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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kane) wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2003 08:25:18 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Hanson)
> wrote:
>
> >> >> > 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?
>
> You are correct. He has on how to force CPS and the courts to return
> children and get abuse findings unfounded.
>
> "Blood from a stone" strongly suggests you are in this for the money.
> I've never seen Dan, beyond possibly saying something on the order of
> "So sue 'em" offer advice on how to get money out of the state. That's
> not was he wishes to do here, if I understand correctly.
>
> So because he won't do what YOU want you won't use what he is good at?
>
> We know that of course, but I thought I'd remind you. 1
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> When they are delivered in the manner in which you delivered your
> demands in the Motion it is no wonder. I think you were lucky to be
> heard at all, if you were.
>
> >Ignored in Juvenile Court.
>
> Same as above.
>
> >Dan?
>
> I can't answer for Dan but I can give my opinion. You are so obviously
> a litiginous little creep, with delusions of getting off the state and
> willing ot sacrifice a child and mother connection to do the court is
> giving you ZERO credibility. Your "Motion" reeks of it. The deliberate
> demands, the pompous pronouncements, the outrageous accusations
> against people, the sick language about the grandmother, the things
> you write here (it's my bet some worker from your area has heard about
> you here and could well have googled your posts, copied and dropped
> them off with the court clerk....wouldn't surprize me...it's a free
> country after all.)
>
> >> 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.
>
> Bullshit. If I offered you 10 k right now to walk and drop the whole
> thing you couldn't pack fast enough. You are too obvious you stinking
> Whore.
>
> >> I'll bet that's it. It fits your profile and your admissions.
> >
> >Right.  In your own anonymous way you determined that.
>
> Yep...right along with a few others that observe you here and make it
> plan to you they think the same of you.
>
> >> 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.
>
> I haven't seen a "fiance" get up off his lazy unemployed ass, get a
> job, and pay for a better lawyer. Have you noticed that yet?
>
> You haven't had a kid there, and NO responsibilities for 2+ years, and
> you still won't go out and earn enough to pay a better lawyer.
>
> So much for defending "YOUR, 'family'"
>
> Dedicated, aren't you.
>
> >The ones we have seen have been the sorriest
> >bunch of ass draggers I've ever seen in suits.
>
> Well, check out what they get paid. You are just a stop gap until they
> can get into a law firm, or you are pro bono for a more fully employed
> lawyer that does public service.
>
> >> 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?
>
> It isn't up to me. But in YOUR particular case, I'd recommend
> immediate arrest and a death penalty trial. You destroyed a family for
> your greed and laziness. And the chance you can milk the state, much
> more than you are currently milking the mother.
>
> You are a "bummer calf."
>
> A bully that took the love of a mother from the child, and the support
> as well.
>
> I think they have been more than patient with you, asshole,
> considering what it's cost the child...I'm reaching the point where I
> can't anything but the deepest pity for the mother, or if she knows
> what she is doing, the deepest disgust.
>
> >> 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.
>
> Says you. You had a hundred other choices about how to handle the
> problem. One of which was to let the girl shower herself, after you
> left her towels. This is, according to you, a child of nearly genius
> capacity.
>
> And even the punishment, you sick fuck, could have been different..but
> no, it had to be a shower, and you had to bring towels to a child of
> six and more, and you had to stand by while she shampooed instead of
> simply giving her instructions to go back and rinse the shampoo out.
>
> No, Greeg, you wanted to be there in the bathroom.
>
> >> >> 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.
>
> Then why did you say, about a domestic violence complaint, to Dan, it
> was twice then it was once?
>
> You could have easily, instead of denying the restraining order
> admitted it was a domestic violence beef. Why is it you hold out so on
> information, teasing, teasing, teasing, until you finally stupidly
> blurt it out?
>
> >This is a lot like why caseworkers mucking
> >around in peoples LIVES is a dangerous thing.
>
> How is it "a lot like why" "mucking?"
>
> >Somebody who can't keep facts straight and
> >turns it into glorified gossip can be
> >extremely dangerous to families.
>
> And a big fat hole out of the system for the child and the parents,
> and even for stupid selfish little pricks like you...if that was what
> you wanted.
>
> You are looking for something you think you have a chance of sueing
> for...and no matter the cost to mother and child.
>
> >> highly likely fact.
> >
> >Here's a "thinking error" again.
>
> Speculation is not a ""thinking error."" That is why I used the word
> "likely."
>
> >> 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".
>
> You love it. You love it. You can't and don't want to counter it. You
> just are ragingly frustrated that you can't figure out how to make it
> a civil case. Poor little Greegor.
>
> >We have both admitted that there are things we could
> >have done better.
>
> I should hope.
>
> >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.
>
> Translation: "no matter how innocuous the demands of CPS and the judge
> we will not comply as the child is not the point here...my ego and my
> pocketbook are."
>
> >A simple warning would have been enough.
>
> "Now that you have been in the bathroom with the naked child X number
> of times, don't do it again."
>
> Yeah, that's sure how CPS can protect children from predatory
> pedaphiles. Sure, that's it.
>
> >A stated requirement would have been enough.
>
> "If we catch you again we will give you another warning."
>
> That's even better.
>
> Like you, a grown adult male, with the mind of a creepy hormone
> impaired adolescent (aren't they darling though?) are unable to figure
> out you have no business in the bathroom with an unrelated female six
> year old with NO ONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE.
>
> >Standards for clutter would have helped.
>
> I'll give you one. Get your shit out of the house that doesn't belong
> to you and most especially OUT OF THE CHILDS TINY BEDROOM IN A
> SINGLEWIDE MOBILE HOME, you twit.
>
> >But the RIGGED services,
>
> Oh, how do you "rig" an order to attend, what is obviously badly
> needed, parenting classes for the little male whore living with the
> mother sans matrimony"
>
> >the bitchy caseworker,
>
> I would have much preferred a six foot 4 hairly ape that would check
> quick and make sure no one was looking and popped you a hefty one to
> your fat lazy gut.
>
> I'm surprised the worker doesn't spit on you. It's a credit to her
> professionalism. Thank heaven's for your sake I'm not a CPS caseworker
> and more especially not your girl friend's.
>
> >the huge lies they have deliberately NOT corrected,
> >these show us malevolent intent.
>
> They are holding they file open on you to see what comes up. I
> certainly would consider that a smart thing to do. They DON'T HAVE TO
> unless you can bring a successful court challenge, just like Dan
> showed you and many others how to do. And even then I doubt they are
> required to remove their information on YOU an unrelated adult
> squating in the house.
>
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Bullshit. I call it like it is. That may be too sophisticated for you
> but it isn't "sophistry." My arguments aren't fallacious. They are
> factual. Hence sophistry is the incorrect term.
>
> I just see through your highly transparent veneer of shit.
> >>
> >> >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.
>
> Which is completely incomprehensible dribbling diarrhea considering th
> three previous statements.
>
> >> Caseworkers have been successfully prosecuted.
> >> And on many kinds of charges.
> >
> >Never started by a parent.
> >Only when started by the state itself.
>
> Oh...?
>
> You better call or write real quick. These folks, one of the more
> rabid anti CPS groups at their web site made the claim:
>
> http://www.beanswers.com/pages/miscinfo.htm  page to the bottom.
>
> LAWSUITS  (THE TORT CLAIM)
>
> "It is now possible for parents to sue agencies and their personnel.
> Many states have already allowed such lawsuits, and parents have often
> won them. "
>
> Were they lying, Whore, or were you? Or are you just too stupid to
> look up things so easily found in the Web before you run off at the
> mouth.
>
> Watch folks. Yet another claim by the asshole child abuser displacer
> shot down that he will suddenly lose complete interest in.
>
> And for your information The State rarely starts civil suits on behalf
> of parents that don't themselves file a complaint and intent to sue
> through an attorney. So your statement is yet another weaseling bit of
> SOPHISTRY... a fallacious attempt to con the reader.
>
> >> 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?
>
> No. You put on so many faces here.
>
> >If you can't decide then why have
> >you asserted I am a liar?
>
> That is obvious. All too obvious. I just caught you in one above.
>
> >Stating something you apparently haven't
> >decided is so would make you a liar.
>
> I beg your pardon?
>
> Would you mind terribly doing a dictionary search for us and show
> where a speculative statement is a lie, or stating they one doesn't
> know something but is considering alternatives is a lie?
>
> Are you out of your freekin' mind?
>
> >> Oh, now it's difficult and expensive. No longer absolute immunity.
> >
> >Absolute immunity applies to actions within their manual.
>
> Well, do you think they should be able to do their work or not. If a
> cop, butcher, doctor, lawyer, adheres to their standards and it turns
> out badly for the patient, customer, client, the professional, with no
> intent to harm, should be paying you off?
>
> The trick is to find intent of harm. THAT is what you assholes keep
> crying about. You want some one sued when they meant no harm and did
> exactly as stipulated as a professional standard, even under the law.
>
> >If they violate their manual and the law, they
> >then have partial immunity.
>
> Not if there was intent to harm, and you can prove it.
>
> >Caseworkers are under a mixture of partial and absolute.
>
> Not if you can prove intent to harm. You and your little army of anti
> CPS dipwads want to confuse the issue, so you make these stupid
> claims.
>
> >It's called "qualified immunity" I think.
>
> Yes, they have "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY." So do parents. I can't spank
> their child, but they can. The qualification is that they are the
> paretn. The workers qualification is that they are a state worker.
>
> Without that immunity they cannot perform their duties.
>
> When the fuck up...they are YOURS, dummy...as Dan has proven time and
> time again...and they don't even have to have had BAD INTENT.
>
> You don't want the child back, you want to sue and the child be
> damned. It's so obvious now you cannot possibly weasel your way out of
> people seeing it plainly.
>
> >> You want the reader
> >
> >Is anybody reading this dreck?
>
> You hope not.
>
> I hope they are so that the next time you jump on a new poster, as is
> your habit, to try and mislead them and subvert them you will be even
> MORE easily exposed for the lying sneaking child abusing mother
> fucking-up smelly asshole you really are.
>
> >Kane wrote
> >> to think there is something perverse
> >> in my showering with my own children...
> >
> >Could you please SAY THAT A LITTLE LOUDER, KANE?
>
> Sure, only I won't arfully snip to make me look like a perv, as NON of
> us have had to snip you to show you as the perv YOU ARE>
>
> You have tried to make people think that my showering with my children
> until they were old enough, LONG BEFORE SIX, to notice our sexual
> differences is perverse.
>
> I can understand why you must have to not go out to work or deal with
> anyone in the real world by the refund clerk at the supermarket.
>
> You are such a loser it's beat you into retreat. If you are this
> hapless, and a loser with me in a silly ass newsgroup, what must your
> failures look like in real life?
>
> Oh, wait, you've found someone to share your loser victim role,
> haven't you now:
>
> The mother.
>
> By the way, you carefully have avoided, snipped I imagine, the
> question I asked:
>
> Given that YOU had to shower and attend the child when she was there,
> before you came into the household, while the mother was working, who
> supplied child care?
>
> Betcha snip it again to avoid answering, eh? Thought up a good enough
> lie yet...
>
> Try it out on us. I've a hunch there are four or five of us just
> waiting to see your newest bit of sick nonsense

~yawn~