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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Kane:
> 
> When somebody's JOB is to check background
> and they have ready access to such a search,
> but they don't bother, that is culpable.

Yep. That's not the claim you made. You are saying CPS is responsible,
not "somebody." If "somebody" screwed up then it is THERE culpability.
I have advocated for and caused the firing of just such culpable
individuals from CPS, and got considerable cooperation...they WERE
fired.

So instead of you proving CPS culpability you just gave me yet another
chance to point out MY knowledge that you are lying twit. Dumb too.
  
> You know it, the courts know it, and agencies
> and caseworkers have been learning it over
> and over again.

Yep. Caseworkers are disgusted at malfeasance of any kind from
coworkers. They don't get to go public with it usually. Do you know
why?
 
> When a caseworker swears in an affidavit that
> I have a sex abuse history, and I don't,
> that should be perjury.

Did they swear you have a sex abuse history, or that they know you
sexually abused? If I read that you have a history and swear I read it
that is all I'm swearing to, not that you sexually abused anyone.
 
> At the least, before he SWORE to it, he should
> have looked it up on a computer.  He did not.

How do you know he didn't?
  
> Why should this ass be immune in such a case?

He was immune? 

You sued him and lost on an immunity argument?
 
> He should be free to LIE?

You are. 

> (The 2 year unwillingness to correct makes
>  it no longer a mere technical mistake.)

The 2 years may well represent waiting to see if more comes in on you.
Having the claim there is a reminder this is an open investigation.
When I read what you write here I too, just a plain old ordinary (but
with a lot of interest in CPS activities) citizen also wonders if
there isn't more.

You recently popped up with a new bit on your prior retraining order
history. Brand new stuff to me.

What else is going to surface. 
 
> A large number of parents who have dealt with
> CPS have found that this "immunity" amounts
> to a freedom for caseworkers to DELIBERATELY LIE.

Then they should sue. And bring criminal charges anyway. 

Wherever did you get the idea they are immune? Can't you read? In the
very ng your Plant Life buddy has posted otherwise from that all
knowing source, the media.
 
> Thank God the immunity is not absolute, no thanks
> to any STATE, however.

WHAT? Now you are admitting that a page of ranting about the immunity
of the state doesn't constitute the absolute power of the state you
were saying it did?

What IS up with you? 

How much time have you done in lockup, Greg? 
 
> Freedom to do their job?

Yes. That is exactly the case. You want them completely crippled so
you can ply your hobby with little girls in showers.

> Give me a break.

I think the court, and your girlfriend, have given you far to much
"break."
 
> 38 visits to starving New Jersey kids and
> that is not a "Failure to Protect" criminal charge?

So? What has that to do with immunity? I understand there were firings
over that. Where did their absolute immunity go Greg?

What a dumb ass time waster. I think I'll go shoo the hunters off the
back of the property. They are making my deer nervous. They'll be
eating my roses.

Kane