Proof that you're a shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY.
DJS3 > I'm simply stating a fact, grag.
G > Lobbying on their behalf, Dan?
DJS3 > Not at all.
G > That argument somehow overrides the
G > Bill Of Rights, Dan?
DJS3 > I don't understand your question.
> -------------------------------------------
DJS3 > Do you not know that more children die
DJS3 > of neglect and suffer serious damage
DJS3 > from neglect than all other causes combined, grag?
G > Proof that you're a shill for the Child Protection INDUSTRY.
DJS3 > Again, I'm simply stating a fact.
DJS3 > Why are you claiming that stating that
DJS3 > fact is proof of my being a shill for
DJS3 > anyone or any organization, grag?
G > Lobbying on their behalf, Dan?
DJS3 > See above.
G > That argument somehow overrides the
G > Bill Of Rights, Dan?
G > Are you claiming that neglecting a child
G > overrides something in the Bill of Rights, grag?
G > Can you understand the question NOW, Dan?
DJS3 >Not really.
[ End of restored section, in sequence. ] ------------
DJS3 > No.
G > I THOUGHT not.
DJS3 > So YOU allowed the authorities
DJS3 > to remove Lisa Watkins' daughter, grag?
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Why did you do that?
G > What would you suggest, Dan?
DJS3 > If Lisa Watkins left her daughter in your
DJS3 > care, grag, why did you allow the
DJS3 > authorities to remove the little girl for
DJS3 > no reason, as you claim?
G > What would you suggest, Dan?
G > Interference with official acts?
DJS3 > How could the removal have been an
DJS3 > "official act" if you didn't do anything wrong, grag?
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Did you ask the police why they
DJS3 > were removing Lisa's daughter?
DJS# >
DJS3 > Did the police tell you why they
DJS3 > were removing Lisa's daughter?
DJS3 >
DJS3 > Did you do or say nothing while the
DJS3 > police removed Lisa's daughter, grag?
DJS3 >
DJS3 > At what point after the removal did
DJS3 > you decide to sue for the "big money?"
DJS3 >
DJS3 > How's that law suit progressing?
You got harassed with 22+ child abuse investigations.
Why didn't YOU sue the hell out of them?
Shouldn't they be sued for that?
How about your 5 different FOUNDEDS, one for Child Sexual Abuse?
Shouldn't they be SUED for the deceptions you described?
Dan Sullivan
> DJS3 > If Lisa Watkins left her daughter in your
> DJS3 > care, grag, why did you allow the
> DJS3 > authorities to remove the little girl for
> DJS3 > no reason, as you claim?
>
> G > What would you suggest, Dan?
> G > Interference with official acts?
>
> DJS3 > How could the removal have been an
> DJS3 > "official act" if you didn't do anything wrong, grag?
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he did do something
wrong to Lisa Watkins' daughter.
> DJS3 > Did you ask the police why they
> DJS3 > were removing Lisa's daughter?
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he did do something
wrong to Lisa Watkins' daughter.
> DJS3 > Did the police tell you why they
> DJS3 > were removing Lisa's daughter?
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he did do something
wrong to Lisa Watkins' daughter.
> DJS3 > Did you do or say nothing while the
> DJS3 > police removed Lisa's daughter, grag?
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he did do something
wrong to Lisa Watkins' daughter.
> DJS3 > At what point after the removal did
> DJS3 > you decide to sue for the "big money?"
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he isn't suing.
> DJS3 > How's that law suit progressing?
grag fails to answer which is a tacit admission he C-H-O-K-E-D!!!!!!
Greegor
KRP > and won would be a hero, and how big a hero
KRP > would be defined by how much money he took
KRP > away from the crooks. I would think ANY
KRP > - - <ahem> REAL family rights activist would
KRP > be happy if a CPS agency was tapped for a
KRP > few million. We KNOW you think of yourself
KRP > as the MOST gifted lawyer on the planet,
KRP > Sullivan, BUT I would hope even YOU would
KRP > understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get
KRP > that "BIG MONEY" you are bitching about
KRP > unless he was legally in the right and all of
KRP > YOUR shit and that of a CPS worker even
KRP > proved to have been a liar, were disproved.
KRP > You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you
KRP > BITCH about the possibility of Greg
KRP > WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more
KRP > you DEMONSTRATE which side you are
KRP > REALLY on here.
It also implies he is actually worried about it!
Greegor
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a157b657-1d79-4bf4...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 16, 5:03 pm, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1ae36c93-818c-4f6a...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 1:45 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
> > would that bother a Family Rights person?
>
> DJS#3> What you tried to do, grag, would bother any Family Rights activist
> DJS#3> because you purposely did everything you could think of to keep the
> DJS#3> child from being reunited with her mother with the hopes that the
> DJS#3> longer the mother and daughter were separated the greater the "big
> DJS#3> money" would be.
>
> I'd say anybody who sued the socks off CPS and won would be a hero, and
> how big a hero would be defined by how much money he took away from the
> crooks. I would think ANY - - <ahem> REAL family rights activist would be
> happy if a CPS agency was tapped for a few million. We KNOW you think of
> yourself as the MOST gifted lawyer on the planet, Sullivan, BUT I would
> hope
> even YOU would understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get that "BIG MONEY"
> you are bitching about unless he was legally in the right and all of YOUR
> shit and that of a CPS worker even proved to have been a liar, were
> disproved. You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you BITCH about the
> possibility of Greg WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more you DEMONSTRATE
> which side you are REALLY on here.
MOE> Translation Kennie. In Greg's case its about the money.
It always IS in lawsuits, Maureen. And your POINT is?
krp
GH> It also implies he is actually worried about it!
He DOES seem to be VERY concerned about CPS losing a slug of revenue.
Again, it is VERY telling, isn't it?
Greegor
KRP > and won would be a hero, and how big a hero
KRP > would be defined by how much money he took
KRP > away from the crooks. I would think ANY
KRP > - - <ahem> REAL family rights activist would
KRP > be happy if a CPS agency was tapped for a
KRP > few million. We KNOW you think of yourself
KRP > as the MOST gifted lawyer on the planet,
KRP > Sullivan, BUT I would hope even YOU would
KRP > understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get
KRP > that "BIG MONEY" you are bitching about
KRP > unless he was legally in the right and all of
KRP > YOUR shit and that of a CPS worker even
KRP > proved to have been a liar, were disproved.
KRP > You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you
KRP > BITCH about the possibility of Greg
KRP > WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more
KRP > you DEMONSTRATE which side you are
KRP > REALLY on here.
G > It also implies he is actually worried about it!
KRP > He DOES seem to be VERY concerned
KRP > about CPS losing a slug of revenue.
KRP > Again, it is VERY telling, isn't it?
Dan doesn't realize just how transparent he is.
He thinks he's being cagey.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You can't see it? Figures.
So let me guess. You side with Judas when he was paid those silver
coins for betraying Jesus. After all, it's just money, right?
womanGoddess
Projection noted.
Like you were in our DD214 discussion Kennie?
You hypocrite.
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 1:45�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
>> would that bother a Family Rights person?
>
>What you tried to do, grag, would bother any Family Rights activist
>because you purposely did everything you could think of to keep the
>child from being reunited with her mother with the hopes that the
>longer the mother and daughter were separated the greater the "big
>money" would be.
What is funny, in a sad sort of way, is that Greg waited too
long. The SoL expired two years after the event. You might recall by
citing, with links, to applicable law.
Greg has tried to present that since the CWs involved haven't
openly admitted to lying (there is no evidence they committed perjury)
the SoL is tolled.
>
>> DJS3 > So YOU allowed the authorities
>> DJS3 > to remove Lisa Watkins' daughter, grag?
>> DJS3 >
>> DJS3 > Why did you do that?
>>
>> G > What would you suggest, Dan?
>>
>> DJS3 > If Lisa Watkins left her daughter in your
>> DJS3 > care, grag, why did you allow the
>> DJS3 > authorities to remove the little girl for
>> DJS3 > no reason, as you claim?
>>
>> What would you suggest, Dan?
>> Interference with official acts?
>
>How could the removal have been an "official act" if you didn't do
>anything wrong, grag?
>
>Did you ask the police why they were removing Lisa's daughter?
>
>Did the police tell you why they were removing Lisa's daughter?
If they did remove her.
There is very strong evidence that she did leave Lisa's home, but
at this time, nothing has been offered to support any reason. Well,
Greg has made claims, but whereas he's constantly exposed as the liar
he is, few would be foolish enough to accept his word.
>
>Did you do or say nothing while the police removed Lisa's daughter,
>grag?
>
>At what point after the removal did you decide to sue for the "big
>money?"
>
>How's that law suit progressing?
The SoL expired. All he can do now is whine about it. Pretending
the suit was ever really an option.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:1ae36c93-818c-4f6a...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 16, 1:45 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If a CPS agency were to be sued for big money, how
>> would that bother a Family Rights person?
>
>DJS#3> What you tried to do, grag, would bother any Family Rights activist
>DJS#3> because you purposely did everything you could think of to keep the
>DJS#3> child from being reunited with her mother with the hopes that the
>DJS#3> longer the mother and daughter were separated the greater the "big
>DJS#3> money" would be.
>
> I'd say anybody who sued the socks off CPS and won would be a hero, and
>how big a hero would be defined by how much money he took away from the
>crooks.
Perhaps.
Whereas Greg consistently PROVES he's a CPS shill, he wouldn't
agree at all.
>I would think ANY - - <ahem> REAL family rights activist would be
>happy if a CPS agency was tapped for a few million.
So you agree that Greg would be VERY upset?
>We KNOW you think of
>yourself as the MOST gifted lawyer on the planet,
Outside of your drunken delusions, Dan's not a lawyer and he's
never presented that he is.
>Sullivan, BUT I would hope
>even YOU would understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get that "BIG MONEY"
>you are bitching about unless he was legally in the right and all of YOUR
So you agree Greg's been doing nothing more than blowing smoke
(metaphorically speaking)?
>shit and that of a CPS worker even proved to have been a liar, were
>disproved.
The problem is, there is no evidence, let alone proof, that they
did anything wrong.
That's Greg's major screw-up. The information HE presented, which
is all we have, shows they did everything correctly.
>You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you BITCH about the
>possibility of Greg WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more you DEMONSTRATE
>which side you are REALLY on here.
>
So you agree that Dan is a Family Rights Activist?
'Bout time.
Now you'll just need to accept the truth that Greg is pro-CPS and
you'll start looking good. Well, as good as is possible for you.
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team commenting on his ONLY
on-line friend, Gregory Scott Hanson.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> even YOU would understand that Greg wouldn't WIN and get that "BIG MONEY"
>> you are bitching about unless he was legally in the right and all of YOUR
>> shit and that of a CPS worker even proved to have been a liar, were
>> disproved. You know, Sullivan, the more LOUDLY you BITCH about the
>> possibility of Greg WINNING a lawsuit against CPS the more you DEMONSTRATE
>> which side you are REALLY on here.
>
> Translation Kennie. In Greg's case its about the money.
>
> No mention from either of you the fact that Lisa has NOT been
>reunited with her daughter, that Lisa and her daughter have been
>robbed of some of the most important years of their lives.
>
> Because Greg wants the money.
Greg has never offered ANYTHING to support the claim that Lisa's
little girl left the home because of CPS intervention.
I think he was and is lying. He is very PRO-CPS and would be
more than willing to LIE to get parents dealing with CPS to trust him.
This will enable him to sabotage their case.
The claims of a law suit are bogus. The SoL has long since
expired, even if there was any real consideration.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>MOE> Translation Kennie. In Greg's case its about the money.
>
> It always IS in lawsuits, Maureen.
Sometimes it's simply to get the defendant to perform an agreed
upon action or fulfil his/her part of a contract.
How is it that you, a trial consultant, can know so very little
about matters of law?
>And your POINT is?
Had you not snipped the rest of her post, you would know.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, expressing his
fondness for child porn in Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Greegor
krp
> Feb 2002
> Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
>
I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history, that he
once BRAGGED ABOUT to lure people to use HIM to represent them.
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18bc0504-6aea-454a...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Feb 2002
> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
Which was finally unfounded after CPS lost at an Administrative
Review.
After their petition was thrown out of court.
After the CPS case worker was forced to resign.
And every founded CPS report evr made against me was ultimately
unfounded.
> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
Greegor
DJS3 > lost at an Administrative Review.
Got proof?
DJS3 > After their petition was thrown out of court.
DJS3 > After the CPS case worker was forced to resign.
Got proof?
DJS3 > And every founded CPS report ever made
DJS3 > against me was ultimately unfounded.
Ultimately? Got proof?
KRP > I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
DJS3 > My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
Got proof?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote 'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo)
daughter's statement that "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in
the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
krp
On Dec 18, 7:29 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:18bc0504-6aea-454a...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Feb 2002
> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
IF they are fukking LOONS!
Dan Sullivan
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b2bd088$0$5117$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
than credible or even fabricated.
The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR OWN
DOCUMENTS!!
The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
krp
>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
> than credible or even fabricated.
> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR
> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been accused
far MORE time than he has. Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases
with regard to the child have had a final determination yet. You have lots
of guts pointing your fingers at him when your own life is so far les than
exemplary. Old saying, Sullivan that YOU need to consider; "Whenever you
point your finger at somebody, you should remember that 4 of your fingers
are pointing back at yourself."
With Greg's DV - - MISDEMEANORS - remember his lawyer coerced him to
accept a plea bargain. Greg didn't know any better that he should have
fought it.
Dan Sullivan
>
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b2bd632$0$22523$607e...@cv.net...
>
>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>
>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>
>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>
>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
>> than credible or even fabricated.
>
>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR
>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>
>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>
> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been accused
> far MORE time than he has.
Accusations mean nothing.
> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
> have had a final determination yet.
LOL!!!
Who told you that?
grag?
> You have lots of guts pointing your fingers at him when your own life is
> so far les than exemplary.
CPS' own expert indicated to a FC Judge that my children are the "foundation
of my life."
grag's been convicted twice for abusing a mentally ill woman.
And he's listed on the Iowa State Child Abuse Registry..
> Old saying, Sullivan that YOU need to consider; "Whenever you point your
> finger at somebody, you should remember that 4 of your fingers are
> pointing back at yourself."
>
> With Greg's DV - - MISDEMEANORS - remember his lawyer coerced him to
> accept a plea bargain. Greg didn't know any better that he should have
> fought it.
grag agreed to the plea bargain.
I believe he was in his mid thirties... and you claim he didn't "know any
better" by then?
You must really think he's a schlub.
BTW this was the second time he was arrested for DV.
The first time he went to trial and was found GUILTY by the jury.
So grag accepting a plea doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Greegor
into a salad that is called a half-truth or a lie.
When are you going to explain how you hooked up
with a freakin mental case and made BABIES with her?
What kind of sick MOFO does stuff like that?
Were you locked in the same psych ward with her or what?
Is Susan also a freakin' mental case?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
krp
>>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in
>>>>> > '93."
>>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>>
>>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>>
>>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>>
>>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
>>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>>
>>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
>>> than credible or even fabricated.
>>
>>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR
>>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>>
>>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>>
>> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been
>> accused far MORE time than he has.
>
> Accusations mean nothing.
>
>> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
>> have had a final determination yet.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> Who told you that?
The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny. But that
screws up your BULLSHIT vendetta against Greg because he "DARED" disagree
with the GREAT DAN SULLIVAN all those years ago. Sullivan you are full of
yourself. Which means you are shit.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4b2bd632$0$22523$607e...@cv.net...
>
>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>
>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>
>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>
>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
>> than credible or even fabricated.
>
>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR
>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>
>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>
>
> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been accused
>far MORE time than he has.
Greg has more founded accusations.
>Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases
>with regard to the child have had a final determination yet.
Greg has claimed there is, further, I cited applicable laws that
show the SoL expired after two years.
>You have lots
>of guts pointing your fingers at him when your own life is so far les than
>exemplary. Old saying, Sullivan that YOU need to consider; "Whenever you
>point your finger at somebody, you should remember that 4 of your fingers
>are pointing back at yourself."
>
But only the one is pointing to the guilty party.
> With Greg's DV - - MISDEMEANORS -
Why do you try to minimize Greg's BEATING of his ex-wife?
>remember his lawyer coerced him to
>accept a plea bargain. Greg didn't know any better that he should have
>fought it.
>
Only in regards to one conviction for BEATING his ex-wife. He
went to trial for the other one and was found guilty.
So completely proved was his guilt that when an appeal was filed,
the Iowa Supreme Court refused to listen to arguments. That's some
SERIOUS guilt on the part of Greg.
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
>>> have had a final determination yet.
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>> Who told you that?
>
> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
They didn't back in January.
Please prove the courts show Greg's case as still active, or
"active." Unless, of course, I've just exposed another of your MANY
drunken pathological lies.
>But that
>screws up your BULLSHIT vendetta against Greg because he "DARED" disagree
>with the GREAT DAN SULLIVAN all those years ago. Sullivan you are full of
>yourself. Which means you are shit.
I've never seen Dan display any negativity towards anyone who
honestly disagreed with him.
Greg only attacks Dan because Dan beat CPS, and Greg is so
pro-CPS that any parent winning MUST be attacked. This is a truth
PROVED by Greg's own posts.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, LYING
and claiming David Moore is his gay lover. Message-ID:
<_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b2c0a98$0$31275$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
> >>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in
> >>>>> > '93."
> >>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> >>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>
> >>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>
> >>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
> >>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>
> >>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be less
> >>> than credible or even fabricated.
>
> >>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE THEIR
> >>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>
> >>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>
> >> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been
> >> accused far MORE time than he has.
>
> > Accusations mean nothing.
>
> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
> >> have had a final determination yet.
>
> > LOL!!!
>
> > Who told you that?
>
> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
You claim to have won hundreds of cases in Iowa, pangborn, how is it
you don't know that Iowa CPS only has a matter of a few months to make
a final determination in a CPS case?
Are you claiming that the Iowa authorities have chosen to extend the
Lisa Watkins determination to over eight years?
krp
> >>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in
> >>>>> > '93."
> >>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> >>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>
> >>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>
> >>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER in
> >>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>
> >>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be
> >>> less
> >>> than credible or even fabricated.
>
> >>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE
> >>> THEIR
> >>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>
> >>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>
> >> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been
> >> accused far MORE time than he has.
>
> > Accusations mean nothing.
>
> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
> >> have had a final determination yet.
>
> > LOL!!!
>
> > Who told you that?
>
> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
DJS#3> But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
The social worker did, but the COURT has NOT to what I can tell.
Dan Sullivan
pangborn, you posted "as I understand it, none of grag's cases with regard
to the child have had a final determination yet."
Then only a matter of minutes later you admit CPS has made a determination.
Is grag lying to you or are you lying for him?
You claim to have won hundreds of cases in Iowa.
How is it you don't know that CPS and Family Court are two different forums
making two separate determinations??
You claim "the Iowa courts show the main case as still "active.""
Post the link to the Iowa website showing the "main case" as still being
"active.""
I'd like to see what you're basing your statement on.
And what are the minor cases you aren't referring to?
Has grag told you he's filed a law suit against the authorities in Iowa in
regards to the removal of Lisa Watkins daughter?
Greegor
Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
Central Registry.
Prove it!
Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
I recently posted a news story of a child
who was in Foster Care for 4 years with
the sole basis being "suspicion of neglect".
Yet Dan pretends that his success is about
ARGUING with caseworkers in a process
that they basically own.
Dan Sullivan
> Dan put out a subject title that said:
> Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
> Central Registry.
>
> Prove it!
>
> Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
> and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
15+ and all were determined to be unfounded.
> I recently posted a news story of a child
> who was in Foster Care for 4 years with
> the sole basis being "suspicion of neglect".
So?
> Yet Dan pretends that his success is about
> ARGUING with caseworkers in a process
> that they basically own.
If you think I claimed to have won against CPS because I lied with the
caseworkers... post my exact quotes with the URLs.
Greegor
G > Dan put out a subject title that said:
G > Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
G > Central Registry.
G > Prove it!
Why can't you PROVE IT Dan?
What are you afraid of?
G > Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
G > and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
DJS3 > 15+ and all were determined to be unfounded.
Dan, You have claimed 15, 15+ and also 20+ investigations.
Did I FORCE you to claim 20+ ?
Why are you trying to change YOUR OWN claim?
G > I recently posted a news story of a child
G > who was in Foster Care for 4 years with
G > the sole basis being "suspicion of neglect".
DJS3 > So?
How COULD that be, Dan?
Why would they remova a child for FOUR YEARS
and only have "suspicion"? Where's that
"credible evidence" you say they have to have?
G > Yet Dan pretends that his success is about
G > ARGUING with caseworkers in a process
G > that they basically own.
DJS3 > If you think I claimed to have won
DJS3 > against CPS because I lied with
DJS3 > the caseworkers... post my exact
DJS3 > quotes with the URLs.
You "claimed to have won"?
As opposed to won?
You gave yourself away, Dan!
Where did I say you lied to caseworkers?
Is your guilty concience playing tricks on you, Dan?
"The story doesn't change when you tell the truth." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/495ca885dedaaa33?hl=en&dmode=source
Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!
nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.51.MISMATCH!tmp-
post01.iad!news.highwinds-media.com!news.cv.net!not-for-mail
From: "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net>
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.law-
enforcement,misc.legal,alt.true-crime,soc.men
References: <v9g9i5hsk27amm95r...@4ax.com> <670836a2-
edf0-41ed-a8a...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> <c99d22bf-
fd42-411c-b34...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
<dblei51sv66f4p9cq...@4ax.com>
<18bc0504-6aea-454a...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
<4b2b75a5$0$4861$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com> <4ed746ec-
bcaa-45c7-9d8...@u37g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
<4b2bd088$0$5117$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
<4b2bd632$0$22523$607e...@cv.net>
<4b2c0091$0$4878$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
<4b2c0a98$0$31275$607e...@cv.net>
<4b2c96e9$0$5079$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
<42be2e38-3aff-42f0...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
<4b2ceb6a$0$4868$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com> <4b2cf4de
$0$5000$607e...@cv.net> <f50124e1-e64b-498c-9b2e-
e6178b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Daniel Sullivan of Patchogue NY said he underwent 15+
Child Abuse investigations and was FOUNDED for 5 of them, one was for
Child Sexual Abuse, which were all ultimately unfounded
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:11:52 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <4b2d257d$0$22551$607e...@cv.net>
Organization: Optimum Online
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.113.113.192 [ Optimum Online Cablevision
Patchogue ]
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cv.net
"Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f50124e1-e64b-498c-9b2e-
e6178b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
krp
>>
>>> >>>>> > Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in
>>> >>>>> > '93."
>>> >>>>> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>>>
>>> >>>>> I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
>>>
>>> >>>> DJS#3> My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
>>>
>>> >>>> Yes ATTORNEY SULLIVAN - EVERYONE believes you are the BEST LAWYER
>>> >>>> in
>>> >>>> America! They ALL should HIRE YOU to represent them.
>>>
>>> >>> No one needs to be a lawyer to prove CPS' "credible evidence" to be
>>> >>> less
>>> >>> than credible or even fabricated.
>>>
>>> >>> The evidence I used to prove the CPS decisions to be in error WERE
>>> >>> THEIR
>>> >>> OWN DOCUMENTS!!
>>>
>>> >>> The first time I used an attorney, the last four I did it on my own.
>>> >> Sullivan amazing that you toss rocks at Greg when YOU have been
>>> >> accused far MORE time than Greg has.
>>> > Accusations mean nothing.
>>> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the
>>> >> child
>>> >> have had a final determination yet.
>>> > LOL!!!
>>> > Who told you that?
>>> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
>> DJS#3> But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
>> The social worker did, but the COURT has NOT to what I can tell.
> pangborn, you posted "as I understand it, none of grag's cases with regard
> to the child have had a final determination yet."
Well Danny - it's time you NEED to start stalking Greg again. Use your
CPS pull to get the goods on Greg. After all - I **COULD** be wrong. YOU
will just have to sit and wonder how much of your BULLSHIT will eventually
blow up in your face.
Say, Sullivan, AGAIN I remind you of the challenge to you to name just
ONE THING you have done in your life (other than being a prick on Usenet)
that has been a positive contribution. Just ONE THING you have done in your
62 YEARS of life worthy of note? Some contribution to the world. Just ONE
thing Danny.
krp
> Dan put out a subject title that said:
> Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
> Central Registry.
>
> Prove it!
>
> Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
> and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
Greg you can't have THAT MANY independent reports from different people and
there not be at least SOMETHING to them.
Dan Sullivan
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/495ca885dedaaa33
>
> G > Dan put out a subject title that said:
> G > Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
> G > Central Registry.
>
> G > Prove it!
>
> Why can't you PROVE IT Dan?
> What are you afraid of?
>
> G > Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
> G > and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
>
> DJS3 > 15+ and all were determined to be unfounded.
>
> Dan, You have claimed 15, 15+ and also 20+ investigations.
>
> Did I FORCE you to claim 20+ ?
>
> Why are you trying to change YOUR OWN claim?
I've said "15+" as well as "about 20."
> G > I recently posted a news story of a child
> G > who was in Foster Care for 4 years with
> G > the sole basis being "suspicion of neglect".
>
> DJS3 > So?
>
> How COULD that be, Dan?
>
> Why would they remova a child for FOUR YEARS
> and only have "suspicion"? Where's that
> "credible evidence" you say they have to have?
Let me know when you find out.
> G > Yet Dan pretends that his success is about
> G > ARGUING with caseworkers in a process
> G > that they basically own.
>
> DJS3 > If you think I claimed to have won
> DJS3 > against CPS because I lied with
> DJS3 > the caseworkers... post my exact
> DJS3 > quotes with the URLs.
>
> You "claimed to have won"?
> As opposed to won?
>
> You gave yourself away, Dan!
>
> Where did I say you lied to caseworkers?
I used the wrong word.
I'm so used to typing "lied" in response to your lies.
Should have been arguing.
> Is your guilty concience playing tricks on you, Dan?
I don't have a guilty conscience.
Dan Sullivan
The "something" was they all were unfounded.
Greegor
DJS3 > reports in any State's Central Registry.
G > Prove it!
G> Dan himself has also claimed that he
G > underwent 20+ investigations and had
G > 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child
G > Sexual Abuse.
KRP > Greg you can't have THAT MANY
KRP > independent reports from different
KRP > people and there not be at least
KRP > SOMETHING to them.
Well, Dan claimed that some of them were
instigated by his BIPOLAR ex-wife.
But 20+ reports??
Even Dan acknowledged that not all
of them were people she put up to it.
And remember that Dan said it himself,
"Where there's smoke there's fire.".
Isn't it amazing that a guy with his history
would try that "jazz" on somebody else?
But what would you make of his attempts
to revise the number up and down so much?
Do you think Dan actually thought he could
get away with changing his claim up and
down so many times?
I wonder how Dan's SUPPORTERS rationalize
Dan's attempt to CHANGE his own claims!
( 15, 15+, 20+ then back down to 15+
CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS )
Let's watch Kent Wills ""rationalize"" it! LOL
Greegor
grag scott hanson admits he is a twice convicted
abuser of a mentally ill woman and he also
admites he is listed on the Iowa State Child
Abuse Registry.
Dan, That is typical of your half truths.
Got a LINK to where I "admits" to EXACTLY what you said?
I know for a fact that you do not.
Got a LINK to a registry listing?
I know for a fact that you do not.
There are grains of truth in what you said,
but you've still concocted a HALF TRUTH.
What's the story about YOUR OWN changing
claims about the number of child abuse
investigations you've undergone, Dan?
( 15, 15+ 20+ and attempts to go back down to 15+ )
"The story doesn't change when you tell the truth." - Dan Sullivan
"Where there's smoke there's fire." - Dan Sullivan
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
krp
> DJS3 > Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS
> DJS3 > reports in any State's Central Registry.
>
> G > Prove it!
>
> G> Dan himself has also claimed that he
> G > underwent 20+ investigations and had
> G > 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child
> G > Sexual Abuse.
>
> KRP > Greg you can't have THAT MANY
> KRP > independent reports from different
> KRP > people and there not be at least
> KRP > SOMETHING to them.
>
> Well, Dan claimed that some of them were
> instigated by his BIPOLAR ex-wife.
Oh I see, it was all a "MASSIVE CONSPIRACY" orchestrated by his ex-wife
and she managed to recruit 20 other women and their children to join her. Oh
I can buy the off-the-rails ex wife, I might even buy her having a
co-conspirator. I've seen that plenty of times, but 20+? With that MUCH
smoke there has to be a fire somewhere.
krp
>
>>> Dan put out a subject title that said:
>>> Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
>>> Central Registry.
>>>
>>> Prove it!
>>>
>>> Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
>>> and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
>>
>> Greg you can't have THAT MANY independent reports from different people
>> and there not be at least SOMETHING to them.
> The "something" was they all were unfounded.
As the people in the child protection racket say, Danny; "unfounded
doesn't necessarily mean untrue!" Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly
abusive and controlling.
Greegor
DJS3 > Dan Sullivan has not a single founded
DJS3 > CPS reports in any State's Central Registry.
G > Prove it!
G > Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent
G > 20+ investigations and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one
G > of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
KRP > Greg you can't have THAT MANY independent
KRP > reports from different people and there not be
KRP > at least SOMETHING to them.
DJS3 > The "something" was they all were unfounded.
KRP > As the people in the child protection racket say,
KRP > Danny; "unfounded doesn't necessarily mean untrue!"\
KRP > Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly abusive
KRP > and controlling.
How do you PROVE that you didn't FONDLE the kid, Dan?
I remember you said that in one of your cases
you didn't even have ACCESS to the child!
But what about the 19 other investigations?
How did you prove a negative, Dan?
Why are you so afraid to provide any proof?
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
>> >> have had a final determination yet.
>>
>> > LOL!!!
>>
>> > Who told you that?
>>
>> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
>
>DJS#3> But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
>
> The social worker did, but the COURT has NOT to what I can tell.
The SoL has long expired, Ken. You may recall when I cited
(with links) the SoL being two years from the time of the incident. It
has been over seven years.
The matter is closed. Greg waited too long and now he can do
nothing more than whine.
His claim that the SoL is tolled because no one has openly
confessed to committing perjury is bunk. As a trial consultant, you
should know this.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in misc.legal
that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
>> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the child
>> >> have had a final determination yet.
>>
>> > LOL!!!
>>
>> > Who told you that?
>>
>> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
>
>But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
Actually, the state.
In Iowa, The Department of Human Services is a state agency. The
offices are often listed as X County of DHS, but it's still a state
agency.
>
>You claim to have won hundreds of cases in Iowa, pangborn, how is it
>you don't know that Iowa CPS only has a matter of a few months to make
>a final determination in a CPS case?
I doubt Pangborn has ever had a case in Iowa.
I know of no way for him to confirm he has without violating
confidentiality, so it will probably remain nothing more than a doubt.
>
>Are you claiming that the Iowa authorities have chosen to extend the
>Lisa Watkins determination to over eight years?
They didn't, according to Greg.
He has claimed that the determination was made three weeks later.
He may have been mistaken, or he may have lied, but that is the claim
Greg made.
--
Se toma vino por todo el mundo.
Well, that's what I've heard anyway :)
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dan put out a subject title that said:
>Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
>Central Registry.
>
>Prove it!
He's clearly met the level of proof you require. You accept that
he was reported as fact. As such, you must accept that he has no
founded reports as fact.
Accept one claim from a source about a subject, you must accept
all the claims from the source about the same subject.
>
>Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
>and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
>
He has no founded reports, Greg. Feel free to prove otherwise,
unless you're being far less than honest with your claim.
>I recently posted a news story of a child
>who was in Foster Care for 4 years with
>the sole basis being "suspicion of neglect".
Your excitement and joy over the child being away from her family
LEAPT from the screen, metaphorically speaking.
>
>Yet Dan pretends that his success is about
>ARGUING with caseworkers in a process
>that they basically own.
And he won. That's what really has you upset. Dan beat the CPS
agency you LOVE so much.
Why are you so pro-CPS? While I acknowledge there is a need for
such an agency (some people should NEVER be allowed to care for
children), you love CPS to a degree few can fathom.
What, exactly, is the reason you see CPS as ALWAYS right, no
matter what?
These are serious questions, Greg. I would appreciate serious
replies explaining how and why you LOVE CPS to the level you do.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
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 "Piggly Wiggly" 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, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>> The social worker did, but the COURT has NOT to what I can tell.
>
>> pangborn, you posted "as I understand it, none of grag's cases with regard
>> to the child have had a final determination yet."
>
> Well Danny - it's time you NEED to start stalking Greg again.
Your comment implies he's done so in the past. Please present
any and all evidence you have that he's done so, unless you're being
deceptive.
>Use your
>CPS pull to get the goods on Greg.
Greg, not Dan, is the pro-CPS poster.
>After all - I **COULD** be wrong.
I estimate you are wrong 99% of the time. The other 1% occurs
when you don't make any claims.
>YOU
>will just have to sit and wonder how much of your BULLSHIT will eventually
>blow up in your face.
I've seen none from Dan, so I would have to state none.
>
> Say, Sullivan, AGAIN I remind you of the challenge to you to name just
>ONE THING you have done in your life (other than being a prick on Usenet)
>that has been a positive contribution. Just ONE THING you have done in your
>62 YEARS of life worthy of note? Some contribution to the world. Just ONE
>thing Danny.
He beat CPS. This pisses Greg off to no end, since Greg is
extremely PRO-CPS. It pisses you off because he's won where you have
lost.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dan used a subject header that said:
>grag scott hanson admits he is a twice convicted
>abuser of a mentally ill woman and he also
>admites he is listed on the Iowa State Child
>Abuse Registry.
>
>Dan, That is typical of your half truths.
The court web site confirms your two convictions for BEATING your
ex.
You have claimed to be listed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry.
I doubt the court site is offering a half truth. If your claim
was less than 100% accurate, the fault lies with you.
>
>Got a LINK to where I "admits" to EXACTLY what you said?
>
>I know for a fact that you do not.
Interesting. His paraphrasing isn't acceptable when the comments
are about you, but when you do it, well, that's perfectly acceptable.
>
>Got a LINK to a registry listing?
It's not public. Only certain people can access it.
However, people on it can state they are, as you have done.
Care to offer PROOF that you are on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry,
Greg?
>
>I know for a fact that you do not.
Are you telling the readers you LIED when you claimed to have
been placed on the registry?
I've asked you to prove your claim of being listed. You've RAN
from each request.
The reason has become very obvious. You aren't listed. You flat
out LIED about it.
You claimed you listed (you used the word marked) to con parents
dealing with CPS to trust you. This enabled you to sabotage their
cases with CPS.
You really do love CPS as much as you present on-line.
>
>There are grains of truth in what you said,
>but you've still concocted a HALF TRUTH.
>
Dan has cited the court records and your claims. Are the court
records listing your two convictions wrong? When you claimed to be on
Iowa's Child Abuse Registry, were you lying?
>What's the story about YOUR OWN changing
>claims about the number of child abuse
>investigations you've undergone, Dan?
>
>( 15, 15+ 20+ and attempts to go back down to 15+ )
Dan's never claimed 20+. He did state about 20.
Is there a specific reason you're LYING about this?
>
>"The story doesn't change when you tell the truth." - Dan Sullivan
>
Something you would do well to learn, Greg. Sadly, you are
stupid (unable to learn).
>"Where there's smoke there's fire." - Dan Sullivan
>
And your life is an inferno, Greg.
--a true story
>
>
Kent Wills
wrote:
Technically, this is accurate. Just as founded doesn't
necessarily mean true.
>Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly
>abusive and controlling.
>
Only in your drunken delusions.
Maybe Dan's a member of the MASSIVE COALITION FORCE your intense
paranoia forces you to believe is out to get you (unless you lied
about the matter).
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KRP > As the people in the child protection racket say,
>KRP > Danny; "unfounded doesn't necessarily mean untrue!"\
>KRP > Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly abusive
>KRP > and controlling.
>
>How do you PROVE that you didn't FONDLE the kid, Dan?
>
>I remember you said that in one of your cases
>you didn't even have ACCESS to the child!
That would make abuse impossible.
It's sort of like how Lisa's little girl didn't suffer from your
abuse when she was removed from Lisa's home. Without access to the
little girl, you couldn't abuse her as you did before.
>
>But what about the 19 other investigations?
How do you get 19 investigations from 15 complaints? Be specific
since few will be able to follow your unique math.
>
>How did you prove a negative, Dan?
My guess would be with evidence. Dan would be in a far better
possition to know, of course.
>
>Why are you so afraid to provide any proof?
Your comment implies he hasn't. Please prove he's never done so,
unless, of course, he has and you're simply LYING about it.
I'm starting to enjoy using Gregborn Logic� standards in my
posts. I see why you and Ken use them exclusively.
Dan Sullivan
I'm surprised that you claim to have won hundreds of cases in New York,
pangborn, yet you don't know that all CPS needs to found a report of
maltreatment is "some credible evidence."
And why am I NOT surprised that you quote a saying of CPS that they use when
they lose a case.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0p0si5p0ge00rh8da...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:04:11 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> >> Also, as I understand it, none of Greg's cases with regard to the
>>> >> child
>>> >> have had a final determination yet.
>>>
>>> > LOL!!!
>>>
>>> > Who told you that?
>>>
>>> The Iowa courts show the main case as still "active" Danny.
>>
>>DJS#3> But, according to grag, the county already made their decision.
>>
>> The social worker did, but the COURT has NOT to what I can tell.
>
> The SoL has long expired, Ken. You may recall when I cited
> (with links) the SoL being two years from the time of the incident. It
> has been over seven years.
> The matter is closed.
Thank you JUDGE WILLS for your RULING in this matter!
krp
>
>>>>> Dan put out a subject title that said:
>>>>> Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
>>>>> Central Registry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
>>>>> and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Greg you can't have THAT MANY independent reports from different people
>>>> and there not be at least SOMETHING to them.
>>
>>> The "something" was they all were unfounded.
>>
>>
>> As the people in the child protection racket say, Danny; "unfounded
>> doesn't necessarily mean untrue!" Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly
>> abusive and controlling.
>
> I'm surprised that you claim to have won hundreds of cases in New York,
> pangborn, yet you don't know that all CPS needs to found a report of
> maltreatment is "some credible evidence."
I never said "hundreds in New York." Hundreds all over the country,
yes.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
"Hundreds all over the country???"
On March 5th of this year you claimed "Best guess at that time, more
likely 2 to 3 thousand."
"At that time" was after 26 years "in the business."
Now, after 33 years the number of cases ken pangborn of the a-team has
won has SHRUNK to mere hundreds!!
I wonder where the other "2 to 3 thousand" cases went.
Greegor
KBW > recall when I cited (with links) the SoL
KBW > being two years from the time of the
KBW > incident. It has been over seven years.
KBW > The matter is closed.
KRP > Thank you JUDGE WILLS for your RULING in this matter!
LOL
And WHAT is Kent yapping about SoL for?
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
> Got PROOF Dan? What are you afraid of?
Show us your PROOF!
What have you got to be afraid of?
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
Pangborn's alcoholism (unless he lied) has forced him to believe
your claim that the SoL has been tolled because the parties involved
have never openly admitted they committed perjury.
Since all available evidence shows they did not, the claim you've
presented in the past fails. Sadly, Pangborn is too drunk (unless he
lied) that he can't see this simple truth.
Dan Sullivan
krp
KBW > The SoL has long expired, Ken. You may
KBW > recall when I cited (with links) the SoL
KBW > being two years from the time of the
KBW > incident. It has been over seven years.
KBW > The matter is closed.
KRP > Thank you JUDGE WILLS for your RULING in this matter!
GH> LOL And WHAT is Kent yapping about SoL for?
JUDGE Wills made his ruling, Greg. That's the end of it. HE HAS SPOKEN!
krp
Oh you want an EXACT count. I'm sorry.
krp
> On Dec 20, 11:47 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b2e1cc7$0$4993$607e...@cv.net...
>> >>>>> Dan put out a subject title that said:
>> >>>>> Dan Sullivan has not a single founded CPS reports in any State's
>> >>>>> Central Registry.
>> >>>>> Prove it!
>> >>>>> Dan himself has also claimed that he underwent 20+ investigations
>> >>>>> and had 5 FOUNDEDS, one of them for Child Sexual Abuse.
>> >>>> Greg you can't have THAT MANY independent reports from different
>> >>>> people
>> >>>> and there not be at least SOMETHING to them.
>> >>> The "something" was they all were unfounded.
>> >> As the people in the child protection racket say, Danny; "unfounded
>> >> doesn't necessarily mean untrue!" Your ACT here on Usenet is certainly
>> >> abusive and controlling.
>> > I'm surprised that you claim to have won hundreds of cases in New York,
>> > pangborn, yet you don't know that all CPS needs to found a report of
>> > maltreatment is "some credible evidence."
>> I never said "hundreds in New York." Hundreds all over the country,
>> yes.
>
> "Hundreds all over the country???"
>
> On March 5th of this year you claimed "Best guess at that time, more
> likely 2 to 3 thousand."
What part of the word "GUESS" can't you understand, PROFESSOR Sullivan?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Can you explain how in 2002 you "guessed" "2 to 3 thousand," and now
in 2009, seven years later the number has "shrunk" to mere hundreds?
In 2002 you guessed 96 cases a year.
In 2009 you said hundreds... 300? meaning 9 cases a year.
600? meaning 18 cases a year.
900? that's 27 cases a year.
Still a FAR CRY from 96 cases a year.
Pack
Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Flush.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
G > Show us your PROOF!
G > What have you got to be afraid of?
Dan?