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

On 28 Nov 2003 04:39:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>[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~

Still suffering from that lack of oxygen thingie then?

Go suck a Plant Dennis instead of your buddy's Bong.

Does your CPSWatch know where you are tonight?
 
Kane