Re: Ray attempts Biblical justification: was Re: U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

On 19 Nov 2003 16:54:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> > I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
>> > that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
>> > don't throw said obvious spew out of court.
>> 
>> ".... said obvious spew..."
>
>For example:  Caseworker said that I stood around outside
>their building "in an intimidating manner" for hours.
>Supposedly caseworkers spent HOURS watching some guy
>standing around outside of their building.
>They say it was me.
>
>1. Not true.

Oh, we believe you good buddy. 

>2. No witness provided

They weren't charging you, were they? What would witnesses be used
for?

>3. It's a large public building.

Yep. 

>4. I did visit a congressman's office in that building.

Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long ago about habitual neurotic
liars, they seem to, so they can believe it themselves and get that oh
so convincing look on their faces, always make part of the lie
factual. It helps them in their disgusting practices.

>   I was never near that building for hours.

MmmmmHmmmmmm. Of course not. Technically. 

>5. Even if it WERE true, it's a LEGAL and Constitutionally
>   protected activity.  1st Amendment no less.

Why yes it is. Were you asked to leave or in anyway hindered or
hampered from being there?

And believe it or not state employees are covered and protected by the
same amendment....they get to remark that they saw you standing around
outside the building. Or do you think only non-state employees have or
should have any rights?

>6. When I DO stand around outside their building I
>   will be carrying a picket sign which they
>   will no doubt find to be "intimidating".

No doubt. And as long as you do it in a legal manner under local
statutes your 1st amendments rights will be protected. You may even,
if there is no local law, pull your pants down and exhibit, by your
bent over stance, where you store your brains   ( * )

>7. Logical problem.  They have window ledges that would
>   obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
>   their 3rd floor offices.

Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to their offices all
day long without a break. With those heavy caseloads I'm not
surprized.

>8. The complaint is more interesting because
>   it makes apparent their interest in violating
>   people's constitutional rights.

And in their complaint did they specify they wanted some authority to
come and take you away or force you away?

>9. Which caseworker had HOURS to waste on watching
>   somebody on the sidewalk below their windows?

Well, it would be kind of hard to speculate that on those few
occasions they looked and found you there that you just happened to be
there throughout the hours. But then you are a remarkably strange
character that is in places he shouldn't be so very often, towelboying
and shampoogirling and all.

>But why didn't the JUDGE throw this out of court
>based on number 5?

How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do? You weren't there. If
it's in a document, like a legal finding you will find somewhere to
publish it so we can see the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
stand around in a public place for hours, won't you?

>Why should a person prove or disprove something
>that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

Were you asked to prove it or disprove it? Did you go to jail for it? 

>The Judge should have thrown it out based
>on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

There is no obvious conflict unless you were in any way subject to
confinement or ejection. Were you?

Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl? Was it one of the
factors? Was it even a sneeze?

>It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

Actually no it isn't. It's part of their job to make a judicial
judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous asshole and they might
look at all kinds of perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
make the judgement from.

It's perfectly legal to stand around outside a school ground and watch
the girls soccer team practice too. If you do it for hours and hours
and you also are going to court for molesting children it might well
be brought up.

Is that an abrigement of your 1st amendment? 

You are only 13 years old aren't you? Well, developmentally. 

Kane