Social worker's perjury trial to start Wednesday

60 views
Skip to first unread message

fx

unread,
Jan 11, 2008, 2:55:53 AM1/11/08
to
Social worker's perjury trial to start Wednesday

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/regional/cc9c3db41d8fb94d862573ca0042e13e.txt

INDEPENDENCE --- The trial for a Buchanan County social worker charged
with three counts of perjury is slated to begin Wednesday.

Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, is accused of filing three child
welfare reports with the courts between Aug. 27, 2004, and Oct. 7, 2004,
that contained false information.

Court documents state Mahler's reports included several
misrepresentations of conversations, events and relationships of people
involved in a child custody case between Denise Gander of Jesup and
Allen Gardner of Tripoli.

The child-in-need-of-assistance case began in February 2004 after
Gander's two youngest children, a boy and a girl, tested positive for
having methamphetamine in their systems. The children were placed with
relatives.

Meanwhile, Gander and Gardner began a legal battle for the girl, who is
Gardner's daughter. Mahler's reports were filed during this time period,
according to court documents.

Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human Services and has had
her license since 1998. She has no record of disciplinary action,
according to the Iowa Bureau of Professional Licensing, and her license
is active.

State officials said it is unusual for a social worker to be charged
with perjury for information included in a report.

Perjury is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
The trial is expected to last three days.

CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ON A
DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAMS....

CPS Does not protect children...
It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even
killed at the hands of Child Protective Services.

every parent should read this .pdf from
connecticut dcf watch...

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/8x11.pdf

http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com

Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on
Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS 160, Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS 112, Parents 13
Neglect CPS 410, Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS 14 Parents 12
Fatalities CPS 6.4, Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that
are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per
100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse
and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the
citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold
parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY
government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and
death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more
human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which
they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that
they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when
children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a
bunch of social workers.


CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT
FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...


BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF
REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES
TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY
ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...

LK

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 11:22:45 PM1/12/08
to
It's a step in the right direction.

"fx" <f...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:cb305$4787210a$944e2002$6...@STARBAND.NET...

Greegor

unread,
Jan 12, 2008, 11:40:49 PM1/12/08
to
On Jan 12, 10:22 pm, "LK" <patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's a step in the right direction.
>
> "fx" <f...@starband.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cb305$4787210a$944e2002$6...@STARBAND.NET...
>
>
>
> > Social worker's perjury trial to start Wednesday
>
> >http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/01/08/news/regional/cc9c3db41...

>
> > INDEPENDENCE --- The trial for a Buchanan County social worker charged
> > with three counts of perjury is slated to begin Wednesday.
>
> > Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, is accused of filing three child welfare
> > reports with the courts between Aug. 27, 2004, and Oct. 7, 2004, that
> > contained false information.
>
> > Court documents state Mahler's reports included several misrepresentations
> > of conversations, events and relationships of people involved in a child
> > custody case between Denise Gander of Jesup and Allen Gardner of Tripoli.
>
> > The child-in-need-of-assistance case began in February 2004 after Gander's
> > two youngest children, a boy and a girl, tested positive for having
> > methamphetamine in their systems. The children were placed with relatives.
>
> > Meanwhile, Gander and Gardner began a legal battle for the girl, who is
> > Gardner's daughter. Mahler's reports were filed during this time period,
> > according to court documents.
>
> > Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human Services and has had
> > her license since 1998. She has no record of disciplinary action,
> > according to the Iowa Bureau of Professional Licensing, and her license is
> > active.
>
> > State officials said it is unusual for a social worker to be charged with
> > perjury for information included in a report.
>
> > Perjury is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The
> > trial is expected to last three days.

Hmm.. Iowa!

It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?

Misrepresentations about conversations and relationships?

How was THAT enough?

Kids tested positive for Meth, so WHY did this person LIE?

FIVE YEARS in prison? Oh boy!

LK

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 1:42:26 AM1/13/08
to

"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db928de8-df90-4949...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Of course it is unusual. It would kind of clog up the court system if they
prosecuted every caseworker accused of perjury.

> > Perjury is a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
> > The
> > trial is expected to last three days.

> Hmm.. Iowa!

> It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

> What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?

> Misrepresentations about conversations and relationships?

> How was THAT enough?

> Kids tested positive for Meth, so WHY did this person LIE?

> FIVE YEARS in prison? Oh boy!

It's all about appearances.

She'll get off even if she's guilty.


Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 2:23:01 AM1/13/08
to

State motto: "We're *still* sorry about Vilsack. Honest."

>
>It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

Since when?
Last I knew all needed to be licensed social workers. Have
the regulations for such changed recently?

>
>What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?

Perjury has a SoL of seven years in the state of Iowa.
Since the alleged perjury occurred in 2004, the SoL hasn't
expired.
If your wondering about this in regards to your case, the SoL
has expired. You chose to do nothing and now there is nothing you can
do.

>
>Misrepresentations about conversations and relationships?
>
>How was THAT enough?

If the report was made under penalty of perjury, and it can be
proved BARD that she willingly submitted false information that rose
to the level of perjury, it would be enough.
Since she's going to trial, we can presume the county attorney
believes she committed perjury.

>
>Kids tested positive for Meth, so WHY did this person LIE?
>

We can't know her motivation. Only she knows that. And this
presumes she did lie.
Being charged with a crime does not mean the person is
actually guilty of the crime.

>FIVE YEARS in prison? Oh boy!

Up to five years. Actually, the way the law reads, No more
than five years, but I'm being picky. The end result is the same.


--
Kent
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 4:37:31 PM1/13/08
to
G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

KW > Since when?
KW > Last I knew all needed to be licensed social workers.  Have
KW > the regulations for such changed recently?

Iowa DHS CPS Caseworkers don't need
a Social Work education or license.

That's true nationwide, with few exceptions.

Even NASW members were surprised that
SW licenses are not required.

Hell Kent, most contract SOCIAL WORKERS
in Iowa have no SW license either!

The board of Social Work says a license
is not required for Bachelors or below.

We had one who had no license for SW
and no license for therapy bid did both for pay.


G > What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?

KW > Perjury has a SoL of seven years in the state of Iowa.

Can you point out the statute, Kent?

Dan Sullivan

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 6:07:56 PM1/13/08
to

There wasn't a claim that she was a CPS caseworker.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 7:46:00 PM1/13/08
to
G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

DS > There wasn't a claim that she was a CPS caseworker.

It uses other words for the same thing, Dan.

"County social worker"


"filing three child welfare reports"

"The child-in-need-of-assistance case"


"Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human Services"

ALL CHARGES ( 3 COUNTS ) WERE DROPPED
THE SAME DAY THE NEWS STORY WAS WRITTEN!

The Temp Prosecuting Attorney Bernau
filed a motion to dismiss on Jan 7.
Is he from a section of the
IOWA ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE?

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: ST V MAHLER, MARIE
Case: 01101 FECR074436 (BUCHANAN)
Defendant: MAHLER, MARIE H

Mahler, Marie Hope (Siemens) DOB 07/12/1967

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Count 01 Charge
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 08/27/2004 Arrest Date: Against Type:
Adjudication
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DISMISSED BY COURT Adj.Date: 01/08/2008
Adj.Judge:
BOWER, THOMAS N
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
01/08/2008 Sentence: DISMISSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: BOWER, THOMAS N
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
W/O PREJUDICE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Count 02 Charge
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 09/17/2004 Arrest Date: Against Type:
Adjudication
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DISMISSED BY COURT Adj.Date: 01/08/2008
Adj.Judge:
BOWER, THOMAS N
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
01/08/2008 Sentence: DISMISSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: BOWER, THOMAS N
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
W/O PREJUDICE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Count 03 Charge
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 10/06/2004 Arrest Date: Against Type:
Adjudication
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DISMISSED BY COURT Adj.Date: 01/08/2008
Adj.Judge:
BOWER, THOMAS N
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
720.2 Description: PERJURY - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
01/08/2008 Sentence: DISMISSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: BOWER, THOMAS N
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
W/O PREJUDICE


Filings
Title: ST V MAHLER, MARIE
Case: 01101 FECR074436 (BUCHANAN)
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
OTHER ORDER BOWER THOMAS N 01/10/2008 01/11/2008 01/11/2008
Comments: IN ADDITION TO COURTS ORDER OF 01/08/08 THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED
W/THIS ACTION ARE ASSESSED TO THE STATE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE FORD JILL 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008
Comments: W/NOTES (1)
DISMISSED W/O PREJUDICE BOWER THOMAS N 01/08/2008 01/08/2008
01/08/2008
Comments: TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01/09/08 @ 9AM IS CANCELED
MOTION TO DISMISS BERNAU JOHN WILLIAM 01/07/2008 01/07/2008
01/07/2008
Comments: WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION IN LIMINE ENGELS KEVIN D 01/07/2008 01/07/2008 01/07/2008
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA BUCHANAN COUNTY SHERIFF 12/26/2007
12/26/2007 12/26/2007
Comments: SUBPOENA SERVED ON DONALD BECKER/FEES OF $22.44 DUE
BUCHANAN
CO SHERIFF
OTHER ORDER BOWER THOMAS N 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007
Comments: MATTER CAME BEFORE THE COURT FOR FINAL PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE;BOTH COUNSEL INDICATED THEY ARE
READY TO PROCEED
TO TRIAL ON 01/09/08 @ 9AM
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007
Comments: SERVED BY TRI STAR PROCESS SERVICES;SERVED ON DON
WEBBER
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007
Comments: FILED BY TRI STAR PROCESS SERVICES;SUBPOENA SERVED ON
MICHAEL GANDER (SUBSTITUTE SERVICE ON DON
WEBBER)
OTHER ORDER HARRIS JEFFREY L 12/07/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007
Comments: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 12/18/07 @ 10AM
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE LEKAR KELLYANN 12/04/2007 12/05/2007
12/05/2007
Comments: TRIAL CONTD TO 01/09/08 @ 9AM;PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
01/04/08 @
9:30AM
OTHER EVENT MAHLER MARIE H 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007
Comments: RESCISSION OF WAIVER OF RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
OTHER ORDER ZAGER BRUCE B 10/09/2007 10/10/2007 10/10/2007
Comments: MOTION TO QUASH FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFT IS DENIED
EXCEPT
THAT ALL INFORM RELATING TO ANY ACCOUNTS
ESTABLISHED FOR
DONATIONS MADE TO ASSIST IN PYMT OF MARIE
MAHLERS LEGAL FEES
ASSOCIATED W/DEFENSE SHALL BE QUASHED;IN ALL
OTHER RESPECTS
MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED & STATE ENTITLED TO
INFORMATION
REQUESTED IN CO ATTY SUBPOENAS
OTHER ORDER STIGLER GEORGE L 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007
Comments: HRG ON OBJECTIONS TO STATES SUBPOENAS SCHEDULED FOR
10/09/07
@ 1:30PM;TRIAL RESCHEDULED TO 12/12/07 @
9AM;PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE 12/04/07 @ 10AM
MOTION ENGELS KEVIN D 09/18/2007 09/18/2007 09/18/2007
Comments: TO QUASH
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL MAHLER MARIE H 07/25/2007 07/25/2007
07/25/2007
ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE PEARSON ALAN 07/24/2007 07/25/2007
07/25/2007
Comments: TRIAL CONTD TO 09/26/07 @ 9AM;PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
09/18/07 @
9:30AM
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ENGELS KEVIN D 07/23/2007 07/23/2007
07/23/2007
OTHER APPLICATION ENGELS KEVIN D 07/19/2007 07/19/2007 07/19/2007
Comments: FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
SUBPOENA PER DUCTES TECUM 07/11/2007 07/17/2007 07/17/2007
ORDER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA CLARKE STEPHEN C 07/11/2007 07/17/2007
07/17/2007
Comments: COURT FINDS SUBPOENAS REQ BY PROSECUTING ATTY SHOULD
BE
ISSD;CLERK DIRECTED TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS AS
REQUESTED & TO
MAINTAIN ALL PAPERS RELATING TO MATTER IN
CONFIDENTIAL FILE
OTHER APPLICATION BERNAU JOHN WILLIAM 07/11/2007 07/17/2007
07/17/2007
Comments: FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS SUBPOENAS
SUBPOENA PER DUCTES TECUM 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007
OTHER ORDER PEARSON ALAN 07/03/2007 07/03/2007 07/03/2007
Comments: SUBPOENAS REQUESTED BY PROSECUTING ATTY SHOULD BE
ISSUED;CLERK IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS
AS REQUESTED &
MAINTAIN ALL PAPERS RELATING TO THIS MATTER IN
A
CONFIDENTIAL FILE
OTHER APPLICATION BERNAU JOHN WILLIAM 07/03/2007 07/03/2007
07/03/2007
Comments: FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS SUBPOENAS
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT BAUCH JAMES C 06/26/2007 06/27/2007 06/27/2007
Comments: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 07/24/07 @ 9:30AM;JURY TRIAL
08/08/07 @
9AM
ORDER APPOINTING PEARSON ALAN 06/15/2007 06/18/2007 06/18/2007
Comments: JOHN W BERNAU APPTD TEMP BUCH CO ATTY FOR SOLE PURPOSE
OF
PROSECUTING PROCEEDINGS IN CASE
OTHER APPLICATION VANDERHART ALLAN W 06/15/2007 06/18/2007
06/18/2007
Comments: FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY COUNTY ATTORNEY
WRITTEN ARRAIGNMENT & PLEA OF NOT GUILTY MAHLER MARIE H 06/08/2007
06/08/2007 06/08/2007
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT CURNAN ROBERT J 06/05/2007 06/05/2007
06/05/2007
Comments: 06/26/07 @ 10AM
TRIAL INFORMATION BERNAU JOHN WILLIAM 06/05/2007 06/05/2007
06/05/2007
Comments: W/MINUTES
OTHER ORDER GEER TODD A 03/13/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007
Comments: APPLICATION FOR COUNSEL DENIED
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MAHLER MARIE H 03/13/2007
06/05/2007 06/05/2007

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 8:19:33 PM1/13/08
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:37:31 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".
>
>KW > Since when?
>KW > Last I knew all needed to be licensed social workers.  Have
>KW > the regulations for such changed recently?
>
>Iowa DHS CPS Caseworkers don't need
>a Social Work education or license.

This is fairly new then. It used to be (back in 2002) that
they did. I've not had cause to check since then.

>
>That's true nationwide, with few exceptions.
>
>Even NASW members were surprised that
>SW licenses are not required.
>
>Hell Kent, most contract SOCIAL WORKERS
>in Iowa have no SW license either!

You can, of course, offer a verifiable cite for this, right?

>
>The board of Social Work says a license
>is not required for Bachelors or below.

Not available is NOT the same as not required.
That aside, can you offer a cite for this claim?

>
>We had one who had no license for SW
>and no license for therapy bid did both for pay.
>
>
>G > What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?
>
>KW > Perjury has a SoL of seven years in the state of Iowa.
>
>Can you point out the statute, Kent?

Of course. Unlike you, I don't make up facts. However, I was
in error regarding your case. The SoL is two years. You've long
since forfeited any hope of a successful suit.

Municipalities
2 Years
2 years for claims against state, requires written notice to State
Appeal Board within those 2 years.

http://www.statutes-of-limitations.com/state/iowa


Does Lisa know you'll never make her wealthy from your bogus
suit? Does she know that you opted to forfeit any chance of filing?

Dan Sullivan

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 8:19:52 PM1/13/08
to
On Jan 13, 7:46 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".
>
> DS > There wasn't a claim that she was a CPS caseworker.
>
> It uses other words for the same thing, Dan.
>
> "County social worker"
> "filing three child welfare reports"
> "The child-in-need-of-assistance case"
> "Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human Services"

Is it your claim that all DHS social workers are Child Protective
Services caseworkers?

Even those who work for Adult Protective Services?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 8:53:12 PM1/13/08
to
On Jan 13, 7:19 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:37:31 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>
> <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".
>
> >KW > Since when?
> >KW > Last I knew all needed to be licensed social workers.  Have
> >KW > the regulations for such changed recently?
>
> >Iowa DHS CPS Caseworkers don't need
> >a Social Work education or license.
>
>         This is fairly new then.  It used to be (back in 2002) that
> they did.  I've not had cause to check since then.
>
>
>
> >That's true nationwide, with few exceptions.
>
> >Even NASW members were surprised that
> >SW licenses are not required.
>
> >Hell Kent, most contract SOCIAL WORKERS
> >in Iowa have no SW license either!
>
>         You can, of course, offer a verifiable cite for this, right?
>
>
>
> >The board of Social Work says a license
> >is not required for Bachelors or below.
>
>         Not available is NOT the same as not required.
>         That aside, can you offer a cite for this claim?
>
>
>
> >We had one who had no license for SW
> >and no license for therapy bid did both for pay.

G > What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?

KW > Perjury has a SoL of seven years in the state of Iowa.

G > Can you point out the statute, Kent?

KW > Of course.  Unlike you, I don't make up facts.
KW > However, I was in error regarding your case.
KW > The SoL is two years.  You've long since
KW > forfeited any hope of a successful suit.

http://www.statutes-of-limitations.com/state/iowa

BZZT! You are STILL WRONG KENT!

I'll give you a clue.

Is Perjury a CIVIL COURT matter?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 9:10:10 PM1/13/08
to
G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

DS > There wasn't a claim that she was a CPS caseworker.

G > It uses other words for the same thing, Dan.

article > "County social worker"
article > "filing three child welfare reports"
article > "The child-in-need-of-assistance case"
article > "Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human
Services"

DS > Is it your claim that all DHS social workers are
DS > Child Protective Services caseworkers?

Why do you ask if I claim something I never said?

Marie Hope (Siemens) Mahler 7/12/67 FECR074436 was the issue.

DS > Even those who work for Adult Protective Services?

Didn't you read "child-in-need-of-assistance case" above, Dan?

Dan Sullivan

unread,
Jan 13, 2008, 9:55:37 PM1/13/08
to

Let me know when it ACTUALLY reads "Child Protective Services
caseworker."

Greegor

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 3:26:09 AM1/14/08
to
G > It's unusual that a DHS CPS caseworker has a "license".

DS > There wasn't a claim that she was a CPS caseworker.

G > It uses other words for the same thing, Dan.

article > "County social worker"
article > "filing three child welfare reports"
article > "The child-in-need-of-assistance case"
article > "Mahler is employed by the Iowa Department of Human

article > Services"


DS > Is it your claim that all DHS social workers are
DS > Child Protective Services caseworkers?

G > Why do you ask if I claim something I never said?

Dan?

G > Marie Hope (Siemens) Mahler 7/12/67  FECR074436 was the issue.

DS > Even those who work for Adult Protective Services?

G > Didn't you read "child-in-need-of-assistance case" above, Dan?

DS > Let me know when it ACTUALLY reads
DS > "Child Protective Services caseworker."

Check your hindquarters Dan, I suspect
"caseworker" is tatooed there somewhere.

Nice try with that Adult Protective Services dodge, BTW.

Pretty dumb with "child-in-need-of-assistance case"
right there in the article though.

Dan Sullivan

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 8:10:34 AM1/14/08
to

Let me know when it ACTUALLY reads "Child Protective Services
caseworker."

Greegor

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 12:59:30 PM1/14/08
to

OK! Dan there's a tatoo on your butt that says
"Child Protective Services caseworker."

Roger Munns, the Iowa DHS Public Relations guy says so.

June 14, 2007

Iowa: CPS Social Worker Charged With Perjury during TPR Hearing
The WCF Courier reported:

Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, filed three reports between Aug. 27,
2004, and Oct. 7, 2004, used in a juvenile court case that she "knew
or reasonably should have known were false" and that the reports would
be used by a judge to make a decision in the case, according to court
records obtained by the Courier.

Mahler repeatedly included misrepresentations of conversations, events
and relationships of the people involved with the case, according to
court records.

Court records say she claimed that Jesup police officers were called
to the mother's home for a drug investigation in August 2004. Records
indicate an officer was called to the home not for drugs, but to
prevent an altercation between two siblings. No signs of drugs were
found.

Mahler, who has been a Buchanan County social worker since 1998,
pleaded 'not guilty'.

Roger Munns, a spokesman for her employer, the Iowa Department of
Human Services, said "This is really quite unusual."

Yes, we know that caseworkers lie in court documents and get away with
it, and that having one criminally charged is unusual. However we hope
that this will become common practice to stop lying CPS social workers
everywhere.

Source: Social worker charged with perjury, by Josh Nelson, Courier
Staff Writer, June 12, 2007

---------------------

Iowa: CPS Social Worker Charged With Perjury during TPR Hearing
Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, filed three reports between Aug. 27,
2004, and Oct. 7, 2004, used in a juvenile court case that she "knew
or reasonably should have known were false" and that the reports would
be used by a judge to make a decision in the case, according to court
records obtained by the Courier.

Mahler repeatedly included misrepresentations of conversations, events
and relationships of the people involved with the case, according to
court records.

Court records say she claimed that Jesup police officers were called
to the mother's home for a drug investigation in August 2004. Records
indicate an officer was called to the home not for drugs, but to
prevent an altercation between two siblings. No signs of drugs were
found.

Mahler, who has been a Buchanan County social worker since 1998,
pleaded 'not guilty'.

Roger Munns, a spokesman for her employer, the Iowa Department of
Human Services, said "This is really quite unusual."

Yes, we know that caseworkers lie in court documents and get away with
it, and that having one criminally charged is unusual. However we hope
that this will become common practice to stop lying CPS social workers
everywhere.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 14, 2008, 9:29:32 PM1/14/08
to
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:53:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>G > What's the statute of limitations for this Kent?
>
>KW > Perjury has a SoL of seven years in the state of Iowa.
>
>G > Can you point out the statute, Kent?
>
>KW > Of course.  Unlike you, I don't make up facts.
>KW > However, I was in error regarding your case.
>KW > The SoL is two years.  You've long since
>KW > forfeited any hope of a successful suit.
>
>http://www.statutes-of-limitations.com/state/iowa
>
>BZZT! You are STILL WRONG KENT!
>
>I'll give you a clue.
>
>Is Perjury a CIVIL COURT matter?

It can be, and since you wanted to sue based in part on what
you claim is perjury, it's relevant.
But continue to lie to yourself (and presumably Lisa)
regarding your futile suit.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 5:12:14 PM1/15/08
to
Dan?

firemonkey

unread,
Jan 15, 2008, 8:17:05 PM1/15/08
to

lr.watk...@home.com
Lisa Watkins View profile

More options Jun 20 2001, 12:40 am
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.support.foster-
parents, alt.parenting.spanking, misc.kids, misc.legal
From: "Lisa Watkins" <lr.watk...@home.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 06:40:28 GMT
Local: Wed, Jun 20 2001 12:40 am
Subject: Re: Straus
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
Chris:
In light of Strauss' own statements and information Doan presented
here, are
you ready to change your assertion that Strauss is unbiased?
Did you ever go to college/university?
Did you think every PhD professor was a paragon of truth and all-
knowing?


Lisa Watkins View profile

More options Jun 19 2001, 10:26 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.support.foster-
parents, alt.adoption
From: "Lisa Watkins" <lr.watk...@home.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 04:26:24 GMT
Local: Tues, Jun 19 2001 10:26 pm
Subject: Re: "I'm on a mission ... I want to get rid of 'rats,'" he
said.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
<HowdoUsl...@nite.com> wrote
> "Carl is somebody who understands the
> culture of violence that permeates a lot of communities,
> and he's part and parcel of what child welfare is all about,"
Here we have a Social Worker expert describing violence
as a social disease. The pretense that a professor has practical
knowledge about violence in the real world or on the mean streets
is laughable.
If THIS is what child welfare is all about, then WHY is this guy
brought in to shake things up? (Not really an outsider!)
>"This isn't rescue fantasy for him; this is making sure kids are safe."
"rescue fantasy"? Is that like the "Catcher in the Rye" syndrome?
Isn't this where somebody brought up "Munchhausen by Proxy" as
a serious explanation for over-zealous caseworkers?
(Hurting the child to save the child?)
> Urban Services Inc. Meanwhile, CMHC will provide counseling to people
> traumatized by false accusations as well as those with a history of
abusing
> and neglecting children.
Interesting acknowledgement that there ARE FALSE ACCUSATIONS,
but it's mentioned almost in passing. I wonder how this "expert"
Social
Worker is going to determine which FOUNDED reports are in fact
false accusations, (causing the MOST TRAUMA!)
> That requires CMHC to address a wide range of
> problems, such as drug addiction and mental illness that contribute to
> abuse and neglect. Treating those difficulties curbs the chance of future
> abuse and helps build healthy families, Bell said.
I don't see any mention of targeting bad behavior at CPS (DCYF).
All solutions mentioned involve defects in families and parents.
None involve defects at DCYF.


Lisa Watkins View profile

More options Sep 30 2001, 5:05 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.foster-parents, alt.support.child-protective-
services
From: "Lisa Watkins" <lr.watk...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:05:50 GMT
Local: Sun, Sep 30 2001 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: Lookism in the court waiting area
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
Even if you don't give a rip about the damage that CPS does
to the child's family, you should be concerned about harm
to the child themself. This happens in several ways, first
because hurting the family does hurt the child. Secondly,
the child is damaged emotionally by the removal.
Thirdly, kids removed for piddly stuff like clutter are exposed
to 10x the risk of child abuse at the hands of the Foster Parents.
In other words, CPS actually does more harm than good.


Lisa Watkins View profile

More options Sep 30 2001, 4:35 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Lisa Watkins" <lr.watk...@home.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:35:29 GMT
Local: Sun, Sep 30 2001 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: CASE FILES......
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
How old is the old "founded"?
Was the 3 copues of everything to cover up for them NOT giving
you other things they originally counted for the copy charge?
I think they always report badly, with huge gaps and big issues
overlooked. If the gaps fall both foar and against you, that's
not as bad as if the gaps and lapses are all one-sided.
Judge Pallmeyer complained about the one-sided reportage,
where facts in the parents favor were deliberately not reported.
Have you tried the approach of getting them to let you look at the
entire case file? Your lawyer should be able to arrange it and go
with you to CPS to see the case file. We still haven't done this
either, but CPS has not pretended that we have all documents.
Have they pretended that they gave you all of the documents?
(Especially in writing?)
Did they include all written notes?
Greg
"Jennifer" said

- Show quoted text -


Lisa Watkins View profile

More options Sep 30 2001, 6:42 pm
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
From: "Lisa Watkins" <lr.watk...@home.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:42:53 GMT
Local: Sun, Sep 30 2001 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: IS IT CHILD ABUSE?
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
In our case, giving the child a fast cold shower each time
the 7 year old peed herself in the daytime is written up
as an attempt at hypothermia.
It's so much better now for her to have a rash.

firemonkey

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 12:27:34 PM1/16/08
to

gagg?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 6:45:01 PM1/16/08
to
http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/regional/11e67112c2c66b09862573cb00467d09.txt

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:03 PM CST
Charges against Buchanan County social worker dismissed
By JOSH NELSON, Courier Staff Writer

INDEPENDENCE --- Prosecutors on Monday dismissed charges against a
Buchanan County social worker.

Marie Mahler, 39, of Cedar Falls, was charged with three counts of
perjury. She was accused of filing false child welfare reports to the
court. Her trial was scheduled to begin Wednesday.

Delaware County Attorney John Bernau, who was specially appointed to
the case, said he filed the motion to dismiss because subpoenas issued
nearly four months ago seeking information haven't been answered.
Bernau said he was bumping against a deadline set for a speedy trial
to either dismiss or go ahead with the case.

"I did not want to proceed to a trial when I believe there is
additional information out there that for whatever reason I don't
have," Bernau said.

He declined to elaborate on what he had requested in the document or
to whom it was sent. He said the charges will be filed again when he
gets the information.

"My intent is not to let the thing slide," he said. "I'm not
dismissing because I don't believe I'm lacking in evidence. I'm
dismissing because individuals or entities have not complied with
court-ordered subpoenas."

Kevin Engels, Mahler's attorney, said in the meantime, he and his
client will treat the case as if it's been dismissed and not worry
much about whether Mahler will face charges again.

"I guess we'll see if they're inclined to refile it," Engels said. "If
they do, then we'll just have to pick up our swords again."

Engels said he was unsure what information Bernau is seeking.

According to court documents, Mahler, an employee with the Iowa
Department of Human Services, entered three reports between August and
October 2004 containing misrepresentations of conversations, events or
relationships of people involved in a custody dispute between Denise


Gander of Jesup and Allen Gardner of Tripoli.

The case began in February 2004 with a child-in-need-of-assistance
case. Gander's two youngest children, a boy and a girl, tested


positive for having methamphetamine in their systems.

Gander and Gardner began a legal battle for the girl, who is Gardner's
daughter. Mahler's reports were filed during that time period,
according to court documents.

State officials said it is unusual for a social worker to be charged


with perjury for information included in a report. Perjury is a Class
D felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Contact Josh Nelson at (319) 291-1565 or josh....@wcfcourier.com.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 7:05:48 PM1/16/08
to
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:17:05 -0800 (PST), firemonkey
<mehit...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>On Jan 15, 4:12 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dan?
>>
>> > Iowa: CPS Social Worker Charged With Perjury during TPR Hearing
>> > The WCF Courier reported:
>
>lr.watk...@home.com

Those were from Greg. He was just hiding behind Lisa's skirt.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 8:49:51 PM1/16/08
to
You pissants can't even keep an ongoing news story on track?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 16, 2008, 11:47:35 PM1/16/08
to
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:49:51 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You pissants can't even keep an ongoing news story on track?

What's to keep on track? You posted a plagiarized article
stating the charges have been dropped without prejudice. What more
needs to be mentioned at this point?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 17, 2008, 6:26:11 PM1/17/08
to
G >You pissants can't even keep an ongoing news story on track?

KW > What's to keep on track?  You posted
KW > a plagiarized article stating the charges
KW > have been dropped without prejudice.
KW >  What more needs to be mentioned at this point?

Plagiarized?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 17, 2008, 6:42:47 PM1/17/08
to

Are you going to claim YOU wrote it?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 18, 2008, 11:18:46 PM1/18/08
to
I had some interesting telephone conversations with
the prosecutor, John Bernau.

Without going into more details I would way that
it honestly sounds like prosecutor John Bernau
is NOT going to be pressured into letting this one go.

Incredibly, I honestly expect to see this one refiled in a few months.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 12:44:07 PM1/19/08
to
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:18:46 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I had some interesting telephone conversations with
>the prosecutor, John Bernau.
>

Any of them related to the case? Since he can't talk about the
case in any detail without violating his ethics, something I don't see
a county attorney doing, you most probably talked about something
else. Or he gave very general information.

>Without going into more details I would way that
>it honestly sounds like prosecutor John Bernau
>is NOT going to be pressured into letting this one go.
>
>Incredibly, I honestly expect to see this one refiled in a few months.

Based on the articles you posted, this would be a logical
presumption. The County Attorney's office dropped the charges without
prejudice. This allows them more time to gather evidence and re-file.
It's done when the CA feels the evidence isn't enough to prove
guilt BARD and the speedy trial deadline is looming.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 1:14:54 PM1/19/08
to
G > I had some interesting telephone conversations with
G > the prosecutor, John Bernau.

>         Any of them related to the case? Since he can't talk about the
> case in any detail without violating his ethics, something I don't see
> a county attorney doing, you most probably talked about something
> else.  Or he gave very general information.

> >Without going into more details I would way that
> >it honestly sounds like prosecutor John Bernau
> >is NOT going to be pressured into letting this one go.
>
> >Incredibly, I honestly expect to see this one refiled in a few months.
>
>         Based on the articles you posted, this would be a logical
> presumption.  The County Attorney's office dropped the charges without
> prejudice.  This allows them more time to gather evidence and re-file.
>         It's done when the CA feels the evidence isn't enough to prove
> guilt BARD and the speedy trial deadline is looming.

There is no lack of evidence, sometimes it goes the other way.

Did you notice that her attorney is NOT from
the state Attorney General's office?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 19, 2008, 7:39:46 PM1/19/08
to

According to the articles, several of the subpoenas went
unanswered. This means a lack of evidence is available for trial.
I expect the CA's office will follow up, and re-file if the
subpoenas produce enough evidence.

>
>Did you notice that her attorney is NOT from
>the state Attorney General's office?

DUH.
Someone from the AG's office isn't likely going to be a
defense attorney. The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:14:17 AM1/20/08
to
KW > Someone from the AG's office isn't
KW > likely going to be a defense attorney.
KW > The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.

Would you like to word that better Kent?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:07:16 PM1/20/08
to

Are you of the opinion that one of the AG's lawyers would act
as the accused's defense counsel? Not even you can be this stupid.

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:44:39 PM1/20/08
to

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nsv6p39f9s3qmneg3...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:14:17 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>KW > Someone from the AG's office isn't
>>KW > likely going to be a defense attorney.
>>KW > The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.
>>
>>Would you like to word that better Kent?
>
> Are you of the opinion that one of the AG's lawyers would act
> as the accused's defense counsel? Not even you can be this stupid.

That's almost as stupid as my ex claiming that I provided the 'D.A. who
handled' his divorce case with an affidavit of relevant facts.
LOL
Like everyone is stupid enough to believe that a DA does divorce cases.

Sure...the state office is going to provide an attorney to defend the state
employee that they are prosecuting.
LOL

They might have to give a public defender, but that's a whole different ball
game.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:04:30 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 11:44 am, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:nsv6p39f9s3qmneg3...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:14:17 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> > <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>KW > Someone from the AG's office isn't
> >>KW > likely going to be a defense attorney.
> >>KW > The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.
>
> >>Would you like to word that better Kent?
>
> > Are you of the opinion that one of the AG's lawyers would act
> > as the accused's defense counsel?  Not even you can be this stupid.
>
> That's almost as stupid as my ex claiming that I provided the 'D.A. who
> handled' his divorce case with an affidavit of relevant facts.
> LOL
> Like everyone is stupid enough to believe that a DA does divorce cases.
>
> Sure...the state office is going to provide an attorney to defend the state
> employee that they are prosecuting.
> LOL
>
> They might have to give a public defender, but that's a whole different ball
> game.

Can you think of a reason WHY the AG's office might actually
defend CPS caseworkers in court?

Dan Sullivan

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 1:20:41 PM1/20/08
to

Do you have any credible evidence that the AG's office does defend CPS
CWs in court?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:31:06 PM1/20/08
to

DS > Do you have any credible evidence that the
DS > AG's office does defend CPS CWs in court?

Sure Dan, but please stick your neck out first!

Make a BIG STATEMENT that the AG's office
does not, just to make it more fun for me to
prove that they DO.

Your usual game where you ask for proof but
later say you didn't disagree, just asked
for the proof, won't work so well any more.

Commit to a real challenge, Dan!

Stake your reputation on it! Oh. Never mind.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:29:37 PM1/20/08
to
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:44:39 GMT, "dragonsgirl"
<drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>>KW > Someone from the AG's office isn't
>>>KW > likely going to be a defense attorney.
>>>KW > The Attorney General's office PROSECUTES.
>>>
>>>Would you like to word that better Kent?
>>
>> Are you of the opinion that one of the AG's lawyers would act
>> as the accused's defense counsel? Not even you can be this stupid.
>
>That's almost as stupid as my ex claiming that I provided the 'D.A. who
>handled' his divorce case with an affidavit of relevant facts.
>LOL
>Like everyone is stupid enough to believe that a DA does divorce cases.

I suppose someone from the DA's office could do it. However,
the person would most certainly be acting as the person's divorce
attorney and NOT a representative of the DA's office.

>
>Sure...the state office is going to provide an attorney to defend the state
>employee that they are prosecuting.
>LOL
>
>They might have to give a public defender, but that's a whole different ball
>game.

If she is indigent, she MUST be assigned an attorney from the
Public Defender's office unless she waives right to counsel. She
would NOT be assigned one from the AG's office, since that's a
separate entity.
None of this alters the fact that the AG's office acts as a
prosecutor and not a defense attorney.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:30:13 PM1/20/08
to

None. Maybe you could enlighten me, and anyone else who is
unable to make up a reason.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:32:34 PM1/20/08
to

Dan's never made such a claim.

>
>Your usual game where you ask for proof but
>later say you didn't disagree, just asked
>for the proof, won't work so well any more.
>

So you can't offer any. If you were able, you would have done
so.

>Commit to a real challenge, Dan!

You just proved you can't offer any proof.

>
>Stake your reputation on it! Oh. Never mind.

It's a shame your reputation as a pathological liar is so well
known. Dan, OTOH, has yet to be caught in a lie that I've seen. And
mistakes do not equal a lie, though I anticipate you trying to claim
they do.

Greegor

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 3:00:30 AM1/21/08
to
KW > None of this alters the fact that the AG's office
KW > acts as a prosecutor and not a defense attorney.

You can't think of any circumstances where
the AG serves as defense attorneys?

Dan?

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 3:35:38 PM1/21/08
to

"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a75bd93-f4e5-4b7c...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

***Sure, I can think of *A* reason. But it's highly unlikely.
IMHO. Of course.


dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 3:37:56 PM1/21/08
to

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rrp7p39nolao6ecv4...@4ax.com...

I'm sure that the state would certainly defend a state employee who was
being sued over issues arising from performing their jobs.
Other than that...why would they provide legal representation to someone who
they are prosecuting?
That makes no sense.

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 3:39:47 PM1/21/08
to

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhp7p3huj3p4282ud...@4ax.com...

It never happened. No DA was involved in his divorce case.
It's simply part of another wild fantasy life that he's conjured up in his
own head...one where DA's handle divorce cases and dad's donate sperm to as
many kids as possible in their quest for the dad of the year award.
Crazy man.

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 6:35:59 PM1/21/08
to

Not in a situation as the woman who has been charged finds
herself.

>Dan?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 2:07:38 AM1/22/08
to
On Jan 21, 2:39 pm, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message

I know nothing of somebody's claim that a
District Attorney was involved in a divorce case.

Why was that mixed in with this Perjury case
against an Iowa caseworker named Marie Mahler?

Was some confusion needed?

I'll give you another clue.

AFTER this caseworker is prosecuted for
criminal perjury, what do you think the
next legal action will be?

Does somebody's refusal to turn over
documents on a subpoena for a criminal
prosecution indicate anything to you?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:15:28 PM1/22/08
to

As is often the case, the discussion moved away from the
original topic.
Since you included the part where the discussion altered, you
can't honestly claim you didn't see the shift.

>
>Was some confusion needed?
>
>I'll give you another clue.
>
>AFTER this caseworker is prosecuted for
>criminal perjury, what do you think the
>next legal action will be?
>
>Does somebody's refusal to turn over
>documents on a subpoena for a criminal
>prosecution indicate anything to you?

Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to
answer for it. However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people
WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information.
Do you have anything to support the implication?

Greegor

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 9:45:59 PM1/22/08
to

G > Was some confusion needed?

G > I'll give you another clue.
G >
G > AFTER this caseworker is prosecuted for
G > criminal perjury, what do you think the
G > next legal action will be?
G >
G > Does somebody's refusal to turn over
G > documents on a subpoena for a criminal
G > prosecution indicate anything to you?

> Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
> Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to
> answer for it.

> However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people
> WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information.
> Do you have anything to support the implication?

What do you think, Betty?

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 2:43:36 AM1/23/08
to

"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4945c2f1-f4f3-4627...@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

***Greg, I just don't know what to think....no one has told me yet!
LOL


Greegor

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 3:02:40 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 1:43 am, "dragonsgirl" <dragonsg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message

KW > Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
KW > Some subpoenas went unanswered, and
KW > someone will have to answer for it.
KW > However, you act as if you KNOW one or
KW > more people WILLFULLY withheld the
KW > documents/information.
KW > Do you have anything to support the implication?

G > What do you think, Betty?

BW > Greg, I just don't know what to think..
BW > ..no one has told me yet! LOL

I thought you said you are an independent thinker!

How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer
their subpoena, Betty?

And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty?

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:36:12 PM1/23/08
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:43:36 -0600, "dragonsgirl"
<drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

[...]

>> Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
>> Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to
>> answer for it.
>
>> However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people
>> WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information.
>> Do you have anything to support the implication?
>
>What do you think, Betty?
>
>***Greg, I just don't know what to think....no one has told me yet!
>LOL

I'm wondering why Greg chose to decline answering the
questions I raised in favor of asking your opinion.
Very odd.

--
Kent

"I am erudite but not Buckelyesque (sic)"
Erudite Greg Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
Message-ID:
<501ca160-4e19-4318...@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>

Kent Wills

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:37:00 PM1/23/08
to
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:02:40 -0800 (PST), Greegor
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>KW > Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
>KW > Some subpoenas went unanswered, and
>KW > someone will have to answer for it.
>KW > However, you act as if you KNOW one or
>KW > more people WILLFULLY withheld the
>KW > documents/information.
>KW > Do you have anything to support the implication?
>
>G > What do you think, Betty?
>
>BW > Greg, I just don't know what to think..
>BW > ..no one has told me yet! LOL
>
>I thought you said you are an independent thinker!
>
>How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer
>their subpoena, Betty?
>
>And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty?

How does asking Betty these questions answer the points I've
raised?

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:43:54 PM1/23/08
to

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0sjfp3l215ro0k8bk...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:02:40 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>KW > Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
>>KW > Some subpoenas went unanswered, and
>>KW > someone will have to answer for it.
>>KW > However, you act as if you KNOW one or
>>KW > more people WILLFULLY withheld the
>>KW > documents/information.
>>KW > Do you have anything to support the implication?
>>
>>G > What do you think, Betty?
>>
>>BW > Greg, I just don't know what to think..
>>BW > ..no one has told me yet! LOL
>>
>>I thought you said you are an independent thinker!
>>
>>How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer
>>their subpoena, Betty?
>>
>>And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty?
>
> How does asking Betty these questions answer the points I've
> raised?

It doesn't.
That's just what Greg does.
That's all.

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:43:29 PM1/23/08
to

"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef55e5f8-a503-4a99...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...


***Shh. Shh-shh-shhh! I'm trying to hear someone tell me what to think.

How do you like it when somebody doesn't answer
their subpoena, Betty?

***How do I like it? How would I know?

And what does that indicate you YOU, Betty?

***Hmmmm. Thinking, thinking....AH! I've got it by God!
And no one told me even!
It means that they think they have something to HIDE!


Greg, seriously, do you think that you think that was some kind of
revelation?
There are usually only two reasons for failure to comply...one: the party
simply does not have the information requested or doesn't have access to it,
or two, they are trying to cover something up.
That was obvious from the first reading of this story.
You act like you uncovered the secret of the century or something.


dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:44:26 PM1/23/08
to

"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0qjfp35tksnn4app1...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:43:36 -0600, "dragonsgirl"
> <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Do you have evidence there was willful refusal?
>>> Some subpoenas went unanswered, and someone will have to
>>> answer for it.
>>
>>> However, you act as if you KNOW one or more people
>>> WILLFULLY withheld the documents/information.
>>> Do you have anything to support the implication?
>>
>>What do you think, Betty?
>>
>>***Greg, I just don't know what to think....no one has told me yet!
>>LOL
>
> I'm wondering why Greg chose to decline answering the
> questions I raised in favor of asking your opinion.
> Very odd.

He's not really asking for my opinion.

dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 7:19:44 PM1/23/08
to
Kong, where married police quarters are provided. But what
transpired when that Commission was held? The Registrar General
had recorded in his book, morning after morning, the evidence of
informers _selected from that police force_, whom _he had employed
to commit adultery_ with unlicensed Chinese women; and borne of
these men were married police, whose wives were brought to Hong
Kong; so that in point of fact, he was _not only encouraging
adultery but paying for it with the money of the State_. Well, I
stopped that, of course.... At the head of the Registrar General's
Department in Hong Kong, we appoint an officer, as we believe, of
the highest character. One of the gentlemen so employed puts on a
false beard and moustache, he takes marked money in his waistcoat
pocket, and proceeds to the back lanes of the Colony, knocks at
various doors, and, at length, gains admission to a house. He
addresses the woman who opens the door and tells her he wants a
Chinese girl. There is an argument as to the price, and he agrees
to give four dollars. He is shown up to the room, and gives her
the money. What I am now telling you is the gentleman's own
evidence. He records how he flung up the window and put out his
head and whistled. The police whom he had in attendance in the
street, broke open the door and arrested the girl. She is brought
up the next day to be tried for the offence; but, before whom?
Before the Acting Registrar General--before the same gentleman
who had the beard and moustache the night before. He tries her
himself, and on the books of the Registrar General's office (I
have turned to them and read his own evidence recorded in his
own handwriting) there is his own conviction of the girl, of the
offence, and his sentence,


dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:56:52 PM1/23/08
to
before
conceding that because a thing will almost inevitably take place,
therefore it is best to license it in order to keep it within bounds.
The superficial sophist says: "Prostitution always has existed and
always will exist. Painful as the fact is, such is the frailty of
human nature. You cannot make men moral by act of parliament, and it
is foolish to try. We will have to license the thing, and thus control
it as best we can. That is the only practical way to deal with this
evil." Such reasoning as this exhibits the most confused notions as to
the nature of law.

No law is ever enacted except with the expectation that an offense
against it will take place. Law anticipates transgression as much as
license; but law provides a _check_ upon offenses and license provides
an _incitement_ to them. "The law was not made for a righteous man,
but for the lawless and disobedient." Have not murder and stealing
always existed? Are they not likely to exist in spite of laws against
them, so long as human nature remains so frail? Then why not license
_them_ in order to keep _them_ under control? It is perfectly apparent
to all that to license murder and stealing; would be the surest way of
allowing them to get quickly beyond control. "But you cannot make men
moral by act of parliament, and it is foolish to try; to put a man in
jail will not change him from a thief into an honest man." "But," you
reply, "we do not punish men for stealing and for murder for their own
good, but for the good of the community at large." Certainly. Then
what becomes of the argument that because men will not become pure by
act of parliament they are to be allowed to commit their depredations
unmolested? The primary object o


dragonsgirl

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 8:34:24 PM1/23/08