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

Kane wrote
> If "somebody" screwed up then it is THERE culpability.
Geez, man, lousy english?  Capitalized also?

> 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?

Yes, I'd like to see that.

> > 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.

No, he swore that I had a sex abuse history,
in reference to the past investigations which
were not only unfounded but also NOT SEXUAL.

> > 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?

Because it doesn't exist and I found the old
documents which prove he lied about the past
CPS investigation that found nothing.

> > Why should this ass be immune in such a case?
> 
> He was immune? 
> 
> You sued him and lost on an immunity argument?

Not yet.
CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
Without fail.
  
> > He should be free to LIE?
> You are.
Coming from you that makes me an honest man.

> > (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.

That's not investigation, that's voyeurism.

You've got so much interest in CPS activities
that you are obviously in some way
one of the "whores of the court".

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

New to me also, WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

> What else is going to surface.

Was that a question?
  
> > 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.

Civilians can't bring criminal charges.
The Prosecutor would do that.
They will not prosecute the caseworker.

> 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?

Very Difficult and expensive.

> What IS up with you? 
> 
> How much time have you done in lockup, Greg?

You first.
 
> > 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.

Never was a hobby, just another chore.

You did FAR WORSE when you went into
a shower naked in front of your kids.
Your danglies must have been about eye
level for the kids.

Was that a hobby for you?