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

On 19 Nov 2003 23:51:18 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>> >1. Not true.
>> Oh, we believe you good buddy.
>Who is "we" Kane?  You and your socks?

I just happen to have no socks on this morning. Why do you ask?
You have a thing about socks I noticed. Rather fond of them, and them
of you.

>> >2. No witness provided
>> They weren't charging you, were they?
>> What would witnesses be used for?
>TPR hearing.

Then there is no constitutional issue. YOU are not a party to the
case, but just evidence. Interesting you'd see yourself, with no legal
status whatsoever regarding the child or the mother ("fiance's" and
gigolos aren't, you know) as having YOUR constitutional rights
abridged. Rights to What, the right to spank and shower a little girl
not related to you by blood or marriage or adoption?

>> 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.
>
>This does explain a LOT about you, Commander McBrag.

Gosh, what a withering comeback. I'm just devastated. R R R R 

>> >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.
>
>Umm.  They're Unionized.  What makes you think they
>"are confined to their offices all day long without a break"?

That WAS my point, scummy dummy. They aren't chained to their desks so
they would have ample opportunity to go out for coffee, or leave the
building on state business, like monitoring placements in foster care,
or visiting families receiving in-home services, or doing protective
service abuse allegation investigations.

Since they often carry cell phones I can just imagine, after they have
gotten to their state or county or their own car, that call back to
the office: "He's baaaaaaaaaack." "Oh, nothing, just standing there
staring at our office with one hand in his pocket jiggling and the
other making faucet turning motions, weird huh?" and then laughing her
or his ass off as they leave to go about their WORK, something you
never have had to do for the past 2.5 years.

>And what the HECK does that have to do with the
>window ledges and visibility?

You brought that up. If you are referring to your view of them, then
yes, you really ARE a weirdo. If you are referring to their view of
you...then see above.

>> How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do?
>> You weren't there.

>I was in attendance at the TPR.

I suspect the court was dying to see the author of the Motion, that
they knew the mother couldn't have written herself. They let you in
did they? How nice of them...R R R R R

I can imagine they all now suffer from high blood pressure from the
effects of holding in their laughter when they final got to see the
cretin that showers and shampoos and dries little girls they aren't
related to, and that writes the idiocy in that Motion.

Just to refresh your memory why don't you go back and read it now. I
mean even you must have grown up a little in the past 2 years or so
and can see the outlandish humor, and the underlying viciousness of
the scummy person that would write such a thing ensuring the loss of a
child by her mother.

>> 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?
>
>Are they going to make such records public?

Yah got me. I understand from what Dan's posted here that the results
of a TPR are usually given to the defendant in printed form.

Ask your "fiance" for her copy and then see if you can find a 12 year
old to show you how to use a scanner...then take the graphic and put
it up on a website somewhere...the 12 year old will steer yah right on
that too.

>> >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?
>
>No, It was just used to villify me in a TPR hearing.

Like we villify you here? R R R R 

You mean they discussed issues just like we do here...like what WERE
you doing in that bathroom, towel in one hand...and who knows what you
were doing with the other?

Like why can't a 6 year old proportedly bright little girl get the
shampoo out of her own hair? Or find a towel for herself? Or have it
given to her BEFORE she goes to shower? Or why the bathroom doesn't
have a supply of towels like most households?

You give away sooooo much when you post, Greegor....so much. 

Like why would a grown male who spanks a little girl not understand
the terror and confusion that could result in her wetting herself?

Like why did the events conveniently lead to the shower, then to the
removal, then the Motion that most definately screwed the mom out of
any chance of getting her child back with that vicious little bastard
squatting in her home?

>Because LIBERTY INTEREST involved, comparable to jail.

What liberty interest was that? The right to shower little girls? The
right to threaten the child? (Just being there was a threat). The
right to use her space, and alienate her mother from her? Those
liberty interests?

And would you mind, when you answer, explaining how they are
comparable to jail, and how you would know what is or isn't comparable
to jail?

Apparently the judge thought something was amiss in that household
that put the child at risk. I wonder what it could have been, really?

>> >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?
>
>It is unconstitutional for them to seek revenge
>for somebody exercising their Constitutional rights.

And they have caused you harm how again? In their vicious revenge
against a simple assed child abuser that admits his mean behavior
toward the child right her in these ngs?

Greegor the Whore, you couldn't have arranged your soft berth any
better than if you had planned it.....hmmmm, wait, it DOES look like
you might have.

Tell us, Geegor, how many times have you done this before?

>> Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl?
>
>Brought up in TPR hearing.

The YOUR rights aren't the question, now are they? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
PARENTAL RIGHT'S ASSHOLE AND YOU HAVE AVOIDED EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
WANTING THEM NOT MARRYING THE MOTHER RIGHT FUCKIN' NOW, haven't you?

The mother's rights might just be, but we can be sure the rights of
the child were considered pretty carefully. I'll bet she sighed a sigh
of relief when she learned she was NOT going to have to return to the
tender mercies of the spanking, shower pushing in, pervert that had
invaded her home and taken her needy and probably stupid mother away
from her.

>> 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.
>
>Judges take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

That's correct. You haven't shown us ANY proof that the judge in the
mother's case didn't uphold it. Zip. Zero. Nada.

We are waiting. 

YOU being inconvenienced, YOU being used as an example of the mother's
inability to protect her child, YOU being used as evidence of
monumental parental stupidity isn't an abrogation of YOUR rights,
dummy, nor of the mother's. Just evidence. No charges are being made
against you or her, other than having a pedophile as a houseguest,
right? Or maybe I'm wrong, but we'll never really know because Greegor
the Whore will diddle the truth as surely as he idly diddles the
keyboard.

>One of their duties in Juvenile Court as in ANY court
>is to safeguard people's rights.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you? 

>It's their job.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you? 

>I know, you thought they were only supposd to be
>a rubber stamp for CPS, which they often are, but
>they are SUPPOSED to have a duty to protect people's
>constitutional rights.

The rubber stamp bullshit is just that. In the course of caseworkers
doing exactly what they are supposed to do they very often do it
exactly right, hence the judge has no recourse to do anything but
agree. Have you sat through case after case in family court, as I
have, and seen what happens when a caseworker screws the pooch on a
case?

It ain't purdy man. The judge just doesn't rubber stamp those botched
cases...they might stamp the head of the worker but not the case...and
when they have really screwed up good and there WAS NO FUCKING CASE
bad things happen to caseworkers. Ask Dan, the rascal has been the
cause of a couple of those reamings and removals I hear.

>> It's part of their job to make a judicial
>> judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous
>> [e.d.] and they might look at all kinds of
>> perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
>> make the judgement from.
>
>Well, The Judge ruled there is no danger in our home.
>That includes me.

Well then, what are you bitchin' about? Everyone's rights were
protected, eh?

So tell us. If there was a ruling of NO danger in "our" home (my you
are presumptuous...I hope your "fiance" doesn't read this) then pray
tell why did the judge not order the child home?

Just what were the grounds for removal? Have you ever shared that with
us, Greegor?

And what WAS the outcome of the TPR? Have you shared that, Greegor?

And if the family (the mother, not you, you aren't family) was
assigned services, that is a plan, how's it going?

Why isn't that child back home, Greegor?  

You couldn't even contain your deep need to be the child and be taken
care of by "mommy" when you were in the classroom taking a parenting
training class could you? Couldn't keep your stupid mouth shut and let
the mother have a win against CPS, could you?

You are sooooooooo obvious. 

"I have my rights no matter what it costs my "fiance" I will."

Asshole. 

>> 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.
>
>I have absolutely no such history.

We are most pleased to hear that. Playing softball then?
R R R R R 

>Their implication that I do is a major issue of course.

Oh! What an interesting revelation. Can you explain how their
implication plays into their decision that "our" home is a safe, "no
danger" home then?

You must see how we might be confused at the inconsistency and
rambling nature of your disclosures, that seem to come spread waaaaay
out over two years or so, a bit here, then a bit there, a disclosure
now and then, then silence, then another disclosure, or claim or
whatever.

It makes it seem as though you are dreaming things up as you go along.
Tsk. You wouldn't do that would you?

>Even for some real pervert,

As apposed to to an unreal one?

>if it does not violate
>a court order, parole or probation requirements,
>it might even be a constitutional violation in their
>case.

How would you know? You a law student on sabbatical?

>Constitutioanl freedoms don't exist only
>when the media public see fit.  The real test is
>in situations that make people uncomfortable.

I defy you to find anywhere in the US Constitution where comfort or
discomfort of anyone is an issue. YOU make ME uncomfortable when I see
what you write about what you did to that girl and her mother, but
that in no way makes YOU a violator of MY constitutional rights....nor
vice versa you little shit.

No, Gigolo Boy. Pointing out someones actions that involve behaviors
that relate to offenses CAN be used in court as evidence on those
offenses. You can't be prosecuted for standing around outside a girls
school soccer game (unless local loitering laws are being broken) but
it can be considered as one piece of evidence when you are convicted
of a sexual molestation charge.

Your weaseling to the contrary is very sick and sad. 

If what you say is true NO investigation would be legal, by cops or
CPS. A cop couldn't walk up to you and ask what you are doing there
watching the soccer game and jiggling your hand in your pocket.

Now if the cop beats you about the head and shoulders vigorously,
besides it demonstrating his utter contemp and disgust of you, it HAS
violated your civil rights, unless you got mouthy and tried to either
run or attack.

Say, are you a member of NAMBLA by any chance? In the investigations
I've read about that IS the way they talk: "my constitutional rights
have been abridged."

Did I just violate your constitutional rights by asking? 

Kane