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

> >> > 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.
> 
> Barbeque time, if you really wanted the child back. But hey, don't
> listen to Dan, he's just successful. Can't have that, now can we,
> Whore. Imagine your difficulty if the child returned.

Dan has offered no useful suggestions on
how to force blood from a stone.

Dan?

> >> > 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.
> 
> And you don't know how to use them other
> than to come here screeching "EVIL CPS EVIL CPS?"

Ignored by CPS.
Ignored in Juvenile Court.

Dan?
 
> What a duplicitious thug you are. It's obvious that you don't want
> that child back that I'm starting to think you've convinced the mother
> that if she can hold out you are going to make her rich with a state
> settlement.

I would MUCH RATHER put the caseworker who LIED in jail.

> I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions.

Right.  In your own anonymous way you determined that.

> What's holdin' you up, besides your shitfilled drawers?
> 
> >CPS always claims the immmunity issue every time
> >somebody drags them into court for stuff like this.
> 
> Well, they can claim a mistake, and if it
> wasn't, your lawyer should be able to take them apart.

We haven't seen a lawyer willing to get up off
their state paid arse and do diddly squat.
The ones we have seen have been the sorriest
bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits.

> They can claim irrelevance to the claim you are
> making, such as THAT is no longer the reason
> they are not returning the child.

A tactic you endorse?

> I'd say you ought to go for it if you are
> sure you have a case.  Even if you are not.
> 
> I'd love to see what you do in the clinch.

> I kinda thought making little girls let you
> be their towelboy-shampoogirl and making
> them take cold showers had more stink
> of voyeurism.

Yes, it would if that was what took place, but it was not.

> >> 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?
> 
> You didn't talk recently about your wife
> or was it a prior "fiance"
> having a restraining order against you?

Nope.  So it seems these new revelations
you yapped about were just some fairy tale.

This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking
around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing.
Somebody who can't keep facts straight and
turns it into glorified gossip can be
extremely dangerous to families.

> highly likely fact.

Here's a "thinking error" again.

> As long as you post here, trying to convince us,
> and possibly yourself, that you are the victim
> in the mother/child/CPS escapade you
> will blow it and spill more.

> You are carefull, and neurotically, building
> around yourself, lying to yourself, a victim
> state of mind so that you can keep your
> indignation quotient up for your suit against CPS.

I did not MAKE CPS side with a Prozac patient against us.
I did not MAKE CPS fabricate a ""Sex Abuse History".

We have both admitted that there are things we could
have done better.   We will NOT melt into quivering
masses of jelly over the mistakes we made, especially
since small things have been used to cause GREAT HARM.

A simple warning would have been enough.
A stated requirement would have been enough.
Standards for clutter would have helped.

But the RIGGED services, the bitchy caseworker,
the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected,
these show us malevolent intent.
  
> >> > 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.
> 
> A civilian can't sign a complaint against
> another person for actions that are criminal?
> 
> Our country is in some trouble. 
> 
> You are being a nit picking dipshit yet again.
> Why do you do that when you have
> been called on your bullshit?

You use sophistry constantly, so get used to nit picking.


> 
> >The Prosecutor would do that.
> 
> And in response to your filing a complaint, no? Dipshit nitpicker
> caught at it. Don't you know that you can't get away with anything
> here. Someone, me mostly, Dan comes in second (R R R R), others from
> time to time, will call you on your crap.
> 
> >They will not prosecute the caseworker.
> 
> Liar. The media as posted by your other
> Dipshit Tree buddy proves you
> wrong time and again.

Started by the state prosecutor.

> Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted.
> And on many kinds of charges.

Never started by a parent.
Only when started by the state itself.

> You are, as I've said many a time, a liar.
> Or stupid. Or abysmally ignorant.
> Or neurotic as a lonesome puppy.

But you can't decide?
If you can't decide then why have
you asserted I am a liar?
Stating something you apparently haven't
decided is so would make you a liar.

> Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity.

Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual.
If they violate their manual and the law, they
then have partial immunity.
Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute.
It's called "qualified immunity" I think.

> You want the reader

Is anybody reading this dreck?

Kane wrote
> to think there is something perverse
> in my showering with my own children...

Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?