Dad insists on signed warrant, caseworker threatens removal instead
Greegor
Notice how this caseworker really has
NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
would be removed because of the
Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Firemonkey
The man in this video did exactly as Dan has suggested people do when
in this situation. He remained calm, explained to the worker he would
need a warrant. From the video it was clear that the worker had seen
the baby and the inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
Get a life gag.
Dan Sullivan
Post your opinion, grag.
LK
Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
answer it? I mean with your vast and superior knowledge of the system
and everything, you must be the only person in this group qualified to
give an accurate assessment. Wouldn't you agree?
I know Greg asked and you don't like to answer questions for him, so
do it for the benefit of the non-Greg readers of the group. Did this
dad do the right thing?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
>Notice how this caseworker really has
>NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>would be removed because of the
>Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
At roughly 38 seconds, "We're asking that you VOLENTARILY place
the child out." Emphasis added to prove, once again, Gregory Scott
Hanson can't tell the truth.
I note that the CW **NEVER** claims the child will be removed
because dad refuses to submit without a warrant. Why would you LIE
about this, then link to the proof that you lied?
>
>Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
In the video that dad was calm and rational. Something Dan
suggests. At times I could see where dad wanted to get combative, but
he wisely stayed calm.
Do you think remaining calm and rational is a bad thing? Dan
suggests people do this.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
krp
"LK" <Pati...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ba61db5-fdb0-4c73...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 20, 8:05 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > would be removed because of the
> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> Post your opinion, grag.
Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
answer it? I mean with your vast and superior knowledge of the system
and everything, you must be the only person in this group qualified to
give an accurate assessment. Wouldn't you agree?
Well you have a point. With DAN'S status as the FOREMOST ATTORNEY ion
America, answering Greg's question should be a snap.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 8:05 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 2:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > would be removed because of the
> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> answer it?
Because I've posted what I recommed people do when CPS is at their
door more times than I care to count.
And grag knows this.
He can copy and paste what I've already said.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ab38c46d-862e-4932...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
As a PRACTICING USENET LAWYER!!! :-))))))))))
Dan Sullivan
Dragon's Girl
We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > would be removed because of the
> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
I don't know where the vid was made.
But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an anonymous
report.
And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
LK
Bullshit, you love to repeat yourself.
> And grag knows this.
>
So does everybody else.
> He can copy and paste what I've already said.
You yourself said that every case is different Dan. Put your great
advice into the proper context. How would you have done things
differently from what the father did in this video, you know, that
would have given you the upper hand over CPS from the start? Think of
it as opportunity for you to prove your superior knowledge in a
specific context.
LK
Did the father do the right thing or not?
Dan Sullivan
From what I saw.
joe
wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> > would be removed because of the
>> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
> anonymous
> report.
It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
take every kid in sight. Go figure.
To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
> And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
>
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
LK
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> > would be removed because of the
> >> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> >> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> >> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> > I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> > But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
> > anonymous
> > report.
>
> It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
> others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
> take every kid in sight. Go figure.
>
> To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
> belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
> report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
They don't even need reasonable belief.
Just an accusation and a worker.
>
> > And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> > Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> > The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LK
> "LK" <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if he is guilty of CAN this is how he gets away with it?
krp
>>>>
>>>> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>>>> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>>>> > > would be removed because of the
>>>> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>>>
>>>> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>>>
>>>> > Post your opinion, grag.
>>>>
>>>> Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
>>>> answer it?
>>>
>>> Because I've posted what I recommed people do when CPS is at their
>>> door more times than I care to count.
>>
>> As a PRACTICING USENET LAWYER!!! :-))))))))))
>
> I never said that.
Sullivan your BULLSHIT swagger on Usenet as a LEGAL AUTHORITY is legendary
as is the FACT of how often you are utterly full of shit.
krp
"joe" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
news:op.uelrj...@home.myhome.westell.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Dan Sullivan <dsul...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>>
>>> > Notice how this caseworker really has
>>> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>>> > would be removed because of the
>>> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>>
>>> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>>
>>> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>>
>> I don't know where the vid was made.
>>
>> But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
>> anonymous
>> report.
> It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while
> others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to
> take every kid in sight. Go figure.
>
> To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable
> belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous
> report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.
EXACTLY!
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
I never claimed to be a legal authority anywhere.
You have a list of 100 lawyers you've worked with, pangborn?
And you've been in business over 30 years?
That's approx 3 a year, if you don't consider you're probably lying.
Why do you only have 3 or 4 dead and disbarred attornies listed on
your website?
The others don't want to be associated with you?
Greegor
G > Notice how this caseworker really has
G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
G > would be removed because of the
G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G >
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Roberta Firemonkey wrote
FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
FM > has suggested people do when in this
FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
insist on a signed warrant. Just the opposite,
I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
on a warrant?
What was it about the video that gave you
the impression he had let the worker see
the baby and the apartment?
If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
then why was he threatening the Dad with
a child removal order?
FM > Get a life gag.
Dan, One of your biggest supporters
has implied that this man's response
WAS to your specifications, but also
states that the man let the worker
look at the child and apartment.
Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
1.
Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
2.
Would you have advised this Dad to let the
caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
3.
Did you notice where the caseworker is
threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
4.
Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
Greegor
> > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> > answer it?
DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
DS > people do when CPS is at their
DS > door more times than I care to count.
DS > And grag knows this.
DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.
joe did.
I have asked for confirmation from you.
Isn't that a fair request, Dan?
Greegor
The question was not that simple, Betty.
It was about whether the response conforms
to Dan's purported advice.
Please weigh in on that!
Since you are somebody who has posted
testimonials for Dan, your assistance could
be even more helpful than Firemonkey's.
Dan apparently caught some mention of the
DA's office, and expressed some concern
that the caseworker said that.
What advice has Dan given you that would
relate to the first contact situation in the video?
Dan Sullivan
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> > > answer it?
>
> DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
> DS > people do when CPS is at their
> DS > door more times than I care to count.
>
> DS > And grag knows this.
>
> DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.
>
> joe did.
No, he didn't.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > would be removed because of the
> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>
> It was about whether the response conforms
> to Dan's purported advice.
My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
That does seem to be what the father is telling the caseworker.
> Please weigh in on that!
> Since you are somebody who has posted
> testimonials for Dan, your assistance could
> be even more helpful than Firemonkey's.
Assistance in what?
> Dan apparently caught some mention of the
> DA's office, and expressed some concern
> that the caseworker said that.
Apparently you didn't watch the video, grag.
Typical.
> What advice has Dan given you that would
> relate to the first contact situation in the video?
I don't believe I ever gave FM direct advice.
If I'm not mistaken she used the advice I gave other people in her own
situation.
Dan Sullivan
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> G > Notice how this caseworker really has
> G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> G > would be removed because of the
> G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
> G >
> G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> Roberta Firemonkey wrote
> FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
> FM > has suggested people do when in this
> FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
> FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of "you do
what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."
I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.
> I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
> insist on a signed warrant.
Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned warrant?
> Just the opposite,
> I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
> that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
I don't recall saying or implying that.
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
> on a warrant?
>
> What was it about the video that gave you
> the impression he had let the worker see
> the baby and the apartment?
What from the vid gives you the impression the father let the worker
see the baby and the apartment?
The father said the worker saw the baby and the apartment, but the
father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
> If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
> then why was he threatening the Dad with
> a child removal order?
You didn't watch the video, grag.
Typical.
> FM > Get a life gag.
>
> Dan, One of your biggest supporters
> has implied that this man's response
> WAS to your specifications, but also
> states that the man let the worker
> look at the child and apartment.
FM didn't say that.
> Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
>
> 1.
> Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
When?
> 2.
> Would you have advised this Dad to let the
> caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
If the allegation was injury to the baby, I'd advise him to show the
baby to the case worker.
And opening the door to an apartment exposes the living room and
probably the kitchen.
So if the allegation was a cluttered or dangerous living condition,
the worker already saw the home was safe.
> 3.
> Did you notice where the caseworker is
> threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
You didn't watch the video, grag.
> 4.
> Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
Read my earlier comments.
Greegor
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> you're a good parent and if you just show
> them they'll apologize and go away."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f402304aaadfe9c0
DS > No.
Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e3459483671d5cc
DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
DS >
DS > But, if you really want to get your child
DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
DS > a good parent and that the child is
DS > safe in your home.
Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
Here are some questions you left out Dan.
G > Doesn't that clash severely with what
G > Firemonkey asserts about your advice?
Doesn't it, Dan?
G > Are you evasive about answering questions
G > because it's ME or because there
G > is such a big conflict between your statements?
Dan?
krp
> On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> > > would be removed because of the
>> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>>
>> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>>
>> It was about whether the response conforms
>> to Dan's purported advice.
>
> My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
> you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
> after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE" to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
Think it works well for your clients Danny?
As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and dispensing your legal advice sans license.
Firemonkey
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
>
> DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
> DS >
> DS > But, if you really want to get your child
> DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
> DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
> DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
> DS > a good parent and that the child is
> DS > safe in your home.
>
> Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
>
> Here are some questions you left out Dan.
>
> G > Doesn't that clash severely with what
> G > Firemonkey asserts about your advice?
>
> Doesn't it, Dan?
>
> G > Are you evasive about answering questions
> G > because it's ME or because there
> G > is such a big conflict between your statements?
>
> Dan?
gags up in the middle of the night feeling combative and agitated. I
wonder if he spent all his FEMA money on meth?
Dan Sullivan
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
>
> DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
> DS >
> DS > But, if you really want to get your child
> DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
> DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
> DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
> DS > a good parent and that the child is
> DS > safe in your home.
>
> Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
I have no idea.
Obviously in this situation the child was already removed.
And I didn't want the parents to be fighting over parenting classes.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> > > would be removed because of the
> >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> >> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>
> >> It was about whether the response conforms
> >> to Dan's purported advice.
>
> > My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
> > you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
> > after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
>
> That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE" to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
> Think it works well for your clients Danny?
> As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and dispensing your legal advice sans license.
That's not legal advice.
What would you advise people to do when CPS is at their door with an
allegation or CAN, pangborn?
Call you with thousands of dollars?
Dragon's Girl
Since Dan began supporting me AFTER the 'first contact', I have never
had a conversations with him in regard to 'first contact', so I cannot
tell you about advice that I never got, and never had a need for.
Dragon's Girl
> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>
> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> > you're a good parent and if you just show
> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>
>
> DS > No.
>
> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>
LOL Greg, it doesn't sound to me like Dan was referring to first
contact.
He says 'if you really want to get your child back from foster care,',
meaning the child has already been taken, so first contact is not even
part of his reply.
Dan Sullivan
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f0c3b93-8aa9-4a8f...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 3:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Dan, Did you actually make this statement?
>>
>> > *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
>> > you're a good parent and if you just show
>> > them they'll apologize and go away."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>>
>> DS > No.
>>
>> Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> LOL Greg, it doesn't sound to me like Dan was referring to first
> contact.
> He says 'if you really want to get your child back from foster care,',
> meaning the child has already been taken, so first contact is not even
> part of his reply.
grag is the long time master of the inconsequential, irrelevant,
inappropriate and pointless question.
He LIVES for the eye rolls!
Dragon's Girl
> "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Of course. How else might he go about diverting readers and posters
from REAL discussions?
I think LK said it best when he told us the other day that Greg is
here to run people off.
Dan Sullivan
YES!!!
On to the copy and paste blogs that offer nothing but news stories and
youtube vids!!!
LK
Where and when did I say that Betty?
And how is this false accusation of yours not trying to "divert
readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice in reference to a YouTube
video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
assed CPS worker.
Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
LK
Dan
You forget that there is a little puppet bear with a Legally Kidnapped
t-shirt in the sidebar. You can each get your own for only $19.49 USD
plus shipping. http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com
Greegor
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know
> you're a good parent and if you just show
> them they'll apologize and go away."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f402304aaadfe9c0
DS > No.
G > Joe must have been paraphrasing you from this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5e3459483671d5cc
DS Sure, you can look up each policy violation.
DS >
DS > But, if you really want to get your child
DS > back from foster care, you can't fight
DS > over parenting classes, etc... you have
DS > to demonstrate that you believe you're
DS > a good parent and that the child is
DS > safe in your home.
G > Don't you think that's part of what joe paraphrased?
DS > I have no idea.
DS > Obviously in this situation the child was already removed.
DS > And I didn't want the parents to be fighting over parenting
classes.
Greegor
G > Notice how this caseworker really has
G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
G > would be removed because of the
G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G >
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
Roberta Firemonkey wrote
FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
FM > has suggested people do when in this
FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.
DS > Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of
"you do
DS > what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."
DS > I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.
G > I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
G > insist on a signed warrant.
DS > Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned
warrant?
Got a link to where you advised parents to insist on a warrant?
G > Just the opposite,
G > I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
G > that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
DS > I don't recall saying or implying that.
Failing to recall means what exactly?
In your Larry Loophole world, that
doesn't mean diddly squat does it?
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
G > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
G > on a warrant?
G > What was it about the video that gave you
G > the impression he had let the worker see
G > the baby and the apartment?
DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
DS > the father let the worker see the baby
DS > and the apartment?
You paraphrased my question.
DS > The father said the worker saw the
DS > baby and the apartment, but the
DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
G > If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
G > then why was he threatening the Dad with
G > a child removal order?
DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
DS > Typical.
You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.
FM > Get a life gag.
G > Dan, One of your biggest supporters
G > has implied that this man's response
G > WAS to your specifications, but also
G > states that the man let the worker
G > look at the child and apartment.
DS > FM didn't say that.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3d47edb660acbf79
FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
G > 1.
G > Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
DS > When?
Is that advice you have issued?
G > 2.
G > Would you have advised this Dad to let the
G > caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
DS > I'd advise him to show the
DS > baby to the case worker.
Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.
DS > And opening the door to an apartment
DS > exposes the living room and
DS > probably the kitchen.
Forfeits 4th amendment protections.
DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
DS > or dangerous living condition,
DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.
Which joe paraphrased as:
*It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
if
you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
G > 3.
G > Did you notice where the caseworker is
G > threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?
I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
several times, saying that if the parent
doesn't let him look at the child, he has
no option but to do a child removal.
G > 4.
G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
DS > Read my earlier comments.
You complain a lot about technicalities
in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
so WHY are you so shy about taking
these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?
Firemonkey
>
> - Show quoted text -
lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
falsely accused of child abuse, that you thing is to reveal your truth
about CPS, so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
a word about krp insane ravings.
Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
you claim are writting to you.
Greegor
> On Jul 21, 4:52 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
> > >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > >> > > would be removed because of the
> > >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
G > The question was not that simple, Betty.
G > It was about whether the response conforms
G > to Dan's purported advice.
DS > My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever
information
DS > you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney.
And
DS > after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
KRP > That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE"
KRP > to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/168130d2477c1ca5
DS > That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
SINCE WHEN is a COUNTY ADA a person
dispensing legal advice to the accused parent?
Tell me more about how you got this advice
from a county ADA, Dan! And WHY!
Are County Attorneys and DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
the same thing where you're at, Dan?
Districts and Counties aren't the same are they?
Either way though, why would an attorney
representing the STATE advise people
who are under attack form the state??
KRP > Think it works well for your clients Danny?
KRP > As you PRETEND to be a lawyer and
KRP > dispensing your legal advice sans license.
DS > That's not legal advice.
DS > What would you advise people to do when
DS > CPS is at their door with an
DS > allegation or CAN, pangborn?
DS > Call you with thousands of dollars?
LK
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> falsely accused of child abuse,
Liar.
> that you thing is to reveal your truth
> about CPS,
So?
> so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
I'm not backing anybody.
> You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> a word about krp insane ravings.
That's what we have you for.
> Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> you claim are writting to you.
GFYS Roberta.
Dragon's Girl
You=pot, kettle, black.
Dragon's Girl
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> Liar.
>
> > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > about CPS,
>
> So?
>
> > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> That's what we have you for.
>
> > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > you claim are writting to you.
>
> GFYS Roberta.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Oh sure.
You conveniently forget that it's officially 'paraphrase' week, troll
for money using the child protection industry to do so, and then tell
FM to go f*ck herself???
LOL
Divert indeed.
Dan Sullivan
I don't remember.
What was the question?
> In your Larry Loophole world, that
> doesn't mean diddly squat does it?
>
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> G > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
> G > on a warrant?
>
> G > What was it about the video that gave you
> G > the impression he had let the worker see
> G > the baby and the apartment?
>
> DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
> DS > the father let the worker see the baby
> DS > and the apartment?
>
> You paraphrased my question.
>
> DS > The father said the worker saw the
> DS > baby and the apartment, but the
> DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
>
> G > If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
> G > then why was he threatening the Dad with
> G > a child removal order?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
> DS > Typical.
>
> You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.
If you watched the vid you'd already know the answer, grag.
> FM > Get a life gag.
>
> G > Dan, One of your biggest supporters
> G > has implied that this man's response
> G > WAS to your specifications, but also
> G > states that the man let the worker
> G > look at the child and apartment.
>
> DS > FM didn't say that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
See.
I was right!
> FM > From the video it was clear that the
> FM > worker had seen the baby and the
> FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.
>
> G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
>
> G > 1.
> G > Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
>
> DS > When?
>
> Is that advice you have issued?
When?
And under what circumstance?
> G > 2.
> G > Would you have advised this Dad to let the
> G > caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
>
> DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
> DS > I'd advise him to show the
> DS > baby to the case worker.
>
> Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.
Protections of what?
Did you not see the police in the vid?
If the worker didn't see the baby and the allegation was an injury,
you don't think the police would have stepped in and taken over?
Maybe take the baby into custody?
Or to a hospital?
Or arrest the father?
> DS > And opening the door to an apartment
> DS > exposes the living room and
> DS > probably the kitchen.
>
> Forfeits 4th amendment protections.
If the living room and kitchen were visible from the open front door?
> DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
> DS > or dangerous living condition,
> DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.
>
> Which joe paraphrased as:
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
> if
> you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*
I never said that.
> G > 3.
> G > Did you notice where the caseworker is
> G > threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
>
> Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?
Not at all.
> I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
> several times, saying that if the parent
> doesn't let him look at the child, he has
> no option but to do a child removal.
That's not true.
You didn't watch the vid.
> G > 4.
> G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
>
> DS > Read my earlier comments.
>
> You complain a lot about technicalities
> in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
> so WHY are you so shy about taking
> these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?
My position was clarified previously.
Check it out.
Dan Sullivan
>
> DS > That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
>
> SINCE WHEN is a COUNTY ADA a person
> dispensing legal advice to the accused parent?
It was a general discussion.
> Tell me more about how you got this advice
> from a county ADA, Dan! And WHY!
See above.
> Are County Attorneys and DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
> the same thing where you're at, Dan?
Not that I know of.
> Districts and Counties aren't the same are they?
I don't know.
> Either way though, why would an attorney
> representing the STATE advise people
> who are under attack form the state??
I wasn't under attack from the state.
LK
Noted: Betty couldn't answer the question.
> > And how is this false accusation of yours not trying to "divert
> > readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
> > about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice in reference to a YouTube
> > video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
>
Noted: Betty couldn't answer this question either.
> > I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
> > fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
> > assed CPS worker.
>
> You=pot, kettle, black.
>
>
Noted: Betty does not deny this but instead does exactly what I said.
>
>
>
> > Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
> > learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
> > trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
> > At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Firemonkey
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> Liar.
one family at at time? I remember you staying something along the line
of that NOT being your thing. I could be wrong, I am sometimes.
> > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > about CPS,
>
> So?
So ?? this news group is about helping people falsley accussed, so if
you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
> > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> That's what we have you for.
lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
anything.
Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
think and how they feel here at ascps?
You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
> > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > you claim are writting to you.
>
> GFYS Roberta.
No thanks.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
LK
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
> > > falsely accused of child abuse,
>
> > Liar.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood lk, wern't you just picking at Dan for helping
> one family at at time?
Perhaps you did misunderstand. I was suggesting something beyond your
comprehension, so it is entirely possible.
> I remember you staying something along the line
> of that NOT being your thing.
So. I'm looking at the bigger picture. BFD. You don't know what I
do when I'm not posting here.
> I could be wrong, I am sometimes.
>
True.
> > > that you thing is to reveal your truth
> > > about CPS,
>
> > So?
>
> So ?? this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,
Then why do you post shit like this?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f00a126842de97fe?hl=en
Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed? How do you
intend to help them?
Dan can you get these people out of this?
> so if
> you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
> > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > That's what we have you for.
>
> lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> anything.
Sure we do.
> Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> think and how they feel here at ascps?
I have never done any such thing.
> You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
Firemonkey
You think a baby with disabilities being murdered is shit? I post a
few of these crimes to remind us all that children are murdered at the
hands of their parents or by their parents bad judgement calls. Why do
these stories piss you off so much? Does it interfere with your agenda
lk?
> Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed?
Absolutely not.
>How do you intend to help them?
I don't.
> Dan can you get these people out of this?
>
> > so if
> > you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
> What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
> discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
at the mouth with you.
> > > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > > That's what we have you for.
> You sound more like gag and pigborn
> > lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> > anything.
>
> Sure we do.
> > Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> > think and how they feel here at ascps?
>
> I have never done any such thing.
You do though, what do you think making statements like.."> Sure we
do." demonstrate?
> > You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
> Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
>
You have no idea what I am capable of understanding lk.
Dragon's Girl
<special paid announcer>
Legally Kidnapped teddy bears are the perfect gift for any occasion.
Birthdays (at the DFS office under supervision)
Christmas (at the group home under guard)
Anniversaries (when you get conjugal visits)
Even weddings! (including those that require the bride and groom to
get married to avoid testifying against one another.)
Order your Legally kidnapped teddy today.
<disclaimer> Teddy bears are made in China and may contain substances
after production that cause cancer and other serious medical
conditions. This toy should only be used under the strict supervision
by children under 20.
Dan Sullivan
"If Greg scares people away from this group it's for their own good."
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.support.foster-
parents, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, misc.legal
From: LK <Patis...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 1:30 am
Subject: Re: Child dragged away by police on command of CAS
You can't remember what you said less than a week ago, LK?
"...don't you think it's time that somebody speaks the truth, tells it
like it is and doesn't sugar coat it with all of the
political correctness and feminist bullshit, or the blown out of
proportion child abuse propaganda that you all fall for. All Greg's
doing is calling a spade a spade. So his method is not politically
correct or it's impolite. Neither is reality."
> And how is this false accusation of yours
Is it still false after you see that you did say what DG claimed?
> not trying to "divert
> readers and posters from real discussions," which just happened to be
> about Dan's (ass kissing method) advice
I've never given "ass kissing method" advice.
> in reference to a YouTube
> video and twisting it into a conversation about what Greg does?
It's what YOU said greg does.
> I love how you take a statement, misinterpret it, twist the meaning to
> fit your own purpose, and try to use it as evidence just like a lying
> assed CPS worker.
>
> Of course next time you could always play stupid and use the lessons
> learned from Dan's puppet bear story, "I'm not really sure what he was
> trying to say, but it sounded like...." before you make such a claim.
> At least then you'd have something to base your bullshit on.
YOU'RE the one twisting a statement and making a bullshit claim about
it LK!
My daughter was interviewed.
So why is your "quote" "I'm not sure what HE was trying to say... "
I was never interviewed by the detectives.
Are you just playing stupid, LK?
Is that the way you have something to base your bullshit on???
LK
My God Roberta! Are you really that stupid that you can only pick out
a single word to call me on? I was suggesting that it has nothing to
do with your claim...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> I post a
> few of these crimes to remind us all that children are murdered at the
> hands of their parents or by their parents bad judgement calls.
And why do we need to be reminded of that in...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> Why do
> these stories piss you off so much?
Because a child was harmed.
> Does it interfere with your agenda
> lk?
>
No and neither do you.
> > Are you saying that these people are falsely accussed?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
But you did say...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> >How do you intend to help them?
>
> I don't.
>
But you did say...
Roberta > "this news group is about helping people falsley accussed,"
> > Dan can you get these people out of this?
>
> > > so if
> > > you not into that go do you thing somewhere else.
>
> > What and give you your perfect little group Roberta? This is a
> > discussion group where issues get discussed. That's all I'm doing.
>
> You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
> Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
> at the mouth with you.
>
I have never attacked anyone.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > so why are you here stirring up bs and backing someone who
> > > > > has admitted to forcing a six year old unrelated girl to take cold
> > > > > showers for wetting accidents, spanking her and putting her out in the
> > > > > cold Iowa winter with out shoes,socks or a coat?
>
> > > > I'm not backing anybody.
>
> > > > > You are so quick to jump on good people like Ron and Dan but never say
> > > > > a word about krp insane ravings.
>
> > > > That's what we have you for.
> > You sound more like gag and pigborn
> > > lk, you or anyone else who posts on this board does not have me for
> > > anything.
>
> > Sure we do.
> > > Why is it that you are always taking ownership of people, what they
> > > think and how they feel here at ascps?
>
> > I have never done any such thing.
>
> You do though, what do you think making statements like.."> Sure we
> do." demonstrate?> > You sound more like gag and pigborn every day.
>
> > Perhaps because I'm making sense. Therefore you wouldn't understand.
>
> You have no idea what I am capable of understanding lk.
>
So?
>
>
> > > > > Maybe you should stay out of here and do what you can on your own
> > > > > site, surely you have emails to answer and send with all the people
> > > > > you claim are writting to you.
>
> > > > GFYS Roberta.
>
> > > No thanks.
>
> > > > > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text- Hide quoted text -
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 21, 6:31 pm, Firemonkey <firemonke...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You, gag and pangborn have made any discussing of anything impossible.
>
> Me? I'm usually pretty quiet.
That isn't a denial of the allegation.
Duly noted!
> > Your little click is hell bound on attacking anyone who isn't foaming
> > at the mouth with you.
>
> I have never attacked anyone.
You never claimed someone was full of sh*t?
Or told someone to GFYS?
krp
"Firemonkey" <firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c25dbc46-2721-403f...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 21, 11:28 am, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You forget that there is a little puppet bear with a Legally Kidnapped
> t-shirt in the sidebar. You can each get your own for only $19.49 USD
> plus shipping. http://www.LegallyKidnapped.blogspot.com- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
< lk, you have admitted that you have no interest in helping people
< falsely accused of child abuse,
Maybe Roberta because HE unlike your HERO Sullivan does NOT pretend to be a
LAWYER on Usenet dispensing LEGAL ADVICE to his clients! He send them to
places where they can get REAL HELP.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b097e797-7e6c-43b7...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 4:52 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>>
>> >> > > Notice how this caseworker really has
>> >> > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
>> >> > > would be removed because of the
>> >> > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>>
>> >> > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>>
>> >> > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a
>> >> > warrant.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.
So NOW you are a Suffolk County ADA and NOT just an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
AMAZING!
LK
Yes you are.
> Or told someone to GFYS?
That's hardly an attack.
Greegor
> this group too well.
> It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
> offered support and help. NOT Greg.
> Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
> him when he is right, and defend him in such cases. Just as I do with
> Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron, and even you.
> If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
> and show us what a big man you are.
Betty poses as the "good cop" interceding when
one of the system sucks goes WAY too far in their
assertions about me. She has tried to ingratiate
herself much like the "good cop" of
"good cop, bad cop" fame. But she tries selling
this lame pretense so strongly that it is hilarious.
She also tried this "I'm your only friend" ruse
on Ken Pangborn which was hilarious as well.
It was particularly funny because most of Betty's
backchannel messages were pipelined to
the targets of the group attack.
Betty must be really bored, seeking INTRIGUE.
Greegor
DS > number of the families that got
DS > their children back.
DS > Jennifer Buckley.
DS > Chuck Kimmel
LK > Greg,
LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
that I interacted in the newsgroup with
people representing themselves by those names.
Dan is pretending that interacting with them
proves they are genuine.
I have publicly questioned whether or
not they were genuine, particularly after
""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
got her kid/kids back only to lose them
again and forever later on.
I'm suspicious even of the last names
since Buckley and Kimmel have been
high profile in the media.
The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f21df4d-2bbb-482a...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> DS > grag hanson conversed with a
> DS > number of the families that got
> DS > their children back.
> DS > Jennifer Buckley.
> DS > Chuck Kimmel
>
> LK > Greg,
> LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
>
> Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
> that I interacted in the newsgroup with
> people representing themselves by those names.
Lengthy onversations over a very long period of time.
> Dan is pretending that interacting with them
> proves they are genuine.
It proves you thought they were real people.
> I have publicly questioned whether or
> not they were genuine, particularly after
> ""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
What does Oliver have to do with the people you were talking to?
> Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
> got her kid/kids back only to lose them
> again and forever later on.
So that sounds like I made it up?
> I'm suspicious even of the last names
> since Buckley and Kimmel have been
> high profile in the media.
Hey!
Remember Ed Sullivan???
Or the woman astranaut named Sullivan?
Isn't that proof enough I'm not real?
Right, grag?
> The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
> as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
That was a name Chuck used because he was a hockey fan.
Look it up, grag.
Dragon's Girl
> > As far as Greg goes, you apparently have not read the archives for
> > this group too well.
> > It was Greg who attacked me when I came here, and it was others who
> > offered support and help. NOT Greg.
> > Even though. No matter what my personal issues with Greg, I stand by
> > him when he is right, and defend him in such cases. Just as I do with
> > Dan, Kane, FM, Sherman, Ron, and even you.
> > If you don't like it, and prefer to sling mud then by all means, do so
> > and show us what a big man you are.
>
> Betty poses as the "good cop" interceding when
> one of the system sucks goes WAY too far in their
> assertions about me. She has tried to ingratiate
> herself much like the "good cop" of
> "good cop, bad cop" fame. But she tries selling
> this lame pretense so strongly that it is hilarious.
Wow.
He's a friggin mind reader!
>
> She also tried this "I'm your only friend" ruse
> on Ken Pangborn which was hilarious as well.
That was Ken's delusion.
>
> It was particularly funny because most of Betty's
> backchannel messages were pipelined to
> the targets of the group attack.
Excuse me?
>
> Betty must be really bored, seeking INTRIGUE.
Oh my, here he goes with his 'Kanespiracy' theories again.
Greegor
DS > number of the families that got
DS > their children back.
DS > Jennifer Buckley.
DS > Chuck Kimmel
LK > Greg,
LK > Are you going to back Dan's claim here?
G > Dan must mean "conversed" in the sense
G > that I interacted in the newsgroup with
G > people representing themselves by those names.
DS > Lengthy onversations over a very long period of time.
G > Dan is pretending that interacting with them
G > proves they are genuine.
DS > It proves you thought they were real people.
How does it prove that?
G > I have publicly questioned whether or
G > not they were genuine, particularly after
G > ""Oliver Sutton"" was kicked out of FightCPS.
DS > What does Oliver have to do with the people you were talking to?
Goes to your credibility regarding ""real people"".
G > Even according to Dan's legend, Jennifer
G > got her kid/kids back only to lose them
G > again and forever later on.
G > So that sounds like I made it up?
Oliver Sutton.
G > I'm suspicious even of the last names
G > since Buckley and Kimmel have been
G > high profile in the media.
DS > Hey!
DS > Remember Ed Sullivan???
DS > Or the woman astranaut named Sullivan?
DS > Isn't that proof enough I'm not real?
DS > Right, grag?
Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
G > The name "Loyal Fan" seemed contrived
G > as a fake glowing reference for Dan.
DS> That was a name Chuck used because
DS > he was a hockey fan. Look it up, grag.
Dragon's Girl
LK must have missed this response to his denial.
LK
>
> - Show quoted text -
What? He's just pulling the same bullshit you do.
Greegor
Please post proof.
G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
Could you diagram that logic?
Dan Sullivan
IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake, and my advice was as
effective as it seems to be with all the other "fake" people on asCPS
over the last seven years, Lisa COULD have taken my advice and gotten
her daughter home in a few weeks.
Greegor
> On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > DS > Oliver is real.
>
> > Please post proof.
>
> > G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
>
DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
G > Could you diagram that logic?
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
http://www.faustiandeal.com/about.php
To understand the nature of a 'Faustian Deal', one must first know the
history of Dr. John Faustus. The myth first appeared in the 16th
century; a German tale of a magician capable of amazing acts. Faustus
was reputed to have performed feats which implied powers supernatural
in origin. The real Faustus was likely nothing more than a charlatan-a
braggart and bullshit artist. However, the myth of Faust has formed
the basis for short stories, musical scores, and plays-the most
popular being Christopher Marlowe's "The Tragical History of Dr.
Faustus". Marlowe's Faust was a man of science who was intrigued by
the mysteries of life. Dissatisfied with the answers found in law,
medicine, and theology he turns to necromancy-forging an infernal pact
to discover the truth. A 'Faustian Deal' is an attempt to follow
Faust, signing a deal with the devil to exchange your soul for earthly
reward.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faustian+deal
1. faustian deal 22 up, 1 down
A bargain made or done for present gain without regard for future
cost or consequences.
A pact made with the Devil—selling one’s soul in order to gain power,
knowledge, wealth, beauty, youth, or some other desired goal. The
theme is an old one: one may gain short-term delights, but the Devil
comes to collect in the end. One must eventually ‘pay the piper’ –
bear the consequences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustian
Faustian
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Something that is faustian refers to a wider interpretation of the
events of Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. In part one of Goethe's
Faust, the central character's pact with the devil allows him to have
energy, life and youth unless he becomes so entranced by the passing
moment that he wishes that things will never change. When Faust
stumbles unthinkingly into that wish, his world and his life are
forfeit to Mephistopheles.
Faustian may be:
A work of fiction, or a fictional character, may be cited as being
"Faustian" if it involves a literal or proverbial "deal with the
devil", such as that portrayed in the story of Faust. Such dealings
are often referred to as "Faustian deals", and as such there is
usually short term gain (e.g. fame, fortune, knowledge) for long term
pain (i.e. the person's soul).
In history, since Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West the
Faustian society is synonymous with the western world. The word is
chosen since Spengler believed the entire western society follows a
trajectory similar to that of Faust.
In sociology, in the writings of Marshall Berman, Faustian refers to
the short-time perspective of society in modernity. It also refers to
Faust's desire in the second part of Goethe's Faust, especially act V,
to defeat the forces of nature and create a mechanical heaven on earth
by draining the seabed and using it for farming.
In the role-playing game Demon: The Fallen, the Faustians are a
faction of fallen angels. See Demon: The Fallen.
It is also mentioned that Vicktor Frankenstein in the Novel,
Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley, is considered a
Faustian character with his "deal with the devil" to gain strength and
energy to pursue and kill his creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust
Faust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Faust (disambiguation).
Faust depicted in an etching by Rembrandt van Rijn (circa 1650).Faust
(German for "fist") or Faustus (Latin for "auspicious" or "lucky") is
the protagonist of a classic German legend in which he makes a pact
with the Devil. The tale is the basis for many literary, artistic,
cinematic, and musical works, such as those by Christopher Marlowe,
Goethe, Mikhail Bulgakov, Thomas Mann, Hector Berlioz, Franz Liszt,
Washington Irving, and Charles Gounod.
The name "Faust" has come to stand for a charlatan alchemist (some
claim "astrologer and necromancer") whose pride and vanity lead to his
doom. Similarly, the adjective "Faustian" has come to denote acts or
constellations involving human hubris which lead eventually to
nemesis.
Contents [hide]
1 Historical Faust
2 Sources of the Faust legend
3 Marlowe's Doctor Faustus
4 Goethe's Faust
4.1 Influence
4.2 Translations
5 See also
6 Sources
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Historical Faust
Main article: Johann Georg Faust
The origin of Faust's name and persona remains unclear, though it is
widely assumed to be based on the figure of German Dr. Johann Georg
Faust (approximately 1480–1540), a dubious magician and alchemist
probably from Knittlingen, Württemberg, who obtained a degree in
divinity from Heidelberg University in 1509. According to one account,
Faust's infamy became legendary while he was in prison, where, in
exchange for wine, he "offered to show a chaplain how to remove hair
from his face without a razor. The chaplain provided the wine and
Faustus provided the chaplain with a salve of arsenic, which removed
not only the hair but the flesh" (Barnett).
Some sources also connect the legendary Faust with Johann Fust (c.1400
- October 30, 1466), Johann Gutenberg's business partner[1], or
suggest that Fust is one of the multiple origins to the Faust
story[2].
In Polish folklore there is a tale with a Pan Twardowski in a role
similar to Faust's, and seems to have originated at roughly the same
time. It is unclear if and to what extent the two tales have a common
origin or influenced each other. The figure of Pan Twardowski is
supposedly based on a either a 16th century German emigrant to the
then-capital of Poland, Kraków, or possibly John Dee or Edward Kelley.
According to Melanchthon, the historic Johann Faust had studied in
Kraków, as well.[citation needed]
[edit] Sources of the Faust legend
Main article: Faust chapbooks
The first recorded Faust committed to print is a little chapbook
bearing the title Historia von D. Iohan Fausten published in 1587. The
book was re-edited and borrowed from throughout the 17th century.
Johann Spies: Historia von D. Johann Fausten (1587)
Das Wagnerbuch von (1593)
Das Widmann'sche Faustbuch von (1599)
Dr. Fausts großer und gewaltiger Höllenzwang (Frankfurt 1609)
Dr. Johannes Faust, Magia naturalis et innaturalis (Passau 1612)
Das Pfitzer'sche Faustbuch (1674)
Dr. Fausts großer und gewaltiger Meergeist (Amsterdam 1692)
Das Wagnerbuch (1714)
Faustbuch des Christlich Meynenden (1725)
With Marlowe's The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, written in the
early 1590s, it also received an early theatrical treatment. Plays and
comic puppet theatre loosely based on the legend were popular
throughout Germany, often reducing Faust to a figure of vulgar fun.
The 1725 chapbook was widely circulated, and also read by the young
Goethe.
It has been suggested Jacob Bidermann used such an earlier source for
his treatment of the legend of the Damnation of the Good Doctor of
Paris, Cenodoxus (published c. 1602). Possibly related tales of a pact
between man and the devil include that of Theophilus of Adana, and
Mary of Nijmegen,the late fourteenth or early fifteenth century Dutch
play attributed to Anna Bijns.
[edit] Marlowe's Doctor Faustus
Main article: The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus
The early Faust chapbook, while already in circulation in Northern
Germany, found its way to England, where it was translated into
English by "P. F., Gent[leman]" in 1592 as The Historie of the
Damnable Life, and Deserved Death of Doctor Iohn Faustus. It was this
work that Christopher Marlowe used for his more ambitious play, The
Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (published c. 1604). Marlowe also
borrowed from Acts and Monuments by John Foxe, on the exchanges
between Pope Adrian and a rival pope. Another possible inspiration of
Marlowe's version is John Dee (1527-1609), who practiced forms of
alchemy and science and developed Enochian magic.
[edit] Goethe's Faust
Main article: Goethe's Faust
Goethe's Faust inverts and makes greatly more complex the simple
Christian moral of the original legend. A hybrid between a play and an
extended poem, Goethe's two part "closet drama" is epic in scope. It
gathers together references from Christian, medieval, Roman, eastern
and Hellenic poetry, philosophy and literature; ending in a Faust who
is saved, carried aloft to heaven, as Mephistopheles looks on.
The legend of Faust was an obsession of Goethe's. Although by no means
a constant pursuit, the composition and refinement of his own version
of the legend occupied him for over sixty years. The final version,
not completely published until after his death, is recognized as a
great work of German Literature.
The story concerns the fate of Faust in his quest for the true essence
of life ("was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhält"). Frustrated with
learning and the limits to his knowledge and power, he attracts the
attention of the Devil (represented by Mephistopheles), who agrees to
serve Faust until the moment he attains the zenith of human happiness,
at which point Mephistopheles may take his soul. Goethe's Faust is
pleased with the deal, as he believes the moment will never come.
In the first part, Mephistopheles leads Faust through experiences that
culminate in a lustful and destructive relationship with an innocent
and nubile woman named Gretchen. Gretchen and her family are destroyed
by Mephistopheles' deceptions and Faust's desires and actions. The
story ends in tragedy as Gretchen is saved and Faust is left in shame.
The second part begins with the spirits of the earth forgiving Faust
(and the rest of mankind) and progresses into rich allegorical poetry.
Faust and his devil pass through the world of politics and the world
of the classical gods, and meet with Helen of Troy (the
personification of beauty). Finally, having succeeded in taming the
very forces of war and nature Faust experiences a single moment of
happiness.
The devil Mephistopheles, trying to grab Faust's soul when he dies, is
frustrated as the Lord intervenes – recognizing the value of Faust's
unending striving.
[edit] Influence
Goethe's Faust was the source material for at least two successful
operas: Faust by Charles Gounod and Mefistofele by Arrigo Boito. It
has inspired numerous additional major musical works, such as the
"dramatic legend" The Damnation of Faust by Hector Berlioz, Robert
Schumann's Scenes from Goethe's Faust, the second part of Gustav
Mahler's Symphony No. 8, and Franz Liszt's Mephisto Waltzes.
[edit] Translations
In September 2006, Oxford University Press published an English, blank-
verse translation of Goethe's work entitled Faustus, From the German
of Goethe, now widely believed to be the production of Samuel Taylor
Coleridge. Although Coleridge famously insisted during his lifetime
that he "had never put pen to paper as a translator of Faust", he was
never the most trustworthy source for matters autobiographical.
Moreover, the volume's editors, UCLA Professor Emeritus Frederick
Burwick and University of Montana Professor James McCusick (both
renowned Coleridge scholars), have assembled over 800 verbal echoes
between the translation and Coleridge's other poems and dramatic
works, uncovered a wealth of circumstantial evidence, and used
computer-aided stylometric analysis in order to support their claim
that Coleridge was the author. The translation, which was published
anonymously in 1821, was previously attributed to George Soane.
Despite this evidence, the status of the translation as the work of
Coleridge is still disputed by some Coleridge authorities.[3]
[edit] See also
List of works which retell or strongly allude to the Faust tale
Phantom of the Paradise
Brajendra Nath Seal
Mephistopheles
Dr. Faustus
Brocken spectre
The Devil and Tom Walker, 15th-18th century local New England legend
with high similarities to Faust. Recorded in Washington Irving's 1842
"Tales of a Traveler" compilation.
Jonathan Moulton, the "Yankee Faust"
Pan Twardowski, the "Polish Faust", a German man comes to the then-
capital of Poland: Cracow
Friedrich Nietzsche
Rudolf Steiner
The Brocken
The Sorrows of Satan
Walpurgis Night
Damn Yankees
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1955) (play only)
Brazen Head
Staufen, Germany, a town in the extreme south-west of Germany, claims
to be where Faust died (ca. 1540); depictions appear on buildings etc.
The only historical source for this tradition is a passage in the
"Chronik der Grafen von Zimmern," which was written around 1565,
twenty-five years after Faust's presumed date of death. These
chronicles are generally considered reliable, and in the 16th century
there were still family ties between the lords of Staufen and the
counts of Zimmern in nearby Donaueschingen.
Ghost Rider. In the movie, there is a brief scene where the hero of
the movie, played by Nicholas Cage, is seen referring to a book about
Faust and learning to control his powers. An antagonist in the movie
is called both, The Devil and Mephistopheles, the name for the devil
that Faust sold his soul to. In the film Mephistopheles commands
Johnny Blaze to destroy his (Mephistopheles) son, Blackheart.
Bård Eithun, ex-drummer for Black metal band Emperor goes under the
pseudonym "Faust".
Ultraman Nexus, another entry in the Japanese long-running series
Ultraman, features a "Black Ultraman" by the name of Faust. Faust was
created by another dark Ulstra named Mephisto, another allusion to the
Faust tale.
[edit] Sources
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, Edited and with and
introduction by Sylvan Barnett (1969, Signet Classics)
J. Scheible, Das Kloster (1840s).
[edit] References
^ Meggs, Philip B.; Alston W. Purvis (2006). Meggs' History of Graphic
Design, Fourth Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 73. ISBN
0471699020.
^ Jensen, Eric (Autumn, 1982). "Liszt, Nerval, and "Faust"". 19th-
Century Music 6 (2): 153. University of California Press. Retrieved on
2008-07-18.
^ A review of the controversial edition, Times Literary Supplement,
Kelly Grovier
[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
FaustFaust Study Guide
The Faust Tradition from Marlowe to Mann, California State University,
Chico
Pacts with the Devil: Faust and Precursors
E-texts:
Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe at Project Gutenberg
Tragical History of Dr. Faustus at Project Gutenberg (Quarto of 1604)
Tragical History of Dr. Faustus at Project Gutenberg (Quarto of 1616)
At Projekt Gutenberg-DE:
Goethe's Faust, part 1
Goethe's Faust, part 2
Heine's Der Doktor Faust
Faust full text in German and English side-by-side
Marlowe's Dr. Faustus
Jan Svankmajer's Faust
The Pre-Death Thoughts of Faust by Nikolai Berdyaev
A wiki page about Faust. Includes scene by scene commentary.
Phantom Regiment 2006
Did Coleridge translate Goethe's Faust? A an article by Kelly Grovier
in the Times Literary Supplement
Printed Editions:
Subculture Books' Edition of Faust[[Category:Faust| ]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust"
http://leanlitigation.typepad.com/weltman/2008/05/the-faustian-de.html
May 26, 2008
The Faustian Deal and Why We Litigators Must Change The Way We
Practice
Perhaps because I have a son who is about to enter the profession and
perhaps because he is a coveted recruit, I write this post as a small
and quiet call for a new paradigm in the treatment of litigation
associates and, in turn, a new paradigm for how law is practiced.
I am, of course, speaking in generalities, but these observations are
nevertheless generally true. The legal profession and, in particular,
the large to mid-size firms, are doing an abysmal job in training
their litigation associates to become trial lawyers.
Firms are now completely driven by the bottom line. It controls all
that is done. Lure top associates with ever increasing starting
salaries in order to lay claim that "our firm attracts the best
talent." Work those associates to death on make work tasks to pay for
those salaries and to produce the profits necessary to keep up with
the Jones to maintain or raise "profits per partner" in order to keep
and lure supposed rainmakers.
The result - few if any private sector associates are gaining any
concept of the big picture in the cases they work on. They are given
zounds of projects to work on as part of a larger group of pyramided
lawyers in various matters. But how many are actually an integral part
of any case's litigation team?
It is the rare [very rare] exception where a firm staffs its cases
with small teams; where the associates work closely with a senior
partner on all aspects of the case. As those who have read my other
posts or who have read my articles know [go to my web site for the
articles], even the largest cases are more effectively run with small
litigation teams. It is the best way to win and it costs less for the
client. It is also the best way for young lawyers to develop the
skills they will need to be case leaders.
Top law graduates - intelligent as they are - accept the current
Faustian deal only because the money seems to be too good to pass up.
But as everyone knows, most associates will be gone within 4-5 years,
and most of these young litigators leave with little if any marketable
skills. Few have even taken a deposition let alone participated in
any meaningful way in a trial or some other form of contested
hearing. Those that stay have limited skills for their years and this
experience lag continues - with some "litigation" partners at large
firms never having tried a case either as a first or second chair!
How could so many smart people act so stupidly for a few extra short
term dollars?
There is only one end point for this trend - eventually the only
people capable of trying cases in large firms are going to be former
USDAs or State's Attorneys. But there are not enough USDA or State's
Attorney jobs available to provide the training for the private
sector's needs.
Moreover, let me tell you a little known secret - there is actually an
art - unfortunately a dying one - to handling large complex civil
litigation matters that one only learns from doing them in the private
sector. So even government trained attorneys - while having a leg up
on their private sector counterparts in terms of courtroom experience
- are at a disadvantage when they come up against seasoned private
sector civil litigators who know what they are doing. For example, it
is one thing when you have the FBI gathering your evidence for you and
another when you have to do it yourself.
Those firms currently drunk on the short term revenues from this
inefficient pyramid are going to be in for a rude awakening based upon
simple economics of supply and demand.
On the supply side, law school graduates aspiring to be litigators are
going to get smart and realize that they are better off tightening
their belts in their early years and gain in the trenches trial
experience at a smaller firm [say a litigation boutique] where, to
borrow a phrase, rather than giving them a fish the firms teach them
how to fish. There are already supply side organizations cropping up
such as "Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession" [click here]
that are starting to confront the issue of the quality of associate
life and training.
Yet, it still amazes me how the herd mentality takes over for most the
top law school grads. How else can one explain seemingly intelligent
people who, for a few extra short term dollars, knowingly squander all
that they have worked for to be worked to death for 4-5 years and walk
away with few meaningful marketable skills. It is a losing
proposition. If it were a case it would be dismissed out of court.
Here is absolute rule no. 1 for soon to be law school grads who aspire
to be litigators - if you want to have personal autonomy [e.g. control
your career arc] make sure that where ever you land you are going to
be given the opportunity to (1) take and defend depositions and argue
before courts within your first 2-3 years and (2) try cases as second
and first chair within the first 5 years of your practice. Ask the
associates who interview you how many depositions they have taken and
defended. Ask them how many trials they have worked on and what they
did.
They may not like these questions, but if you intend to make a career
out of asking the right questions, it makes sense to do so when you
are making an important career choice. You are entitled to know these
things. If someone is going to hold it against you for asking these
questions then you should think twice about why you want to work at
such a place.
For those litigation associates who now realize that their high paying
jobs are on a track to nowhere in terms of skill development, get out.
Get over the prestige issue and get over the money thing. Nine years
out, no one will care where you spent your first years of practice if
don't have needed skills, and whatever money you made upfront in your
early years will be quickly lost in diminished earning capacity later
on.
On the demand side, as large and mid-size general practice firms'
development of litigation talent continues on its diminished trend,
more and more top flight litigation boutiques are going to become the
norm - not only because smart law school grads who want to become real
trial lawyers are going to flock to them but also because clients big
and small are going to prefer to hire these firms.
In short, unless this trend reverses and large firms pay attention to
something other than short term profitability, the marketplace will
dictate a division - where the best/most talented litigation firms
and departments will be litigation only firms.
The trend has already begun - pioneered by firms like Susman Godfrey
and followed by firms like Barlit Beck. Yes, these firms are uber
versions of litigation only firms that currently have the luxury of
selecting only the cream of the crop law school grads. But one should
not write them off as one hit wonders - firms that only arose because
of the unique abilities of their founders.
There is a valid business model behind these firms, why they are so
successful and, most important, why they are more sought after than
large firm litigation departments time and again. The model is quite
simple - they get the talent, they develop the talent, and,as a
result, they provide a better product.
The model is being successfully followed. Numerous complex litigation
boutiques are sprouting up in every major metropolitan area.
Will the litigation boutique overtake large firm litigation
departments in my lifetime? Probably not. But having litigated my
fair share of antitrust matters, I am a firm believer in the
marketplace. You don't have to be a Nobel Laureate economist to
understand that both the supply side and demand side may very well
seek an alternative when law the large firms fail to provide what both
sides want.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:41�pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 23, 1:27 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > DS > Oliver is real.
> >
> > > Please post proof.
> >
> > > G > Those are not the reasons I think you are a fake, Dan.
> >
> DS > Your problem, grag, is if I'm not
> DS > a fake, Lisa could have gotten her
> DS > daughter back in a few weeks instead of never.
>
> G > Could you diagram that logic?
>
> DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
> DS > and my advice was as effective as it
> DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
> DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
> DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
> DS > advice and gotten her daughter
> DS > home in a few weeks.
>
> By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
By getting rid of the cause of the problems, and that would have been
YOU, grag.
Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
Greegor
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
Very mature of you, Danny!
DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
In most states the accused parents don't stipulate TO anything
specificially.
There are no "stipulations" (in the usual legal/english sense) spelled
out.
The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED meaning is that
the parent stipulates to "dependency" and the authority
of the CPS agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
made by the agency in exchange for this are ignored completely.
The agency/prosecutor promises are NOT in "good faith"
and apparently there is no redress possible for this fraud.
It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
Dan Sullivan
> G > Could you diagram that logic?
>
> DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
> DS > and my advice was as effective as it
> DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
> DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
> DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
> DS > advice and gotten her daughter
> DS > home in a few weeks.
>
> G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
>
> DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
> DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
>
> DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
>
> Very mature of you, Danny!
Very manure of you, grag.
> DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
>
> In most states the accused parents don't stipulate TO anything
> specificially.
So Lisa stipulated but not to anything specific?
> There are no "stipulations" (in the usual legal/english sense) spelled
> out.
You did say Lisa stipulated to something.
Just a vague non-specific stipulation?
> The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED meaning is that
> the parent stipulates to "dependency" and the authority
> of the CPS agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
> made by the agency in exchange for this are ignored completely.
What did CPS ignore?
> The agency/prosecutor promises are NOT in "good faith"
> and apparently there is no redress possible for this fraud.
What did CPS promise?
> It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
> the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
Because YOU'RE such a bargain, grag?
This is too easy.
Greegor
DS > IOW if I was "real," not supposedly fake,
DS > and my advice was as effective as it
DS > seems to be with all the other "fake"
DS > people on asCPS over the last seven
DS > years, Lisa COULD have taken my
DS > advice and gotten her daughter
DS > home in a few weeks.
G > By making a Faustian deal with CPS, no doubt.
DS > By getting rid of the cause of the problems,
DS > and that would have been YOU, grag.
DS > Clean the house and flush grag down the toilet.
G > Very mature of you, Danny!
DS > Very manure of you, grag.
DS > What was it Lisa stipulated to, grag?
G > In most states the accused parents don't
G > stipulate TO anything specificially.
DS > So Lisa stipulated but not to anything specific?
Correct. This has been stated before.
G > There are no "stipulations" (in the usual
G > legal/english sense) spelled out.
DS > You did say Lisa stipulated to something.
Got a link?
DS > Just a vague non-specific stipulation?
I've complained about this several times before.
G > The unwritten, unstated, apparently IMPLIED
G > meaning is that the parent stipulates to
G > "dependency" and the authority of the CPS
G > agency. Typically, any quid pro quo promises
G > made by the agency in exchange for this
G > are ignored completely.
DS > What did CPS ignore?
Their promise of an easy service plan
with only two items. It was a lie.
G > The agency/prosecutor promises are
G > NOT in "good faith" and apparently
G > there is no redress possible for this fraud.
DS > What did CPS promise?
An easy 2 item service plan.
When it arrived, it had at least 8 items.
One was absolutely impossible.
G > It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
G > the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
DS > Because YOU'RE such a bargain, grag?
DS > This is too easy.
The promised easy service plan
and the delivered 8+ item service plan
are much like the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN.
Dan Sullivan
Did you have that agreement in writing?
> G > The agency/prosecutor promises are
> G > NOT in "good faith" and apparently
> G > there is no redress possible for this fraud.
>
> DS > What did CPS promise?
>
> An easy 2 item service plan.
> When it arrived, it had at least 8 items.
> One was absolutely impossible.
What were the 8+ items?
> G > It's VERY appropriate that you brought this up under
> G > the heading of FAUSTIAN BARGAIN, Dan.
>
> DS > Because YOU'RE such a bargain, grag?
>
> DS > This is too easy.
>
> The promised easy service plan
> and the delivered 8+ item service plan
> are much like the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN.
Lisa offered her soul for satanic favors?
You would be the satanic favors, I take it, grag.
Greegor
G > and the delivered 8+ item service plan
G > are much like the FAUSTIAN BARGAIN.
DS > Lisa offered her soul for satanic favors?
DS > You would be the satanic favors, I take it, grag.
Wrong of course.
You're being perverse and retarded, Dan.
Also I see you felt the need to start a new
thread for this discussion.
Did you think that would give you some advantage?
Remember, in a moderated debate, you
would not be able to do that.
And you'd lose points for name calling.
Persistent name calling would disqualify you.
I'm amazed that you'd ever mention debate
since you regularly violate rules of debate
that would forfeit a real match.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/f1a3f95bf3b3dcee
DS > only two are mentioned in the Motion
DS > for Relief of Inappropriate
DS > Services with a third as a maybe.
DS > 1 - grag finds employment.
DS > 2 - Parenting classes for Lisa and grag.
DS > And the "maybe" 3rd - "Vocational Rehab <snip>
DS > Which would seem appropriate if grag couldn't find
DS > work in the field he was trained in.
WHY is "CHILD PROTECTION" dictating this?
DS > But the next sentence in the Motion was
DS > "Greg doesn’t qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab.
DS > Not disabled. Great one DHS!"
DS > As if out-of-work people couldn't learn a new
DS > trade unless they were handicapped and
DS > qualified for rehab by the Department
DS > of Vocational Rehab.
The serviced plan specified Iowa DVR.
DVR only helps disabled people.
DS > grag must not realize that when businesses
DS > die or get downsized, the workers don't
DS > just stand around wishing and hoping
DS > their jobs would come back.
DS > They learn a new trade.
DS > But as far as grag actually getting a job,
DS > they wrote in the Motion "There has been no
DS > explanation or justification of this. We
DS > consider this to be up to us jointly, as
DS > a family, and object to being micromanaged
DS > by busybodies at DHS who have no
DS > RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing."
Why do you think it's their department, Dan?
We got NO welfare of any kind!
No Foodstamps, nothing.
What the HELL does this have to do with
Child Protection??
And, given my actual work history, this
was insulting to say the least.
DS > Extort a job?
I see the service plan as extortive.
Please explain how it's not.
DS > As far as the parenting classes, they wrote...
DS > "The Service Plan directs Greg to attend
DS > Parenting Classes. Greg has had NO
DS > HEARING about his guilt or innocence and
DS > the courts seem to afford him NO RIGHTS,
DS > while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted
DS > through threat of TPR.
DS > Greg was the oldest of four children and had
DS > about 20 cousins visit, so served as apprentice
DS > parent at a young age. Greg trained his cat
DS > Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats
DS > do not respond well to negative reinforcement.
DS > You can't force a cat to do anything.
DS > Are these parenting classes for purposes of
DS > teaching practicality or to teach anti-spanking
DS > propaganda and fulfill the "rescue fantasy" of
DS > the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers?
DS > Greg would be glad to TEACH a community
DS > ed parenting class, if you would accept this.
DS > Even childless caseworkers could learn something."
DS > And ... they ask the Judge to take a QUIZZ!!
[spelling, Dan?]
DS > Here are some of the more ridiculous questions...
"1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?
1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?
1D. For these parents, wouldn’t it be better to to teach parents how
to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?
1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?
1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold
custody
of the child from the parents?
2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?
2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?
2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg’s constitutional rights?
2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?
2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?
3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?
3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social
History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?
3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?
4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg’s non-party status, at the expense of our family bond?
4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law? "
Greegor
CW : My name is Manuel Montenagua (sp)
Dad: What seems to be the problem Mr. Montenagua?
Did you miss the badge on a lanyard, Dan?
Greegor
Dan?
Kent Wills
wrote:
Case ID Title Name DOB Role
06571 AGCR015216 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC123709 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO VS GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM004543 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM008629 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREGORY S HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR429489 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR441449 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR146191 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR214087 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571MASTWG261061 CITY OF MARION vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame
Greg S Hanson
DOB 05/22/1959
Linn County
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY
MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES
COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service
Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the
trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.
On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE
participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan". This is a Federal
regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.
Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.
Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for
disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After
Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me
saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under
water." (Actually
it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after
only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role
of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about
nonexistant domestic abuse.
Psychological Evaluation
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry
list of 4 points. The list was:
needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues
It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised
some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was
small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME
didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get
more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months,
and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including
misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported"
presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge
number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect
statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this.
The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of
input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective
concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY
with
this.
Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using
such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the
impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME
could
not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts
of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the
hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT
could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers
were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being
"railroaded"
by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in
The
Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)
Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury
Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape
interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the
hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification
for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's
past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's
Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of
extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt.
My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about
the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even
perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court
Judge with no explanation.
The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an
internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The
bump
was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a
swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it
really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been
brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the
grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to
intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are
written down there in the physical report, and they are non-
sequiturs.
This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take
her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable
witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer
written all over it!)
The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now
Jennifer
Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for
her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know
more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their
testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather
than "head pushed under shower spray".
Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I
"would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get
rid of Greg to satisfy DHS.
She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole
like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her
report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the
other
members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child
Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a
bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage.
Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other
side of the one way glass.
I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present
at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said
he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there
specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the
invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush
interview" by a hostile group during that time.
Employment
The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no
explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to
us
jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies
at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing.
Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men.
Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE
or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied
Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite
ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED
SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child
support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS
targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat
bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of
Rights?
Vocational Rehab
Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the
services required of Greg.
Greg doesn't qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not
disabled. Great one DHS!
Parenting Classes
The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has
had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to
afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through
threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about
20
cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg
trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not
respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do
anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching
practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the
"rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would
be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept
this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something.
DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future
stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for
a
parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political
agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to
push
for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our
beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed)
Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need
Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she
used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and
hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for
Deb
that the rash was from urea not washed off Child's skin. The
sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any
paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though
medical treatment was involved. Isn't Deb a mandatory reporter?
All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty
God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person
shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship
against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any
religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of
conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran
Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights
of concience" that parents have.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.
Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's
active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as
required
by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations.
It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make
the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of
children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents
vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are
being burdened with.
PLEASE CLARIFY
1A. Do you order imposed parent education?
1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?
1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?
1D. For these parents, wouldn't it be better to to teach parents
how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?
1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?
1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold
custody
of the child from the parents?
2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?
2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents
who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and
are thus rightiously indignant?
2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?
2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?
2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
psychological evaluation would not bias the results?
2F. Don't you think that this INPUT should be carefully
scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the
court?
2G. How would a legal non-party do that?
2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg's constitutional rights?
2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?
2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?
2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
provision of the service plan?
3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?
3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social
History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?
3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?
3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an
insignifigance?
3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN?
4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they
wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart?
4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg's non-party status, at the expense of our family
bond?
4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law?
The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in
facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have
known
since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers
have not been helpful.
There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over
three
years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year
old.
Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family
violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive
grandparents.
No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any
medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve
any
alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last
year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.
The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents.
The
first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is
supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. "Family preservation will
be the first consideration"...
The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.
The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite
the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers.
Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by
the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger
from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
disbursed.
The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination,
obstructionism
or delay.
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN
1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost
of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of
Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation"
service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this
assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has
DHS wasted on this case overall?
2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our
home.
These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform
to
US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have
asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests
have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then
we ask for this requirement to be voided.
3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.
4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.
5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will
be arranged to address
-Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg
-Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken
place.
-Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional
second guessing
-Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child
-Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill
grandmother
6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker
and
more.
7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the
community.
8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and
Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with
an
eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring.
9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's
school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions
and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and
commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly
commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in
this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing
school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The
grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort
of
pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the
child's education.
10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
toward unsupervised visits and reunification.
11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS,
personally.
Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his
services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just..
254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439.
COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the
parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in
counseling - and to provide the department with all information
obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to
sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents
to
disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not
of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has
no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science,
and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures
presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication
hearing
violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their
right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the
patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time
demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their
children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the
state's
fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use
of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the
privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson
v.
United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States,
supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973);
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v.
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v.
Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460,
the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All
these
policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional
foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government -
state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its
citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require
the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the
inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of
criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an
individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent
labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it
from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely
on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least
one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence
against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such
compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist,
then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic
sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for
any
other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the
accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United
States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth
Amendment
protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure
of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233
n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that
the
protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege
against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a
person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty
and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence"
that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630.
The
privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human
personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave
where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378
U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of
individual
feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract
self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966);
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment
in
its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of
privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his
detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See
also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).
The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of
adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These
relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the
assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against
either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these
privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition
is
given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah),
doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal
communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against
self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges,
marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession
itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful
communication could be given out of fear that something, anything,
one
says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot
simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused
and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against
self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged
communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In
contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only
delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be
assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions
must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation.
Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held:
"Some
tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example,
lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during
interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which
are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing
in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence
on
the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to
evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations
call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is
as
broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any
compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the
production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime,
or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free
government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is
abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes
of
despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political
liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at
631-632.
It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness
shall
not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give
testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564]
subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5
Car.
& P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3
Camp.
210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr.
16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev.
451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v.
Rexford, 6 Cow.
________________________
Suzy Q. Mother
1234 Our Home Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the
attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed
on
the pleadings on April 9th, 2002.
By:
_X_ U.S. Mail
Signature:_________________________________
Copy to:
DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad's PD
222 SE 222 Avenue
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker
Iowa Department of Inhumane Services
411 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
What Child, GAL
PO Box 12345
Cedar Rapids, IA 52407
Prosecute On Gossip
Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division
Basement of Linn County Courthouse
Third Avenue Bridge
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service -
Privacy Policy
Š2007 Goog
________________________________________
>From the US Congressional Record,
testimony to Ways and Means committee
Statement of Greg S. Hanson, and Lisa R. Watkins, Hiawatha, Iowa
Child Protection has become an INDUSTRY. The Contract the states
entered into for Federal Grant Money was contingent upon states
meeting many standards. The threat of cutting off funds if states
didn't fulfill all of the requirements has NOT been followed through
by the federal government however.
Up until recently these agencies used to fend off any correction or
any decision unfavorable to them by saying that the politician was
"Against Child Protection". A few congressmen have experienced this
McCarthy era like demogoguery from the Child Protection Industry. Now
things for their INDUSTRY have gotten bad enough that politicians
don't have to fear this tactic of demogoguery as in the past.
I basically don't think ANY government agency should remove kids or
reimburse states for removing kids unless there is some VERY serious
reason in that individual case to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of a
family to be intact.
Much like with Enron, Child Protection has been too much motivated by
funding streams and "bean counting" at the expense of ethics, fairness
and even responsible handling of money. The main data provided to the
federal government to qualify state Child Protection agencies for
federal money is in fact generated by ""judgement calls"" made by the
agencies themselves, with an urge to grow endlessly. All they have to
do is call every case "Imminent Danger" even where they removed a
child from their home for "Clutter" or "messy house". The federal
government feeds them money for this. Caseworkers are immune from
perjury, so they do it a lot.
Hasn't Congress ever noticed that Child Abuse and Neglect is used as
one term, CAN, for funding? What most citizens would consider to be
real child abuse is about 3% of all child removals. The vast majority
of child removals are for neglect, not abuse. Neglect is a large catch
all that can range from drug addiction issues to simply "messy house".
The percentage of cases where state agencies really DON'T KNOW why the
child was removed is the most revealing, a percentage usually higher
than the 3%. In other words, statistically, serious child abuse is
statistically small enough to hide within the margin of error. Keep in
mind that these numbers might be of considerably less utility to the
state agencies if the state agencies were not the ones REPORTING these
numbers.
Another factor is that if Child Protection were to accuse 1000 parents
wrongly, an amazingly large number would find the overbearing corrupt
Juvenile Courts just too much to cope with, almost terroristic in
their approach, and would surrender completely, seeing the struggle as
futile. I personally watched my fiance' get fall prey to what I have
dubbed "the stipulation scam" where her own lawyer pushed her to
""stipulate"" without any serious consultation, just 15 minutes of
pressure before court. 90+ % of all cases are "stipulated", a term in
Juvenile Courts which is comparable to a guilty plea, even thought the
Judas lawyer said it was not, and all of the effects are exactly like
a guilty plea. ""Stipulations"" are generally not signed and rarely
involve a document to consider or time to consider it. My fiance' only
agreed to CONSIDER one, but her attorney agreed FOR HER. She never saw
a document to consider nor signed any.
A Judges Association in one area openly and outright urged local
Family Law attorneys to talk most families into stipulation to save on
court time. No reference was made to guilt or innocence, which fits my
experience.
Child Protection and Juvenile Court tread on a most precious LIBERTY
INTEREST, 14th Amendment right to Family Association, yet the standard
of evidence and the constitutional protections in Juvenile Court are
INFERIOR to those for a petty theft.
Bottom line: The overbearing system cons large numbers of families
into being marked guilty when they are not. Americans are "cowed" into
"winning through surrender". Once the "stipulation scam" takes place,
Caseworkers "own" the family and are quite used to playing god. For
the family to asserting Constitutional Rights at that point angers
caseworkers and makes the situation adversarial because caseworkers
pretend they don't know they are violating the constitution. Even the
caseworker with a Bachelors degree in criminology claimed ignorance of
the US Constitution.
For the Federal OR State government to invoke PARENS PATRIAE (Child of
the State) they SHOULD have to:
Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent. So far government has
failed MISERABLY, generally doing WORSE than many of the supposedly
failing parents that get children removed from them. It's like the Hog
in the wallow calling the Horse dirty.
Stop calling every little nit-picky thing "Imminent Danger" in order
to justify depriving CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to family integrity.
Caseworkers act like Chicken Little making big cases out of small
issues, while the sky really IS falling for some other kid. Kids
should NOT be removed for clutter or messy house which is a SUBJECTIVE
call and could probably be used to describe HALF of all homes,
according to a 'Nam Vet ambulance driver I talked to. Don't they have
more pressing issues than to be whining that a parents "lived in" home
is ""messy""?
True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile Courts to be complete
Rubber Stamps for caseworkers. This defeats the entire purpose of
Juvenile Court. Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from
violating the rights of families and kids. This one-sided rubber
stamping and even polarized bias has to stop. They ignore motions from
parents for reasonable, basic and required fairness and protection of
rights.
AVENUES OF REDRESS AND CORRECTION that are broken or twisted to be
denied in Iowa and other states. These have been required for over ten
years, yet have never been implemented, have been twisted or dead
ended. When US DHHS Audited all 50 States I don't think they even
investigated these three requirements that would assist protection of
basic citizen rights, because there seems to be no action to repair
these functions in the works. The only way to force the states to
honor their ten year old contract regarding these is to stop their
money.
Yes, they are all about money. State Child Protection agencies have
become all about the money, Kevin W. Concannon is infamous for being
in charge in Maine when Logan Marr was removed for reasons reminiscent
of Rube Goldberg devices, only to end up dead in state care. The
foster/adopter was a former Child Protection caseworker who didn't
believe in spanking, yet duct taped the girl to a high chair in her
basement and duct taped over her mouth. Later when DHS director
Concannon left Maine, Iowa hired him to Direct DHS here, actually
stating the reason was his ability to bring this state more Federal
Dollars for DHS programs. The Governor must not have noticed the
revolving account repayment obligations and law suit settlements Maine
got saddled with thanks to Concannon.
But several avenues of redress are broken all over?
Citizens Review Board, required for over TEN YEARS, each state was to
have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more, as review boards over
Child Protective Services case problems. These could have provided
Hope for families dealing with caseworkers telling BIG LIES as in my
families' case. Citizens Review Boards are required over CPS case
problems. Not just over Foster Care, but over Child Protection
malfunction. Iowa DID have a CRB two years ago which was all loaded
with Child Protection workers and contractors, which by the way was
against regulations. Now there is NO CRB except over Foster Care. (CRB
combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB )
DHHS "PIQ" directive ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) directs states to
proivide Administrative hearing process to Federal 45 CFR 205.10
standards regarding GRIEVANCES ABOUT SERVICES PROBLEMS Notice the DATE
on that DHHS "PIQ" Directive? Kevin W. Concannon, director of Iowa DHS
claims that we cannot have access to this process even though we meet
the criteria. Concannon clung to some State Law that is inferior to
the Federal law, denying us access to this grievance process for
reasons which violate the Federal Law. Even though we DID claim to
have been denied services in our complaint, he said we could not have
access to this process since we were not denied services. Think about
this a moment though, This creates a mess where MORE services is
better, even if the services are needless, baseless, or in some way
malfunctioning or rigged. As he spelled it out, this process could not
REMOVE services applied without basis, and of course this process
could never address qualitative problems with services, like bias,
twisting or misuse. The process as described by Concannon is,
effectively, of no use to correct grievous wrongs.
The US DHHS holds purse strings and are supposed to require that state
Child Protection Agencies comply with regulations to provide FAIRNESS
and quality of service. The problem is that this is done on a FISCAL
basis and DHHS refuses to investigate complaints from individual
families about ABUSES BY STATE AGENCIES. DHHS refuses to investigate
reports of agency abuses even where a state fails to provide a
required corrective process like the Grievance Process on Services
Problems. DHHS does not enforce their own PIQ directives to the
states, and when the states get reviewed, the festering bad cases
don't come to DHHS attention.
This last summer, after Iowa DHS Child Protection failed an audit
(every state failed), the state formed a "stakeholders panel" that was
to be representative of both insiders (financial stakeholders) and
families with a LIBERTY INTEREST stake in correcting DHS. The panel,
as I found out, was completely stacked with people who financially
benefit from the system as broken as it is. The state propagandized
this as their genius and good intention, not mentioning the failed
DHHS audit as a reason. The only person on the stakeholders panel who
appeared to be a concerned parent e-mailed me back that she "would
have to check with her advisors" and never got back to me. That seemed
odd. <sarcastic grin> Open meetings to collect public input were held
in several places around the state, and a report on these comments was
to be made public on a date set ahead of time. Large crowds of angry
parents showed up at most of the open meetings and DHS did not make
the report on public comments available on the web as promised. The
DHS press release guy failed to answer my e-mail asking where this
report is.
Administrative Appeal on Child Neglect and Abuse REGISTRY When we
turned in our appeal, Iowa took 100 days to even acknowledge receiving
it, gave us 10 days to add more, and told us it was in their work
stack. Then we heard nothing for over a YEAR. Then when we brought it
up they held up the process waiting for the Judicial Process, which
has gone on now with my family for almost 3 years.
If ANY government fails to provide these required protections, they
are guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of children and
parents, and failure to protect citizens rights to due process. Parens
Patriae is NOT just about kids. Our governments make LOUSY parents to
citizens in general, why would you trust government with kids?
MY OWN FAMILY has been betrayed for almost 3 years by corrupt State
officials. The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens probably
won't come from the State, and citizens have to beg the Federal Courts
to protect them from bad State Government officials. I hear that the
Federal Courts are reluctant to protect Citizens Constitutional Rights
when it involves reversing bad decisions by state agencies.
The Federal Government needs to take a more active role in correcting
bad actions by the state Child Protection agencies in individual
cases. Early on in this process, after learning that US DHHS
regulations for Child Protection agencies were NOT being followed, my
family was thoroughly disgusted to find that US DHHS turned away our
inquiries seeking corrective help. The US DHHS does not want to talk
to individual families about their case, even when DHHS regulations
are being violated badly by the state Child Protection agency.
Privacy laws are being perverted to deny families the CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE DOCUMENTS USED AGAINST US IN JUVENILE COURT and
even into the Iowa Supreme Court. The sophistry used is that we are
not CRIMINALLY CHARGED, so we don't get our CONSTITUTIONAL
protections! The state only REMOVED A CHILD! Isn't that a LIBERTY
INTEREST as serious as a charge of murder?
My fiance discovered that a transcript of a Juvenile Court hearing was
"doctored" or altered badly. We had wondered why this short one took
an inordinately long time to get to her and was not signed. The Iowa
Supreme Court ruled against her request for the original source tape
for verification. Imagine being told to proceed into the Iowa Supreme
Court with a bogus and unsigned transcript to write the appeal brief
from!
The States and the Federal government have failed to protect their own
citizens from bad state state actors, run amok Child Protection
caseworkers and Rubber Stamp Juvenile Courts who take caseworker lies
as absolute truth.
Many Child Protection caseworkers are living out some "Rescue Fantasy"
and carry an anti-spanking political agenda even though it is LEGAL in
every one of the 50 states. Many of the anti-spankers like to think of
or represent judiciously used spanking as BEATING. This ruse does not
generally play well outside of their socialist worker circles. If a
caseworker doesn't like what they find out about a family that spanks
their kids, they can't use SPANKING in court since it's legal within
limits in EVERY state, so they they merely accuse the family of
clutter or messy house and order Parent Skills classes. Virtually
every parent skills class is anti-spanking. AND 90 percent of the
parent skills class itself preaches no-spanking. Caseworkers commonly
write down clutter or Messy House as catch-all designations, used when
caseworkers are suspicious or don't like a parent but they don't have
anything on them to make a case.
The HYSTERIA about Child Abuse has to stop and RIGHTS need to be put
back on a pedestal. I charge both Fed and State governments with
"failure to protect" Citizens Constitutional Rights in the face of the
Child Protection INDUSTRY.
YOU IN CONGRESS have not supervised the US DHHS well enough to
discover that the states have failed to truly meet the TEN YEAR OLD
obligations to fairness and self-correction (4 A,B and D above).
My family has been trampled on for 2 years and 9 months. Yes, we had
clutter, but we did not have filth. A witch hunt ensued, caseworkers
got caught at terrible LIES. Juvenile Court refused to correct the
lies, despite proof. Caseworkers are IMMUNE, so they LIE all the time
to have their way. We were refused required Active Participation in
FORMATION of Services Plan. This is the list of "services", mini
industries or "hoops" that parents are expected to jump through to get
their kids back. Services were corrupted, tainted with gossip, fed
with false information and in other words twisted to be against us
from before we even started. UNFAIR.
I was to go to a Psychological Evaluation, no apparent basis for
assigning this service, just a list of ""issues"" made up by
caseworkers playing at amateur psychology. One issue was my "need to
be the victim" which they eventually removed quietly after the guy who
assaulted me plead guilty to a simple assault. (charge should have
been breaking and entering, but he's an ally to the state in this.)
Later after I went to one session and the psychologist didn't find
anything, he said he needed more information from Child Protection. I
signed a release, and a stack of Child Protection documents an inch
thick was sent to him. I began to ask a LOT of questions about how
fair my ""Psychological Evaluation"" was going to be. Too many parents
similarly situated have told me that the psychologist reported exactly
what the caseworkers WANTED him to report, generally in complete
disagreement with the raw data from the standardized tests that they
use for this. (Remember Psychology is an ARTS degree.)
My fiance' went to Domestic Violence victim counseling that she was
ORDERED into, even though there was never any Domestic Violence
between us. It made SOME sense to inoculate her because I had Domestic
Violence convictions many years before (I had a severely bi-polar wife
years ago). But after Child Protection had their INPUT into this
service the counselor became like the grand inquisitor trying to force
some deep dark secrets out of her. When my fiance' denied what was in
fact false, the counselor though she was "in denial". The counselor
told a twisted story that I had pushed the childs "head under
water" (was actually a shower spray to rinse off shampoo head that
looked like an ice cream swirly) The counselor was trying to guilt and
shame my fiance into getting rid of me. Child Protection commonly uses
the "divide and conquer" tactic. My fiance' though, had already seen
how Child Protection caseworkers LIED, twisted and distorted virtually
everything innocent to portray it as EVIL.
So we did not cooperate with ""services"", asking over and over for
them to be repaired, made fair and not RIGGED. We were told, even
yelled at to just do the services, and threatened with Termination of
Parental Rights.
When we found old documents from the very same Child Protection Agency
showing that there was never any sexual abuse even HINTED at, we
showed these documents to a contract Social Worker first.
Then I showed them to the caseworker who fabricated the lie that I had
a ""Sex Abuse History"". He verbally acknowledged that they did indeed
disprove his sworn-to assertions in his affidavit to court.
But STILL, to this day, nobody has corrected the ""Sex Abuse History""
fiction.
- Juvenile Court here has refused many MOTIONS to correct the ""Sex
Abuse History"" and refused hearings to correct it The exculpatory old
documents were attached as exhibits.
- Iowa Department of Human Services refuses to correct it. (All the
way up the chain of command, Director and Governor even)
- You would THINK that Social Workers should have ethical requirements
to demand that proven falsehoods harming a family should be corrected,
even if the Social Worker has to "bite the hand that feeds them" by
urgently requesting that Iowa DHS correct the fictional ""Sex Abuse
History"".
- You would EXPECT contract Social Workers to have a duty to the
TRUTH, especially when known falsehood harms a family. Apparently
however, pleasing the state agency caseworkers and getting their state
contract renewed is more important than demanding that a PROVEN FALSE
fabricated ""Sex Abuse History"" be corrected. Lutheran Social
Services is the LARGEST contract provider of Social Workers in the
world, yet, even after seeing exculpatory documents their Social
Workers refused to ask Iowa DHS to correct the proven false ""Sex
Abuse History"".
- DHHS doesn't take complaints in individual cases of state agency
abuses of families. Regardless of circumstances.
The Jackson family starvation case recently caught the attention of
Congress, but there have been large numbers of much less sensational
cases that have done harm to massive numbers of families, partly
because of the problems with OVERSIGHT and CORRECTION processes that
are not working properly.
PAYING states to get kids out of Foster Care only enabled them to
REMOVE more needlessly and reward their friends who seek to adopt,
like the woman who killed Logan Marr. Paying states to get kids
adopted out only revved up a meatgrinder that has destroyed healthy
families with relatively MINOR problems.
I personally feel that the vast majority of children removed probably
should NOT have been removed.
Child Protection Caseworkers have treated my family as criminals, when
in fact, no criminal law was broken. The more the caseworkers get
proven WRONG in some cases, the more irate and vindictive they become.
We had a caseworker who moved a visit into the Child Protection
"fishbowl room" for vindictive reasons. Then she looked for any
complaints she could make about parenting skills. The complaint she
wrote up IN COURT was that the mother was asking her daughter to spell
words that were ""too difficult"". The words the caseworker actually
complained about were "exoskeleton" and "Hubble Space Telescope".
Not only was that caseworkers comments an intrusion into the mother's
Constitutional right to direct her child's education, but the child's
first grade teacher had assigned the word exoskeleton about a year
earlier. The child had previously been tested as reading and spelling
at a level YEARS ahead of her age group in school, and was in an
Extended Learning Program in school.
That would be a better way to reduce clogged and not functional Foster
care systems. Stop FEEDING so many children to Foster Care homes. Stop
the STATE's financial incentive to juggle kids in Foster Care, AND the
incentives for people to BECOME Foster Care providers for financial
reasons. (As with the Jackson family in New Jersey.)
Why are there so many incentives to REMOVE kids, Terminate Parental
Rights, and place kids in Foster/Adoptive situations? Where are the
financial incentives for Child Protection agencies to REUNITE
families?
Please quickly force states to repair the required avenues of redress
(4 A, B and D above), and please direct US DHHS to cut the money if
states fail the ten year old obligations even one day more. Iowa is
still showing no signs of honoring those OLD requirements, much less
the new requirements that Congress and the President made law on June
25, 2003. What good will the Protecting Families and Children act
(HR14 S.342 HR3839 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act President
signed into law June 25, 2003) do when the previous TEN YEAR OLD
requirements are still not met? Why wasn't the money cut off BEFORE,
if not for the political demogoguery and political fears of smear
tactics?
A Federal District Judge in Illinois is angry because Child Protection
changes he ordered 12 years ago have still not been implemented.
Another one, Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in the Dupuy case
declared the Illinois Child Protection system to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The agencies are so corrupt that they refuse to do the right things,
drag feet with STUDIES costing millions, and DARE you in Congress to
cut their precious funding.
I say stop the flow of "blood money" to Child Protection. Withhold
funding to state Child Protection agencies until they fulfill their
contractual obligations to provide those safeguards of families, 4 A,
B and D above, agreed to ten years ago, in exchange for the money.
From: Greg Hanson (Greegor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2002-04-09 14:27:36 PST
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY
MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES
COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.
On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan." This is a Federal
regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.
Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.
Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for
disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After
Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me
saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water." (Actually
it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after
only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role
of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about
nonexistant domestic abuse.
Psychological Evaluation
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry
list of 4 points. The list was:
needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues
It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised
some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was
small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME
didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get
more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months,
and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including
misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported"
presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge
number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect
statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this.
The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of
input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective
concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with
this.
Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using
such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the
impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could
not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts
of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the
hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT
could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers
were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded"
by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in The
Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)
Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury
Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape
interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the
hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification
for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's
past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's
Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of
extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt.
My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about
the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even
perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court
Judge with no explanation.
The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an
internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The bump
was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a
swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it
really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been
brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the
grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to
intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are
written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs.
This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take
her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable
witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer
written all over it!)
The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer
Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for
her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know
more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their
testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather
than "head pushed under shower spray".
Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I
"would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get
rid of Greg to satisfy DHS.
She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole
like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her
report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other
members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child
Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a
bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage.
Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other
side of the one way glass.
I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present
at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said
he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there
specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the
invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush
interview" by a hostile group during that time.
Employment
The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no
explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us
jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies
at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing.
Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men.
Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE
or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied
Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite
ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED
SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child
support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS
targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat
bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of
Rights?
Vocational Rehab
Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the
services required of Greg.
Greg doesn't qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not
disabled. Great one DHS!
Parenting Classes
The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has
had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to
afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through
threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20
cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg
trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not
respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do
anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching
practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the
"rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would
be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept
this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something.
DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future
stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for a
parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political
agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to push
for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our
beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed)
Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need
Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she
used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and
hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for Deb
that the rash was from urea not washed off Child's skin. The
sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any
paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though
medical treatment was involved. Isn't Deb a mandatory reporter?
All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty
God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person
shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship
against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any
religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of
conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran
Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights
of concience" that parents have.
The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.
Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's
active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as required
by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations.
It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make
the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of
children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents
vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are
being burdened with.
PLEASE CLARIFY
1A. Do you order imposed parent education?
1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?
1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?
1D. For these parents, wouldn't it be better to to teach parents
how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?
1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?
1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody
of the child from the parents?
2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?
2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents
who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and
are thus rightiously indignant?
2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?
2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?
2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
psychological evaluation would not bias the results?
2F. Don't you think that this INPUT should be carefully
scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the
court?
2G. How would a legal non-party do that?
2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg's constitutional rights?
2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?
2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?
2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
provision of the service plan?
3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?
3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?
3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?
3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an
insignifigance?
3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN?
4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they
wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart?
4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg's non-party status, at the expense of our family
bond?
4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law?
The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in
facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have known
since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers
have not been helpful.
There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year old.
Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family
violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive
grandparents.
No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any
medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve any
alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last
year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.
The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents. The
first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is
supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. "Family preservation will
be the first consideration."
The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.
The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite
the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers.
Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by
the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger
from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
disbursed.
The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
or delay.
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN
1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost
of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of
Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation"
service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this
assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has
DHS wasted on this case overall?
2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our
home.
These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform to
US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have
asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests
have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then
we ask for this requirement to be voided.
3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.
4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.
5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will
be arranged to address
-Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg
-Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken
place.
-Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional
second guessing
-Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child
-Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill
grandmother
6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
more.
7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the
community.
8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and
Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with an
eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring.
9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's
school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions
and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and
commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly
commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in
this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing
school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The
grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort of
pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the
child's education.
10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
toward unsupervised visits and reunification.
11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS,
personally.
Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his
services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just..
254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439.
COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the
parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in
counseling - and to provide the department with all information
obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to
sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents to
disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not
of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has
no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science,
and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures
presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication hearing
violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their
right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the
patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time
demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their
children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the state's
fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use
of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the
privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v.
United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States,
supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973);
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v.
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v.
Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460,
the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All these
policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional
foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government -
state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its
citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require
the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the
inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of
criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an
individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent
labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it
from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely
on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least
one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence
against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such
compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist,
then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic
sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for any
other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the
accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United
States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment
protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure
of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233
n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the
protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege
against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a
person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty
and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence"
that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The
privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human
personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave
where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378
U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual
feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract
self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966);
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in
its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of
privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his
detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See
also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).
The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of
adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These
relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the
assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against
either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these
privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition is
given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah),
doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal
communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against
self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges,
marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession
itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful
communication could be given out of fear that something, anything, one
says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot
simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused
and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against
self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged
communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In
contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only
delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be
assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions
must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation.
Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held: "Some
tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example,
lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during
interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which
are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing
in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on
the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to
evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations
call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is as
broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any
compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the
production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime,
or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free
government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is
abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of
despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political
liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at
631-632.
It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness shall
not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give
testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564]
subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car.
& P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3 Camp.
210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr.
16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev.
451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v.
Rexford, 6 Cow.
________________________
Suzy Q. Mother
1234 Our Home Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the
attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed on
the pleadings on April 9th, 2002.
By:
_X_ U.S. Mail
Signature:_________________________________
Copy to:
DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad's PD
222 SE 222 Avenue
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker
Iowa Department of Inhumane Services
411 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
What Child, GAL
PO Box 12345
Cedar Rapids, IA 52407
Prosecute On Gossip
Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division
Basement of Linn County Courthouse
Third Avenue Bridge
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Firemonkey
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
"Greg trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do
not
respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do
anything. "
This still cracks me up to no end.
Greegor
CW : My name is Manuel Montenagua (sp)
Dad: What seems to be the problem Mr. Montenagua?
G > Did you miss the badge on a lanyard, Dan?
Why is it that pointing this out results in this
hysteria and distraction from the point?
The opening seconds of the video don't conform
to Dan's characterization of it. Why?
Dan Sullivan
What was my "characterization" of the vid?
Greegor
CW : My name is Manuel Montenagua (sp)
Dad: What seems to be the problem Mr. Montenagua?
G > Did you miss the badge on a lanyard, Dan?
DS > Why is it that pointing this out results in this
DS > hysteria and distraction from the point?
DS > The opening seconds of the video don't conform
DS > to Dan's characterization of it. Why?
DS > What was my "characterization" of the vid?
DS > The father said the worker saw the baby
DS > and the apartment, but the father didn't
DS > say he was the one who let the worker.
After seeing the lanyard and the Police
motorcycle, do you think the tape was faked?
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
>CW : My name is Manuel Montenagua (sp)
>
>Dad: What seems to be the problem Mr. Montenagua?
You completely made up the dialoged you've posted.
Further, Emmanuel Montelongo is the dad, though he used the name
Manuel.
The case worker is Robert something. The name isn't clear, but
it sounds to me like he said,"My name is Robert Delagucci."
BTW, in addition to stating his name, causing the CW's last name
to be difficult to hear, Emmanuel's name is clearly seen in the "from"
box to the right of the video.
>
>G > Did you miss the badge on a lanyard, Dan?
>
>Why is it that pointing this out results in this
>hysteria and distraction from the point?
You're replying to yourself. What did you post that distracted
from the point?
>
>The opening seconds of the video don't conform
>to Dan's characterization of it. Why?
They don't match what you've claimed above. The CW never claims
his name is Manuel Montelongo at any point in the video.
What's really of interest, IMO, is how Manuel behaved much as Dan
has suggested of others. The video could *almost* be a commercial for
Dan's advice.
Don't get angry, threatening, or go to WAR against CPS.
Calmly state what you require, including a statement of the
allegations, which you will look over AND give to your attorney to
look over as well. And that if you, the worker, are there to take the
child a warrant will be required.
Greg, you want to politicize every encounter with CPS, instead of
getting down to work and doing things that either block the worker
without a warrant at the door, or lay the groundwork for a court
battle, if it should come to that.
Why didn't you behave as Mr. Montelongo did? Was it because the
removal of Lisa's daughter was an exigent circumstance removal?
How well did being aggressive and threatening work for you?
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Greegor
Was there a reson to have a Police escort,
or does this caseworker always get one?
Do you see any problems with how this caseworker operated?
Dan Sullivan
What was my "characterization" of the vid?
Dan Sullivan
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >CW : My name is Manuel Montenagua (sp)
>
> >Dad: What seems to be the problem Mr. Montenagua?
>
> You completely made up the dialoged you've posted.
> Further, Emmanuel Montelongo is the dad, though he used the name
> Manuel.
> The case worker is Robert something. The name isn't clear, but
> it sounds to me like he said,"My name is Robert Delagucci."
> BTW, in addition to stating his name, causing the CW's last name
> to be difficult to hear, Emmanuel's name is clearly seen in the "from"
> box to the right of the video.
>
>
>
> >G > Did you miss the badge on a lanyard, Dan?
>
> >Why is it that pointing this out results in this
> >hysteria and distraction from the point?
>
> You're replying to yourself. What did you post that distracted
> from the point?
>
>
>
> >The opening seconds of the video don't conform
> >to Dan's characterization of it. Why?
>
> They don't match what you've claimed above. The CW never claims
> his name is Manuel Montelongo at any point in the video.
grag, you would be the worst eye witness in history.
And that's supposedly after watching and listening to the vid over and
over!!!
Greegor
Did you try to pretend this video was faked?
What about the motorcycle cop, cycle and
the ID lanyard?
Dan Sullivan
What was my "characterization" of the vid?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
Your reply to my post doesn't address anything I mentioned.
Here's my post, MID 4il79410vsttm1b9t...@4ax.com,
again. Feel free to address the points I raised now:
Kent Wills
wrote:
>> > >The opening seconds of the video don't conform
>> > >to Dan's characterization of it. Why?
>>
>> > They don't match what you've claimed above. The CW never claims
>> > his name is Manuel Montelongo at any point in the video.
>>
>> grag, you would be the worst eye witness in history.
>>
>> And that's supposedly after watching and listening to the vid over and
>> over!!!
>
>Did you try to pretend this video was faked?
Dan points out that even after seeing the video you haven't a clue
what was presented. How is that pretending anything was fake?
>What about the motorcycle cop, cycle and
>the ID lanyard?
Both are seen, though neither clearly.
Kent Wills
Gregory Scott Hanson does have the unique ability to make
Pangborn look honest.
Greg has such a MASSIVE need to lie that something as simple as
who said what in a video must not be presented accurately.
And he wonders why no one believes anything he claims.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
>Was there a reson to have a Police escort,
Presumably. He wouldn't have been there had there not been a
reason. I doubt anyone reading will know what that reason is. I can
assure you *I* don't know it.
>or does this caseworker always get one?
How would anyone not associated with him know?
>
>Do you see any problems with how this caseworker operated?
No. Like Manuel, he remained calm and courteous.
I suspect, but acknowledge I can't know, that both realized that
presenting an "in your face" attitude wouldn't do any good, so both
opted for remaining calm and courteous.
Then next time you have to deal with DHS, you might want to follow
Manuel's example and remain calm and courteous. Anger only serves to
hand them more ammo to use.