The quality and extent of Dan's advice
Greegor
state scrutiny
G > Dan launches into an attack on my family.
D > Again as usual, it's NOT your family.
Who gets to define a family, Dan?
The members? You? CPS?
In light of the caseworker PERJURY used to
make a case, we rejected the malevolent agency's
attempt to define our family to their advantage.
Their attempt at the divide and conquer tactic was obvious.
I have explained this before.
D > And you wanted to know if there were questions that should
D > have been asked to weed out the people who would harm children.
D >
D > All I did was raise the possibility that your former girlfriend
might
D > have used similar question.
D >
D > Considering the fact that she hasn't had custody of her daughter
D > because of you for more than six years!
The caseworker LIED to make a case.
The agency counted on doubt to drive us apart.
The paper proof that the caseworker LIED
went way beyond dispelling any doubt.
The system for years refused to correct glaring ERRORS.
It is corrupt.
What brave solution do you offer Dan?
Run away?
Surrender and HOPE these CASEWORKERS will do the right thing?
Dan Sullivan
> Old thread name was Re: Local child welfare practices may come under
> state scrutiny
>
> G > Dan launches into an attack on my family.
> D > Again as usual, it's NOT your family.
>
> Who gets to define a family, Dan?
>
> The members? You? CPS?
>
> In light of the caseworker PERJURY used to
> make a case, we rejected the malevolent agency's
> attempt to define our family to their advantage.
>
> Their attempt at the divide and conquer tactic was obvious.
>
> I have explained this before.
>
> D > And you wanted to know if there were questions that should
> D > have been asked to weed out the people who would harm children.
> D >
> D > All I did was raise the possibility that your former girlfriend
> might
> D > have used similar question.
> D >
> D > Considering the fact that she hasn't had custody of her daughter
> D > because of you for more than six years!
>
> The caseworker LIED to make a case.
FACTS you admitted to, Greg...
1 - you made it a habit to go into the bathroom every time the little
girl was naked after she showered
2 - you physically grabbed the little girl to force her back into the
shower
3 - you forced the little girl to take cold showers as punishment
> The agency counted on doubt to drive us apart.
> The paper proof that the caseworker LIED
> went way beyond dispelling any doubt.
Do you deny facts 1,2 and, Greg?
> The system for years refused to correct glaring ERRORS.
> It is corrupt.
>
> What brave solution do you offer Dan?
You are no longer with Lisa, so what's the difference?
Greegor
> If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
This I believe. You practice constantly.
Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
With your hostile interrogation I'm starting to
think you don't have any real advice!
Dan Sullivan
Which of my questions are hostile?
Greegor
This is about your advice.
Kane already described his eagerness to kiss caseworker ass.
That IS your advice, isn't it?
I have asked you many times, WHY would
anybody need ""advice"" on how to kiss
their caseworkers ass and do everything they ask?
Dan Sullivan
> On Jun 30, 6:42 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 7:17 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Kane wrote
>
> > > > If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> > > > I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
>
> > > This I believe. You practice constantly.
>
> > > Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
>
> > > With your hostile interrogation I'm starting to
> > > think you don't have any real advice!
>
> > Which of my questions are hostile?
>
> This is about your advice.
No it's not.
You said my interrigation was hostie.
I asked which questions were hostile to clarify what you were saying.
> Kane already described his eagerness to kiss caseworker ass.
I never saw that.
> That IS your advice, isn't it?
What is?
> I have asked you many times, WHY would
> anybody need ""advice"" on how to kiss
> their caseworkers ass and do everything they ask?
I don't advise anyone to kiss anyone's ass.
Greegor
> On Jun 30, 8:15 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 6:42 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 7:17 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Kane wrote
>
> > > > > If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> > > > > I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
>
> > > > This I believe. You practice constantly.
>
> > > > Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
>
> > > > With your hostile interrogation I'm starting to
> > > > think you don't have any real advice!
>
> > > Which of my questions are hostile?
>
> > This is about your advice.
>
> No it's not.
>
> You said my interrigation was hostie.
>
> I asked which questions were hostile to clarify what you were saying.
>
> > Kane already described his eagerness to kiss caseworker ass.
>
> I never saw that.
You QUOTED IT! Didn't you see what you QUOTED?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.divorce/msg/c15d474bca246df8?dmode=source
> > That IS your advice, isn't it?
>
> What is?
>
> > I have asked you many times, WHY would
> > anybody need ""advice"" on how to kiss
> > their caseworkers ass and do everything they ask?
>
> I don't advise anyone to kiss anyone's ass.
Kane seems to think you do.
Dan Sullivan
> On Jun 30, 7:54 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:15 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 6:42 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 7:17 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Kane wrote
>
> > > > > > If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> > > > > > I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
>
> > > > > This I believe. You practice constantly.
>
> > > > > Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
>
> > > > > With your hostile interrogation I'm starting to
> > > > > think you don't have any real advice!
>
> > > > Which of my questions are hostile?
>
> > > This is about your advice.
>
> > No it's not.
>
> > You said my interrigation was hostie.
>
> > I asked which questions were hostile to clarify what you were saying.
>
> > > Kane already described his eagerness to kiss caseworker ass.
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
> > I never saw that.
>
> You QUOTED IT! Didn't you see what you QUOTED?
>
No, asshole, I quoted your post.
I don't know that Kane said that.
Greegor
> No, asshole, I quoted your post.
>
> I don't know that Kane said that.
You QUOTED it.
Greegor
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:15:22 -0700, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 30, 6:42 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Jun 30, 7:17 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >This is about your advice.
>
>
>
> >I have asked you many times, WHY would
> >anybody need ""advice"" on how to kiss
> >their caseworkers ass and do everything they ask?
>
> myself, Greg, as I did, your question constitutes a rhetorical
> question LIE.
>
> The answer is as obvious as your attempt to change other's meaning.
>
> Now one needs advice on how to kiss ass.
>
> Everyone that has a child at risk with CPS needs to know how to
> preempt the process as early as possible.
>
> The Christine's lawyer said so, and Dan said so.
Quote please?
>
> I concur.
On Jul 2, 1:05 am, "0:-]" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:17:33 -0700, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Kane wrote
> >> If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> >> I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
>
> >This I believe. You practice constantly.
>
> They don't ask that. Do you need another english lesson? "If" is the
> operative word here.
Is it about semantics or is it about the attitude
you convey in regard to due process and legal rights?
> >Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
>
> Nope. His is to preempt the worker, the judge, the whole court number.
Golly, in their zeal, telling lies and perjuring to make a case,
altering transcripts, etc. You think that they are going
to be so easily preempted? Like using your body to ""stop""
a steam roller. Yeah, right.
A number of the cases are downright insane.
One woman here was told by a counselor to take
her daughter for a sex abuse exam.
Before that the mother had taken photos of
the child's genitalia with bruising.
The exam couldn't prove SA but could not rule it out.
The court got angry that she had taken the photos
got threatening and ordered them destroyed.
They took the kid away apparently because
the mother was overprotective and over reactive.
But wait... rememember she had been told
by a counselor to take the child for a sex abuse exam?
Lawyers did NOT help this mother.
The steam roller squashed her flat.
Submitting to services didn't help.
Aren't you glad she listened to the counselor
and protected the child?
TPR'd.
Placed with the father.
> >With your hostile interrogation I'm starting to
> >think you don't have any real advice!
>
> I do believe you are projecting.
>
> Do you recall your recent conversation on vegetarianism?
>
> -:]
Does that mean you think I am a vegan?
Dan Sullivan
You're such a moron.
" Play by the rules towards the quickest exit possible... all other
approaches will end in disappointment."
The title of another thread you responded twice to.
> > I concur.
>
> On Jul 2, 1:05 am, "0:-]" <pohaku.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:17:33 -0700, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Kane wrote
> > >> If it was MY child and the caseworker said "kiss my ass right here,"
> > >> I'd ask that they mark the spot so I wouldn't miss.
>
> > >This I believe. You practice constantly.
>
> > They don't ask that. Do you need another english lesson? "If" is the
> > operative word here.
>
> Is it about semantics or is it about the attitude
> you convey in regard to due process and legal rights?
???
> > >Dan: Isn't that YOUR advice also?
>
> > Nope. His is to preempt the worker, the judge, the whole court number.
>
> Golly, in their zeal, telling lies and perjuring to make a case,
> altering transcripts, etc. You think that they are going
> to be so easily preempted? Like using your body to ""stop""
> a steam roller. Yeah, right.
Among a host of other enormous mistakes that precipitated the removal,
you screwed Lisa's case from the start by having her father, a retired
policeman, arrested.
After all that she still could have gotten her daughter back... IN
2001!!!
> A number of the cases are downright insane.
> One woman here... <<<snip>>>
You ask what I suggest families do to get their children back from CPS
ASAP and after I respond you go into stories of people who never had
decent advice on how to deal with the system.
In fact they (like the Christines) probably had advice from morons
like yourself, Greg.
Is it any wonder the people who go to "Constitutionalists" websites
like the one Mr.Steele mentioned, rarely get their children back!
lostintranslation
Greg...geez you would think that after all this time, you would
realize that what Dan suggests actually does work. I will use my case
for an example. I was told it would take a very long time, due to the
backlog of the system, my CW going abroad for 8 weeks right after he
was assigned our case and other variable, to get our case going let
alone get the boys back home. Well, during that extended halt in our
case, I talked with Dan. We had our parenting classes, drug and
alcohol evals done, got into counseling and moved. When our CW came
back and started everything up for us, he was taken aback because we
had already started and/or completed alot of the services he was going
to have ordered for us. The second time in court? Well, you know
what happened. Our boys came home. Can you say the same thing? Of
course you can't.
You often question me about how to get services removed from your
caseplan. I have told you over and over again, you approach the
situation calmly and rationally and ask WHY those services are
needed. Calmly and rationally, you make them prove you need the
services. If they can't prove it, then the next best thing to do is
have the services removed. It does work if you approach the matter in
a mature, rational manner. Self advocacy...ever heard of it? And
again, parenting classes never hurt anyone. Counseling can be
beneficial post child removal or at the threat of removal. And if you
aren't drugging or a falling down drunk, why be pissed at taking a
drug and alcohol eval? Yes, it's a pain in the ass and bothersome but
in an hour, it will be done and over with.
This constitutional defense crap while your kids are in care is
nothing short of going down the road to eventual TPR or permanent
foster care. I bet you get hard and even orgasmic when you see
someone following that advice and they lose their children forever.
Dan Sullivan
wrote:
It isn't Greg's kid lost in permenent foster care.
But his tactics, strategy and solutions will get a family's neck in
that noose.
lostintranslation
Oh, I know it isn't HIS kid in care. It's Lisa's child lost probably
forever, due to Greg's stupid advice and sue happy attitude. Lisa
would have been much better off throwing the louse's ass out on the
street (with no coat or shoes) and did the services than following the
sue happy, constitutional defense bullshit. It's great to want to try
to change things but people need to focus on the most important thing
first...get the child(ren) home THEN start with the changes and
tactics.
Dan Sullivan
Two weeks after the little girl was removed Greg read all the BS the
"loonatic activists" posted about CPS.
He thought he'd uncovered a pot of gold!
All he had to do was prove CPS violated his/Lisa's constitutional
rights and they'd be living on easy street forever.
Six + years down the line and all he produced was a pantload of
hilarious crap (advice).
> Lisa
> would have been much better off throwing the louse's ass out on the
> street (with no coat or shoes) and did the services than following the
> sue happy, constitutional defense bullshit. It's great to want to try
> to change things but people need to focus on the most important thing
> first...get the child(ren) home THEN start with the changes and
> tactics.
Greg's never going to try to change CPS.
That's not his goal.
Greegor
> Among a host of other enormous mistakes that precipitated the removal,
> you screwed Lisa's case from the start by having her father, a retired
> policeman, arrested.
1. He's not a retired policeman. 6th grade education (like Jethro
Bodeen)
2. How could arrest precipitate removal when it took place AFTER
removal?
3. He was arrested for an ASSAULT on me and plead guilty.
4. Did I make him commit the crime he admitted to, or the one he
should have been charged for?
5. When psych eval input pretended assault was my delusion, wasn't
arrest & guilty plea STRATEGIC for us?
6. Keep in mind also that citizens can not press criminal charges. A
prosecutor did.
> After all that she still could have gotten her daughter back... IN 2001!!!
By ignoring damning PERJURY?
How do you prove them wrong while refusing to fight
outright caseworker PERJURY?
Isn't that part of proving them wrong?
How can you prove them wrong without "rocking the boat"?
You think caseworkers LIKE being proven wrong?
> > A number of the cases are downright insane.
> > One woman here... <<<snip>>>
>
> You ask what I suggest families do to get their children back from CPS
> ASAP and after I respond you go into stories of people who never had
> decent advice on how to deal with the system.
I agree with you about the quality of most public defenders.
The mother in the story was completely in their hands and got shafted.
> In fact they (like the Christines) probably had advice from morons
> like yourself, Greg.
No, she had a public defender attorney in charge.
So did we, once we were allowed to have one, 21 days after physical
child removal.
> Is it any wonder the people who go to "Constitutionalists" websites
> like the one Mr.Steele mentioned, rarely get their children back!
You meant that as a slur on citizens.
Clearly you disregard the meaning of the Constitution.
I'm sure you didn't consider what is wrong with
your statement, some rather derogatory implications
about the modus operandi of the courts and system.
Do you think ANY Constitutionalists are rational?
You paint ALL Constitutionalists as being like the
ones seeking to void money or the IRS, don't you Dan?
Do you honestly mean to portray the Constitution
as dangerous for citizens to read or quote in court?
Parents quoting the Constitution really BOTHER you don't they?
If not in court, then where?
Would you void the whole Constitution?
Made it an act of sedition to read it?
Dan Sullivan
> Dan wrote
>
> > Among a host of other enormous mistakes that precipitated the removal,
> > you screwed Lisa's case from the start by having her father, a retired
> > policeman, arrested.
>
> 1. He's not a retired policeman. 6th grade education (like Jethro
> Bodeen)
Excuse me, then it was his friend, a retired cop, who called the
authorities on you?
> 2. How could arrest precipitate removal when it took place AFTER
> removal?
I didn't say the arrest precipitated the removal.
The authorities removed the little girl and then grandpa wacked you in
the face?
> 3. He was arrested for an ASSAULT on me and plead guilty.
What did he plead guilty to?
> 4. Did I make him commit the crime he admitted to, or the one he
> should have been charged for?
What should he have been charged with?
Where were you when he wacked you in the face?
Were the authorities and the little girl still at the house?
> 5. When psych eval input pretended assault was my delusion, wasn't
> arrest & guilty plea STRATEGIC for us?
The input according to you didn't say "assault" victim till a few days
ago.
What makes you think it was strategic in any way?
> 6. Keep in mind also that citizens can not press criminal charges. A
> prosecutor did.
Which means what?
> > After all that she still could have gotten her daughter back... IN 2001!!!
>
> By ignoring damning PERJURY?
No, by doing what was necessary and appropriate to get her daughter
back.
> How do you prove them wrong while refusing to fight
> outright caseworker PERJURY?
You prove everything else wrong first.
And who refused to fight the perjury?
> Isn't that part of proving them wrong?
What is?
> How can you prove them wrong without "rocking the boat"?
By not making it personal.
> You think caseworkers LIKE being proven wrong?
I'm sure they don't enjoy it.
> > > A number of the cases are downright insane.
> > > One woman here... <<<snip>>>
>
> > You ask what I suggest families do to get their children back from CPS
> > ASAP and after I respond you go into stories of people who never had
> > decent advice on how to deal with the system.
>
> I agree with you about the quality of most public defenders.
I wasn't referring to PDs.
I was referring to people like you who advise parents to get arrested
in Court.
To sit on their thumbs till CPS proves their case in Court.. and then
it's THEIR kids (NOT YOUR'S) stuck in foster care for at least six
months.
> The mother in the story was completely in their hands and got shafted.
Who advised her to do what she did?
> > In fact they (like the Christines) probably had advice from morons
> > like yourself, Greg.
>
> No, she had a public defender attorney in charge.
> So did we, once we were allowed to have one, 21 days after physical
> child removal.
Yeah, but I believe it only took you two weeks to decide to fight CPS
over every issue, big or small.
> > Is it any wonder the people who go to "Constitutionalists" websites
> > like the one Mr.Steele mentioned, rarely get their children back!
>
> You meant that as a slur on citizens.
No, I meant just what I said.
> Clearly you disregard the meaning of the Constitution.
Not at all.
> I'm sure you didn't consider what is wrong with
> your statement, some rather derogatory implications
> about the modus operandi of the courts and system.
The issue I raise is the modus operandi of the website (and similar
websites) that Mr. Steele mentioned in his statement.
> Do you think ANY Constitutionalists are rational?
In regard to what?
> You paint ALL Constitutionalists as being like the
> ones seeking to void money or the IRS, don't you Dan?
Mr. Steele painted the "Constitutionalists" based on what their advice
did to the Christine family.
> Do you honestly mean to portray the Constitution
> as dangerous for citizens to read or quote in court?
I didn't say that.
> Parents quoting the Constitution really BOTHER you don't they?
No.
> If not in court, then where?
???
> Would you void the whole Constitution?
What for?
> Made it an act of sedition to read it?
???
Greegor
> On Jul 2, 4:57 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dan wrote
>
> > > Among a host of other enormous mistakes that precipitated the removal,
> > > you screwed Lisa's case from the start by having her father, a retired
> > > policeman, arrested.
>
> > 1. He's not a retired policeman. 6th grade education (like Jethro
> > Bodeen)
>
> Excuse me, then it was his friend, a retired cop, who called the
> authorities on you?
Nope. You missed again.
Why are you having such trouble with these details?
Not retired.
Active cop on scene was their back fence neighbor.
You blurred him with the senile guy across
the street that the senile grandma asked to
""watch"" us and who called up the grandparents??
He didn't call authorities, he called psycho grandma.
> > 2. How could arrest precipitate removal when it took place AFTER
> > removal?
>
> I didn't say the arrest precipitated the removal.
You said it was among a host of mistakes that precipitated the
removal.
As I responded, the arrest could NOT have precipitated removal since
it took place after the physical child removal.
> The authorities removed the little girl and then grandpa wacked you in
> the face?
Nope. Other way around, AND without any court removal order.
> > 3. He was arrested for an ASSAULT on me and plead guilty.
>
> What did he plead guilty to?
ASSAULT.
> > 4. Did I make him commit the crime he admitted to, or the one he
> > should have been charged for?
>
> What should he have been charged with?
Forceable entry, a FELONY.
> Where were you when he wacked you in the face?
In the doorway.
> Were the authorities and the little girl still at the house?
Not there yet.
I called them after I was attacked in doorway.
> > 5. When psych eval input pretended assault was my delusion, wasn't
> > arrest & guilty plea STRATEGIC for us?
>
> The input according to you didn't say "assault" victim till a few days
> ago.
I posted that LONG ago. Losing track Dan?
> What makes you think it was strategic in any way?
Well, when a caseworker is trying to portray somebody
as a nut job by saying they IMAGINE themselves to be
an assault victim, don't you think that accusation looks
stupid when the assailant pleads guilty?
> > 6. Keep in mind also that citizens can not press criminal charges. A
> > prosecutor did.
>
> Which means what?
I didn't ""get him arrested"" and such accusations are psycho.
>
> > > After all that she still could have gotten her daughter back... IN 2001!!!
>
> > By ignoring damning PERJURY?
>
> No, by doing what was necessary and appropriate to get her daughter
> back.
Isn't that ignoring caseworker PERJURY?
And kissing caseworker ass?
We refused to do BASELESS services.
Most were.
> > How do you prove them wrong while refusing to fight
> > outright caseworker PERJURY?
>
> You prove everything else wrong first.
Blatant PERJURY staring you in the face
and you think we should have proven lesser
things wrong first? WHY?
> And who refused to fight the perjury?
Public pretender
Remember she wasn't PRO SE back then.
Despite your assertions of who botched up the case,
she went through THREE really LOUSY public defenders.
First was totally new to dependency court.
Second was a feisty lady but a stooge for the agency.
Third was a complete lazy ass. Wasted 3 months
lead time, refused meetings, dodged phone calls
and refused to call back. Didn't even READ case until
a week before hearing.
> > Isn't that part of proving them wrong?
>
> What is?
Nailing them for the PERJURY
> > How can you prove them wrong without "rocking the boat"?
>
> By not making it personal.
That would have been the attorney's job right?
One of the three idiots that botched the case...
> > You think caseworkers LIKE being proven wrong?
>
> I'm sure they don't enjoy it.
Yet you don't think they'd resist it?
> > > > A number of the cases are downright insane.
> > > > One woman here... <<<snip>>>
>
> > > You ask what I suggest families do to get their children back from CPS
> > > ASAP and after I respond you go into stories of people who never had
> > > decent advice on how to deal with the system.
>
> > I agree with you about the quality of most public defenders.
>
> I wasn't referring to PDs.
Well then you SHOULD have been, because my SO
went through THREE really worthless public defenders
and if anybody botched the case it was them.
> I was referring to people like you who advise parents to get arrested
> in Court.
Why did you change to lostintranslations case in the middle of this
discussion?
> To sit on their thumbs till CPS proves their case in Court..
If they have a public defender (most people do) they are pretty much
stuck in that situation.
> and then it's THEIR kids (NOT YOUR'S) stuck
> in foster care for at least six months.
The first, terribly inexperienced attorney strongly
urged my SO to stipulate, he joined in with the
state people promising a short easy service plan.
I expressed suspicion and he promised that
if they "loaded up" the service plan he would
actively FIGHT them to fix it.
When the big service plan came out, he withdrew.
> > The mother in the story was completely in their hands and got shafted.
>
> Who advised her to do what she did?
A public defender.
> > > In fact they (like the Christines) probably had advice from morons
> > > like yourself, Greg.
>
> > No, she had a public defender attorney in charge.
> > So did we, once we were allowed to have one, 21 days after physical
> > child removal.
>
> Yeah, but I believe it only took you two weeks to decide to fight CPS
> over every issue, big or small.
That would be less than 21 days, Dan, and before we were
allowed any public defender .
What you are referring to is that back before the agency
had any jurisdiction or right to they were TELLING us this
and refusing us THAT - things they had no right to.
After we saw the puke they wrote up on us we realized
they were SCAMMING us and put and stopped
COOPERATING with our own execution.
Would you gladly stick your neck in a noose Dan?
In the name of ""cooperating""?
> > > Is it any wonder the people who go to "Constitutionalists" websites
> > > like the one Mr.Steele mentioned, rarely get their children back!
>
> > You meant that as a slur on citizens.
>
> No, I meant just what I said.
Please elaborate then.
> > Clearly you disregard the meaning of the Constitution.
>
> Not at all.
Then WHY not use it in COURT?
Why is the Constitution not welcome in dependency court?
> > I'm sure you didn't consider what is wrong with
> > your statement, some rather derogatory implications
> > about the modus operandi of the courts and system.
>
> The issue I raise is the modus operandi of the website (and similar
> websites) that Mr. Steele mentioned in his statement.
After watching the modus operandi of the three worthless
public defenders, damn near anything is better.
> > Do you think ANY Constitutionalists are rational?
>
> In regard to what?
CPS cases, legal jurisdiction, fighting in court, etc.
> > You paint ALL Constitutionalists as being like the
> > ones seeking to void money or the IRS, don't you Dan?
>
> Mr. Steele painted the "Constitutionalists" based on what their advice
> did to the Christine family.
You think all Constitutionalists are the same?
> > Do you honestly mean to portray the Constitution
> > as dangerous for citizens to read or quote in court?
>
> I didn't say that.
It sure appears that you did.
> > Parents quoting the Constitution really BOTHER you don't they?
>
> No.
It sure appears so from your comments.
> > If not in court, then where?
>
> ???
Where should the Bill Of Rights be used, Dan?
> > Would you void the whole Constitution?
>
> What for?
You don't advocate using it when it matters.
Is that correct?
> > Made it an act of sedition to read it?
>
> ???
Everybody who reads it is nuts right?
Dan Sullivan
911 - What is your emergency?
I was just smacked in the face by an old man!
Can I sue him?
> > > 5. When psych eval input pretended assault was my delusion, wasn't
> > > arrest & guilty plea STRATEGIC for us?
>
> > The input according to you didn't say "assault" victim till a few days
> > ago.
>
> I posted that LONG ago. Losing track Dan?
I believe the first time you referred to it as "assault" victim was
6-30-2007.
Please post the citation of the earliest time you called it assault
victim.
> > What makes you think it was strategic in any way?
>
> Well, when a caseworker is trying to portray somebody
> as a nut job by saying they IMAGINE themselves to be
> an assault victim, don't you think that accusation looks
> stupid when the assailant pleads guilty?
>
> > > 6. Keep in mind also that citizens can not press criminal charges. A
> > > prosecutor did.
>
> > Which means what?
>
> I didn't ""get him arrested"" and such accusations are psycho.
>
>
>
> > > > After all that she still could have gotten her daughter back... IN 2001!!!
>
> > > By ignoring damning PERJURY?
>
> > No, by doing what was necessary and appropriate to get her daughter
> > back.
>
> Isn't that ignoring caseworker PERJURY?
It's better to focus on what's not going to help get your girlfriend's
daughter back?
> And kissing caseworker ass?
> We refused to do BASELESS services.
>
> Most were.
List all the services and specify which ones were baseless.
> > > How do you prove them wrong while refusing to fight
> > > outright caseworker PERJURY?
>
> > You prove everything else wrong first.
>
> Blatant PERJURY staring you in the face
> and you think we should have proven lesser
> things wrong first? WHY?
Because it was the other things that would have helped get the little
girl back to her mother.
> > And who refused to fight the perjury?
>
> Public pretender
> Remember she wasn't PRO SE back then.
> Despite your assertions of who botched up the case,
> she went through THREE really LOUSY public defenders.
> First was totally new to dependency court.
> Second was a feisty lady but a stooge for the agency.
> Third was a complete lazy ass. Wasted 3 months
> lead time, refused meetings, dodged phone calls
> and refused to call back. Didn't even READ case until
> a week before hearing.
>
> > > Isn't that part of proving them wrong?
>
> > What is?
>
> Nailing them for the PERJURY
Once the Judge tells you it isn't being considered... you move on to
what will be considered.
> > > How can you prove them wrong without "rocking the boat"?
>
> > By not making it personal.
>
> That would have been the attorney's job right?
> One of the three idiots that botched the case...
Boo FREAKIN hoo.
> > > You think caseworkers LIKE being proven wrong?
>
> > I'm sure they don't enjoy it.
>
> Yet you don't think they'd resist it?
I've proven many CPS CWs wrong. They can't do anything about it.
> > > > > A number of the cases are downright insane.
> > > > > One woman here... <<<snip>>>
>
> > > > You ask what I suggest families do to get their children back from CPS
> > > > ASAP and after I respond you go into stories of people who never had
> > > > decent advice on how to deal with the system.
>
> > > I agree with you about the quality of most public defenders.
>
> > I wasn't referring to PDs.
>
> Well then you SHOULD have been, because my SO
> went through THREE really worthless public defenders
> and if anybody botched the case it was them.
Boo FREAKIN hoo.
> > I was referring to people like you who advise parents to get arrested
> > in Court.
>
> Why did you change to lostintranslations case in the middle of this
> discussion?
As an example of your ridiculous advice..
> > To sit on their thumbs till CPS proves their case in Court..
>
> If they have a public defender (most people do) they are pretty much
> stuck in that situation.
>
> > and then it's THEIR kids (NOT YOUR'S) stuck
> > in foster care for at least six months.
>
> The first, terribly inexperienced attorney strongly
> urged my SO to stipulate, he joined in with the
> state people promising a short easy service plan.
> I expressed suspicion and he promised that
> if they "loaded up" the service plan he would
> actively FIGHT them to fix it.
> When the big service plan came out, he withdrew.
Boo FREAKIN hoo.
> > > The mother in the story was completely in their hands and got shafted.
>
> > Who advised her to do what she did?
>
> A public defender.
>
> > > > In fact they (like the Christines) probably had advice from morons
> > > > like yourself, Greg.
>
> > > No, she had a public defender attorney in charge.
> > > So did we, once we were allowed to have one, 21 days after physical
> > > child removal.
>
> > Yeah, but I believe it only took you two weeks to decide to fight CPS
> > over every issue, big or small.
>
> That would be less than 21 days, Dan, and before we were
> allowed any public defender .
And you had already decided to fight CPS over everything.
> What you are referring to is that back before the agency
> had any jurisdiction or right to they were TELLING us this
> and refusing us THAT - things they had no right to.
CPS pulled the little girl from her mother.
The case was open.
They were offering the mother a reunification plan.
> After we saw the puke they wrote up on us we realized
> they were SCAMMING us and put and stopped
> COOPERATING with our own execution.
Your own EXECUTION!!!!
Boo FREAKIN hoo.
You lost nothing, in fact you gained more space for your crap... her
bedroom!
> Would you gladly stick your neck in a noose Dan?
I've never stuck my head in a noose.
And I've never suggested anyone else do it either.
> In the name of ""cooperating""?
>
> > > > Is it any wonder the people who go to "Constitutionalists" websites
> > > > like the one Mr.Steele mentioned, rarely get their children back!
>
> > > You meant that as a slur on citizens.
>
> > No, I meant just what I said.
>
> Please elaborate then.
Read it till you understand it.
> > > Clearly you disregard the meaning of the Constitution.
>
> > Not at all.
>
> Then WHY not use it in COURT?
When?
During a Fact Finding Hearing?
Or prior to a FFH?
IOW the first foray into court after the children have been removed?
> Why is the Constitution not welcome in dependency court?
You tell me.
> > > I'm sure you didn't consider what is wrong with
> > > your statement, some rather derogatory implications
> > > about the modus operandi of the courts and system.
>
> > The issue I raise is the modus operandi of the website (and similar
> > websites) that Mr. Steele mentioned in his statement.
>
> After watching the modus operandi of the three worthless
> public defenders, damn near anything is better.
Boo FREAKIN hoo.
> > > Do you think ANY Constitutionalists are rational?
>
> > In regard to what?
>
> CPS cases, legal jurisdiction, fighting in court, etc.
In regard to what specifically?
> > > You paint ALL Constitutionalists as being like the
> > > ones seeking to void money or the IRS, don't you Dan?
>
> > Mr. Steele painted the "Constitutionalists" based on what their advice
> > did to the Christine family.
>
> You think all Constitutionalists are the same?
The same what?
> > > Do you honestly mean to portray the Constitution
> > > as dangerous for citizens to read or quote in court?
>
> > I didn't say that.
>
> It sure appears that you did.
Exactly what did I say?
> > > Parents quoting the Constitution really BOTHER you don't they?
>
> > No.
>
> It sure appears so from your comments.
Which comments?
> > > If not in court, then where?
>
> > ???
>
> Where should the Bill Of Rights be used, Dan?
You tell me.
> > > Would you void the whole Constitution?
>
> > What for?
>
> You don't advocate using it when it matters.
> Is that correct?
Of course not.
> > > Made it an act of sedition to read it?
>
> > ???
>
> Everybody who reads it is nuts right?
Not at all.