protective order scam
fatherforever
WOMEN'S CENTERS & THE EX PARTE ORDER OF PROTECTION SCAM
Women's centers and prosecutors receive millions of dollars in federal
grants to promote the use of protective orders against men (thanks to the
Clintons). THE MORE ORDERS ARE ISSUED, THE BETTER THEIR CHANCE FOR MORE
FEDERAL MONEY. When a woman contacts a center (OR SOMETIMES EVEN A COUNTY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE) they guide her through a fill in the blank Petition for
an order of protection. They know the key words to excite a Judge into
issuing an order WITHOUT YOU EVEN BEING THERE OR HAVING A SAY. They often
will make vague assertions that they THINK you are a danger to the children
or the spouse whether you have even EVER touched your wife or child. You
are thrown out of your house without a toothbrush and deprived of the use of
your property without your 5th amendment guaranteed right to a hearing. The
tactic then is to delay hearings on a divorce so your can't see your
children and will agree to give your wife whatever she wants so you and the
kids won't continue to be emotionally distressed. As soon as you sign an
agreement the charges suddenly are withdrawn. This is intentional emotional
and mental abuse of the children and should not be tolerated. It also raises
your best chance to win custody if you can prove the allegations are false.
It also reduces the credibility of a woman who is truly abused when she
comes before a judge who has seen frequent abuses of the protective order
scam. You should seek counsel immediately and plead that your wife and any
accomplices are abusing your children emotionally. One feminist attorney was
recently disbarred for encouraging a female client to make false
allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation. Women's centers can
be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Attorney fees and
sanctions should be sought and are often granted for rebutting a false
pleading. Beware of a feminist underground movement that supports
kidnapping of children by mothers to keep them away from their fathers. Be
wary of your female children being housed at a women's center as they are
often a magnet for lesbians. You may request a physical examination if you
suspect abuse. Do not go near a women's center and expose yourself to false
allegations of trespass. Learn: HOW TO FIGHT FALSE ALLEGATIONS
dragonsgirl
Restraining orders in my state are only temporary, and a hearing that is
only conducted once the 'defendant' is served, is scheduled within a few
weeks...meaning TWO, unless the courts are recently seriously backed
up...then it might take THREE or FOUR. If the defendant cannot be served,
then the hearing is postponed until they can be, or is dismissed altogether.
At the hearing PROOF, or an agreement by the 'defendant', must be shown to
obtain a more permanent order. And even then, unless abuse has been proven,
it rarely applies to the children of the couple.
You might not believe this, but people walk all over orders every day...and
regardless of a restraining order the 'defendant' may still destroy
property, abuse, or even kill, and rarely can law enforcement do anything
about it because in most states a restraining order is worth the paper it's
printed on and every criminal on the planet knows that.
"fatherforever" <rlisa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:y1z3h.25931$IJ1....@newsfe15.lga...
dadslawyer
a denial of rights.Then a Judge protects her own butt by extending the order
until a full investigation is complete even though is no evidence to support
the woman's false allegations.Exploiting protective orders to gain an an
advantage in divorce litigation is common practice among unethical lawyers
and women's advocates.Children are being emotionally abused by being denied
a relationship with their father for even a short period of time.It is
wilful and wanton child abuse.
If you were thrown out of your house and denied seeing your children for two
weeks you wouldn't be so ready to blow off the seriousness of this abusive
and misused practice.
"dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:B9z3h.5625$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
dadslawyer
often misuse protective orders to deny access to children . A denial of the
childs rights to be with a parent for even one day much less two weeks
inflicts emotional damage on a child and is the worse kind of child abuse.
"dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:B9z3h.5625$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
dragonsgirl
be made against you without you even being there.
I state that this is not true, and if you can show me caselaw that proves
otherwise, please do.
I have never known of one being given a restraining order without proper
service on the other party, and an order to show cause hearing being held
with the other party.
Further, yes, I can agree that some women may use restraining orders as a
tool, however, men do it too.
My own ex husband, many years ago, tried this tactic with me. He coupled
that with 47 false DFS reports, and made my life a living nightmare until
his actions became so transparent that DFS and the family law judge all saw
right through him.
It goes both ways, and I find it offensive that you are constantly
belittling the intelligence and moral values of women in general in most of
your posts.
"dadslawyer" <rlisa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2oG3h.10393$Wb2....@newsfe22.lga...
dragonsgirl
I live in a world where an unethical attorney almost caused two of my
children to go to foster care with false allegations of drug abuse as a way
of securing custody of my other children for his client.
That's child abuse as well.
And, that attorney was MALE.
Corruption does not know gender, and I find your 'he man woman hater's club'
bullshit offensive to the n'th degree.
"dadslawyer" <rlisa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:esG3h.10394$Wb2....@newsfe22.lga...
Greegor
Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen AKA dragonsgirl AKA Witchwirsen
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
> Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen AKA dragonsgirl AKA Witchwirsen
Off topic, Greg.
And irrelevant to this NG.
Stick it where the sun don't shine.
0:->
Aw, ease up Dan.
After all, he thinks that, since he has been exposed as a lying,
weaseling, sick little asshole that he should expose other's bad
nature....by posting a picture of them.
I'm sure we are all going to be suspicious of Betty now. After all, she
wore dark glasses, didn't she?
R R R R R
Oh, good one, Greg. Betty will never live this down.
Are you hoping some crazed parent in her home state, drug addled, and
just lost their kids will come hunting Betty and now they have a pic to
identify her?
We'll all remember who posted the picture, even if she just gets a
funny phone call, eh?
Kiddo, credibility wise, you are simply digging yourself a deeper hole
by the evasive post after evasive post.
Come on, call me "Faggoty" again for catching you lying. I love that
one.
0:->
dragonsgirl
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162843693....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
> Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen AKA dragonsgirl AKA Witchwirsen
>
You sure do seem to like that picture Greg.
Does Lisa know you are obsessed with it?
0:->
Greg thinks people are what they look like.
Clear indication of the retarded social development he suffers from.
His head is awash with negative stereotypes of various people.
What a sad way to live out one's life, full of hatred, and bile, and
willing to punish other people for his own pain and loss.
Something pretty terrible must have happened to him as a child. No
wonder he wants nothing to do with a psych eval...he might have to face
his demons and those the did those horrible things to him.
This is the result of abuse. Foster parents have children like Greg
come to them all the time.
0:-]
Greegor
> What a sad way to live out one's life, full of hatred, and bile, and
This from the guy who publicly posted obscenity for over a year.
ROFL!
0:->
Swearing is fun. It serves a lot of useful purposes. It let's off
steam. It's even a form of humor at times. And most important in this
medium, it gets the attention of those that might not spot you for
lowlife little pissant dangerous legal advice giver you are...and how
you endanger families and children by your advice.
My swearing never pointed anyone at information that would put them in
jail and cause them to lose their children.
YOU, on the other hand, blatantly TOLD someone they should get arrested
and use that in court to fight CPS for their children.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Get it yet, stupid?
0:->
dragonsgirl
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162848594.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>> > http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Betty%20Jean%20Hammond%20(Witch)%20Wirsen.jpg
>> > Betty Jean Hammond Wirsen AKA dragonsgirl AKA Witchwirsen
>>
>> Off topic, Greg.
>>
>> And irrelevant to this NG.
>>
>> Stick it where the sun don't shine.
>
> Aw, ease up Dan.
>
> After all, he thinks that, since he has been exposed as a lying,
> weaseling, sick little asshole that he should expose other's bad
> nature....by posting a picture of them.
>
> I'm sure we are all going to be suspicious of Betty now. After all, she
> wore dark glasses, didn't she?
>
> R R R R R
>
> Oh, good one, Greg. Betty will never live this down.
I'm so ashamed.
Woe is me.
LOL
>
> Are you hoping some crazed parent in her home state, drug addled, and
> just lost their kids will come hunting Betty and now they have a pic to
> identify her?
I wouldn't suggest they do. They might find that they stepped into more
than they can handle.
dragonsgirl
Oh yeah, lets not forget when he threatened me with false DFS reports as
well.
Big man.
Greegor
> Oh yeah, lets not forget when he threatened me with false DFS reports as
> well.
> Big man.
Quote me!
fatherforever
present.Especially since VAWA gave federal grants to womens centers and
prosecutors offices to encourage the filing of fill in the blank ex pasrte
orders. I have never seen abuse of this system by a man but have seen
literally hundreds sof such abuse cases by women.,so much so that Judges now
look askance at all women asking for such orders, to the detrement of women
who are really being abused.news:IaM3h.3367$r12....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
dragonsgirl
Your favorite command.
I, like the rest of us, don't have time to go back in archives and find your
screw ups.
Maybe Kane will oblige.
Otherwise, PROVE YOU DIDN"T.
dragonsgirl
> Protective orders are COMMONLY given without the other party(the man)
> being present.
Please show me caselaw that proves this. Statutes? Anything.
Especially since VAWA gave federal grants to womens centers and
> prosecutors offices to encourage the filing of fill in the blank ex pasrte
> orders.
Are you sure you are not confusing the word 'encourage' with the word
'assist'?
I have never seen abuse of this system by a man
I've never seen a dinosaur bone, but I know they exist and would never deny
it.
but have seen
> literally hundreds sof such abuse cases by women.,
My guess would be that you aren't looking too hard.
so much so that Judges now
> look askance at all women asking for such orders, to the detrement of
> women who are really being abused.
I see nothing wrong with the courts being sure of the facts before making a
determination.
Do you?
0:->
You who refuses constantly to provide proof of your accusations demand
proof....? R R R RR R R OH TOO MUCH.
I remember you threatening Greg, very clearly. And no, I'm not going to
quote it until YOU start providing proof of your accusations.
Tit for tat, as they say. You provide one solid complete proof that
support ONE of your accusations, and I'll provide one solid and complete
proof for YOU for any one you'd like to pick, including Betty's.
Let's rumble, Coward.
0:->
0:->
Of course he did. I recall it very well indeed. He's always threatening
and pretending to claim (R R R R R ) that he isn't because it's all by
insinuation and innuendo. Dirty, filthy little thug.
He's a compulsive liar and deceiver of SELF that I will give NO services
to that I do not get in return.
Here's how it works for him. And me.
We EACH get to pick ONE item of accusation and HE must go first, given
his score compared to mine so far, and and provide full proof of the
accusation.
I chose the claim that Dan Sullivan has been "ejected" I think the term
is, righteously from Parent's Rights Support Groups. Let him provide
full proof. The entire story. Links to quotes, etc. Both sides of the
claim. The accuser and the accused. LET'S GET DAN SULLIVAN.
I'm waiting for him to respond. Think he will? Don't hold your breath.
He's a public Doananator. And a public coward.
0:->
Greegor
time before somebody reports her to CPS.
Most parents think it's a RARE thing when
it's more likely than having a flat tire.
I don't recall if Betty described things that would
mark her up on a Risk Assessment form as
a RISK for the purpose of child removal, but
her wonderful family history might.
Are you single now Betty?
Is John still with you or is Dragon somebody else?
"dragonsgirl"?
Is your man/husband related by blood to the kids?
How would your points add up Betty?
If you sickos want to INTERPRET reality
as THREAT, that is YOUR PROBLEM.
0:->
> I pointed out to Betty that it's only a matter of
> time before somebody reports her to CPS.
But of course you don't see that as threatening. No sir ee....
Not attempt to inhibit her posting and comments here, right?
> Most parents think it's a RARE thing when
> it's more likely than having a flat tire.
Bullshit. Most amount to calls that are never even followed up on, stupid.
> I don't recall if Betty described things that would
> mark her up on a Risk Assessment form as
> a RISK for the purpose of child removal, but
> her wonderful family history might.
There you go again. She's supposed to quake in her boots, now, isn't she?
> Are you single now Betty?
> Is John still with you or is Dragon somebody else?
> "dragonsgirl"?
Here goes Greg, showing once more what a real man he is.
> Is your man/husband related by blood to the kids?
Yep. That's the great AntiCPS Crusader we've all come to love and
admire, Greg wants to insinuate Betty sleeps around.
> How would your points add up Betty?
>
> If you sickos want to INTERPRET reality
> as THREAT, that is YOUR PROBLEM.
AS I pointed out in a recent post, Greg, you have been a STALKER here
for years. Slyly creeping up on newcomers (you tried with Betty and she
got your number right out of the chute....R R R R, good shit detector if
ever there was one) and when you can't get them going to the attack.
YOU NEED THEM, and when you can't HAVE them it terrifies you, because
lurking right there behind your consciousness is the truth...and you
might have to face it: that you are a slimy little piece of worthless
shit, rotten, a liar, and an ignorant fool.
Interesting you'd take that tone with Betty, one of the more outspoken
opponents of CPS, BUT JUST NOT SUCKED IN BY YOU.
Hate that even MORE don't you?
The truth will nail you one day, Greg and you are going to be one
surprised little shit when it does.
Keep sleeping stupid.
0:->
dragonsgirl
>I pointed out to Betty that it's only a matter of
> time before somebody reports her to CPS.
Ummmm. I'm pretty sure that's not the 'tone' you used.
But, whatever.
I'm sure that if it ever came down to it the courts could read you like a
book...
or more to the point, they could read your posts like a book.
>
> Most parents think it's a RARE thing when
> it's more likely than having a flat tire.
>
> I don't recall if Betty described things that would
> mark her up on a Risk Assessment form as
> a RISK for the purpose of child removal, but
> her wonderful family history might.
Guess again.
>
> Are you single now Betty?
Is it any of your business?
> Is John still with you or is Dragon somebody else?
Again, your business?
> "dragonsgirl"?
What makes you think it's anything other than reference to the fact that I
like dragons?
>
> Is your man/husband related by blood to the kids?
Is your brain still residing in your ass?
>
> How would your points add up Betty?
Not many...if any.
But hey, thanks for asking.
Greegor
> I pointed out to Betty that it's only a matter of
> time before somebody reports her to CPS.
> it's more likely than having a flat tire.
Watching you system sucks interpret this as a
specific threat is ironic.
dragonsgirl
So you are saying that the statements you made were not made with the intent
to threaten, harass, or intimidate?
Dan Sullivan
Whatever Greg answers you can't believe it.
Greg has zero credibility.
Zero successes against CPS... and a zero strategy for helping get his
girlfriend's daughter back.
0:->
I will start with some presumptions, based of course on the posts of
Greg Hansen, as to the characteristics of this child NOW.
I will end with a speculation, possibly more than one, based on those
presumptions and Greg's posts to this newsgroup that seem to me to
indicate the mind of a postal worker (apologies to PWs) just waiting to
find something to go off about.
1. Five plus years have passed.
2. This 'child' is now a teen far more knowledgable about the world,
doubtlessly, and may have, no, is likely to have sought out some
information about predatory males that target single women with
children.
3. She has had ample time to contemplate the actions of both her mother
and her mother's boyfriends and sort out some things for herself.
4. She is, if Greg is to be believed on at lest this issue, very
intelligent. Woe unto Greg, for that characteristic.
And now for the speculation.
Should a judge, as they are often known to do in child protection
cases, as the child...and they do even moreso with OLDER children, what
her preference might be, and why.....woe again unto Greg and the
intelligence of this child.
She is likely to have decided her mother is a lost cause, and that she
remembers well the spankings, the bathroom intrusions, the shower head
pushing under episode, and the invasion she felt when both her mother's
affections and her space were taken from her.
But then, it's not likely to get that far.
We shall see.
0:->
Greegor
I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Dan:
> I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.
Wouldn't matter, Greg.
Our opinion of you, while of course hardly complimentary, is nothing
compared to how important it is to make any newcomers aware of what a
dangerous source you are if they want help with fighting CPS.
You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
You have never helped a single person coming here to succeed in
regaining their children, or oveturning CPS foundings, yet you attempt
to discredit the ONLY person here that ever had succeeded, and done so
repeatedly, even wiht cases where the parent was guilty as charged. dan
STILL won, and you can't even win in a case you claim the perp is
innocent...your OWN case.
6 years you've taken advantage of a single mother.
Where is it going to end, Greg?
How many more times are you going to try for another victim here?
How many more times are you going to insult people that have prevailed
against CPS with Dan's or my help, just because they don't buy into
your mindless, dangerous, and even illegal crap "advice?"
It's really simple, Greg.
You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous pissant.
There are lots of such people in the world. They just don't come by
here in all that great a number. But each one presents a terrible
threat to parents here for help.
Buy some rope. Be of some use.
0:->
Greegor
> > Dan:
> > I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.
>
> Wouldn't matter, Greg.
>
You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum?
Kane wrote
> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
REALLY? Citations please!
> You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous pissant.
And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! <g>
Kane wrote
<snip!>
> Buy some rope. Be of some use.
Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see!
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Dan:
> > > I'm starting to think maybe you don't like me.
> >
> > Wouldn't matter, Greg.
> >
> > Our opinion of you,<snip>
>
> You write "Our"? Royal sense? Conjoined cerebrum?
Notice the snip? Your brain still not attached?
>
>
> Kane wrote
> > You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
> > from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
>
> REALLY? Citations please!
Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
> > You are a little, nothing, impotent, useless, dangerous pissant.
>
> And yet you are OBSESSED about what I have to say! <g>
Yep. And typical narcissistic response, Greg.
The only attention you can get is as a dangerous trouble maker. Notice?
> Kane wrote
> <snip!>
> > Buy some rope. Be of some use.
>
> Your charitable personality is shining on through for all to see!
It wasn't mean as a charity to you, but to others.
5/8ths Sisal is cheap, like you, and will easily hold your weight.
0:->
Greegor
> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
Greg wrote
> REALLY? Citations please!
Kane wrote
> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
You think that I advised the Christine family?
And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
was somehow my fault??
That's the best ya got?
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
>> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
>
> Greg wrote
>> REALLY? Citations please!
>
> Kane wrote
>> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
>
> You think that I advised the Christine family?
I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.
And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
newsgroup knows it.
That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
reminders. You are a dangerous little pissant, Greg. Nothing less.
> And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
> was somehow my fault??
You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
not? And who said she had a drug relapse?
Who would tell you such a thing?
Could it have been that wonderful supporter, Chuckles The Clown?
You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.
They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.
>
> That's the best ya got?
Answer my questions and we'll decide.
This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
trial.
"
From: Greg Hanson - view profile
Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
Email: Gree...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.
Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?
Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
Does that fit "emaciated" kids?
Did they have distended bellies?
(As in REAL starvation?)
Are there standards for malnourishment?
Does a vegetarian diet conform? "
You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
injury, that then went untreated.
So much for your honesty.
fatherforever
domestic violence acts.news:qy44h.1160$6t....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Greegor
> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
Greg wrote
> REALLY? Citations please!
Kane wrote
> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
Greg wrote
> You think that I advised the Christine family?
Kane wrote
> I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
> around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.
Yer a mental case!
Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!
Kane wrote
> And your answer to my question on use of lethal force, was a flat our
> lie, Greg. You know it, I know it. Anyone that knows you from this
> newsgroup knows it.
Please work yourself into a phrenetic frenzy about that again!
It was hysterical!
Two years!? Don't stop being your mental case self! It was FUN!
All because you wanted to BAIT me into saying what I don't believe,
simply because it fit your OBSESSION with your opponent.
Kane wrote
> That's what took you two years to answer me, with almost weekly
> reminders. You are a dangerous little pissant, Greg. Nothing less.
Your EGO is apparently wrapped up in this vilification pathology.
Greg wrote
> And the relapse of Dan's drug addict "success story"
> was somehow my fault??
Kane wrote
> You supported the bad advice given her by another poster here, did you
> not?
You have been claiming Jen as a reference re: Dan's expertise.
NOW you're trying to ""accuse"" me of having advised her?
Having it BOTH ways???
Kane wrote
> And who said she had a drug relapse?
> Who would tell you such a thing?
I can't recall if it was herself or Dan...
But it was definately referred to by Dan.
I HAVE wondered for ages WHY you would use
such a BAD example as a reference.
Didn't you KNOW she had a drug relapse and lost her kids?
How did you MISS that, Kane?
Kane wrote
> You can't even protect your buddies, Greg. Do you think they'd protect
> you if YOU were the one on the hot seat? Look at what they encouraged
> the Christine's to do, Greg. Figure it out.
You think some Family Rights advocate advised them to use a gun?
How CONVENIENT for you with your crusade and vilification pathology!
Kane wrote
> They use YOU for a lab rat, stupid. And all YOU can think to do is run
> the maze and try to get other's to join you. What a stupid twit you are.
Oh you! You have such WINNING WAYS! You charmer!
Greg wrote
> > That's the best ya got?
Kane wrote
> Answer my questions and we'll decide.
we? Are you having that Torquemada delusion again?
> This is your post in the "Christine" thread post their arrest, but pre
> trial.
Who wrote the paragraph at the bottom mistakenly
attributed to me?
My questions were insufficient for my opponent? Wow!
Aren't they USUALLY?
> From: Greg Hanson - view profile
> Date: Fri, Nov 22 2002 2:21 pm
> Email: Gree...@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson)
> Groups: alt.support.child-protective-services
>
>
> Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
> Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.
>
> Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
> vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?
>
> Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
> Does that fit "emaciated" kids?
>
> Did they have distended bellies?
> (As in REAL starvation?)
>
> Are there standards for malnourishment?
> Does a vegetarian diet conform? "
Who wrote this part below?
> You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
> testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
> established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
> one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
> and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
> injury, that then went untreated.
>
> So much for your honesty.
For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?
My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!
dragonsgirl
> Kane wrote
>> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously bad outcomes
>> from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
>
> Greg wrote
>> REALLY? Citations please!
>
> Kane wrote
>> Nope. Names. Christine, and Jen for a couple.
>
> Greg wrote
>> You think that I advised the Christine family?
>
> Kane wrote
>> I know you agreed with the advice given, and you have taken up paling
>> around with those that did the advice giving, stupid.
>
> Yer a mental case!
> Who am I to question your assignation of thoughts not expressed?
> I love the guilt by association stuff too. Funny!
Funny? It's one of your favorite angles.
Greegor
0:->
I did. Can't you see the quotes at the end of your little q and a?
The end YOUR part, and whatever comes after isn't yours any more, stupid.
>> You seem to have passed over the issues in the thread of medical
>> testimony both as to their thinness and the serious head injury
>> established by police interview of the children IN THE bus/home where
>> one of the kids revealed that the child had been hit for peeing herself
>> and Brian hit her knocking her into the stairwell and causing the head
>> injury, that then went untreated.
>>
>> So much for your honesty.
>
> For not making my OPPONENTS case for them?
>
> My five questions were dishonest because I didn't ask
> questions as if I was also OPPOSING counsel?
Well, let's see exactly what you were doing. This case was well along,
these issues had been discussed previously, and the media had cover all
such questions already.
> Yer a freakin MENTAL CASE!
Let's take another look at your questions and let people decide who is
the mental case here. Either the media had covered these or the answers
have long been known, stupid.
">>" means it's YOUR comment, stupid, and [[ ]] means it's mine.
>> Is there a definition of when a child is too thin?
[[ How could you ask such a stupid question? It was noted very plainly
by professional health workers these children were far beyond "thin."
They were malnourished, severely. ]]
>> Nobody yet has mentioned that they ARE VEGETARIANS.
[[ You and others seem to presume that vegetarianism produces thinness
by default. It does not. I lived for about 6 years on a vegetarian diet
and had trouble keeping my weight down, even with heavy outdoor labor
almost constantly. I ran up to 230, fat for me at about 6'1" ]]
>>
>> Do vegetarian parents have the right to have
>> vegetarian kids, with a much longer life expectancy?
[[ One of your usual insinuating rhetorically formatted questions. There
is NO "longer life expectancy" other than rumor for vegetarianism. It's
total caloric intake over time, stupid, that tends to lengthen life. On
the other hand, periods of long term starvation do NOT do that...and it
is especially dangerous in children, as they may not have the nutrients
for building essential body components, like brain, and internal organ
tissue. They aren't made from air. ]]
>>
>> Kids were released from hospital in 3 days.
>> Does that fit "emaciated" kids?
[[ Another totally stupid innuendo. What would keep them in the hospital
longer? If they are being fed properly it can be done in home with
period outpatient checkups. I suspect that is exactly what happened.
There is no reason to keep someone that is malnourished in hospital for
any particular length of time unless they have suffered some system
failure...even the child with the UNTREATED fractured skull and the
UNTREATED suppurating infected head wound could have been released in
that time on and outpatient status. ]]
>>
>> Did they have distended bellies?
>> (As in REAL starvation?)
[[ Another lie. Distended bellies aren't necessarily a part of "REAL"
starvation as opposed to something "unreal," Greg. Your choice of "REAL"
indicates you were trying to sway people to the concept they were not
starving. A flat out lie, liar. One can be severely malnourished and
have no such condition. ]]
>>
>> Are there standards for malnourishment?
[[ Obviously there are, stupid. ]]
>> Does a vegetarian diet conform? "
[[ Another stupid rhetorical question trying to portray the parents as
innocent, rather than stupid...which I believe they actually were. I
could see NO malice by them purposefully. Just stupidity and a ranting
political agenda they subjected their children to. -- Diet as politics
was going heavy duty in the 70's with lots of it continuing to the
present. ]]
And one wouldn't ask if vegetarianism conformed to standards for
malnourishment. (actually that is made up word, it should be
"undernourishment") It does not, if it is done correctly. I was
certainly not malnourished when I stuck to a strict vegetarian diet. But
I refused to put my children on such a diet.
It is far too complicated, there systems are not fully functional and
being built, and people vary in their ability to adequately metabolize
some foods. You can't tell until you are an adult what that is for a
person. It's far to risky to put children on such diets.
My understanding was that they might have been in fact applying a
"Macrobiotic" diet to their children. This is well known to have risks
even to adults.
Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the stupidity of
Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.
They didn't get a chance to grow up and be responsible parents. Pissant
vultures like you got hold of them and kept them from getting their
children back by using Brian and Ruth as their political lab rats.
You and they welcomed the terrible loss THEY SUFFERED because YOU wanted
to do your "Gee ain't CPS just awful" blood dance.
Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
challenge the court and child protection system.
You are sick little pissants, Greg. You need to get that through your
head. And your sickness endangers people like Ruth and Brian who might
make mistakes but CAN recover from it and walk away wiser but WITH THEIR
CHILDREN and not locked up in jail.
You stupid little chickenshit.
0:->
0:->
> You are many yet I have you surrounded.
You mean you discount all those that have posted in your support?
Shit, you not only attack your imagined "enemies" but your buddies as well?
R R R RR ...
Well, that's consistent with your treatment of your girlfriend. So go
figger, eh?
0:->
Greegor
> You have been involved in some of the most notoriously
> bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.
vs.
Kane wrote
> Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the
> stupidity of Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.
I asked questions.
Kane wrote]
> Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
> challenge the court and child protection system.
Oh! We CAN'T HAVE THAT! They must NOT challenge the
Child Protection INDUSTRY and their courts... <sarcasm>
I cannot take the credit for that!
You flatterer you!
0:->
On Nov 11, 3:31 pm, "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kane wrote
>
> > You have been involved in some of the most notoriously
> > bad outcomes from bad, even illegal advice, on this newsgroup.vs.
>
> Kane wrote
>
> > Basically all this is about is YOU trying to excuse the
> > stupidity of Brian and Ruth. Nothing more.
> I asked questions.
No you didn't. You asked Rhetorical question. Those mean no answer is
expected as the answer is implied in the question. You know this.
> Kane wrote]
>
> > Just like you recently tried to influence someone to use their crime to
> > challenge the court and child protection system.
> Oh! We CAN'T HAVE THAT! They must NOT challenge the
> Child Protection INDUSTRY and their courts... <sarcasm>
Of course we can. But while in the midst of a child protection case, by
the CPS client whose case it is, BY BREAKING THE LAW?
> I cannot take the credit for that!
> You flatterer you!
Yes, you can take credit for it. You gave advice that almost surely
would have resulted in an arrest of someone fighting to get their
children back using a NON issue crime for HER case.
The recording of someone without their knowledge is illegal in that
state. She did it. You said she should consider using it in her case.
Is this not essentially the gist of it, Greg?
You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
Stop lying, Greg. It's not doing your position the least good.
Kane
Greegor
> You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
No. It already existed when she asked for help.
0:->
You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to challenge the
court in the middle of a child protection case.
You snipped, as usual, the context that included that part, and have
ignored posts where that issue, as I've written it in the paragraph
above was presented to you to defend.
Now stick to the subject, Greg.
Did you not tell her it might work to use her crime to challenge the
court and the law as a means of obtaining her children back from CPS?
Please stop dodging. It is so obvious.
And don't avoid this post and it's challenge.
What about your advice would be more likely to get her her children
back, win her case, than other methods please?
Thank you, Kane
Greegor
Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
Kane wrote
> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
Kane asked a direct question, and when given
a direct and complete answer he didn't want,
attempted to switch context of his own question.
Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what
Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint,
so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint.
Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral?
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Exhibit A. Direct question
> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>
> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>
> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>
> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
> Kane wrote
> > The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> > challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
Absolutely. This IS the issue.
Would you have told her, for instance, NOT to commit the crime, if you
would later tell her to use that crime as a tactical effort in a court
case?
You are weaseling.
> Kane asked a direct question, and when given
> a direct and complete answer he didn't want,
> attempted to switch context of his own question.
No, you did NOT give me a direct and complete answer. You knew
perfectly well that you did in fact tell her to use that crime in court
to challenge the law, when in fact she was not FIGHTING that law, she
was fighting to get her children back and that law on recording had
ZERO to do with her case.
Is that not correct, Greg?
> Advising somebody to COMMIT a crime is what
> Kane's complaint was. It was a false complaint,
> so Kane switched "the issue" to a different complaint.
I conceded that that was the case, as you stated it, that she had
already committed the crime.
YOU seem to not wish to pursue anything other than that, Greg. Why
would that be, eh?
Did you not advise her to try and use her crime to get herself arrested
in court to challenge that law when that law had nothing to do with her
case?
>
> Perhaps Kane thought this LIE was ethical or moral?
Nope. I mistated the issue, and corrected it, when you pointed out she
had, as you said correctly, already committed the crime.
I asked the next obvious question in the series of events.
Your advice to USE that crime as a tactic to get her children back by
challenging the recording laws in her state....totally irrelevant to
her case, as the judge would have told her right after ordering the
bailiff to arrest her and hold her for charges on her self confessed
law breaking.
Now move on to the question at hand, Greg. The one that has underlaid
this discussion, not some pissassed 'you accused me falsely' bullshit.
I already conceeded I had mistated.
That does NOT get you off the hook for what you did after she broke the
law.
Answer the question asked.
Did you not advise her to, after breaking the law, try to use that in
court to get herself arrested?
0:->
Greegor
Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
Kane wrote
The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
> Absolutely. This IS the issue.
Then how do you explain your exact words in Exhibit A?
How do you explain your attempt to change "the issue"
between Exhibit A and Exhibit D?
Dan Sullivan
Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
Just a suggestion, but the next time you jump into a dumpster for the
bottles and cans... do the world a favor and stay there.
Greegor
Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
Short on dazzling logic?
Dan Sullivan
> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
>
> Short on dazzling logic?
Not at all.
You must have overlooked this the first time.
Greegor
> Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
Greg wrote > Short on dazzling logic?
Dan wrote
> Not at all.
>
> You must have overlooked this the first time.
>
> Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
> an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
>
> The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
Please try to rescue Kane from this one!
Show us your masterful logic!
Kane got caught between Exhibit A, Exhibit D and comments about
Exhibiut D.
Can you argue without ad hom (arguing to the man)?
Show us how you dazzle those caseworkers with logic, Dan!
Greegor wrote:
> Exhibit A. Direct question
> Kane wrote > You advised someone to commit a crime? No?
>
> Exhibit B. Direct and complete answer
> Greg wrote > No. It already existed when she asked for help.
>
> Exhibit C. Characterization of Exhibit B.
> Kane wrote > You are dodging. That is not the issue...when?
>
> Exhibit D. Attempt to change what "the issue" is
> Kane wrote
> The issue is that you advised her to use that crime to
> challenge the court in the middle of a child protection case.
Kane wrote (About Exhibit D.)
> Absolutely. This IS the issue.
Greg wrote
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> > Dan, You say I am incapable of debate. Then all you do is ad hominem.
>
> Greg wrote > Short on dazzling logic?
>
> Dan wrote
> > Not at all.
> >
> > You must have overlooked this the first time.
> >
> > Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
> > an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
> >
> > The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact.
>
> Please try to rescue Kane from this one!
Rescue Kane?
>From what?
>From you?
That'd be like rescuing a polar bear from a fish dinner.
Stay in the dumpster, Greg.
0:->
Did you miss this part?
"Greg you can't, because of your limited capabilities, properly debate
an issue here or in Court or in a Motion to the Court.
The last five years and ten months are a testament to that fact."
He is pointing YOU don't debate. That IS a valid topic OF debate.
And elegantly logical.
You have done nothing but dodge, not debate. The opponent's (us)
challenge has been made. The suspect perp, YOU, have refused to answer
the challenges made.
What more is their to do but remind you of it until you do answer, or
you simply go on with dodges like the above?
No, Greg, the lab rat, there IS no way out of this one.
Every thread with you in it is fair game for restating the challenge,
and pointing out you have dodged yet again.
Every subject other than two, at this point, the proof of your
accusation of a "computer felony" and the proof that telling someone to
challenge the court by admitting to a crime in the course of a child
welfare trial, a CIVIL trial at that, is a valid way for someone to get
their children back.
Show us a single instance, ONE instance, where someone committed a crime
and did in fact thereby get their children back from CPS.
And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
their children.
"Brain should have pulled the trigger." Remember? And remember your
argument with the cop that objected to the use of lethal force?
Answer the challenges Greg. Or run.
You are just another thug only too cowardly to act....like your coward
friends you want others to be your lab rats and then when they lose,
your excuse for yourself because "CPS is evil."
0:->
0:->
You want to be careful about trying to use an "Exact words" argument
Greg. Next time I might not be so generous in excusing your exact words,
and allow you explain what you meant...and that it didn't mean you
believed in the use of lethal force against caseworkers.
It's not a "change." It's an explanation of what I meant. Just as you
were allowed to say you had NOT meant to mean lethal force was
okay...after I asked for over two years before you finally got the message.
How can you explain that you still refuse to answer the actual
challenge, other than by a sick little dodge, that you told someone to
take a chance getting arrested on criminal charges during a civil trial
and risk losing her children?
Any time now, Greg.
Or run again. Up to you.
0:->
Greegor
> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
> their children.
My buddies? Who exactly are you referring to?
You're blaming me for something "my buddies" said??
About an incident from YEARS ago?
> "Brain should have pulled the trigger." Remember?
Is THAT what you said?
> And remember your
> argument with the cop that objected to the use of lethal force?
You're quoting it wrong.
What was the FAKE cops name? "Oliver Sutton"??
George Truro
> Kane wrote
>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them and
>> their children.
Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's not
citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting violence.
The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents not
citizens.
0:->
Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
Brian was stupid, his ONLY failing, really, and did things he shouldn't
have that resulted in both abuse and dangerous medical neglect. He and
Ruth were given EVERY chance to work out a plan for the return of their
children, but all along the way, even from prior to the first removal of
their children, YOU pissants advised him to do things that were
motivated by your desire to have the misery company loves so much, and
to be lab rats for your failed political and personal agendas.
Stick your lies back up your ass, stupid.
0:->
George Truro
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TY...@scnresearch.com...
> George Truro wrote:
>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163505930.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
>>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
>>>> and
>>>> their children.
>>
>> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's
>> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
>> violence.
>>
>> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents
>> not citizens.
>
> Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
> Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
>
> If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
> field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
You're not too fuckin bright are ya Butch?? And your reading comprehension
needs some work too.
Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -
Can I be any clearer??
0:->
George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:p9WdnbpCBZ86W8TY...@scnresearch.com...
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1163505930.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Kane wrote
> >>>> And when you sort all this out, if you ever do, lame of brain, consider
> >>>> apologizing to Brian and Ruth for the havoc YOUR buddies ran on them
> >>>> and
> >>>> their children.
> >>
> >> Only the lame of brain believe citizens influenced this decision. It's
> >> not citizens but Federal Agencies who have a history of inciting
> >> violence.
> >>
> >> The Christine's case was most certainly instigated to violence by Agents
> >> not citizens.
> >
> > Then you'd be one of those Oregon buddies of the Christines that incited
> > Brian to point a gun at his children. Isn't that right?
> >
> > If you think he didn't, you don't know a damn thing about handguns and
> > field of fire in a shootout even at close range.
>
> You're not too fuckin bright are ya Butch?? And your reading comprehension
> needs some work too.
>
> Wanna try again. Go back and start all over?
>
> Ok - It was Federal Agents that instigated ther Cristine fiasco -
Federal agents? From what federal agency, and could you provide some
supporting evidence, by link please?
> Can I be any clearer??
Yes.
As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
are interested in it going up ours.
But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
causing them to make the errors they did.
Were I one of you pissants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.
Run suckers, run.
0:->
George Truro
You've accused Greg and his 'buddies' of instigating violence.
You provide some proof.
Or are you falsely accusing again.
The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to join
these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no anti-gov
groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!
FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
have committed without theirinstigation.
0:->
Yep.
>
> You provide some proof.
Nope. It was in the news. Likely archived in media morgues by now and
requiring paid subscriptions to access.
Those that followed the story know the truth.
Brian didn't get the idea of using a gun all by his little lonesome.
> Or are you falsely accusing again.
Never have, stupid.
> The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to join
> these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no anti-gov
> groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!
You seem to be a nice honest fellow that requires proof. How about you
provide some?
> FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
> have committed without theirinstigation.
Identify them please, with proof.
As you've said, you are just a troll, so your word is useless. Trolls
will say what they will to get attention, being frustrated narcissists
in the real world, where they are afraid to babble their mindless
attention getting bullshit.
>
>>> Can I be any clearer??
>> Yes.
>>
>> As it is you are blowing way too much smoke out your ass and none of us
>> are interested in it going up ours.
>>
>> But you once again, Troll, have given us the opportunity to bring more
>> clarity to the Christine case and just WHO the real perps were in
>> causing them to make the errors they did.
>>
>> Were I one of you pissants, when Brian gets out, I'd be hittin' the
>> highroad, because I think he's very intelligent, and with enough time
>> to think...as he has...he'll figure out just who LAB RATTED HIM.
Like I said,
>>
>> Run suckers, run.
>>
>> 0:->
And thanks once MORE, troll. You like having your little leash jerked on
do you? R R R R R R R ... you are mine, stupid. All mine, and I'll use
you every time you post here. Fancy that, eh?
George Truro
You are a liar. Greg Hanson never appeared in news stories about Brian and
Ruth.
>
> Those that followed the story know the truth.
I followed the story - and I know you are a liar making false accusations -
just as CPS trained you.
>
> Brian didn't get the idea of using a gun all by his little lonesome.
Your delusions that you can read peoples minds and know their thoughts and
motives just shows how desperate you are to make shit up and blame it on
someone.
>
>> Or are you falsely accusing again.
>
> Never have, stupid.
Of course you are - Greg had no part in Brian and Ruths case. Your
accusations and insinuations are false. False accusations - the same kind
you used to destroy folks when you worked for CPS.
>
>> The great NW has 2 agents for every citizen - folks flocking there to
>> join these anti-gov groups are about as dim as dim can be - there are no
>> anti-gov groups in the NW that aren't run by the Feds!!
>
> You seem to be a nice honest fellow that requires proof. How about you
> provide some?
Its been archived. I've posted it here numerous times. That CPS slime like
you ignore the proof - its not my responsibility. You got a keyboard - look
it up.
>
>> FBI agents and/or imformants instigated Brian to violence he would never
>> have committed without theirinstigation.
>
> Identify them please, with proof.
The video and audio is still secret - as soon as we determine it safe for
assholes like you to review I'll drop you an email.
>
> As you've said, you are just a troll, so your word is useless. Trolls will
> say what they will to get attention, being frustrated narcissists in the
> real world, where they are afraid to babble their mindless attention
> getting bullshit.
I've provided as much as you - so if it's true of me, it's true of you.
Greegor
If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
at least get to know who they are!
Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
Many people think being against the government is treason.
To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.
US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
government.
After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?
Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?
0:->
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
You don't think you have any?
Or you don't know who they are?
Which is it?
> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!
You aren't. You are getting blamed for what you do.
> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
I don't have any problem with being anti Government. I've been accused
of it myself.
The difference between us is I'm not delusional, and I won't lie, and I
point to real problems not ones made up as you do.
> Many people think being against the government is treason.
I'm not one of those. Are you trying to claim I am?
> To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.
Nope. You don't know the definition of treason.
> US Military personnel take an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the
> government.
They also get told to think very carefully before refusing an order.
Are you in the military then?
> After the military infiltrated the QUAKERS,
> what exactly does it mean to be anti-government?
Yet another obscure and segued piece of garbage tossed in?
So, what did the military find, Greg?
> Will they send infiltrators into the AMISH
> communities as well? Or CUB SCOUTS?
The more I watch you the more I think you are a CPS plant.
I once took out a "spy" when I was in the military. He was really what I
suspected, but I had to treat him as a real foreign spy in my
intelligence unit.
He was, of course, what we called OSI, office of special operations, who
did internal police investigations on crime and security issues.
And his trademark? To be the dumbest spy in the world. He tried to lift
some classified material from my desk, and though he outranked me I
arrested him on the spot. I waited for the military police to come pick
him up. It was kind of fun at that point...as he'd been pulling this
kind of stuff for a couple of months and had taken down some people of
higher rank than me.
He really couldn't tell if I'd pull the trigger on the .45 I had up his
nose or not. But rather than a courts martial I would have faced had he
gotten away with that classified report, yes, I would have.
Even though I suspected he was a shill, like I'm beginning to strongly
suspect you are. I told him so, when I told him I'd enjoy seeing his
brains spattered on the door behind him. I don't like shills, or spies.
If I was one of your buddies I wouldn't trust you for a minute, Greg.
0:->
0:->
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!
>
> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
You need to read the Federalist Papers, stupid.
They were not anti government. They were anti Monarchy.
Big difference.
They created a government. That's hardly an anti government act.
You pinhead geeks are always running this garbage on each other puffing
yourselves up thinking you are wise and clever, when you in fact are
stupid buffoons.
Fact is, much of the argument central to the founding of this government
we enjoy today had to do with argumentation between one faction of
special interests and another.
A few wiser heads managed to pull it out, as they say, and set up a
workable system by slightly to severely crippling ALL PARTIES.
That's the wonder of it....create a tension that holds the whole shaky
(as all human societies are politically) edifice for so very long as it
has.
Even little pissants like you that would prefer your sick chaos where
you can beat children and get away with it can't stand up to that kind
of genius. They GOTCHA.
> Many people think being against the government is treason.
Go talk to the many then. I'm not them.
> To be treasonous is to circumvent or suspend the Constitution.
Bullshit. The Supreme Court has been doing that for a very long time now.
In fact, any new amendment after the BOR would fall into that category
of yours. All those involved with the passage of those would be traitors.
Just how stupid are you, Greg...or how long have you worked for the
government and are here to provoke treason?
0:->
Dan Sullivan
Greegor wrote:
> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
Whatsisname et alia.
> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> at least get to know who they are!
>
> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
That's why they created their own government.
Right, Gre?
Greegor
Dan Sullivan wrote > Whatsisname et alia.
I don't know anybody by that name.
Please be more specific.
G> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> > at least get to know who they are!
> >
> > Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> > The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
Dan Sullivan wrote
> That's why they created their own government.
>
> Right, Gre?
Right Da!
Except the Bill of Rights was NOT established
to protect citizens from the Monarchy!
George Truro
Yeah - ok Don - hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahah
>
> I once took out a "spy" when I was in the military. He was really what I
> suspected, but I had to treat him as a real foreign spy in my intelligence
> unit.
You're a delusional CPS worker - you've been attacking and falsely accusing
parents here for years.
You are the scum of the earth - now retired - so taken up with falsely
accusing on usenet - you pervs crack me up.
Every day you collect your 'pension' you dance in the blood of the victim
families you've destroyed. You can't take up fishing or camping, but instead
fester your hatred against parents on usenet - you fancy yourself a victim
and are out to get your revenge.
Too bad - so sad - your disgusting with your false allegations.
>
> He was, of course, what we called OSI, office of special operations, who
> did internal police investigations on crime and security issues.
>
> And his trademark? To be the dumbest spy in the world. He tried to lift
> some classified material from my desk, and though he outranked me I
> arrested him on the spot. I waited for the military police to come pick
> him up. It was kind of fun at that point...as he'd been pulling this kind
> of stuff for a couple of months and had taken down some people of higher
> rank than me.
>
> He really couldn't tell if I'd pull the trigger on the .45 I had up his
> nose or not. But rather than a courts martial I would have faced had he
> gotten away with that classified report, yes, I would have.
>
> Even though I suspected he was a shill, like I'm beginning to strongly
> suspect you are. I told him so, when I told him I'd enjoy seeing his
> brains spattered on the door behind him. I don't like shills, or spies.
And your delusions of grandure - well I thought Dan had the biggest ego in
the nut house -
Are you and Dan related?? Both pervs -- both narcissistic kookshots - like
sucking each other off on usenet -both live in a moral vacuum where your
incredible hubris is your only guide.
Both are laughingstocks and CPS suckups, shills, employees.
0:->
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> Whatsisname et alia.
He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
pulled the trigger."
> > If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
> > at least get to know who they are!
> >
> > Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
> > The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>
> That's why they created their own government.
>
> Right, Gre?
Sure, you know the line to that song, "You only hate the one you
love....etc."
The founders were anti Monarchy, a type of government.
They didn't hate all government.
And they didn't hate the one they created.
Nor were they "anti" it.
Anti government freaks are specifically NOT government reformers.
They are government haters.
Big difference.
We all, of course, have some aversion to "government," in that we don't
like to be told what to do. The more intelligent and honest among us
admit to their being a need for agreed upon restraints.
And our form of government determines what those are and how they will
be administered.
If our little hero of the Constitution actually understood it, he' d
know that an stop the babbling about parent's rights.
Both parents and children have rights.
Neither is meant, under law, to exceed the other.
0:->
George Truro
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>> > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>
>> Whatsisname et alia.
>
> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
> pulled the trigger."
You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have pulled
the trigger. You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
this, but only you nutball, only you.
In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
dream shit up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
0:->
>> Greegor wrote > I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote > Whatsisname et alia.
>
> I don't know anybody by that name.
> Please be more specific.
Of course you do. Please don't be so obtuse.
> G> If I'm getting blamed for what they do, I should
>>> at least get to know who they are!
>>>
>>> Being anti-government is more American than any apple pie!
>>> The founding fathers themselves were anti-government.
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> That's why they created their own government.
>>
>> Right, Gre?
>
> Right Da!
Dan is your father?
> Except the Bill of Rights was NOT established
> to protect citizens from the Monarchy!
Then your claim is that the Bill of Rights is an anti government tirade?
I tend to see it as the ground rules we the people created and create
still for how we will govern ourselves.
You seem to continue to have this isolationist mindset about what
government really is, separating yourself, and us by implication, from
OUR government.
No such condition exists except in the delusional world of disaffected
impotent mindless little droning fools like you, Greg.
I can tell from your own testimony to the HW&MC.
You take NO responsibility for our government....have no real solutions
for progressive change other than penalties. You run from the real
problems, you refuse to participate in the actual DOING of government,
unless you predict a win that will reward you with money you have not
earned.
You are what the Constitution warns us about.
An irresponsible citizen that has to be controlled because he cannot
control himself.
When did you last vote?
When did you last write a letter to a congressman?
When did you last pick a candidate and campaign for him or her?
How many school board meetings have you attended in your community?
Do you speak out on the issue drugs and alcohol addiction and it's
effect on your community?
Do you do anything but sit on your ass posting to this rather isolated
newsgroup rather than risk real world confrontations?
As much as I post, I have times set aside where, for better or for
worse, I actively participate in the community, the state, and the
nation's business. MY business.
My government.
And yours, Greg, that you wish to misuse to some foul benefit for a foul
cause, that YOU created by refusing to remove your needy little self
from the presence of a mother and child that needed each other, and most
likely did not need you.
There you sit, and insult to human kind, and to our nation because you
delude yourself into thinking YOU are doing something to fix it.
What a sad little man.
0:->
0:->
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163542912.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger."
>
> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have pulled
> the trigger.
Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> this,
Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
are still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> but only you nutball, only you.
Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
you read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
talking about.
My quote was of course a paraphrase. This good enough for you, Deakin?
Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
putting the gun to a workers head:
... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
gun to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
Recognize it?
Look like my name in the author's field?
> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
> dream shit up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
case or guns and triggers, etc.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/thread/78f47b4e6c1a7818/85083a188d3446b2?lnk=st&q=%22brian+should+have+pulled+the+trigger%22&rnum=3&hl=en#85083a188d3446b2
Try this link:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
the poster of the post from which it came?
Interesting.
Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
there is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
"Brian Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
What did I miss?
Oh, that I dream things up?
Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
Dennis.
And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact
a liar.
You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
Like they all are.
And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
didn't really mean it?
Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
children at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea66c921?hl=en&
... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
lot. At least there would have been one
less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
their BS will not for much longer be
tolerated. ...
Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
someone for just being on your property.
... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
No, I am advocating self defense for families.
If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
to be asked.
I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
response. ...
Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
powertripping and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
... Bob
> I'm in an awful way.
Destroycps!
Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
escape.
Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
to shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
possibly this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in
agreement with the sentiments express in:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d00ed2deeccf0d62
... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> died.
How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
and children
suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
deserved as I
will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
> How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
Who is joking?
> You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
> Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> of the future of this species.
Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
Want some more?
In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
I would prefer that Gestapo CPS and its minions simply be held
accountable fully and completely, criminally and civilly, for their
wrongful acts against innocent citizens.
But since that currently is not happening, at least not in the vast
majority of cases of such abuses by Gestapo CPS and its minions, this is
about the only way we can effectively strike back and stand for justice.
...
... And they should also keep in mind the overall global aspects too...
not just their own personal actions but those of their fellow
anti-family fascists. ...
Tired yet of being shown for a lying little fuck, Dennis?
Shall I call Don up and have him get in touch with you?
Easily done. We are distant cousins, though we didn't know it when we
first met at CPS many years ago when I argued a case for a relative
there. We go back to Irish kings though it's nothing to brag about. R R
R R R ... 'cause you are probably a cousin too. As is about a third of
the people in the US.
Since then we keep in touch. And I keep him informed of every time
someone tries to bring his name up here, and he has the full murderous
threat file on all the other pissants like you that threaten people's
lives who are working hard for abused and neglected children.
You are a sick fuck, and I won't hesitate to take ALL legal actions it
might need to bring you down if you continue your lying bullshit.
Got that you pissant coward?
Recognize the following?
"... Killing CPS caseworkers
Amusing, isn't it?
Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your
face... one day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more
you.
The office where you work, at a time I found would have the largest
number of workers and fewest possible parents there would become a crater.
Dioxin or other highly toxic substance would make it into the water
pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo CPS meetings and galas.
Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can
assure you of that.
And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
happened ... "
Ever read his claims to have access to and knowledge of how to make high
explosives?
Think I made that up? Want the link to the message? I certainly have more.
And of others as well. You'll notice Chuckles doesn't confine himself to
CPS workers either....seems to have a simple solution for all problems
HE thinks exist:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/530961387fcf701d?hl=en
... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
and his address should about take care of it....
Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
that strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
bringing all this up again?
Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
sleep tonight:
Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
child abuser.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/446e840658dd17c0?hl=en
... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
one of a Dachau executioner. ...
Any thoughts, stu-pod?
Kane
George Truro
> George Truro wrote:
>> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1163542912.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>>> pulled the trigger."
>>
>> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger.
>
> Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
>
> > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
>> this,
>
> Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You are
> still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
>
>> but only you nutball, only you.
>
> Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if you
> read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am talking
> about.
>
> My quote was of course a paraphrase.
Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'. In fact your
paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the original
meaning. There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
statements. You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
paraphrase'.
Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
You dreamed shit up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
except in your empty head.
Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
spanking it newsgroup.
0:->
George Truro wrote:
.....the usual pack of lies he has been noted for for years in this
newsgroup....
"George," I think you should reread this post a few times and give some
serious thought to what you are claiming.
To have the direct evidence in front of your eyes and still be in
denial is some very serious indicators of hysteria, mental illness.
And you are in considerably more trouble than our simple exchange might
indicate to your badly effected mind.
And I'm talking "knock on the door" kinds of trouble.
Let's hope for your sake you can convince people that you are just a
joke. I'll be happy to support that contention. You are.
Keep reading, there's more in the reply to your nonsense.
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i_CdnRFWjJm-5sfY...@scnresearch.com...
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1163542912.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >>>> Greegor wrote:
> >>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
> >>>> Whatsisname et alia.
> >>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
> >>> pulled the trigger."
> >>
> >> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
> >> pulled the trigger.
> >
> > Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> >
> > > You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> >> this,
> >
> > Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You are
> > still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> >
> >> but only you nutball, only you.
> >
> > Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if you
> > read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am talking
> > about.
> >
> > My quote was of course a paraphrase.
>
> Here's a newsflash Einstein - a quote can't be 'a paraphrase'.
Yes it can. It's a common device in the english language.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=paraphrase+as+quote&btnG=Google+Search
All kinds of opinions on how to use quotes and paraphrasing. And I DID,
as one source points out, authoritatively, provide THE SOURCE for my
paraphrase.
Sorry about your ignorance, Director, but you seem to have learned very
little of the language over the years. You must love wallowing in the
shit of your ignorance. You do it enough.
> In fact your
> paraphrase isn't a paraphrase since to paraphrase is to retain the original
> meaning.
Yep, and mine does. Quite clearly.
> There was nothing about Brian in the original meaning of Neals
> statements.
Really?
What and who are the subjects of the thread, and of both his and
other's posts in that thread?
They aren't talking about Greg, nor you Dennis, or anyone BUT Brian and
the use of lethal force he executed.
However, you have neatly attempted to publically Doananate, and
Gregoragate...and change the subject from more than just "Brian" and
the subject of murderous intent. There was a stabbing mentioned, and
the blowing up of CPS buildings even with innocent parent and child
clients inside.
Did you miss that?
You fools continue to think everyone else is as stupid as you and
easily misled by stripping one element out of an issue and arguing
about it claiming the rest does not exist.
Stupid little boy.
> You provided them fraudulently as quotes by including in
> quotation marks - then backpedal to display your totally inadequate
> understanding of basic English by claiming your 'quote was of course a
> paraphrase'.
Check out the source I just provided you, stupid ignorant twit. 0:->
Posting the source for the paraphrase is hardly backpeddling, stupid.
It shows directly what the intent of the statements were, and at one
point included ALL the words that are included in the paraphrase.
Simply in different order, same sentiments.
" ... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put
a gun
to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little
reason not to pull the trigger while it is there. "
That was in response directly to someone, another poster, pointing out
the use of lethal force by Brian Christine.
Did you not bother to read the thread or even the full post I provided
a link to?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06?hl=en&
Maybe you should reread rather than attempt your lies, eh?
> Now it hardly gets any more freakin hilarious than this Butch.
Still sweating your own attractions to those of your own sex, child?
Don't worry, you don't have to act on your urges. Honest.
> You dreamed shit up - then blame folks for stuff thats not even true -
> except in your empty head.
Dream up? Those posts I quoted and linked to are my "dreams?"
Okay, the YOU tell us what is meant by " ... I tend to disagree...
there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a gun to the head of a
Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is little reason not to
pull the trigger while it is there. "
> Your stupidity has become your personal trademark both here and on the
> spanking it newsgroup.
Really? Seems to put you fools to route regularly though, now doesn't
it?
So, I made this up and it's not from a real message and it's not
referring to Brian, and it's not referring to killing caseworkers?
" ... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the
parking
lot. At least there would have been one less kidnapper breathing and
it would have put the rest on warning that their BS will not for much
longer be tolerated. ..."
You are the same liar you always were, and caught again just as easily
as before.
Nothing to it. You are stupid.
George Truro
own -
I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
"0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163591715.8...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
0:->
George Truro wrote:
> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
> own -
>
> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.
You claim I made one up.
I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
done.
You want to argue the use of quote marks.
What a liar you are.
And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.
0:->
George Truro
>
> George Truro wrote:
>> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
>> own -
>>
>> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
>
> Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
>
> Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.
You are the only person I know that has threatened violence here, agent.
>
> You claim I made one up.
>
> I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
> done.
>
> You want to argue the use of quote marks.
Respond to new thread with your ridiculous whine.
>
> What a liar you are.
>
> And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.
You sure like to use the slur 'stupid' - wassa matter Butch -- is that what
your abuser called you before you were rescued by adoption??
0:->
> >
> > George Truro wrote:
> >> I'll remove your smoke and mirrors agent and move it to a thread of it's
> >> own -
> >>
> >> I think folks deserve to see what a liar and a fraud you really are.
> >
> > Can't argue the actual issue, eh?
> >
> > Threats of violence were made in this newsgroup.
>
> You are the only person I know that has threatened violence here, agent.
One, you don't "know" "me" at all. You think you do.
And no, I have not threatened anyone with "violence." I have mentioned
legal actions. And they are still in place if needed.
And your use of the word 'here' is suspect. Do you really think the
perpetrator of threats does not check in 'here' from time to time?
'Here' is this newsgroup. Present and PAST. The threats were made.
I have linked too them.
If you wish to argue they weren't threats, go to the narrative and
explain to us how the word choices are not "threats," if you will.
>
> >
> > You claim I made one up.
> >
> > I took you and any interested readers to the very post where this was
> > done.
> >
> > You want to argue the use of quote marks.
>
> Respond to new thread with your ridiculous whine.
What new thread?
How about you respond to this one?
> >
> > What a liar you are.
> >
> > And what stupid risks you take -- dumb as a stump, as always.
>
> You sure like to use the slur 'stupid'
Yep. And you are.
> - wassa matter Butch --
Homophobic and delusional? Sure looks like it.
> is that what
> your abuser called you before you were rescued by adoption??
Never been adopted, and never abused. But if I were, what would that
indicate?
You are lying, Dennis and making a fool of yourself yet again.
And as I said, stupidly taking risks, again.
0:-|
Greegor
Where is this proof this person lied?
Where exactly did they get caught?
Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
0:->
Ah ah ah, not more attribution abortion. It immediately sets the alarm
bells ringing indicating you have likely tried to hide something.
But I will respond to one part that fascinated me.
You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.
Care to give it a shot?
( I know who it is. I'm just playing with you and him.)
You game, stupid?
0:->
0:->
Greegor wrote:
> Is that Dennis?
> Where is this proof this person lied?
Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
threatened violence?
Where's HIS proof that I did, and where is HIS proof that no one else
threatened violence?
> Where exactly did they get caught?
In my prior posts where they lied.
By virtue of my having posted links and quotes of those who did in fact
threaten to kill, violently.
> Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
> telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?
They are the very words of those that made the threats.
Can't you read?
Can't you remember?
Read the quotes in my prior post. Click the links, and read the threads
wherein the threats were made.
And don't give me any bullshit that those were "if" statements.
Conditions were set that would be impossible for either cop or
caseworker to meet and do their jobs, without reason for murder as
stated by the writer.
If I tell you you can't proceed to your car without getting by me and I
stand in your way so you can't get by, and I tell you that I'll kill
you if you do get by me, what effect does that have on you getting to
your car?
And if you are a taxi driver?
I would have just threatened you with death for doing your job.
Now, show me where I lacked any proof the poster lied, when he claim I
was the only one here that threatened violence.
Go for it.
Greegor
> You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.
0:-> wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Is that Dennis?
> > Where is this proof this person lied?
>
> Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
> threatened violence?
Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
I just want to be clear on that.
Is this like when Michael said he hopes
somebody does [horrible things] to you,
and you decided that was a threat?
You decided to posture as if that is a "threat of violence", right?
Kane wrote
> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
What butt crack did you post these links to?
> > Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
> > telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
>
> How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?
>
> They are the very words of those that made the threats.
The very words I saw said x should have happenned,
or that a person hopes somebody does z to you.
You call those THREATS??
> Can't you read?
> Can't you remember?
You want me to track YOUR delusions? Ya freakin' nut case?
Meth Watcher
A common complaint of innocent families abused by CPS crazies is that many
caseworkers have 'issues' of abuse -- and use their power to abuse innocent
families for the crimes of their 'abuser'. It's rather common - nutjobs like
you with issues using CPS to punish your 'abusers'.
>
> You are lying, Dennis and making a fool of yourself yet again.
Fist I'm a Bob - now I'm a Dennis.
Hey Don,you CPS scumsucker - we're sure glad we know who somebody is around
hers
>
> And as I said, stupidly taking risks, again.
Hell - grease 'em up and let 'em roll Butch. lol.
0:->
> Kane wrote
>> You can prove it's not Dennis by proving who it is then.
>
> 0:-> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Is that Dennis?
>>> Where is this proof this person lied?
>> Did he not claim that I am the only person in this newsgroup that
>> threatened violence?
>
> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
>
> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
No. That was only one of many. You know this.
>
> I just want to be clear on that.
>
You don't want to be clear on anything, Greg. You are churning the
information to create as much fog as possible.
> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
> and you decided that was a threat?
Do you think that is not a threat?
> You decided to posture as if that is a "threat of violence", right?
I don't decide to "posture" at any time.
There is such a thing as implied intent.
One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
> Kane wrote
>> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
>> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
>
> What butt crack did you post these links to?
None.
This group though I just posted them a few days ago. Don't you read?
>>> Is this thread title accusing ""Dennis"" of
>>> telling lies and being caught itself a LIE?
>> How could the quotes and links I provided be a lie?
>>
>> They are the very words of those that made the threats.
>
> The very words I saw said x should have happenned,
> or that a person hopes somebody does z to you.
Then you didn't look at all the words I posted on this matter from this
newsgroup.
>
> You call those THREATS??
>
I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
"threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
Go look at the posts on violence that I provided links to and get back
to us when you've read all of them.
Pop up your browser and google ascps for references to poison, guns,
triggers, C4, and explore a little for yourself.
I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
doing their job, Greg.
>> Can't you read?
>> Can't you remember?
>
> You want me to track YOUR delusions? Ya freakin' nut case?
Well, if YOU are going to accuse me of having delusions about something
I posted here just a few days ago that is proof of intent of those whose
comments I posted, with linked references, yes, Greg, ya freakin' nut
case, I DO expect you to provide proof.
But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
behave like the little hapless pissant you really are...I WILL provide
you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
George Truro, yet another fucking low life scum liar like you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/a3384ae63418e8bd?hl=en&
http://tinyurl.com/twv75
[[[ I have only snipped the tail end three deep attributed remarks,
mostly my own, as they do not apply to the current issue ]]]
George Truro wrote:
> "0:->" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163542912.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> I still want to know who these "buddies of mine" are!
>>> Whatsisname et alia.
>> He seems to forget the source for that famous line, "Brian should have
>> pulled the trigger."
> You're a liar - You are the only one who ever said Brian should have
pulled
> the trigger.
Really. I'm Chuckles the Clown? How droll. Now that IS an insult.
> You try to falsely accuse and insinuate that someone else said
> this,
Nothing false about it. Nor is even anywhere near and insinuation. You
are still as stupid and poorly educated as always, aren't you?
> but only you nutball, only you.
Well, if only a nutball would lie, child, then you qualify, because if
you read the post I am providing you'll see I know exactly what I am
talking about.
My quote was of course a paraphrase. This good enough for you, Deakin?
Here you go, and the sentiment is the thing, now isn't it?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06...
In reference to the news Brian had taken his children at gun point after
putting the gun to a workers head:
... I tend to disagree... there is almost never an excuse NOT to put a
gun to the head of a Gestapo CPS caseworker... more than that there is
little reason not to pull the trigger while it is there.
They are kidnappers and deserve no better. ...
Recognize it?
Look like my name in the author's field?
> In 2004 you made this false allegation - you gave a link that didn't even
> mention Brian or a gun or a trigger - you are a first class nut case. You
> dream shit up then blame it on folks. You're a real koo-koo.
Show the message where I gave the URL below, referring to the Christine
case or guns and triggers, etc.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/browse_frm/...
Try this link:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/79c08c9b40e6db06...
You wish to claim that quote I posted above is something I said, and not
the poster of the post from which it came?
Interesting.
Let's see now, Dennis the liar, there is in fact mention of a "gun,"
there is mention of pulling the "trigger," and of course the subject is
"Brian Christine's" taking of children at gun point.
What did I miss?
Oh, that I dream things up?
Well, I didn't produce that post, so obviously you are the dreamer here,
Dennis.
And apparently nothing you claim, say, or declare can be trusted because
you just proved again....hundreds of times before...that you are in fact
a liar.
You are a troll only in that you are a coward, Dennis.
Like they all are.
And it's you that are making lying claims, as I have just proven.
Not enough proof for you? Think the poster was just mouthing off and
didn't really mean it?
Think I dream these things up and "insinuate" do you?
Try this one on for size and explain it away, stupid:
Still of course on the subject of Brian Christine's taking of the
children at gunpoint in the rest area parking.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.culture.oregon/msg/3067ce3fea...
... My only sadness is that they did not pull the trigger in the parking
lot. At least there would have been one
less kidnapper breathing and it would have put the rest on warning that
their BS will not for much longer be
tolerated. ...
Possibly this will help jog your memory...by the way, he is dead wrong
about Oregon laws, even today they have not changed. You may not shoot
someone for just being on your property.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
... > You are advocating for the murder of child protection workers.
No, I am advocating self defense for families.
If social wreckers do not wish to die they should not involve themselves
in attempting to kidnap children from innocent parents and families.
Just like if someone wants to keep living a healthy life they had best
leave my property, my car, my family and my person alone.
If I see someone sneaking around the outside of my home I am fully
empowered by the laws of Oregon to shoot them dead, no questions needing
to be asked.
I see no reason why protection of my family should allow any less
response. ...
Still having problems with reality, Dennis?
From the same post as cited above, and linked to, stupid:
... I advocate using any force necessary, up to and including deadly
force, to protect one's family from the predations of these
powertripping and corrupt anti-family fascists. ...
And it's not just one of you, Dennis:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
... Bob
> I'm in an awful way.
Destroycps!
Don't throw you life away by lone act of suicide. If you're going to
kill yourself, make sure you take a bunch of *them* with you. Remember:
The higher the rank, the more valuable it is to get them.
Just kidding . . . You really should figure out a way you can attack and
escape.
Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroy dfs!!!!!!!!!! ...
For those of you with a more lively and excitable nature when it comes
to shooting government agents, or stabbing them, as the case may be,
possibly this post will help you sleep well tonight...are you in
agreement with the sentiments express in:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
... > How dare you suggest my mother was stupid and that's why she
> died.
How dare he? Because he is right. How many innocent families, parents
and children
suffered harm because of your 'sainted mother'?
Another Gestapo CPS goosestepper down? A good start IMHO.
I will have just as much sympathy for her getting what she so justly
deserved as I
will for a Dachau executioner getting his just desserts. None at all.
> How can you even joke about such a horrible occurrence?
Who is joking?
> You're just another casualty of our modern desensitized society.
No, we simply know the enemy and do not mourn their deaths.
> Hopefully, natural selection will edit people who think like you out
> of the future of this species.
Actually it is clear it will be natural selection continuing to edit
harmful busibodies like your mother out of the pool. ...
Want some more?
In regards to the stabbing death of a caseworker:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
Recognize the following?
"... Killing CPS caseworkers
Amusing, isn't it?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
... I figure about $50 in a local NC biker bar and a picture of Mr Tally
and his address should about take care of it....
Suppose, given his other sentiments, that he might consider applying
that strategy to workers he thinks are kidnappers?
Finally, knowing me as you do, just what were you thinking when you
challenged me to produce proof, stupid?
Do you think the hero in our story really WANTS you to instigate
bringing all this up again?
Keep being smart like this, Dennis. It really does help your cause.
Just to give you something to contemplate as you drift off to a restful
sleep tonight:
Again in relation to a worker being stabbed to death by a convicted
child abuser.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-serv...
... I condone the killing of a Gestapo CPS goosestepper just as I would
one of a Dachau executioner. ...
Any thoughts, stu-pod?
Kane "
............................................................
That was the post in full, sans the unrelated tail end comments from
prior posts.
Care to comment, you lying little sack of chicken shit?
Naw, you'll run.
You always run when you are cornered. You can't handle being wrong.
Kane
Greegor
> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
Kane wrote
> No. That was only one of many. You know this.
You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
You're contradicting yourself.
Greg wrote
> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
> and you decided that was a threat?
Kane wrote
> Do you think that is not a threat?
WHY do you think it is? Mental malfunction?
Kane wrote
> There is such a thing as implied intent.
Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
often making references to someone shooting me or
the grandfather assaulting me.
Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!
> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!
> > Kane wrote
> >> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
> >> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
...
Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.
Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.
...
Kane wrote
> I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
> "threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
Allergic to the truth Kane?
You say that threats of violence have been made here,
but you clearly intend to be VAGUE and not give particulars?
Would you base legal action on such VAGUERY?
Kane wrote
> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
> doing their job, Greg.
What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?
Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
Kane wrote
> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
Kane wrote
> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
> behave like the little hapless pissant you really are...I WILL provide
> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
> George Truro, yet another fucking low life scum liar like you.
Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
Neither is a "threat of violence".
0:->
> Greg wrote
>> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
>> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
>> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
>
> Kane wrote
>> No. That was only one of many. You know this.
>
> You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
> You're contradicting yourself.
No I'm not. I did not mention only the Christine case.
And no, it would not be a threat of violence. There is a very different
definition of this civil and criminal violation.
And a case for it has to be built that requires repetition, <smile>,
lots of violent allusions <smile> and possibly information classified as
"means" to carry out a crime.
The only references I've ever posted to an actual simple threat of
violence does not concern anyone posting here these days...unless of
course they are back with a sock on their head.
It's being set up for possible violence, as a way to try and force me
out of this newsgroup, Greg. You are cowards that when you lose can only
escalate to such behavior.
> Greg wrote
>> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
>> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
>> and you decided that was a threat?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Do you think that is not a threat?
>
> WHY do you think it is?
I didn't say I think it is.
I asked you if you thought it's "not a threat."
> Mental malfunction?
Simply answer the question, Greg. Failure to do so is a mental malfunction.
> Kane wrote
>> There is such a thing as implied intent.
>
> Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
> you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
> often making references to someone shooting me or
> the grandfather assaulting me.
Absolutely. NOW you get it.
We, however, don't want you to go away, just get your just deserts.
You aren't being targeted as a member of a special class so as to build
up hatred of you by membership. You have done specific things YOU have
confessed to here in this newsgroup.
What have I done that warrants someone wishing me dead? And describing
how to do it? And claiming I'm someone specific whose address was once
posted here? And that I'm supposedly a member of a high risk hated class
of people?
Don't ask for proof of the name and address. I have proof the post was
removed, stupid. There is always a trace of that. I already had a copy
of course, with full headers. It's certainly NOT gone.
> Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!
I'm tired of teaching you. Look it up.
>> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
>> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
>
> Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
Not until a crime takes place. although...... there IS a criminal
classification that depends on the perception of the person targeted.
You seem to have forgotten I taught you this before, a couple of times,
if memory serves.
I've not accused anyone of a crime.
Because none has happened...well, except some years back when some
members of this ng contacted me personally and issued real threats, and
bragged of their capacity to execute those threats. That IS a crime.
Should such threats be acted upon and anyone hurt, those that assisted
in locating me will have some explaining to do.
>> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
>
> But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!
You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
You really are stupid.
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
>>>> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
> ...
>
> Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.
Nope. I've done so already.
And if you have trouble finding them, it's time you learned to use
google's group search tools.
> Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
> or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.
I didn't make that claim.
Though there are circumstances based on how that gloating and ill wish
is framed, the words used, that can indeed result in a crime committed.
But I'm easy, up to a point. At this particular one, I simple not that
they go to state of mind.
The actual specific threats that frightened me and made me fear for my
safety and that of my family were made off line. How many times have I
told you this now?
And here are gloating and ill wishes being expressed in very similar
language. Fancy that. And periodically up it comes again. I say we have
a series, a significant sequel being created over a few years time. Very
significant when in argument.
And don't do your stupid "citations please," bullshit because there
isn't a poster here that's honest that doesn't know that I have posted
the answers to you before.
> ...
> Kane wrote
>> I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
>> "threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
>
> Allergic to the truth Kane?
Can't see it, Greg?
> You say that threats of violence have been made here,
I posted the words, and links to the posts where those words were
spoken. If you wish to argue, go to the posts and quote them and show
they are not threats. YOU show how they are not.
Show they are NOT calculated to instill fear. And look up the law on that.
> but you clearly intend to be VAGUE and not give particulars?
Links to posts and direct quotes are "VAGUE?"
>
> Would you base legal action on such VAGUERY?
>
Non sequitur. I wasn't vague.
I've not taken any "legal" action as yet. I don't need to as yet.
If they are involved in providing some means, even sufficient
encouragement, they could well find themselves in court.
Ask the man that was financially wiped out by the Oregon Mulugeta Seraw
case. Hate crime of murder. Inspired by the man I mentioned that never
laid a finger on him, never saw, him didn't even know his name before
the killing.
It could be argued that fomenting hatred toward a class or profession to
the point that someone actually acts against them based on that
fomenting would engage the perps of said fomenting in both a civil AND
criminal action.
You may operate in the deep vacuum of ignorance, Greg, but I do not.
If I suggest something serious, you can be sure I've the knowledge to
not only back it up, but the tactical ability to not spill too much that
might get in my way should it need to finish it to my desired outcome.
There is considerable case law to back up legal action for hate crimes
of all kinds, including class or group.
Remember the serial killing of abortion doctors? Look that one up.
> Kane wrote
>> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
>> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
>> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
>
> Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
Then you'd like to see me killed or injured? Explain please, in full.
Or isn't that what you meant?
>> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
>> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
>> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
>> doing their job, Greg.
Why did you NOT respond to this challenge above, Greg?
> What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?
No one is perfect, anywhere in the world, Greg. No caseworker can avoid
violating the delusional requirements for correct casework you pissants
dream up.
You set it up, just like cons do, that no official intervention,
including initial investigation, is valid unless the case is already
PROVEN.
The circular reasoning of the criminal mind.
And if you have a beef with how a worker practices their assigned task
you go to your legislature and you ask that the process be changed.
Or you go to the agency in question, lodge your complaints and work your
way up, if you don't like what you hear at each level.
Shooting or stabbing the worker is illegal. And it's unethical. And it's
immoral.
On what basis do you compare, as you do below, the Holocaust to CPS?
> Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
I've no idea. He was not a social worker.
> He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
I've not noticed any workers claiming they made an error, or that the
law inconvenienced YOU Greg, because they were only a pencil pusher.
Every single one has exhibited to me that they are very clear on how
serious their job is. None have denied that children are removed, and
that they go into foster care. None have denied that children have been
abused or even killed in foster care. Hence they are nothing like Eichmann.
You and your crazed associates have created this bullshit Gestapo CPS
out of whole-cloth.
If you don't like how CPS is run you use legal means to change it.
Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
caseworkers or other CPS workers?
If not, please explain what you mean?
Do you wish to take caseworkers to court?
Feel free. Go for it.
The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on, Greg.
So the only outlet you have for your class warfare is the wish for death
of your opponents. Is that not a correct assumption, Greg?
Have you ever bother to review your posts?
> Kane wrote
>> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
>
> Kane wrote
>> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
>> behave like the little hapless pissant you really are...I WILL provide
>> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
>> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
>> George Truro, yet another fucking low life scum liar like you.
>
> Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
Last time I ran the gauntlet yes. Who knows today. I might be bedbug
crazy. No one in the real world has suggested it to me, or behaved as
though I am doing irrational things.
On the other hand, here, appropriate anger at real threats is not a sign
of bad mental health. Nor being alert to the possibility others are
setting me up even indirectly. Or gloating over deaths of CPS workers.
> Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
Nope. "Wishing" is not. Wish all you want.
Exercise your right of free speech, and then, as you fail to think about
it's limitations (there are some). You could be seen as and proven as
doing more than silently wishing.
Providing some means may well be illegal IF a caseworker involved has
horrible things visited on them. Information would be the means.
I keep Don alert to this subject here. He will read this when I send it
to you. He might share it with others. I have no control over it once it
leaves my workstation.
> Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
I never claimed it was. I claimed it was something else.
But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
to act violently, you would be wrong.
Many people that thought they were in the clear, find they are not. It
gets decided NOT here, but in court. Look up case law.
> Neither is a "threat of violence".
Ah, now there you are wrong.
Read up on assault laws in various states.
I just posted some statute here recently.
Paraphrasing: "It is a crime of assault to cause others, by threat of
violence, to fear for their lives or personal safety."
I'm paraphrasing but that's close. In fact in some states it's broader.
And "threat" is most always included in the definition. You are
confusing "battery" with assault. Assault does NOT require even a touch,
though it can.
Seriously, go look it up.
And then consider some of the linked-to comments I've quoted here.
And stop pretending you haven't read my post were I did indeed take up
this subject in full and write DIRECTLY to YOU, Greg, with the proof.
You are such a lying little scum.
When you are done learning what assault is, a crime, read your own past
posts.
Heck you could accuse me of assault, Greg.
Problem for you with that is, no one has provided me the means to
contact Lisa's little girl.
If they did, And THEN I repeated my wish for her to castrate you, yep,
you might have some small chance.
But I think you'd be laughed at and would face counter suit after the
entire story was told.
Especially you trying to identify me as a member of a "despised class"
in this newsgroup.
This same newsgroup where I first met the thugs that sent threats
directly to me...at an address I do not post here.
I pointed this out many times already Greg. And if YOU can't put 2 and 2
together and get four, that's your problem.
I think you'd do well to take it up with a bright 14 year old. They
could tell you the obvious connections...especially if they, unlike you,
took the trouble to read the law.
It is assault to cause someone to fear for their lives.
So far, I'm not afraid. But what if I am feeling threatened enough to
become afraid? And trust me, I know how to prove I'm afraid.
Go read the law, stupid.
Here's a few points to consider, that if I were a prosecutor in such a
court case, I'd bring up:
Do caseworkers qualify as a high risk class of people by virtue of their
profession?
The answer would be given, of course, as "of course, here is the data on
violent attacks on workers, and deaths at the hands of clients and
client associates).
Was the person injured claimed by the accused to be a "caseworker," or
"cps worker," a member of that class?
Of course he was so claimed to be by the accused.
Greg, even the posting of an address and name of someone and identified
as of that class, if he was hurt, would be dead sure to bury the poster
if he or she was participating in the wish and gloat expressions.
Do YOU, Greg Hanson believe that caseworkers are at risk of injury and
death at the hands of clients?
Of course you do:
"Greegor 3 January 2005 02:29:21 [ permanent
... I had heard rumors that caseworkers were
actually very reluctant to remove kids in
some extremely dangerous neighborhoods,
anxious to not have to come back and
expose themselves to the risky neighborhood."
You certainly didn't post that you disagree with this assessment by
workers of their risk. You went on to define it even more in detail.
... A white woman told me that Kansas City is
at some sort of crossroads for illegal drug
distribution. Some people there get an
odd, heightened "respect" from CPS
caseworkers. If a caseworker made up
a bogus case there they would not have
a good life expectancy. ...
And no, I will not provide you access to the source on this one. I don't
want you trying to have your post removed. <smile>
In other words, Greg, YOU know quite well that cps workers are at high
risk, and you know that they know it. Yet you have tried to "out"
someone as a cps worker in a newsgroup were the very same kinds of
deaths have been celebrated by members.
And YOU don't see the connection, eh?
You people are dumb as stumps and have NO idea of the foolish games you
play. And the bullshit you stuff in your own eyes and ears so as not to
fully understand what you are saying and the real world implications.
ALL for your little bruised egos, and a chance to "one up" someone. Foul
little piles of shit is what you are.
But that's the stupid for you. Like the poor, as they say, they will
always be with us. Keep up the good work.
0:-]
How a hate crime can take down the hate monger -- Tom Metzger and son
and their organization were fined and made to pay an award to the
victim's family and the center that brought the case (NOT a
"settlement," Greg) a $12.5 million judgment -- for killing ONE man:
Our home-grown Hitlers
Mulugeta Seraw died on Southeast 31st, a little way down the street from
his ... charging that he sent agents to Portland to incite racial
violence. ...
www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups363.html - 16k - Cached
- Similar pages
[PDF]
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Mulugeta Seraw. was a resident of. Multnoinah. County, State. of.
Oregon. ... had themselves committed crimes of violence and racial
animus, and ...
www.splcenter.org/pdf/dynamic/legal/berhanuvmetzger_amcomplaint.pdf -
Similar pages
Holtzbrinck Academic Marketing
The Mulugeta Seraw story is a troubling but important episode that
reminds us ... white skinhead racial anger and violence—been treated
with such precision, ...
www.holtzbrinckpublishers.com/academic/book/BookDisplay.asp?BookKey=1767863
- 71k - Cached - Similar pages
Coalition Against Hate Crimes - Portland Oregon
Admitted skinhead gets prison in racial attack ... a study of the events
leading up to and following the murder of Mulugeta Seraw 15 years ago. ...
www.againsthate.pdx.edu/news.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
Comparative History of Ideas: CHID PUBLICATIONS
Well, for Mulugeta Seraw and Hattie May Cohens, this imagination became
reality; ... youth into vehement loathers of ethnic, racial, and sexual
minorities? ...
depts.washington.edu/chid/intersections.php?article=1994f - 21k - Cached
- Similar pages
Willamette Week | 25th Anniversary Issue | 1988
Acclaimed poet and short-story writer Raymond Carver, an Oregon native,
... In a decade filled with violent death, the murder of Mulugeta Seraw
was one of ...
www.wweek.com/html/25-1988.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man ...
by Elinor Langer "Later, as he sat in the Oregon State Correctional
Institution serving a thirty-year sentence for the death of Mulugeta
Seraw, ...
www.amazon.com/Hundred-Little-Hitlers-Neo-Nazi-Movement/dp/0312423632 -
149k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: A Hundred Little Hitlers: The Death of a Black Man ...
This book focuses on the 1988 murder of an Ethiopian man, Mulugeta
Seraw, by three skinheads in Portland, Oregon. Langer, author of
Josephine Herbst (1983), ...
www.amazon.com/Hundred-Little-Hitlers-Neo-Nazi-Movement/dp/0805050981 -
144k - Cached - Similar pages
The Skinhead International: United States
This alliance reached its low when, on November 12, 1988, Mulugeta
Seraw, ... acted out their racial warrior fantasies in acts of
exceptional violence. ...
www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/skinhead-international/skins-united-states.html
- 27k - Cached - Similar pages
PublicEye.org - Racial Nationalism, the Third Position, and ...
One such group is the American Front in Portland, Oregon, which ran a
phone ... three Portland skinheads who murdered Ethiopian immigrant
Mulugeta Seraw.16 ...
www.publiceye.org/fascist/third_position.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Now come back and tell me that public opinion would save you twits
because they so hate CPS.
That's YOUR fantasy world, Greg, from your buddies stuffin' themselves
and their agenda up your happily receptive butt.
The public HATES child abusers and KNOWS that the job of caseworkers is
nearly impossible for ordinary people to do.
I think you'd be lucky to escape a lynching if Don Fisher or family were
hurt. As for myself, you can go piss up a rope. I'm not the least afraid
of you twits, but if I became afraid you can be sure there would be action.
0:->
0:->
>
> . . .
>
>> Now come back and tell me that public opinion would save you twits
>> because they so hate CPS.
>>
>> That's YOUR fantasy world, Greg, from your buddies stuffin' themselves
>> and their agenda up your happily receptive butt.
>>
>> The public HATES child abusers and KNOWS that the job of caseworkers is
>> nearly impossible for ordinary people to do.
>>
>> I think you'd be lucky to escape a lynching if Don Fisher or family were
>> hurt. As for myself, you can go piss up a rope. I'm not the least afraid
>> of you twits, but if I became afraid you can be sure there would be
>> action.
>>
>> 0:->
>
You are looking mighty foolish, boy.
> If you were in so much goddamn fear from being here, why the fuck did you
> come here? Why do you return daily?
Cause I don't scare easily and I have something to do here I wish to do.
Are you suggesting I should be scared away?
>
> Who the fuck you trying to bullshit into not stating what they want here?
>
I LOVE that you and others state what they want here. That's part of
what I want to do here, why I'm here.
> I hope you hang by the neck with your own entrails.
That's nice.
>
> Does that fear you? Dumbass.
>
Nope. Am I a "dumbass" not to be afraid of you?
> I hope some of my old classmates choke to death on your specially bred
> broccoli too.
Weird. You want other people you know to die as a result of eating my
broccoli.
Did I mention how foolish you are making yourself appear?
> Hell, I'll make it easy. I hope all government workers get hung by their
> coworkers' entrails. Now by your stupid logic, the next worker to be
> murdered will make me a suspect and I'm going down for my public wishing.
You didn't read for comprehension, as usual. Presuming. The very thing
that will take you down one day, most likely. And I probably will have
nothing to do with it.
Unless you know the person, and you have contributed in some way to that
government worker being identified, and the perp doesn't name YOU as
being part of what inspired his attack, you haven't a damn thing to
worry about...unless of course someone takes your silly assed bullshit
seriously. Read Oregon's law on assault.
I have.
> I don't think anyone would waste their time injuring you, Don. But then I
> don't know what havoc you have wreaked on people throughout your 70 some
> years on this old earth.
Presuming you mean me, Kane, I don't really think so either, but I see
people trying hard to get someone else to do it.
Actually I've wreaked very little damage on anyone, and tend to do the
very opposite, except to self inflating pissants.
> One thing for certain, if you were in such fear, a public newsgroup sure
> isn't the smartest place to hide out.
The Constitution does not require one to be "smartest." Have you met Greg?
> The way you act toward people here that disagree with you doesn't seem
> like a man in fear.
Yeah. I noticed that myself.
> Seems more like an old, dried-up has been that tries
> to get people to hush-up when they post something he doesn't like.
No no. I'd have NO reason to be here where that the case. I love to
engage you pissant idiots on your stupidity...for the danger it presents
to the unwary that might take you seriously before becoming acquainted
with your severe thinking errors.
> Your bullshit about a paper trail works both ways, wrinkle dick.
Sure. The problem is, I have given no expressions of wishing anyone
death...well, except a teeny bit for Greg.
I have no means.
I have not encouraged anyone else to do anything to him that I know or
can even speak to, and I've only suggested HE do himself in.
I sure don't have much influence over that. Unless of course he's been
buying up rope lately.
AND he's not, to my knowledge, a member of a targeted risk prone
profession.
> Tell Ann Dear I say hello.
I can't. I lost their phone number.
By the way, is that meant to scare me....imply a threat?
You would try to bring some totally innocent bystanders in to this silly
business?
My you ARE a noble and moral sort of guy. Such courage. I'm just in awe.
0:-]
0:->
....snipping the pants pisser's drivel......
0:->
>> MichaelŠ wrote:
>> ....snipping the pants pisser's drivel......
>>
>
Nope, just snipping the pants pisser's tiresome repetitious escapist
drivel and hoping to save him some embarrassment for being such a hate
filled cowardly putz as to attack someone's wife...no big deal. You
don't have to thank me.
0:->
Kane here. Feel.
>
> Why would I be embarrassed by expressing my feelings?
>
You shouldn't be. Yet when you attack innocent people that aren't
involved, and someone's wife, figure it out, hero.
> How am I being a coward?
You have not argument so you attack the poster, pissant.
>
> You forget so easily, Don when it suits you. You don't recall the attacks
> on my mother that you initiated? Poor Don. Such a selective memory.
Post'm. Did I say she was suckin' my dick. If so I apologize to your
mother. Tell her so.
Kane
>
>
> --
> Michael©
Greegor
> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
Kane wrote
> No. That was only one of many. You know this.
Greg wrote
> You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
> You're contradicting yourself.
Kane wrote
> No I'm not. I did not mention only the Christine case.
You quoted somebody else as saying
"Brian should have pulled the trigger" as part of
your claims of threats of violence.
Please DENY this Kane! I love it when you squirm.
Kane wrote
> And no, it would not be a threat of violence. There is a very different
> definition of this civil and criminal violation.
>
> And a case for it has to be built that requires repetition, <smile>,
> lots of violent allusions <smile> and possibly information classified as
> "means" to carry out a crime.
>
> The only references I've ever posted to an actual simple threat of
> violence does not concern anyone posting here these days...unless of
> course they are back with a sock on their head.
Then WHY do you keep repeating it OVER and OVER? PTSD?
Kane wrote
> It's being set up for possible violence, as a way to try and
> force me out of this newsgroup, Greg. You are cowards
> that when you lose can only escalate to such behavior.
When you did that you were SPECIAL, right?
Greg wrote
> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
> and you decided that was a threat?
Kane wrote
> Do you think that is not a threat?
Greg wrote
> WHY do you think it is?
> Mental malfunction?
Kane wrote
> I didn't say I think it is.
> I asked you if you thought it's "not a threat."
Kane wrote
> Simply answer the question, Greg. Failure to do so is a mental malfunction.
Is that a "finesse" tactic that works on caseworkers?
Kane wrote
> There is such a thing as implied intent.
Greg wrote
> Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
> you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
> often making references to someone shooting me or
> the grandfather assaulting me.
Kane wrote
> Absolutely. NOW you get it.
> We, however, don't want you to go away, just get your just deserts.
>
> You aren't being targeted as a member of a special class so as to build
> up hatred of you by membership. You have done specific things YOU have
> confessed to here in this newsgroup.
And yet you refer to me as "you guys" etc...
> What have I done that warrants someone wishing me dead? And describing
> how to do it? And claiming I'm someone specific whose address was once
> posted here? And that I'm supposedly a member of a high risk hated class
> of people?
What you have done here is like a white person who
walks into Harlem swearing and yelling the n-word over and over.
It's a bit like "death by cop" suicide.
Except you chose to do this using an anonymous identity.
AND you worked MUCH HARDER to insult the residents.
AND here you are WHINING about how oppressed you are??
> Don't ask for proof of the name and address. I have proof the post was
> removed, stupid. There is always a trace of that. I already had a copy
> of course, with full headers. It's certainly NOT gone.
Please send me a copy and quit bitching at me about it.
Greg wrote
> Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!
Kane wrote
> I'm tired of teaching you. Look it up.
> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
Greg wrote
> Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
>
> Not until a crime takes place. although...... there IS a criminal
> classification that depends on the perception of the person targeted.
>
> You seem to have forgotten I taught you this before, a couple of times,
> if memory serves.
>
> I've not accused anyone of a crime.
Kane wrote
> Because none has happened...well, except some years back when some
> members of this ng contacted me personally and issued real threats, and
> bragged of their capacity to execute those threats. That IS a crime.
Was it charged? Please send records.
Didn't you just get done saying you never accused anyone of a crime?
> Should such threats be acted upon and anyone hurt, those that assisted
> in locating me will have some explaining to do.
Right after you explain why you didn't remove yourself from the
situation.
Kane wrote
> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
G > But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!
Kane wrote
> You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
> You really are stupid.
If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?
Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
Kane wrote
> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
G> Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.
K > Nope. I've done so already.
Didn't you just get done saying the message was deleted?
K > And if you have trouble finding them, it's time
> you learned to use google's group search tools.
G> Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
> or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.
K> I didn't make that claim.
>
> Though there are circumstances based on how that gloating and ill wish
> is framed, the words used, that can indeed result in a crime committed.
>
> But I'm easy, up to a point. At this particular one, I simple not that
> they go to state of mind.
>
> The actual specific threats that frightened me and made me fear for my
> safety and that of my family were made off line. How many times have I
> told you this now?
Yes, as I recall it was not even somebody from a newsgroup,
but a former caseworker angry you cost him his job.
Is that the story you are referring to?
> And here are gloating and ill wishes being expressed in very similar
> language. Fancy that. And periodically up it comes again. I say we have
> a series, a significant sequel being created over a few years time. Very
> significant when in argument.
>
> And don't do your stupid "citations please," bullshit because there
> isn't a poster here that's honest that doesn't know that I have posted
> the answers to you before.
>
> > ...
> > Kane wrote
> >> I most certainly did, if we stop the games of trying to pare down the
> >> "threats" to a single person making a single statement or two.
> >
> > Allergic to the truth Kane?
>
> Can't see it, Greg?
>
> > You say that threats of violence have been made here,
>
> I posted the words, and links to the posts where those words were
> spoken. If you wish to argue, go to the posts and quote them and show
> they are not threats. YOU show how they are not.
>
> Show they are NOT calculated to instill fear. And look up the law on that.
>
> > but you clearly intend to be VAGUE and not give particulars?
>
> Links to posts and direct quotes are "VAGUE?"
> >
> > Would you base legal action on such VAGUERY?
> >
> Non sequitur. I wasn't vague.
>
> I've not taken any "legal" action as yet. I don't need to as yet.
I haven't smacked my head against a brick wall, yet. So what?
You are such a BS artist.
> If they are involved in providing some means, even sufficient
> encouragement, they could well find themselves in court.
With a jury.
> Ask the man that was financially wiped out by the Oregon Mulugeta Seraw
> case. Hate crime of murder. Inspired by the man I mentioned that never
> laid a finger on him, never saw, him didn't even know his name before
> the killing.
Sounds like an agency supervisor! So what?
Inspired by the man you mentioned?
You mean they had absolutely no connection to each other, right?
The only connection between them was IN YOUR MIND right?
Who was Mulugeta Seraw?
Was this person a sadist hiding behind internet anonymity?
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=racial+violence+mulugeta+seraw+Oregon&spell=1
>
> It could be argued that fomenting hatred toward a class or profession to
> the point that someone actually acts against them based on that
> fomenting would engage the perps of said fomenting in both a civil AND
> criminal action.
>
> You may operate in the deep vacuum of ignorance, Greg, but I do not.
It could be argued differently.
> If I suggest something serious, you can be sure I've the knowledge to
> not only back it up, but the tactical ability to not spill too much that
> might get in my way should it need to finish it to my desired outcome.
Wow! That makes your implied threats more threatening doesn't it?
> There is considerable case law to back up legal action for hate crimes
> of all kinds, including class or group.
Like some a-hole former caseworker who is so psychologically
perverse that he intends to torture parents who are innocent and
fighting the steam roller action of the system?
> Remember the serial killing of abortion doctors? Look that one up.
I find Nuremberg to be more appropo...
What WOULD they have done had Judge Roland Friesler
survived to have been put on trial???
Impeccable legal mind, yet perverted justice on a grand scale.
> > Kane wrote
> >> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
> >> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
> >> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
> >
> > Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
>
> Then you'd like to see me killed or injured? Explain please, in full.
>
> Or isn't that what you meant?
You have gone out of your way to incite such anger.
Please do not expect me to feel sorry for you if it catches up to you.
Kane wrote
> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
> doing their job, Greg.
Kane wrote > Why did you NOT respond to this challenge above, Greg?
Greg wrote > What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?
I asked for clarification of something that made no sense.
> No one is perfect, anywhere in the world, Greg. No caseworker can avoid
> violating the delusional requirements for correct casework you pissants
> dream up.
You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?
Kane wrote
> You set it up, just like cons do, that no official intervention,
> including initial investigation, is valid unless the case is already
> PROVEN.
I set this up?
Kane wrote > The circular reasoning of the criminal mind.
You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?
Kane
> And if you have a beef with how a worker practices their assigned task
> you go to your legislature and you ask that the process be changed.
Yeah, yeah, the check is in the mail.
People HATE bureaucracy for a reason.
Bunch of CYA morons that take advantage of their government clout.
> Or you go to the agency in question, lodge your complaints and work your
> way up, if you don't like what you hear at each level.
We gave them that chance. The tape will haunt them.
> Shooting or stabbing the worker is illegal. And it's unethical. And it's
> immoral.
If you falsely accuse an innocent person of something
as horrible as what CPS does, and cause the kind of harm
using those lies as CPS does, OCCASIONALLY you will
find out that even docile peaceful people will react violently.
Is all war illegal, unethical and immoral?
When CPS declares war on a family, they take their chances.
The family is merely DEFENDING themselves.
I do not condone violence against CPS.
I do understand it.
> On what basis do you compare, as you do below, the Holocaust to CPS?
>
> > Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
>
> I've no idea. He was not a social worker.
>
> > He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
>
> I've not noticed any workers claiming they made an error, or that the
> law inconvenienced YOU Greg, because they were only a pencil pusher.
Actually they HAVE used the excuse they are "just doing their job"
which of course is absolutely NOT true when they LIE maliciously.
> Every single one has exhibited to me that they are very clear on how
> serious their job is. None have denied that children are removed, and
> that they go into foster care. None have denied that children have been
> abused or even killed in foster care. Hence they are nothing like Eichmann.
The exact things denied are different of course.
The realizations they get on the witness stand are similar.
> You and your crazed associates have created this bullshit Gestapo CPS
> out of whole-cloth.
Anybody who truly experiences it from the family side, just knows.
Kane wrote
> If you don't like how CPS is run you use legal means to change it.
Which you have ridiculed repeatedly! Law suits!
>
> Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
> caseworkers or other CPS workers?
>
> If not, please explain what you mean?
>
> Do you wish to take caseworkers to court?
> Feel free. Go for it.
Like we needed YOUR permission??? ROFL!
> The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on, Greg.
That's not what our lawyer says.
> So the only outlet you have for your class warfare is the wish for death
> of your opponents. Is that not a correct assumption, Greg?
That would make it harder to sue them.
That's much more fun!
> Have you ever bother to review your posts?
I don't obsess about it.
> > Kane wrote
> >> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
> >
> > Kane wrote
> >> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
> >> behave like the little hapless pissant you really are...I WILL provide
> >> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
> >> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
> >> George Truro, yet another fucking low life scum liar like you.
> >
> > Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
>
> Last time I ran the gauntlet yes. Who knows today. I might be bedbug
> crazy. No one in the real world has suggested it to me, or behaved as
> though I am doing irrational things.
Hey buddy! How ya doin? Oh by the way YOU NEED HELP!
> On the other hand, here, appropriate anger at real threats
Links please. No more mapquest junk or linking to your own wind
bagging.
> is not a sign
> of bad mental health. Nor being alert to the possibility others are
> setting me up even indirectly. Or gloating over deaths of CPS workers.
>
> > Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>
> Nope. "Wishing" is not. Wish all you want.
>
> Exercise your right of free speech, and then, as you fail to think about
> it's limitations (there are some). You could be seen as and proven as
> doing more than silently wishing.
>
> Providing some means may well be illegal IF a caseworker involved has
> horrible things visited on them. Information would be the means.
>
> I keep Don alert to this subject here. He will read this when I send it
> to you. He might share it with others. I have no control over it once it
> leaves my workstation.
Thanks for making Don an accessory to all of your previous
implied threats. He will no doubt need to identify you and
since you know him in real life, or ARE HIM, that should be easy.
> > Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>
> I never claimed it was. I claimed it was something else.
>
> But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
> way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
> was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
> to act violently, you would be wrong.
>
> Many people that thought they were in the clear, find they are not. It
> gets decided NOT here, but in court. Look up case law.
>
> > Neither is a "threat of violence".
>
> Ah, now there you are wrong.
>
> Read up on assault laws in various states.
>
> I just posted some statute here recently.
>
> Paraphrasing: "It is a crime of assault to cause others, by threat of
> violence, to fear for their lives or personal safety."
That's referring to a direct threat you idiot.
Gloating or wishing you ill is NOT a threat.
<snip!>
0:->
> Greg wrote
>> Kane, you referred back to a comment where somebody
>> said that Brian should have pulled the trigger.
>> Is that what you say is a "threat of violence"?
>
> Kane wrote
>> No. That was only one of many. You know this.
>
> Greg wrote
>> You say no, yet you say it was one of many. Which is it?
>> You're contradicting yourself.
>
> Kane wrote
>> No I'm not. I did not mention only the Christine case.
>
> You quoted somebody else as saying
> "Brian should have pulled the trigger" as part of
> your claims of threats of violence.
> Please DENY this Kane! I love it when you squirm.
I didn't deny I quoted that. Are you on something today?
I said no to there being ONLY this comment.
> Kane wrote
>> And no, it would not be a threat of violence. There is a very different
>> definition of this civil and criminal violation.
>>
>> And a case for it has to be built that requires repetition, <smile>,
>> lots of violent allusions <smile> and possibly information classified as
>> "means" to carry out a crime.
>>
>> The only references I've ever posted to an actual simple threat of
>> violence does not concern anyone posting here these days...unless of
>> course they are back with a sock on their head.
>
> Then WHY do you keep repeating it OVER and OVER? PTSD?
That, as they used to say an still do in your circles of childish
friends, is for me to know, and you to find out.
As you may.
> Kane wrote
>> It's being set up for possible violence, as a way to try and
>> force me out of this newsgroup, Greg. You are cowards
>> that when you lose can only escalate to such behavior.
>
> When you did that you were SPECIAL, right?
Did what? Learn to write.
> Greg wrote
>> Is this like when Michael said he hopes
>> somebody does [horrible things] to you,
>> and you decided that was a threat?
>
> Kane wrote
>> Do you think that is not a threat?
>
> Greg wrote
>> WHY do you think it is?
>> Mental malfunction?
>
> Kane wrote
>> I didn't say I think it is.
>> I asked you if you thought it's "not a threat."
>
> Kane wrote
>> Simply answer the question, Greg. Failure to do so is a mental malfunction.
>
> Is that a "finesse" tactic that works on caseworkers?
This is a simple question, Greg. Stop trying to unethically dodge it.
I didn't say it was, YOU tried to put words in my mouth with your
rhetorical question pretending I had made a claim rather than as a
question.
Your first question was rhetorical as you defined the answer in the
question.
>
> Kane wrote
>> There is such a thing as implied intent.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Well, that would also apply to the DOZENS of times
>> you and your cronies have said that you wish ill upon me,
>> often making references to someone shooting me or
>> the grandfather assaulting me.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Absolutely. NOW you get it.
>> We, however, don't want you to go away, just get your just deserts.
>>
>> You aren't being targeted as a member of a special class so as to build
>> up hatred of you by membership. You have done specific things YOU have
>> confessed to here in this newsgroup.
>
> And yet you refer to me as "you guys" etc...
Are you not one of the guys? Is 'guys' a specially targeted group here
for descriptions of an occasional urgings to kill you?
I've only asked that you kill yourself. You have a special status not as
part of a group of "guys" but as Greg the cretin.
By the way, Doan is failing you. Don't you think you ought to be honest
and write your own comebacks?
>> What have I done that warrants someone wishing me dead? And describing
>> how to do it? And claiming I'm someone specific whose address was once
>> posted here? And that I'm supposedly a member of a high risk hated class
>> of people?
>
> What you have done here is like a white person who
> walks into Harlem swearing and yelling the n-word over and over.
Really. What word have I been yelling here?
And is it legal and moral for a black person to kill someone that is
yelling the N-word?
Why didn't some black person in the audience then kill Richard,
recently...you know, Kramer from Seinfeld, when he went of with n this
and n that at a heckler recently?
It would have been right thing to do according to your argument.
>
> It's a bit like "death by cop" suicide.
>
Really? Words of accusation "threatening" death have that power?
And yet you are arguing that Gloating or Ill Wishes are not Threats of
Violence, are you not?
> Except you chose to do this using an anonymous identity.
Yep. Which takes us back to destorycps (yes that's how he started
spelling it for some strange reason...R R R R R), bobb, two version of
little 'o' over in aps, Chris from Texas, and your favorite little old
child hating lady, Fern the Plant.
Or is her name really Fern and a number? Hell, stupid. I know her name,
and I still would not use it, because someone might catch on one day to
the horror show she is, and having been beaten by their parent with
Fern's approval, as in the Georgia congregation might look her up.
I'm protecting the old biddy, while you boys shows clearly you want me
and my family hurt.
Aren't you the brave little souls though.
> AND you worked MUCH HARDER to insult the residents.
No one resides here.
All are visitors. And no matter my language, or the well deserved
beatings and exposure I give YOU GUYS, you have NO right to put me at
risk..and certainly not my family.
You are sick shits and I have you lined up nicely if anything should
happen. Trust me on this.
>
> AND here you are WHINING about how oppressed you are??
"Oppressed?" Where do you get these fanciful ideas. Do I post like I
think I'm "oppressed?" Or look oppressed to you?
You pissants can't do a fucking thing I haven't got covered or figured
out miles ahead of you.
You are dumb fuck fundy boneheads with nothing but bells in your head.
>> Don't ask for proof of the name and address. I have proof the post was
>> removed, stupid. There is always a trace of that. I already had a copy
>> of course, with full headers. It's certainly NOT gone.
>
> Please send me a copy and quit bitching at me about it.
Nope. You get what I want to give and not anything more. And I'll say
what I want here and implied threats will be noted. As usual.
> Greg wrote
>> Tell me some more about this "implied intent"!
>
> Kane wrote
>> I'm tired of teaching you. Look it up.
>> One thing alone may not specifically be a threat, but a series of things
>> most certainly can, even if no single element alone is.
>
> Greg wrote
>> Interesting! Is it a chargeable offense?
>>
>> Not until a crime takes place. although...... there IS a criminal
>> classification that depends on the perception of the person targeted.
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten I taught you this before, a couple of times,
>> if memory serves.
>>
>> I've not accused anyone of a crime.
>
> Kane wrote
>> Because none has happened...well, except some years back when some
>> members of this ng contacted me personally and issued real threats, and
>> bragged of their capacity to execute those threats. That IS a crime.
>
> Was it charged? Please send records.
None of your business. It's a legal matter and my attorney and I both
know how to lay the groundwork for a case if it's decided one needs to
be made.
> Didn't you just get done saying you never accused anyone of a crime?
That's right. Preparing for charging someone for a crime doesn't mean
it's been committed yet.
Jump when I say "it's time."
>> Should such threats be acted upon and anyone hurt, those that assisted
>> in locating me will have some explaining to do.
>
> Right after you explain why you didn't remove yourself from the
> situation.
And allow my rights to free speech to be removed from me?
Do you tell people they shouldn't have been in that part of town,
because they get mugged?
I make sure either the mugger is going to get hurt, or he is going to
know beforehand I'm not a good little prey animal. That's why you are
asking these questions. And you can go tell him he'll be the first to go
down. As he well knows.
> Kane wrote
>> Such questions as you are asking aren't answered by me alone, Greg.
>
> G > But you're doing a FINE JOB! Do go on!
I know.
> Kane wrote
>> You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
>> You really are stupid.
>
> If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?
I beg your pardon? YOU would ask such a question? You can sue someone in
this country for sneezing on you and giving you a cold stupid, and you'd
be likely to get something for your trouble...unless of course he
counter sued you for speaking to him and making him turn toward the
bright sunlight, causing him to sneeze (some folks are sensitive to
light) and knock his glasses of, embarrass him in public and generally
make a nuisance of yourself.
You are almost too dumb to remember to breath, aren't you child?
> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
And you are trying to sue the state and don't know these things?
Stay stupid. It's fun to watch you.
> Kane wrote
>> By virtue of my having posted links and quotes
>> of those who did in fact threaten to kill, violently.
>
> G> Please make a list of links that go DIRECTLY to actual threats.
>
> K > Nope. I've done so already.
>
> Didn't you just get done saying the message was deleted?
Nope. Different post, different subject. One was a threat by posting a
lot of information about someone that is supposed to be me. The other
was the long list of quotes and links I've provided from various former
members of this ng.
> K > And if you have trouble finding them, it's time
>> you learned to use google's group search tools.
>
> G> Don't waste my time with these BS accusations based on gloating
>> or ill wishes. Gloating or ill wishes are NOT threats of violence.
>
> K> I didn't make that claim.
>> Though there are circumstances based on how that gloating and ill wish
>> is framed, the words used, that can indeed result in a crime committed.
>>
>> But I'm easy, up to a point. At this particular one, I simple not that
>> they go to state of mind.
>>
>> The actual specific threats that frightened me and made me fear for my
>> safety and that of my family were made off line. How many times have I
>> told you this now?
>
> Yes, as I recall it was not even somebody from a newsgroup,
> but a former caseworker angry you cost him his job.
> Is that the story you are referring to?
Nope. Different issue, and it was a supervisor, not a caseworker.
He's never posted here to my knowledge. Although one never knows, does
one.....R R R R R RR R R R R
Sure you have. You are in a state of perpetual dizziness and confusion. 0:->
Why would you think I've taken legal action already? As I said, that's
something I decide, not you, not someone else. And I have no need to at
the moment.
If I do I will. You'll be among the first to know. Honest. I wouldn't
kid you.
>
>> If they are involved in providing some means, even sufficient
>> encouragement, they could well find themselves in court.
>
> With a jury.
Yep, or not.
>> Ask the man that was financially wiped out by the Oregon Mulugeta Seraw
>> case. Hate crime of murder. Inspired by the man I mentioned that never
>> laid a finger on him, never saw, him didn't even know his name before
>> the killing.
>
> Sounds like an agency supervisor! So what?
Agency? He was the leader of a skinhead cult of racist hate driven thugs.
>
> Inspired by the man you mentioned?
You are losing your signal there, bunky. See if you can tune out the
noise in your head and ask that question so we know what man you speak
of. The attacked, the instigator, what?
>
> You mean they had absolutely no connection to each other, right?
>
None what so ever. Metzger was in S. California, Mulugeta was a gentle
unpresuming immigrant from East Africa, who had never hurt anyone and
was trying, like most of our ancestors, to work his way up honestly. He
wasn't suing anybody. He was dying for someone's racial hatred.
They hit him in the back of the head, and crushed his skull, then
continued to beat him with a baseball bat as he lay dying on the street.
> The only connection between them was IN YOUR MIND right?
No, the connection was that the local chapter of the organization that
Metzger lead had recruited and trained the boys that killed Mulugeta. In
fact not too long after Metzger or his son, I forget which, visited
Portland to give and 'inspirational' pep talk to the boys.
> Who was Mulugeta Seraw?
A gentle African immigrant. Small, slender, not even a fighter of any
kind. He worked some low paying job, but he worked, Greg, and he got by
and hoped to make a life here and eventually have a family of his own. A
very nice man if his family is to be believed, and the white folks that
lived on the same block with him.
I believe he was Sudanese or some other of the upper East African nations.
>
> Was this person a sadist hiding behind internet anonymity?
You know someone like that? Fern perhaps who excuses AND defends the
beaters of children in church? Maybe SueCPSBob who has had his share of
interesting wishes for CPS workers. bobb the apologist for just about
everything anti authoritarian? Take your pick.
I didn't any but possibly Fern that I'd speculate on them being sadists
though.
Do you think I'm a sadist? If so, would you mind providing some rational
arguments based on actual evidence you present?
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=racial+violence+mulugeta+seraw+Oregon&spell=1
>>
>> It could be argued that fomenting hatred toward a class or profession to
>> the point that someone actually acts against them based on that
>> fomenting would engage the perps of said fomenting in both a civil AND
>> criminal action.
>>
>> You may operate in the deep vacuum of ignorance, Greg, but I do not.
>
> It could be argued differently.
The moon is made of green cheese too.
>> If I suggest something serious, you can be sure I've the knowledge to
>> not only back it up, but the tactical ability to not spill too much that
>> might get in my way should it need to finish it to my desired outcome.
>
> Wow! That makes your implied threats more threatening doesn't it?
Do my words imply that you should be killed?
I admit to urging suicide of course, but that's not a crime.
>> There is considerable case law to back up legal action for hate crimes
>> of all kinds, including class or group.
>
> Like some a-hole former caseworker who is so psychologically
> perverse that he intends to torture parents who are innocent and
> fighting the steam roller action of the system?
Can't say. Don't know any of those. Do you?
>> Remember the serial killing of abortion doctors? Look that one up.
>
> I find Nuremberg to be more appropo...
Yes, not much difference, but sadly you don't get that you are the folks
behind the bar of justice.
> What WOULD they have done had Judge Roland Friesler
> survived to have been put on trial???
Darned if I know. Obscure references without explanation mean nothing
but that your head is rattle bone again.
>
> Impeccable legal mind, yet perverted justice on a grand scale.
>
Yeah yeah. Like some here for that matter.
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> I know you are completely incapable of empathy but try for a moment to
>>>> switch places with workers, and consider that you and your cronies are
>>>> frantically attempting to make me out as being one.
>>> Somewhere there's a really tiny violin playing sad songs for you.
>> Then you'd like to see me killed or injured? Explain please, in full.
>>
>> Or isn't that what you meant?
>
> You have gone out of your way to incite such anger.
That depends on which side of the question you are, your perspective as
it were.
Some might think I have been more than patient and restrained, given the
kind of violent vicious crap you spew, like sending that poor
grandmother off (hopefully she did do it) to admit in court, where her
daughter was fighting for her children, that she had committed a crime
in the course and progress of the case.
And you are surprised that I bring such things to your attention and
call it "inciting?"
There is only one legal and moral way to support your claim. That would
be if I threatened someone with injury or death, had the means, and took
actions to bring it about. People have a right to self defense in such
situations.
> Please do not expect me to feel sorry for you if it catches up to you.
Please do not expect me to expect you to feel sorry for me. Save that
for yourself.
> Kane wrote
>> Notice the sentiments and intentions posted in discussions of murdered
>> caseworkers, Greg. Notice the comments about what posters say they will
>> do if certain impossible to avoid things happen in relation to workers
>> doing their job, Greg.
>
> Kane wrote > Why did you NOT respond to this challenge above, Greg?
>
> Greg wrote > What's this "impossible to avoid" crud you keep spewing?
>
> I asked for clarification of something that made no sense.
>
>> No one is perfect, anywhere in the world, Greg. No caseworker can avoid
>> violating the delusional requirements for correct casework you pissants
>> dream up.
>
> You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?
Nope. For the most part they do work hard to create laws that policy is
derived from that practice attempts to follow.
And your claim of 'qualified immunity' is proof the congress, the
legislators, and the people that elect them understand that the job
cannot be done if NO room for error is allowed.
> Kane wrote
>> You set it up, just like cons do, that no official intervention,
>> including initial investigation, is valid unless the case is already
>> PROVEN.
>
> I set this up?
Yep. Your posts have been full of requirements of workers that are
impossible to consistently perform in the real world.
Any mistake is a full blown attack directed at YOU, which is funny since
YOU don't have a case in the Lisa case.
> Kane wrote > The circular reasoning of the criminal mind.
>
> You mean Congress, state legislators, or the people?
It's possible there is some of that in any of those. Lots of people are
in fact not very good with ethics and making reality fit them. They take
shortcuts, or try to get something for nothing.
> Kane
>> And if you have a beef with how a worker practices their assigned task
>> you go to your legislature and you ask that the process be changed.
>
> Yeah, yeah, the check is in the mail.
Odd, I've made that work many times and seen others do so. I once
watched a woman with a disabled child in a state that at that time had
NO services to help her, a single woman, stand frightened and quivering
before a state legislative body..the entire house..alone. And speak for
services for disabled children.
Some years later she was elected governor of that state. A very fine
women a I respect highly. I got to actually live in her neighborhood for
some few years, and we'd walk our dogs together in the very early morning.
> People HATE bureaucracy for a reason.
Yeah, because it's designed to sort out the chaos and not let one class
or person exploit another. Sadly it's far from perfect, but so far our
system has been superior to most.
Fascism looks good to you kooks but you have to have an oppressed class
to make it work.
Your silliness about the East African victim, instead of actually going
to the citations I offered, shows just how easily you dismiss someone
and relegate them to oppressible status.
> Bunch of CYA morons that take advantage of their government clout.
I run into it from time to time. I tend to help them lose their jobs if
I can. Witness the CPS supervisor I helped bring down.
>
>> Or you go to the agency in question, lodge your complaints and work your
>> way up, if you don't like what you hear at each level.
>
> We gave them that chance. The tape will haunt them.
Good. If you were right, justified, and it made a real difference.
Stupid if all it did was embarrass some worker and not advance your
case, just your ego.
>
>> Shooting or stabbing the worker is illegal. And it's unethical. And it's
>> immoral.
>
> If you falsely accuse an innocent person of something
> as horrible as what CPS does, and cause the kind of harm
> using those lies as CPS does, OCCASIONALLY you will
> find out that even docile peaceful people will react violently.
Is that a rationale for murder by your thinking?
> Is all war illegal, unethical and immoral?
Nope.
> When CPS declares war on a family, they take their chances.
Wrong. You sound like whatshisname now. Are you really getting this stupid?
You spouting the propaganda the hooked Brian, if I'm not mistaken. And I
have a hunch your source for your parroting the party line may well be
the same one's that helped he and Ruth get their children back from CPS
and go happily off, without them, to prison for a few years.
Am I right?
> The family is merely DEFENDING themselves.
Yep. Looks like it.
Merely defending themselves by killing others? Deliberate murder?
The last I heard was that in this country we try to cleave to the
concepts and limits and uses of rule of law, Greg.
> I do not condone violence against CPS.
Sure you do. You just did. You portrayed CPS as declaring and making WAR
on parents and families, thus providing the excuse for declaring war on
them, which means open season.
> I do understand it.
No you don't. You want people to do things that, as Dan said, will lead
them deeper into the quagmire.
This is a perfect example.
Your words are much the same as has been ranted at families that were
CPS clients and they did, on rare occasions, do as your words suggest,
presume war and that war presumes you kill "the enemy." And they did.
I believe I've mentioned you are a very dangerous person.
You incite. Obviously. Others here have done so.
I predict that you are so without morals, and you are so stupid, that
you will continue in this direction. That you lack self control to a
degree that you will create a world of your own that allows for such
thinking to be acted upon.
At present, because you are a coward, you attempt to incite others to
stupidity, and or violence, but in time you'll fall into moments when
you think you are invincible, others even sicker than you will have set
you up to act, convincing, as Brian was convinced, that violence is
right and acceptable against 'gestapo CPS.'
Of course there IS no such organization, and that's a product of your
fertile imagination driven by your need to feel like something you are
not...a man.
>> On what basis do you compare, as you do below, the Holocaust to CPS?
>>
>>> Would that have helped Eichmann in the Nuremberg?
>> I've no idea. He was not a social worker.
>>
>>> He claimed he was only a pencil pusher.
>> I've not noticed any workers claiming they made an error, or that the
>> law inconvenienced YOU Greg, because they were only a pencil pusher.
>
> Actually they HAVE used the excuse they are "just doing their job"
That can be said of everyone that works, if you ask them why they did
some particular work related thing. A plumber will tell you that, when
he hooks your vent line up above a certain point so water won't rise in
it and spill into the next level of vent back into other portions of the
system. It's black water and polluted.
> which of course is absolutely NOT true when they LIE maliciously.
If you have found one or more that lied "maliciously" you might have a
case.
You might even have a morally righteous case...so that you'll be able to
live with the outcome, should you win.
On the other hand, we have seen so much immoral comment by you in these
newsgroups it's very hard to take seriously that anyone could dream up
much that would be a lie about you or malicious.
You are a thoroughgoing little thug, Greg.
Anyone that would urge someone to use a crime they committed to try to
fight a CPS case has to have something loose in the head.
That women might have been simple enough to believe you and could now be
off on your crusade. And help her daughter lose her children to CPS.
I know it's nearly impossible for you to take your own words seriously
as to how they could influence, and that you are terribly short on
taking responsibility, but do you really miss the point here?
>> Every single one has exhibited to me that they are very clear on how
>> serious their job is. None have denied that children are removed, and
>> that they go into foster care. None have denied that children have been
>> abused or even killed in foster care. Hence they are nothing like Eichmann.
>
> The exact things denied are different of course.
> The realizations they get on the witness stand are similar.
You are being obscure again. You must be up past your bedtime.
>> You and your crazed associates have created this bullshit Gestapo CPS
>> out of whole-cloth.
>
> Anybody who truly experiences it from the family side, just knows.
We've seen one such example here. His rant didn't fly either.
CPS must behave, out of the enforcement section, in ways very like
police. They must question, they must examine, they must observe, and
from time to time they must remove children.
It isn't a choice, Greg. It's what society has assigned as a duty to an
agency.
If someone is abusing the methods, there are ways to stop them that
work. Yours don't work.
I have six years of evidence. Don't YOU?
You keep insisting on doing the same stupid things over and over again.
Threats, wild claims, rants, standing around looking threating, using
the language of a paranoid....in everything "they are out to get me."
> Kane wrote
>> If you don't like how CPS is run you use legal means to change it.
>
> Which you have ridiculed repeatedly! Law suits!
No I haven't. NOT ONCE. I even told you to sue, stupid.
The ONLY time I've criticized the use of suit is when CPS has your
children, and your case has not closed, and you are in the earlier
stages where suing slams everything to a dead stop.
Kids can be in care until their majority while little dim heroes like
you, sue. Or commit a crime then run to court and confess it to FORCE
CPS to release the children from slavery, a violation of the 13th
amendment.
Don't you SEE how ridiculous and nutty you look, Greg.
All these years Dan has gone quietly about his work (it would bore guys
like you to tears, because he doesn't go for some grandstand bullshit
for the thrill) doing exactly what it takes, as unspectacular as that
can seem, and getting children out of foster care, back home, and their
parents off the founded hook.
As far as I know he has NEVER told anyone to sue, until AFTER they had
their child safely home.
I suppose if he found a tactical situation that he felt strongly after
analyzing REAL FACTS, he might give that advice.
The difference is you get your facts from fools like you. People that
try to incite YOU to take chances you should not if it's your child at
risk.
Are you getting any of this? ANYTHING at all?
>> Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
>> caseworkers or other CPS workers?
>>
>> If not, please explain what you mean?
>>
>> Do you wish to take caseworkers to court?
>> Feel free. Go for it.
>
> Like we needed YOUR permission??? ROFL!
I was urging you on, not giving permission. I don't operate under a set
of delusions about other people's reality, Greg, as you seem to.
I see you skipped a paragraph.
Let us try this again. I'm really quite patient you know. Oh yes, I
forgot, you DO know that much about reality.
I believe your last comment that I was responding to was:
">>> He claimed he was only a pencil pusher."
And I asked:
"Are you once again running an excuse and rationale for killing
caseworkers or other CPS workers?
If not, please explain what you mean?"
Will you answer the questions asked?
>> The problem you have is that you don't have a leg to stand on, Greg.
>
> That's not what our lawyer says.
Fee based or split the take?
I told you, Greg, a lawyer can gamble on a few cases to hit it big, and
even if many don't, almost all will bring in a few thou from nuisance
settlements.
You can become a Thousandaire, and your lawyer can say, see I told you
we could do it.
Has your lawyer told you you are going to make millions?
>> So the only outlet you have for your class warfare is the wish for death
>> of your opponents. Is that not a correct assumption, Greg?
>
> That would make it harder to sue them.
> That's much more fun!
Then you do not make the comparison to a Nazi war criminal?
>
>> Have you ever bother to review your posts?
>
> I don't obsess about it.
Translation: "I can't stand the reality that a second reading might
reveal....keep away keep away."
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> ... I DO expect you to provide proof.
>>> Kane wrote
>>>> But knowing you will lie, dodge, doananate, gregorafile, and otherwise
>>>> behave like the little hapless pissant you really are...I WILL provide
>>>> you with the referenced material I posted prior. Here is the link to a
>>>> post IN THIS VERY THREAD, you stupid GIT that was addressed in reply to
>>>> George Truro, yet another fucking low life scum liar like you.
>>> Yep, You're a picture of mental health! ROFL!
>> Last time I ran the gauntlet yes. Who knows today. I might be bedbug
>> crazy. No one in the real world has suggested it to me, or behaved as
>> though I am doing irrational things.
>
> Hey buddy!
Sorry, I don't date boys.
> How ya doin?
Good. No I don't want to 'party' with you, thanks anyway.
> Oh by the way YOU NEED HELP!
I've tried to be patient and nice to you, but I guess you need it
straight out. NO, I do not want to fuck you.
Now as to the help I'm supposed to need, what kind?
>> On the other hand, here, appropriate anger at real threats
>
> Links please. No more mapquest junk or linking to your own wind
> bagging.
I corrected those as soon as I discovered them and reposted with the
correct links edited in. And my prior post was the requested material.
I was asked to prove that I had indeed shown Fern to have supported
certain church behaviors. Was I NOT supposed to produce my own post
where I did that?
And I've told you this before you wrote this message I respond to now.
So your idea of debate and argument is to simply lie and debate to the
presumption the lie presents.
It's called Doananation, Greg and it's very ugly
nosepickingeatingthesnot kind of tactic.
I'm embarrassed for you every time I see you do it here.
It's a game of such disgusting behavior that it's calculated to make the
opponent turn away and leave the debate.
I worked with the mentally ill, there's not much ugly that you can do
that would effect me.
>> is not a sign
>> of bad mental health. Nor being alert to the possibility others are
>> setting me up even indirectly. Or gloating over deaths of CPS workers.
>>
>>> Wishing horrible things upon caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>> Nope. "Wishing" is not. Wish all you want.
>>
>> Exercise your right of free speech, and then, as you fail to think about
>> it's limitations (there are some). You could be seen as and proven as
>> doing more than silently wishing.
>>
>> Providing some means may well be illegal IF a caseworker involved has
>> horrible things visited on them. Information would be the means.
>>
>> I keep Don alert to this subject here. He will read this when I send it
>> to you. He might share it with others. I have no control over it once it
>> leaves my workstation.
>
> Thanks for making Don an accessory to all of your previous
> implied threats.
How does telling him what goes on here make him an accessory, and what
threats are being implied?
The threat of he or I using our right to free speech?
> He will no doubt need to identify you and
> since you know him in real life, or ARE HIM, that should be easy.
Still buying the nonsense of your friends, eh?
Greg I asked you before and you ran. What real difference, other than a
positive, would it make in this newsgroup if I were? I've served people
well here.
Uncovered stalking vulpine thugs out to make victims of new posters.
Given solid information an practice and policy right out of the manuals.
Supported the work for helping even admitted guilty child abusers get
their children back.
What would be the terrible harm were I actually Don? A CPS worker?
All the harm has come only too YOU and your vicious pack of vile blood
sucking sickos.
That's a big plus.
Do you think I care if YOU are offended?
Fuck you.
What matters are the families that come here and want to win. Not you,
and your loser pissant buddies, Greg. You are nothing to me, or do Don,
but a damn nuisance, like so many others like you in the world that
civilized responsible people have to keep working with and around.
You have to think I give a piss about you to make such stupid claims
with implied threats in them.
What ever the outcome, what I do here will continue. Trust me.
Parents that need help and can accept it will get it to the best of my
ability.
I know Dan will be here even if I age out for some reason, and it's not
hard for sane responsible people to catch on pretty quick how skilled
and dedicated he is, and how successful.
And it's easier still to read just a few of your sick posts, and that of
your buddies and see what you are...losers, whiners, and albatrosses if
they let you get too near them.
I've watched them come and go for three years plus now, and I've seen
them catch on quick.
How many have joined you and started doing what you suggest, Greg?
Name a family that has followed your lead from this newsgroup.
Hell from any source.
>>> Gloating when horrible things happen to caseworkers is NOT a crime.
>> I never claimed it was. I claimed it was something else.
>>
>> But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
>> way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
>> was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
>> to act violently, you would be wrong.
>>
>> Many people that thought they were in the clear, find they are not. It
>> gets decided NOT here, but in court. Look up case law.
>>
>>> Neither is a "threat of violence".
>> Ah, now there you are wrong.
>>
>> Read up on assault laws in various states.
>>
>> I just posted some statute here recently.
>>
>> Paraphrasing: "It is a crime of assault to cause others, by threat of
>> violence, to fear for their lives or personal safety."
>
> That's referring to a direct threat you idiot.
> Gloating or wishing you ill is NOT a threat.
You seemed to have read for speed rather than comprehension. Let me
help, I have that same failing at times. Very dangerous one when things
really matter a lot.
Here's the paragraph from above for you again. This time read slow.
"But, Greg, if it can be shown (and the perps usually want it shown this
way after they are facing serious time for their crime) that the perp
was influenced by the words and form of expression the "gloating" took,
to act violently, you would be wrong."
I didn't say that gloating and wishing in themselves were threats. I
said that, like the Metzger case, the perps will very likely, to ease
the pressure cop to being INFLUENCED by those that gloat and wish OUT
LOUD AND colorfully.
You will bury each other, Greg.
Deep down you KNOW how morally decrepit you are, despite all the facade
you put up to hide it.
And you know that you are drawn to your kind.
Now if YOU will tell a women to risk her daughter's children to loss to
CPS most certainly our buddies would sell you out in and instance, and
in fact, like you, will lab rat you big time.
My being here is the best protection you have got. I keep tipping you to
things that go deep that you use, whether or not you know it, that pull
you back from the brink from time to time.
I remind you there IS factual truth in the world, and wild accusatory
rants are by their volume and outrageousness obviously false.
I remind you that there are untrustworthies that while you are attracted
to, you are also aware of as being like you. Untrustworthy.
Just keep hummin along, living in your half dreamstate, listening to
them, and reading ME, here, and hopefully you'll come out alright.
Cut me off, listen solely to them and guess where you'll likely wind up.
>
> <snip!>
>
Yeah, you don't want to have to face the truth. ...snip...is your answer
to alot of reality that conflicts with your dearly held delusions.
CPS is fucked, Greg. ALL government agencies are by their very nature as
controllers of society and business, etc.
But they aren't a Gestapo, and they aren't waging war. They are
vulnerable if you learn that, and totally unbeatable if you continue to
cultivate your delusions about what they are.
YOU make your own defeat.
Or you might become a thousandaire.
And will you thank me?
Not likely, but remember who first goaded you to sue, Greg. Remember who
kept telling you to get off your ass and DO IT.
And like Dan, I won't even send you a bill. He never does, I never do.
After, all, I think YOU are doing all the really hard work, and I think
Lisa deserves a little something for her trouble...'cause it's doubtful
the kid will come back with the nuisance flushing money.
I honestly hope you win, Greg. And while YOU won't give my goading you
any credit, I know the influence I've had on you.
We'll make a winner out of you even if we have to start at slimy
overturned rock bottom.
And besides, the kid will be old enough and big enough to tell you, when
you come a shampooin', to "fuck off" ... and make it stick if you go
back to your towel deliverin' ways. I estimate she'll be 17 or more
Isn't it nice when everybody wins?
R R R R R R R R R
Geez you must hate me.
0:->
Greegor
K > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because
> you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
Michael wrote
> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> (libel and slander).
>
> Opinions are defensible simply because opinions are inherently not
> falsifiable.
>
> New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Kane, I can see where this issue might not ever have
come up for you. Truth as a defense doesn't work for you
because you are a compulsive liar.
You said that Fern supported the Georgia ABUSE
just because she criticized GLARING screwups by
the Georgia CPS agency. Your gripes about her were a LIE.
You have made statements about threats of violence.
When called on it you provided links to Mapquest and
a link to another of your own newsgroup posts making
the false assertions about Fern.
You have also stated in your own words that gloating
or openly wishing bad on somebody is a threat.
Later you changed your tune and HOPED TO PRETEND
you never said anybody made threats of violence.
You said you showed Fern's post (as described) to
your posse, but there never was any such post.
Did you just show them your misrepresentation
of what Fern said?
0:->
....quite a bit of cherrypicked out of context agreeable bushwah....
Mike, do you always shit in your porridge before eating it?
> "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_Y...@scnresearch.com:
>
> . . .
> >
> >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> >
> > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
> > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
>
> Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> (libel and slander).
Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
or a similar qualifier, it's a piss poor source.
It's only one defense. It is not truly absolute (or there'd be no
'qualifiers').
Even the source you got that from is likely to carefully qualify it as
"almost always." There are exceptions.
BUT, why did you bring up "defamation?" So you'd have something to
argue?
Where did I say I was going to sue you?
Or anyone?
I could I suppose, but I wouldn't.
I don't need money. I need safety, like all of us.
I believe there are those here trying to take that away from me, and to
use threat of possible harm to supress my right to free speech, choice
of company I keep, and my opinion.
I'll get to the logical sequence that supports my thinking on this.
Keep reading.
I've made no claim in this thread that I was interested in any legal
action concerning defamation, or libel or slander. Against you or
anyone else.
At the risk of using some secret language of queer folk, that Greg
assures us is so, I'd say you are doing a monumental act of "conclusion
jumping."
I said Greg was trying to get ME to commit libel or slander.
He's so obvious, but it's fun to play with him.
Should I consider suing? You have certainly uncovered a real
possibility for me to look at.
R R R RR.....
When will I ever get over my continued amazement of how you fools step
on your own dicks. I should be accustomed to your stupidity after three
years here. I'm not though. Still surprised me how stupid you can be.
You and Greg seem to share the same propensity for concocting intent in
others that is not there. Not by any proof, not even by large stretches
of imagination. (Greg, did I use a queer term again, inadvertently?)
You lost the context by snipping, or Greg did along the way, the
sequence of statements under discussion, and so you moved the argument
on to one I have not initiated. Nor even considered.
Greg turned a corner on my comments and came up with the silly idea
that I was claiming libel and slander rather than pointing out he was
attempting to get ME to do it.
I was happy to argue "libel and slander" definition with him, for fun,
but I made NO claim I was personally saying anyone libeled or slandered
me. Or that I thought I would sue for it.
And I'm still not. But I could argue it easily though, were I Don
Fisher, don't you think?
More later on that subject...stay tuned.
Want to bet on that stated "opinion" not being actionable argument?
Later I'm going to prove to you that Don has a case. Though I doubt
he'd sue either. The twits here frankly aren't worth the trouble nor
have the assest that would make it worth the bother.
Last time I considered suing someone, my attorney had their list of
assets delivered to me in about two hours. It's that easy to get. I
was releaved when they settled as it would have greatly reduced the
award I could collect had they pissed their money away on a lawyer. And
it was a copyright case, not defamation.
Now, where was I? Oh yeah.
Here is where the Gregtwit decided to take a turn into claiming intent
I had not made, and apparently led you down the garden path, Einstein.
>From our prior post, Greg is the source:
"Kane wrote
> > You want me to say something I can be sued for. You are too obvious, Greg.
> > You really are stupid.
If it's true how can you be sued for saying it?
Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?"
...................end of prior quoted prior post...........
The post is in this thread. Look it up.
Am I saying I want to sue anyone?
But you pop up and say you think I said I was going to sue you for your
opinion?
Bee-fuckin-zaar, Clyde.
Go do your hat trick with Greg. He's much more easily amused than I.
You can tell because he drools.
> Opinions are defensible simply because opinions are inherently not
> falsifiable.
So? You miss the point. You too seem to take odd turns around obscure
corners that do not come from or go to the path we are on. What's with
this?
You cherry picked that out of a reference and ignored further research
into the issue because it made you all warm and fuzzy feeling. "It
agreed with your need," as we used to tell delusional folks in group
therapy. Then we'd add, "... but that's not the full nor true story."
That's not a real argument, and yes, I've read the reference. And it's
wrong. Flat out.
In suit harm is always the first consideration. A lie is MORE harmful,
but even the truth can be, according to how it is used. And that's
the crux.
For instance, if I tell a lie about you and no harm comes to you, and
you can't support a claim of feeling intimated, or diminished in some
way, your suit, if you brought one, would not fly.
People aren't penalized for telling lies. They are penalized for DOING
HARM.
Did I say I was going to sue you for your opinion by the way? Or are
you deluding.
Eat more roughage at breakfast. Something is obviously backing up for
you, all the way to the top.
I know just enough about the law, and ask my lawyer before I speak, to
know that my issue here is both threat of harm, and more importantly
what to do and who to do it to, before and possibly after. Now follow
me here: SHOULD I OR OTHERS COME TO ACTUAL HARM.
Sorry to have to repeat that, and so loudly, but the arguments coming
back to me routinely ignore what my real stated intent is.
You boys keep making up intent for me that does not exist, except in
delusional fantasy.
Or bullshit smokescreens to avoid the trouble you've brought to
yourselves.
Defamation isn't, or wasn't, at any rate until YOU brought it up, an
interest of mine. I probably still am not interested except
academically at this point. I love good debate and fact finding.
But, back to what I am interested in MOST; I have certain things I can
do to reduce my risk by clarifying certain aspects of my exchanges with
folks here.
You see, no harm has come as yet. I don't really expect it, but I was a
Boy Scout.
Heck, I don't even feel diminished or held up to public ridicule.
Despite the attempts.
Can't speak for Don, but we'll get around to that question in good time
here today.
> New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
No link, no read. I don't do other's searching. Post a link.
Stop wasting time with that diversionary tactic. You really think the
readers and I will believe there is something signficant there if you
don't link to it?
Besides, neither of us qualify as a 'public figure.' You tried to
divert. Not as Kane, not as Michael.
> The truth is you are Don Fisher. Sue me if I'm wrong.
Your opinion of who I am isn't the question here. Outcomes are the
question. It is about such a statement being part of a sequence. What
the dull and dim never quite seem to figure out.
We'll get to that issue in time.
> In my opinion, Don, you are an ass. Sue me for my opinion.
I wouldn't, if I were you, bet on stated opinions not being actionable,
legally.
I'm not interested in suing, nor have I said I was. If my rights come
under attack I might move to consider that. But not for name calling.
Frankly, because I enjoy having a free swinging forum like this to give
MY opinions in, I don't bother with claiming other's opinions are
something to get bothered by. I think of it as our unspoken unwritten
fair trade agreement....R R R RR R R R
If the exchange does not result in harm, and there is no threat of harm
implied, what's to get one's panties in a twist about, eh?
There's no threat of harm, is there? Is there?
> > And you are trying to sue the state and don't know these things?
> >
> > Stay stupid. It's fun to watch you.
>
> Yes Don, you are remaining rather stupid.
Well, let's see now.
Where did I make a threat to sue that you imply by daring me to?
If you can't follow a thread, and sort out what was actually said, I'd
say you are the one remaining....stupid....again.
I said Greg was angling, as he has for weeks now, if not months, to get
me to slander or libel someone. He's aching for help from some of our
dear departed, one or two who are probably coaching him along.
The Internet, and especially Usenet are notorious for these heated
exchanges, and moreso for nothing coming of them even IF someone sues.
There is just too much chaff flying about for any claims to stick very
well. I wouldn't waste my time normally.
It's got to be some very serious shit to sue, and moreso to win. Name
calling at a sporting event <smile> rarely results in suits, at least
not successful ones.
I'm amused that you are so easily led around by someone of such great
intellect as Greg.
So, Mike, tell us there is no exception to the 'truth as absolute
defense," claim.
Here's a thought for you before the information.
A logical sequence assesment:
It's claimed I'm Don Fisher.
It's claimed here that Don Fisher is a CPS worker.
It's also claimed, vociferously, and with wild ranting accusations, Don
has done harm to innocent people. Or Kane has, or Don/Kane has. What
are the terms I see used, "Danced in their blood," "Destroyed
Families?" I think I have that right. But I can look it up if I need
to.
Following me so far? 0:->
Gee, do you suppose that might just constitute defamation if in fact he
never was a caseworker.
And that he had no contact with CPS clients, but instead worked with an
entirely different population only as a state employee? CPS has lots
of people working for them that do not do casework at all. Nor work in
the chain of command in case work. You know that Mike, don't you?
Would they not need proof, for an "absolute defense," that HE did harm
a specific family (Destroyed) and evidence of the harm he did have to
be presented, for "truth to be a defense?"
And as I recall the plural was used in DEFAMING DON FISHER....so it
would have to be "families" that he has destroyed. No?
You following me here?
And to prove that Don Fisher did harm to people would be a very very
difficult thing if the claim is he did harm by working for "gestapo
CPS."
You and I know, despite your raging stupidity, Mike, that that would
not fly with a jury in a defamation suit. Don would have been clearly
"falsely accused," which is 'defamation.' Look it up.
Who here has accused Don Fisher of being a CPS worker, and who has, by
claiming I am he, accused him of doing harm to "innocent families?"
"Destroyed Families" is the favorite claim.
Read this newsgroup.
I certainly have the list of names of people that called him that and
accused him of that. Some, as Greg so slap-happily points out, 'hide'
behind nyms for anonimity. 0:->
And some....<pregnant pause...a long one> either post with their names,
or have poor server tunneling software that makes them quite easy to
find.
Your claims? Pissing in the wind. Trying to divert and bluff.
And outrageous claims based on 'facts,' such as they are, that do not
actually apply.
We call that "delusional."
You say opinion is not actionable?
I KNOW the source you got that from just from your choice of words. You
looked ONLY at a source that agreed with you...like any good little
working propagandist would do.
Are you one?
Then you just must read this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/slander-and-libel
... Collectively known as defamation, libel and slander are civil
wrongs that harm a reputation; decrease respect, regard, or confidence;
or induce disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings
against an individual or entity. The injury to good name or reputation
is effected through written or spoken words or visual images. ...
Opps!
See that line "or induce disparaging, hostile, or diagreeable opinion
or feelings against an individual or entity?"
Lots of lattitude, waaaaay beyond your understanding of the law in the
U.S. and Canada, right?
Hey we could sue each other as "Michael©" and "Kane," nyms.
Even judges need a laugh sometime.
I have no interest in games.
I have ONLY an interest in my safety and that of my family.
AND, pissant, not having my concerns used against me to suppress my
exercising MY right of free speech. And you aren't a judge that can
simply order me to stop talking or go away. Nor is Greg.
I believe, and it's my opinion, Mike, that you and others here have
tried to use my concern for the safety of my family to suppress my
'speech' exposing a lot of floating turd advice and drive me from this
public forum.
Give that one a little thought.
For my part I have never made the least suggestion of exposing YOUR
family or YOU or others or their families to any kind of physical harm,
or even fear of it. Not from me, nor by me, nor wishing others would do
it to you, or them. Get my drift?
In fact I can point to many of my posts begging Greg, and other twits,
NOT to go away.
I admit to pointing out that the perp himself has put their own family
and pseudofamily at risk of harm though. CPS intervention and removal
and permanent loss of children. Which expresses my concern for the
chidlren and the family. It's all in writing, Mike.
Are you expressing concern for my family or Don Fisher's?
And the argument that I am "creating my own danger" by being here and
acting as I do founders easily, on the First Amendment. And shows that
those asking it or accusing me of it are in fact attempting to violate
my rights. Greg's been a major offender.
Fundies, and bigots, have a "one way street" thinking process in a two
way world.
Sadly they learn the hard way, most often, that if they wander over
into the other lane, there IS two way traffic, and this is actually a
two way street.
No, I would not waste my time suing someone that made claims about who
I am.
On the other hand, what might Don Fisher do about people making claims
that in fact have CRIMINAL and civil violation implications, claiming
he has "Destroyed Innocent Families?" He not only been defamed, he's
been accused of a crime.
Can't say. Bet you aren't smart enough to figure out what to do next,
Michael.
So you still want to claim I'm Don Fisher then? Or would you like to
debate Kane?
To your good health, and stay out of the other lane, but stay here for
more fun, and.....
... eat your porridge.
> Michael©
Kane, no copyright.
0:->
terms:
It's a risky business, or you are lying by failure to post other
opinions.
...snip...
> > "0:->" <pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:MIOdnRxS8_gRDf_Y...@scnresearch.com:
> >
> > . . .
> > >
Greg:
> > >> Truth is the best defense against libel and slander right?
> > >
Kane
> > > Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit because
> > > you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the complainant.
> >
Michael:
> > Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to defamation
> > (libel and slander).
>
> Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
> nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
> "in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."
>
> See that "almost?" Go back to your reference. If it doesn't have that,
> or a similar qualifier, it's a piss poor source.
Which brings us to the real world where One, not everyone agrees with
Michaels source, what ever that was, and Two, the real question of
definition get's covered in court more often than not, and Three, many
of the claims against me, or Don Fisher, have been of the kind I'm
going to bring up next.
So, here's another opinion:
http://www.publishlawyer.com/carousel4.htm
... Another defense to defamation is proving that the statement was an
opinion, not an assertion of a fact. In nonfiction, always state the
facts and your opinion separately. WRONG: "My co-worker John Doe is a
filthy cheat." This is defamatory: an unproven, pejorative ("filthy"
and "cheat") statement about a private (non-public figure) individual.
...
Does that word choice ring any bells for any folks here, as regards to
the "Destroys Innocent Families" accusation?
That would be defamatory.
If you've made such a statement, you attorney would probably suggest to
you that you formally withdraw it in the same forum you presented it.
Just for safety sake, of course.
Then again, he might not. He migh suggest, as is shown in the example
below....
... INSTEAD: "I saw John take five toner cartridges from the supply
closet and put them in his car." ...
... that you PROVE your allegation of "Destroyed Innocent Families."
So you have a lot of choices here, folksies.
You can be quiet as little mice and steal away....AND I BELIEVE IN AND
DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH, so please, please, I beg you, don't
go away.
There would be such a hole in my life if you did.
So stay, and speak right UP.
Then there is another possibility.
You could present one or more (should be more 'cause I think you have
used the plural...families) cases, names, dates, records, court
transcripts, Don's own words, his involvement by name, date,
contributions, etc.
And that would PROVE Don Fisher has destroyed families, so you have the
defense of the truth, that wonderful absolute defense spoken of
earlier.
Or, and it's my favorite of course, because we ALL benefit,
Constitutionally, personal safety, ease of mind and reduction of
tension over having to guess when the other shoe might fall, you might
take the honorable road, and withdraw your claims of Don being a filthy
family destroying CPS worker addressing him as Don and me as Kane, and
we can get on with the often painful debate, for you, that we enjoy
here.
What's it going to be, folksies?
This will never go away until you figure out what to do an do it.
Think about what you have done.
And don't waste your time arguing that I, Kane, have said things about
you.
That's an entirely other argument and does not in any way counter the
claims made that I am Don and that I have destroyed families because I
am a caseworker for CPS.
I'm not, never was.
I've never claimed Don wasn't a worker.
And I know of no evidence that he destroyed innocent or, for that
matter, any guilty families.
Your GUESS is defamatory, boys.
You MUST say, "Don Fisher, in April of 2003, destroyed the Clumpf
family by causing them to XXX and YYY, by his doing ZZZ. And it better
be provable.
You can't defame ME, but you can Don. I'm a nym. Turn me into Don, and
what have you got?.
Your solid proof of Don "Destroying Innocent Families" is all you have,
or you can rethink your positions and your lives. Got the proof? Let's
see it.
My very best wishes to you.
And I'll get word to Don on what you decide. Each and every one of you
singlely and individually
Don't let your testosterone get in your way.
Call me Kane, and nothing else, from this day forward, and I'll forget
all this, and we can get back to what for you is this unpleasant
business here. Much to my delight.
Don's promised me he'll forgive and forget if you call him Don and me
Kane. Otherwise there's not telling what that nutcase Don might do.
Sleep on it before you act. And don't try any offering of porridge from
Michael of the copyrighted name.
Kane, who does NOT dangerously out people, not even the guilty.