Most whiners are liars
d'geezer
abusing their children.
Here's what one ex cop had to say in a Portland Oregon TV chat
room......
Me2
08-07-2001, 11:48 AM
I'm always appalled at the ignorance I find in
opinions regarding SCF. I worked in
child abuse with the Portland Police for a lot of
years and dealt with SCF (then
CSD) a lot. And I am not a big fan. They do a lot of
dumb things, however they
take a lot of unwarranted heat.
First, doesn't anyone understand that the courts are
involved in these things?
CSD and police remove kids, but it is reviewed the
next court day by a judge. The
parents have lawyers, the kids have lawyers and the
CSD worker doesn't. If the
lawyers can convince the judge that the removal was
unjustified, the kids are
returned at once. If not, the judge then orders SCF
to do everything they can to
educate the parents or whatever so the children can
be returned. Cops are
blasted in the media, SCF is blasted, but no one
seems to understand that once
the kids are taken, the judge, NOT SCF OR THE COPS
have any say as to when
the kids go back.
For the Caring Mom, it is pretty easy to tell when
bruises and other injuries are
caused by playing and when they are caused by abuse.
To say your child will be
taken away because he fell off a bike is silly. And
as far as the Christian kids, I
imagine when these childred finally starved to death,
the same people would be
screaming because the state didn't do anything.
And, for what it's worth, children are not removed
from families because they are
homeless. They are removed because of abusive
situations. No judge in Oregon
would allow poverty to be a reason to remove
children. And for those with a bad
memory, please read my second paragraph. And if you
really want to know what
you are talking about, don't listen to the people who
have lost their children
because of abusive behavior, but go to a juvenile
court one day and listen to the
proceedings. Look at the pictures of these children
when they are brought into
custody, not at the pictures taken after they have
been in a foster home for a
couple of months and have recovered.
And to believe that threatening anyone with a gun to
their face is justified is just
plain sick.
_________________end of commentary by ex cop...............
Enjoy, you abuse apologists.. You blow your credibility and when
someone is, as this cop pointed out, actually mistreated by SCF no one
will believe them because of your bleating, lying, exaggerating and
bullying.
YOU are the cause of people that need help not being believed.
Fight CPS And Win
Quoting some anonymous ex-cop (wouldn't you know he would have to remain
anonymous? LOL)....
> I'm always appalled at the ignorance I find in
> opinions regarding SCF. I worked in
> child abuse with the Portland Police for a lot of
> years and dealt with SCF (then
> CSD) a lot. And I am not a big fan. They do a lot of
> dumb things, however they
> take a lot of unwarranted heat.
Note that he admits CSD did "a lot of dumb things" apparently in his
presence.
> First, doesn't anyone understand that the courts are
> involved in these things?
> CSD and police remove kids, but it is reviewed the
> next court day by a judge.
Yes, the courts are involved and we know that. However here is the first
misinformation already... the cases are not necessarily reviewed "the next
court day". In fact most child welfare detentions take place on a friday
afternoon giving the county two extra days (the weekend) and then, in my
state at least, they get two court days before the detention hearing.
>The parents have lawyers,
The parents are usually poor people who go to the first hearing without a
lawyer because they can't afford one. They are appointed an attorney there
who has generally no interest in helping them get their kids back. Many of
these attorneys know nothing about the cases before entering the courtroom
and then act like they are there to help process the case through the
system. The public defenders are overworked and underpaid by the counties
and do not have enough time to devote to cases. They are buddy-buddy with
the judge and other attorneys working for the county that are supposed to be
on the opposite side of the issue -- after all, these are the same people
they work with day in and day out. In other words, to act like it is all
okay for parents just because they have a lawyer is ignoring the fact that
the parents are not being adequately represented. This is not equal access
to justice. Why do you think everyone calls them "public pretenders"
instead of "public defenders"? They pretend to defend. County public
defenders work for the county and get their paychecks from the same county
that is going against the parents to take the kids. This is a clear and
obvious conflict of interest. But does anyone care? No... like you, most
people just ignore the injustice and say "the parents have lawyers".
> the kids have lawyers
I hear that most of these lawyers never bother to meet the kids they are
supposed to be representing, and they almost invariably side with the county
that pays them. Same conflict of interest.
> and the
> CSD worker doesn't.
Wrong again! The caseworker's side is represented by county counsel who is
very practiced at processing these cases through the system.
> If the lawyers can convince the judge that the removal was
> unjustified, the kids are returned at once.
That sometimes happens, but not often enough.
> If not, the judge then orders SCF
> to do everything they can to
> educate the parents or whatever so the children can
> be returned.
The judge court-orders "services" which are not true "services" at all.
They are forced psychological evaluations, counseling, drug testing,
parenting classes, and whatever else they can think up to add on and they
are used to gather more evidence against the parents. The county "service"
provider fees are reimbursed by federal Social Security funds, enriching the
"service" providers that will write evaluations favorable to the county's
case. Some of these "service" providers can be friends or family of county
employees.
> Cops are
> blasted in the media, SCF is blasted, but no one
> seems to understand that once
> the kids are taken, the judge, NOT SCF OR THE COPS
> have any say as to when
> the kids go back.
Well, this is silly. Of course we know it is the judge that decides.
However keep in mind, judges can be bought with campaign contributions and
other gifts. I think Joseph Sarandos covered that well in his epic poem, "A
Call For Change" which can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/fightcpsandwin
> if you really want to know what
> you are talking about, don't listen to the people who
> have lost their children
> because of abusive behavior, but go to a juvenile
> court one day and listen to the proceedings.
Here's another really ignorant thing he said. Most juvenile courts are
closed to press and public. They say it is for the children's best
interests but it is really to keep the public from knowing the travesty of
justice that goes on there, and from knowing what parents have to say in
their defense. Juvenile court records are also closed.
> Look at the pictures of these children
> when they are brought into
> custody, not at the pictures taken after they have
> been in a foster home for a
> couple of months and have recovered.
I hope you read the article by Fredinburg that discusses the photographs of
the Christine children. He says the earlier photograph bears the signs of
being retouched to make the children look unhealthy.
> And to believe that threatening anyone with a gun to
> their face is justified is just plain sick.
The police threaten people with guns all the time. Is that "just plain
sick"??
And why do you suppose the founding fathers of this nation wrote the Second
Amendment. Do you really think we have the right to bear arms so we can go
shoot tin cans off the fence out back?? Sorry if you don't like the Second
Amendment, but it is still the LAW.
Linda
--
Fight CPS And Win
http://www.geocities.com/fightcpsandwin
Alliance for the Separation of School and State
http://www.sepschool.org
d'geezer
> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on all this misinformation.
>
> Quoting some anonymous ex-cop (wouldn't you know he would have to remain
> anonymous? LOL)....
He was in a chat on a TV room. How many people you see in chat using
anything but a handle?
> > I'm always appalled at the ignorance I find in
> > opinions regarding SCF. I worked in
> > child abuse with the Portland Police for a lot of
> > years and dealt with SCF (then
> > CSD) a lot. And I am not a big fan. They do a lot of
> > dumb things, however they
> > take a lot of unwarranted heat.
>
> Note that he admits CSD did "a lot of dumb things" apparently in his
> presence.
That's correct.......so were is this terrible rash of hiding things
CSD is supposed to be doing. Imagine, right in front of a cop.
> > First, doesn't anyone understand that the courts are
> > involved in these things?
> > CSD and police remove kids, but it is reviewed the
> > next court day by a judge.
>
> Yes, the courts are involved and we know that. However here is the first
> misinformation already... the cases are not necessarily reviewed "the next
> court day". In fact most child welfare detentions take place on a friday
> afternoon giving the county two extra days (the weekend) and then, in my
> state at least, they get two court days before the detention hearing.
How many people do you know that work at a job Mon through Fri that
come in over the weekend? The judge won't be there on Saturday you
know.
And what do you think those workers do during that two "court days"
since court isn't in session? Plot their skullduggery? They go home
just like everyone else.
> >The parents have lawyers,
>
> The parents are usually poor people who go to the first hearing without a
> lawyer because they can't afford one. They are appointed an attorney there
> who has generally no interest in helping them get their kids back. Many of
> these attorneys know nothing about the cases before entering the courtroom
> and then act like they are there to help process the case through the
> system.
Bullshit. Let's see some factual citations. Get some attorneys in here
that take such cases.
> The public defenders are overworked and underpaid by the counties
> and do not have enough time to devote to cases. They are buddy-buddy with
> the judge and other attorneys working for the county that are supposed to be
> on the opposite side of the issue -- after all, these are the same people
> they work with day in and day out.
If you don't like the judicial system change it. Pay for it. Vote for
it. Fix it, and stop your apologist whining.
> In other words, to act like it is all
> okay for parents just because they have a lawyer is ignoring the fact that
> the parents are not being adequately represented.
By that thinking then neither are the kids. And for sure the
caseworker has no attorney.
> This is not equal access
> to justice. Why do you think everyone calls them "public pretenders"
> instead of "public defenders"? They pretend to defend. County public
> defenders work for the county and get their paychecks from the same county
> that is going against the parents to take the kids.
Then who would you have pay them, you? Hock your car or house? Why
don't you start a fund and get attorneys that are "good at the job"
like you want and pay them out of the fund. The homeschoolers do it.
Elect new representatives. Lobby the legislature into the ground on
this. Damn whining isn't going to get you anywhere.
> This is a clear and
> obvious conflict of interest.
The world is a conflict of interests. Tell me a better system, leave
the children to die in their homes when there is abuse? Don't take
time to investigate thoroughly.....hell, that happens too and then
everyone is screaming the CSD isn't doing their job. Beautiful.
> But does anyone care?
Yes, you do. Why sit and piss and moan about it. Get crackin' Their
just bureaucrats and your elected officials have to win again. Are you
going to tell me you can't get the public on your side on this?
> No... like you, most
> people just ignore the injustice and say "the parents have lawyers".
No, not like me. What a number of you have missed here or glossed over
is that I'm probably 10 times as effective as you hammering CPS. I go
after what IS wrong with the system instead of creating a generic
boogey man and insisting the whole thing has to go.
Let me tell you what would happen:
You'd have the same courts.
You'd have the same lawyers.
You'd have the same amount of money (I know you whiners aren't about
to let your taxes be raised to take on the monumental task that abuse
amounts to in Oregon, it's been demonstrated)
And you'd have the same public. They don't care. Until you start
telling the truth and stop sounding like a bunch of rabid idiots and
stop defending the indefensible, abusers who have conned you into
thinking their story is just oh so special, you aren't going to win
the public over.
As dumb as the public can be they can smell a con. And you are
conning.
Or at least supporting it. If you are one of those that has been
abused by the system well damn it get smart. Don't align yourself with
the idiots that spew their garbage and lies and illogical ranting.
>
> > the kids have lawyers
>
> I hear that most of these lawyers never bother to meet the kids they are
> supposed to be representing,
You hear wrong. As in any other profession there are good ones and bad
ones. The good ones outnumber the bad ones usually. That is very true
with attorneys that represent children.
> and they almost invariably side with the county
> that pays them.
Same old exaggeration that isn't going to win you any converts. Have
you thought about actually talking directly to some attorneys that do
this work? I have. In fact I've hammered them rather hard about it
when they don't do the job right, but not for being "child lawyers"
like you folks do and you tried just now.
> Same conflict of interest.
Bull. How are you going to get a lawyer that doesn't have a conflict
of interest. Do you know what happens to lawyers that judges catch not
doing their best job for the client? At the least they get a lecture
in chambers.
>
> > and the
> > CSD worker doesn't.
>
> Wrong again! The caseworker's side is represented by county counsel who is
> very practiced at processing these cases through the system.
I don't know what state you are in, but the only "county counsel" I've
heard of in Oregon cases vets the cases and won't let them proceed if
there is insufficient evidence--they won't even take them to court.
Call and ask instead of guessing. Get a life. Learn something instead
of the garbage the fanatics have been feeding you.
> > If the lawyers can convince the judge that the removal was
> > unjustified, the kids are returned at once.
>
> That sometimes happens, but not often enough.
What is often enough? Just how often do you want to be as the death
toll mounts in child abuse?
I notice everyone has shut up about two interesting stories in the
media....a physician said the eldest child had a three inch fracture.
The father is the aledged perpetrator in pushing her down the bus
stairs. But of course everyone, including medical personnel that know
the doctor will lie for him while he lies, right? Do you know what
happens in hospitals at the monthly meetings on morbidity and
mortality if they lie........privs cut off. Can't use the hospital.
The level of ignorance by the public astounds me.
Item the second, and avowed, outspoken, picket marching anti statist
was quoted by a southern oregon paper as saying he and his wife were
deeply concerned at the ongoing use of withholding food for punishment
of the girls. Probably the hospital lied again and the oldest, five at
the time really weighed a normal 40 to 45 pounds not the 25 pounds
those "liars in league with CSD" said.
> > If not, the judge then orders SCF
> > to do everything they can to
> > educate the parents or whatever so the children can
> > be returned.
>
> The judge court-orders "services" which are not true "services" at all.
> They are forced psychological evaluations, counseling, drug testing,
> parenting classes, and whatever else they can think up to add on and they
> are used to gather more evidence against the parents.
The object is first, in the evaluations, is to establish if there is
cause to believe the children are in danger. They won't be ordered
unless there is abuse or neglect within very stringent guidelines.
Call the child abuse hotline and ask them for the guidelines. They
won't even send out a cps worker until the level hits danger or threat
of risk.
Find out how horrendous it has to be before "threat of risk" is even
considred.
> The county "service"
> provider fees are reimbursed by federal Social Security funds, enriching the
> "service" providers that will write evaluations favorable to the county's
> case. Some of these "service" providers can be friends or family of county
> employees.
Social Security funds? Citation please. You aren't just another one of
these strange folks that are control freaks drooling for a cause, are
you?
Well, I suppose some vendors of services COULD be friends of county
employees. You must live in a strange state. In Oregon it is the
state, and rounding up enough friend of family of state employees to
do that work might prove difficult. It doesn't pay much at all. It is
difficult to get people to "provide services".
> > Cops are
> > blasted in the media, SCF is blasted, but no one
> > seems to understand that once
> > the kids are taken, the judge, NOT SCF OR THE COPS
> > have any say as to when
> > the kids go back.
>
> Well, this is silly. Of course we know it is the judge that decides.
> However keep in mind, judges can be bought with campaign contributions and
> other gifts.
Juvenile court judges are not usually elected. Where the devil are you
from anyway, California? Sounds like that crippled system all right.
> I think Joseph Sarandos covered that well in his epic poem, "A
> Call For Change" which can be found at
> http://www.geocities.com/fightcpsandwin
Yah know, I don't like appointed judges, well except at the federal
level maybe. At the state level I want elections. I want to choose.
> > if you really want to know what
> > you are talking about, don't listen to the people who
> > have lost their children
> > because of abusive behavior, but go to a juvenile
> > court one day and listen to the proceedings.
>
> Here's another really ignorant thing he said. Most juvenile courts are
> closed to press and public. They say it is for the children's best
> interests but it is really to keep the public from knowing the travesty of
> justice that goes on there, and from knowing what parents have to say in
> their defense. Juvenile court records are also closed.
Yeah, let's get the story in the news. Personally I'm all for it,
having sat in on a few of them. The problem is the public would be
retching if they heard what people do to children. And if they saw the
pictures there would be lynch mobs forming for the families.
> > Look at the pictures of these children
> > when they are brought into
> > custody, not at the pictures taken after they have
> > been in a foster home for a
> > couple of months and have recovered.
>
> I hope you read the article by Fredinburg that discusses the photographs of
> the Christine children. He says the earlier photograph bears the signs of
> being retouched to make the children look unhealthy.
Bull shit. They were very likely digital and showed it. He's lying or
stupid or possibly both. You cannot tell by a cursory glance even if
you are an expert if a graphic has been altered. It can be done pixel
by pixel and is easy for even an amateur. It's pretty easy to see
where he is coming from.
Cops doing interrogations, for instance, can say and do a great many
things that don't appear to be PC to the perp or witness. Your boy
immediately jumped on the "opinion" of the cop. Now that is real
bright Cops will tell you all kinds of things to see your reactions.
Ask one. I've been interrogated before.....heheh, but of course
communication skills are my game so I was aware of what was
transpiring.
Gheezz. The ignorance here is beyond belief.
> And to believe that threatening anyone with a gun to
> > their face is justified is just plain sick.
>
> The police threaten people with guns all the time. Is that "just plain
> sick"??
Yes, if they do so illegally. Since this cop seems to have seen some
child abuse cases, rather a few from his comments I gather, he has a
bias about it and would rather not have people who are doing their job
and their best to protect children have their lives risked.
> And why do you suppose the founding fathers of this nation wrote the Second
> Amendment.
It recognized a prior right to self defense and the arms to do so, and
their reason was to be able to act as a militia. Now you have to go
and see what a militia really is and what it does.
Hint: if the there is insurrection, if there is an agency that does
not follow the laws, you have the means to stop them. You ready to go
armed to overthrow CSD, are you? You need more people, honey, many
more. And you better have a good and defensible reason or the state
national guard may well be who you meet, not the unarmed public
employees.
> Do you really think we have the right to bear arms so we can go
> shoot tin cans off the fence out back?? Sorry if you don't like the Second
> Amendment, but it is still the LAW.
You are rattling a bit there. It appears I not only know more about
the 2nd, but am a more staunch supporter than you are.
One must first of all use a gun in defense only when personally
endangered or to protect another's life. And the threat has to be
immediate, not some fantasy down the road.
You might send up a prayer of thanks that young Brian the stupid
didn't pull the trigger. He'd be getting a lot more than he will get
now for his idiocy.
Hell, the state wants to put those kids with his wife's parents. In
time everyone will have access to everyone....and there are open
adoption contracts......but of course the Christines have thrown that
away. Real smart move getting ride of the court appointed lawyer and
not getting another one.
Well, Linda, enjoy. Thanks for the pulpit and you may have it back
now. Try to use it more wisely if you REALLY want to reform a
government agency. Heavens knows it and most of the other ones badly
need it.
> Linda
Fight CPS And Win
d'geezer <nalap...@yahoo.com> wrote.... and wrote.... and wrote....
Sorry, d'geezer, you're too argumentative for me. I might feel like writing
in response tomorrow, but don't count on it. I'm definitely not going to
get into it this late at night. I'm here to spread information, learn from
other activists, and to try to come up with more ideas for taking down the
child welfare system. This isn't "whining" as you like the characterize it.
And even if I was here as a parent with a child in the system and
complaining about that, I think parents in such a situation have a right to
their grief and should be able to come here for support from others who
care.
Linda Martin
Northern California
Greg Hanson
> I'm always appalled at the ignorance I find in
> opinions regarding SCF. I worked in child
> abuse with the Portland Police for a lot of
> years and dealt with
Must've made you somewhat unpopular
among your fellow officers. More than half
of one police force by me will not work
with CPS. "I have a family too."
>First, doesn't anyone understand that the
> courts are involved in these things? CSD
> and police remove kids, but it is reviewed
> the next court day by a judge.
In my families case, child was removed by
police, noteably one who is an over-the-fence
neighbor of the falsely accusing grandparents,
further, there was NO court removal order
for over two weeks.
> the kids are taken, the judge, NOT SCF
> OR THE COPS have any say as to when
> the kids go back.
It's more like the judge has no say, and
rubber stamps every CPS request.
This is documented in many statements
and in caselaw where "thin" cases were
turned around on appeal.
> For the Caring Mom, it is pretty
> easy to tell when bruises and other injuries
> are caused by playing and when they are
> caused by abuse. To say your child will be
> taken away because he fell off a bike is silly.
would you believe removal for "clutter"?
> And as far as the Christian kids,
surname Christine, not Christian. Broken in to the wrong house lately?
> I imagine when these childred finally starved
> to death, the same people would be
> screaming because the state didn't do anything.
How many starvation cases were there last year?
> And, for what it's worth, children are not removed
> from families because they are homeless. They are
> removed because of abusive situations. No judge
> in Oregon would allow poverty to be a reason to
> remove children.
McGuckin accusations were no electricity, not enough food, etc.
Christine accusations were malnourishment and dehydration.
> And if you really want to know what
> you are talking about, don't listen to
> the people who have lost their children
> because of abusive behavior, but go to
> a juvenile court one day and listen to
> the proceedings.
Juvenile court is closed to public.
> And to believe that threatening anyone
> with a gun to their face is justified is
> just plain sick.
THIS from an ex-cop?
Was this some new kind of unarmed cop?
I suspect this person was never a cop.
If he had been, he wouldn't have accused
himself and fellow officers of being "sick" like this.
Doug
> > Note that he admits CSD did "a lot of dumb things" apparently in his
> > presence.
>
> That's correct.......so were is this terrible rash of hiding things
> CSD is supposed to be doing. Imagine, right in front of a cop.
Hi, degeezer!
The problem is that CSD obviously didn't need to hide the "lot of dumb"
things from the cop. The cop didn't do anything about it.
What you seem insensitive to is that dumb things done by CSD hurts a lot of
children. You seem preoccupied with whining about yourself.
> > The parents are usually poor people who go to the first hearing without
a
> > lawyer because they can't afford one. They are appointed an attorney
there
> > who has generally no interest in helping them get their kids back. Many
of
> > these attorneys know nothing about the cases before entering the
courtroom
> > and then act like they are there to help process the case through the
> > system.
> Bullshit. Let's see some factual citations. Get some attorneys in here
> that take such cases.
There is an attorney who takes on such cases in this newsgroup. He posts
all the time in alt.support.fosterparents.
> If you don't like the judicial system change it. Pay for it. Vote for
> it. Fix it, and stop your apologist whining.
Linda does a great deal of work towards precisely the ends you mention. It
may be beneficial to find the facts before you accuse -- otherwise, of
course, your words in support of CPS malpractice is simply apologist
whining.
> By that thinking then neither are the kids. And for sure the
> caseworker has no attorney.
The kids are rarely given any voice in a hearing. Children are represented
by a GAL, but he proposes what he/she thinks is best for the child, not what
the child thinks. The caseworker is most certainly represented by an
attorney, who may be an assistant attorney general, a county prosecutor or a
state's attorney, depending on the state. In all 50 states, the caseworker
is represented by a government attorney.
If you attended ONE hearing you would know that.
> Then who would you have pay them, you? Hock your car or house? Why
> don't you start a fund and get attorneys that are "good at the job"
> like you want and pay them out of the fund. The homeschoolers do it.
Yes, they do. And the organizations are very successful in their lawsuits
against child placement agencies.
> Elect new representatives. Lobby the legislature into the ground on
> this. Damn whining isn't going to get you anywhere.
Linda was not whining. Actually, she does a great deal of advocacy on
behalf of families. Among those efforts is lobbying state legislators.
> Yes, you do. Why sit and piss and moan about it. Get crackin' Their
> just bureaucrats and your elected officials have to win again. Are you
> going to tell me you can't get the public on your side on this?
No, my take is that Linda was not saying that at all. To the contrary, the
public is becoming more informed about child placement services each day.
It won't be long now.
> No, not like me. What a number of you have missed here or glossed over
> is that I'm probably 10 times as effective as you hammering CPS. I go
> after what IS wrong with the system instead of creating a generic
> boogey man and insisting the whole thing has to go.
Sorry, I simply don't believe you. The material I have read consists of
nothing but your apologist whining on behalf of these agencies. With such
an enemy, the bureaucrats don't need any friends.
> Same old exaggeration that isn't going to win you any converts. Have
> you thought about actually talking directly to some attorneys that do
> this work? I have.
So has she.
> > Wrong again! The caseworker's side is represented by county counsel who
is
> > very practiced at processing these cases through the system.
>
> I don't know what state you are in, but the only "county counsel" I've
> heard of in Oregon cases
In many states, the county counsel is the title of the lawyer who represents
the state and its caseworkers.
> Call and ask instead of guessing. Get a life. Learn something instead
> of the garbage the fanatics have been feeding you.
I suggest you take your own advice and find out the facts before venting.
You're wrong.
> What is often enough? Just how often do you want to be as the death
> toll mounts in child abuse?
Child abuse fatalities due to abuse/neglect have remained stagnant for three
decades. Per capita rates have decreased. The rate of child fatalities due
to abuse/neglect are much higher in foster care than they are in families
(USDHHS, 2001).
> > The judge court-orders "services" which are not true "services" at all.
> > They are forced psychological evaluations, counseling, drug testing,
> > parenting classes, and whatever else they can think up to add on and
they
> > are used to gather more evidence against the parents.
>
> The object is first, in the evaluations, is to establish if there is
> cause to believe the children are in danger. They won't be ordered
> unless there is abuse or neglect within very stringent guidelines.
Wrong three ways. First, psych evaluations are ordered through state paid
therapists when agencies are unable to find any evidence of risk of abuse or
neglect. Second, a witchdoctor diagnosis of the mother has nothing
whatsoever with determining whether her child was abused. Third, the
guidelines for abuse or neglect in Oregon are unbelievably vague. No one in
their right mind would call them "stringent."
I suggest you look into it.
> Call the child abuse hotline and ask them for the guidelines. They
> won't even send out a cps worker until the level hits danger or threat
> of risk.
In 1998, Oregon hotline operators screened out 14,156 reports (USDHHS,
2001). Of the 17,300 reports that were screened in for
investigation/assessment, 7,461 were substantiated for risk of neglect/abuse
or actual neglect/abuse. My question for you: How many children do you
think Oregon's child placement agency forcibly removed from homes where the
agency had UNSUBSTANTIATED all allegations of child of abuse/neglect or risk
of same?
> Find out how horrendous it has to be before "threat of risk" is even
> considred.
Legos left on the floor of the home of a 3-year-old is sufficient for a
finding of "risk" of neglect. Horrendous abuse represents less than 3% of
substantiated reports of child maltreatment.
> > The county "service"
> > provider fees are reimbursed by federal Social Security funds, enriching
the
> > "service" providers that will write evaluations favorable to the
county's
> > case. Some of these "service" providers can be friends or family of
county
> > employees.
>
> Social Security funds? Citation please. You aren't just another one of
> these strange folks that are control freaks drooling for a cause, are
> you?
Child welfare services are funded exclusively on the federal level by social
security funds. Anyone with any contact with state child protective
services knows this. Federal funding to the state agencies flows from Title
IV-E of the social security act, Title IV-B of the social security act, and
Title XX of the social security act. The Title IV-E entitlements are
uncapped and flow to the states based upon a head count of their foster
population. Ninety percent of federal child welfare funding is based upon
the state's foster care population.
Check it out. Learn the facts.
Doug
bobb
"Greg Hanson" <Gre...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zM5c7.222488$Q9.58...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
The problem is... as many are just now finding out... the many and varied
reason CPS removes kids have been hidden under secrecy laws. Of course CPS
must say they had 'good' reason... and the examples they use speaking
publicy, are usually the more horrendeous. Anyone who beleives their CPS
can do no wrong... should probably do a little investigation and report
back. I'd start with ex-social workers... former administrative type.. etc.
Bobb
Bobb
Fight CPS And Win
Linda
bobb
"Doug" <do...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:oW5c7.19649$t41.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Thanks, Doug... that really pushes 'hot button' because so few know about
social security funding... and yet our politicians cry that there will be no
retirement benefits in the next 10 years. I've heard this since the early
sixity's social security is gonna run out of money... and that was before
CPS funding, disability funding (alcohol, drugs and even fat people now
qualify).
Now, let's see the non-beleivers dispute the social security matter..
:-) Gee.. what do you think social security would do with all the money
that goes to CPS if the law is changed?? Into retirement... or roads?
bobb
>
>
Neal Feldman
bobb wrote:
Absolutely! Each time I went before one of these rubber stamps in black robes I
was told they could not do anything, could not hear anything, could not change
anything, but could only sign whatever Gestapo CPS put in front of them.
PERIOD.
I kept telling them Gestapo CPS' claims were entirely fraudulent and they had
NOTHING... not even a blank post it note... challenged them to present anything
if they had it... was constantly told 'this is not the time or place'... I would
say 'my children have been kidnapped and are being held hostage... pray tell
when IS the time and where IS the place and let me go THERE!" And they would
just sign and call the next case.
Oh yeah, the VERY VERY ACTIVE PARTNERS of Gestapo CPS, the rubber stamps in
black robes, really provide such a great oversight and accountability, now don't
they?
> > > For the Caring Mom, it is pretty
> > > easy to tell when bruises and other injuries
> > > are caused by playing and when they are
> > > caused by abuse. To say your child will be
> > > taken away because he fell off a bike is silly.
But it happens all the time, silly or not.
> > would you believe removal for "clutter"?
I wouldn't. But many have been, and for even less than THAT!
> > > And as far as the Christian kids,
> >
> > surname Christine, not Christian. Broken in to the wrong house lately?
ROTFLU!
> > > I imagine when these childred finally starved
> > > to death, the same people would be
> > > screaming because the state didn't do anything.
> >
> > How many starvation cases were there last year?
If they 'fully recovered' within only 4 days they were not that starved or
dehydrated. Likely they were thin. Since when is THAT a CRIME?
With all the reports about how too many kids are OBESE one really has to
wonder...
> > > And, for what it's worth, children are not removed
> > > from families because they are homeless. They are
> > > removed because of abusive situations. No judge
> > > in Oregon would allow poverty to be a reason to
> > > remove children.
Sorry, but it happens all the time. They call it any number of things...
failure to provide, not enough food, not enough clothing, not a big enough
house, etc etc etc... it all boils down to "Too poor".
> The problem is... as many are just now finding out... the many and varied
> reason CPS removes kids have been hidden under secrecy laws. Of course CPS
> must say they had 'good' reason... and the examples they use speaking
> publicy, are usually the more horrendeous. Anyone who beleives their CPS
> can do no wrong... should probably do a little investigation and report
> back. I'd start with ex-social workers... former administrative type.. etc.
>
> Bobb
Absolutely, Bobb. But there are the closedminded types like this clown clearly
is, zealot extremists through and through, who will never accept or admit the
truth.
> > McGuckin accusations were no electricity, not enough food, etc.
> > Christine accusations were malnourishment and dehydration.
Yup... basic translation: "Too poor".
> > > And if you really want to know what
> > > you are talking about, don't listen to
> > > the people who have lost their children
> > > because of abusive behavior, but go to
> > > a juvenile court one day and listen to
> > > the proceedings.
> >
> > Juvenile court is closed to public.
Not always... but you have to know how to get in.
> > > And to believe that threatening anyone
> > > with a gun to their face is justified is
> > > just plain sick.
> >
> > THIS from an ex-cop?
Amusing, isn't it?
Try and kidnap MY kids and you will wish I only stuck a gun in your face... one
day you would turn the key of your car and BOOM... no more you. The office
where you work, at a time I found would have the largest number of workers and
fewest possible parents there would become a crater. Dioxin or other highly
toxic substance would make it into the water pitchers or punch bowls at Gestapo
CPS meetings and galas.
Be it said they would KNOW they messed with the wrong person, I can assure you
of that.
And interestingly I would have an airtight alibi for whatever time it
happened...
> > Was this some new kind of unarmed cop?
I guess he just swaggers in his ignorance at them, they go apoplectic in
laughter and when they pass out from lack of oxygen he has them hauled away?
<chuckle>
> > I suspect this person was never a cop.
I agree... much like MoRon Mitty... claiming being an ex cop but making
similarly idiotic statements.
> > If he had been, he wouldn't have accused
> > himself and fellow officers of being "sick" like this.
True... true...
--
=============================================================
Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/
We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!
Jon Beaver
wrote:
The lack of a truly impartial tribunal is the most fundamental flaw of
the juvenile dependency system. A CPS worker would not remove a child
if they knew that their grounds might not be approved by a judge.
There is no substitute for a judge who sees himself/herself in the
role of balancing the risk of abuse against the risk of harm of
removal. But a judge who is also the primary administrative officer
in a federally-funded "permanency" program isn't impartial.
- Jon Beaver
Ron
Hi Jon,
I'm interested in something here. "primary administrative officer in
a federally-funded "permanency" program". What program are you
referring to here? Can you provide any links to this program
information that the rest of us can refer to?
It is my experience that the judges in these cases are more than just
impartial, but tend to lean in the direction of the biological parents
instead of the laws of the state. So, the program you speak of, which
you allude has eroded the impartiality of the judges in our family
court system, is of interest. Thanks for the help.
To all others:
Has anyone else noted that Neal constantly is screaming about the
“rubber stamp” judges we have in our nations family court
system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims that
a vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, which is
it?
One of these days Neal will actually be able to make a statement that
first of all makes sense, and secondly does not contradict any of his
earlier statements. Im 40 years old and according to national
statistics I have another 30 years to go, so I have time to wait for
it. Somehow I don’t think I will ever see it happen.
Just a thought.
Ron
DontTakeOurKids.com
>"rubber stamp" judges we have in our nations family court
>system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims >that a
vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, >which is it?
The judges that are doing the rubber stamping are the corrupt, lazy, unjust,
and incompetent juvenile court judges. The judges that overturn their
rulings are Appelate judges that actually know about things like justice,
integrity, and the Constitution. That's why they are appelate judges, and
not stuck in a juvenile justice courtroom somewhere. That's why they make
more money, because they do a better job. Two completely different
jurisdictions.
www.DontTakeOurKids.com
--
http://www.haywired.com/inthemail
"Ron" <lucky...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:ac8c23e4.01081...@posting.google.com...
Ric Werme
>Jon Beaver <jbe...@imagecomp.com> wrote in message news:<lrv7nt8pcm4htot6n...@4ax.com>...
>> But a judge who is also the primary administrative officer
>> in a federally-funded "permanency" program isn't impartial.
>I'm interested in something here. "primary administrative officer in
>a federally-funded "permanency" program". What program are you
>referring to here? Can you provide any links to this program
>information that the rest of us can refer to?
I think that's just flowery language summing up things like this CPS-NH
policy:
The contacts with the District Court judges should also be an
ongoing process. It is recommended that each DCYF Supervisor set up
a meeting with each District Court Judge within the district
office's area of responsibility as soon as possible after assuming
the supervisory position. The first such meeting should be on a one
to one basis between the supervisor and the judge for the purpose of
becoming familiar with each other. Subsequent meetings should be
held as often as the supervisor and the judge feel it would be
appropriate or necessary, and should be used to discuss mutual
concerns and resolve any problems which may arise.
It would also be quite helpful if the supervisor could arrange to
meet with all of the district judges in the area as a group. Such
meetings could be used to update the judges on any changes of the
law which affects the Division, for a statistical review of the
Division's manpower and caseload, and could also be used to outline
differences between the various courts, and to standardize those
differences. These meetings could also be used to advise the judges
of any expansions or additions to services or resources. The various
meetings recommended will help substantially to ease the burdens on
the Division and to ensure the Court's fullest cooperation.
See http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme/law/cnlbook.html for more excerpts.
>It is my experience that the judges in these cases are more than just
>impartial, but tend to lean in the direction of the biological parents
>instead of the laws of the state.
Sure isn't the case in NH, MA, and most of the rest I hear from.
>Has anyone else noted that Neal constantly is screaming about the
>“rubber stamp” judges we have in our nations family court
>system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims that
>a vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, which is
>it?
As noted above, DCYF trains District Court judges. There's hardly any
point in trying to win a case at the District Court level, only at
appellate hearings do you have half a chance.
-Ric Werme
--
Ric Werme | we...@nospam.mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme | ^^^^^^^ delete
destroycps
Ric says ...
> DCYF trains District Court judges. There's hardly any
>point in trying to win a case at the District Court level, only at
>appellate hearings do you have half a chance.
Destroycps says ...
Some other states use different words to mean something analogous to New
Hampshire’s “District Courts,” but Ric’s concept would right universally. The
lowest courts are decidedly anti-family. The Masters or Commissioners may spout
pro-family lip service but that’s as far as it will go. The low-court bias is
why it’s important for parents to avoid continuances. Parents should let the
case go up the judicial ladder as quickly as possible. The prospects are better
up there.
Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!
Robynne Leighe
> Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!! Destroycps!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Ric says ...
> > DCYF trains District Court judges. There's hardly any
> >point in trying to win a case at the District Court level, only at
> >appellate hearings do you have half a chance.
>
> Destroycps says ...
> Some other states use different words to mean something analogous to New
> lowest courts are decidedly anti-family. The Masters or Commissioners may spout
> why it’s important for parents to avoid continuances. Parents should let the
> case go up the judicial ladder as quickly as possible. The prospects are better
> up there.
You got it. And don't be stupid enough to "negotiate settlement" with
the state once you get there. They know they will lose out of
"Family" court, away from their own rubber stamp commissioners, so
they offer to negotiate an agreement, you cooperate, sign a compromise
and you are right back at square one.
Once you've completed your end of the negotiated settlement, CPS, all
on their own and in a backroom somewhere, writes up a whole new
agreement, with missing signatures, little notes written in, etc.,
get's the Family Court commissioner to sign it and away we go again!
Jon is right. The fundamental flaw in the juvenile dependency system
lies in the lack of fair, impartial review. Get yourself into a real
court and stay there.
RLM at BenchTree
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhwre. We are caught
in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of
destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."
~Martin Luther King, Jr. Letter from the Birmingham Jail, April 16,
1963
Ron
DontTakeOurKids.com wrote in message ...
>>...constantly is screaming about the
>>"rubber stamp" judges we have in our nations family court
>>system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims >that a
>vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, >which is it?
>
>The judges that are doing the rubber stamping are the corrupt, lazy,
unjust,
>and incompetent juvenile court judges. The judges that overturn their
>rulings are Appelate judges that actually know about things like justice,
>integrity, and the Constitution. That's why they are appelate judges, and
>not stuck in a juvenile justice courtroom somewhere. That's why they make
>more money, because they do a better job. Two completely different
>jurisdictions.
>www.DontTakeOurKids.com
Its easy to point the finger when you are not the one doing the job. Walk a
mile in the judges shoes that you hate so much, I guarentee that you will
change your mind. Spend a week in his court and you might just have a
better perspective of the massive job we are asking them to perform for the
public good and the children. IOW, dont judge a book by its cover, read it,
and not just one chapter.
Ron
Ric Werme
>Its easy to point the finger when you are not the one doing the job. Walk a
>mile in the judges shoes that you hate so much, I guarentee that you will
>change your mind. Spend a week in his court and you might just have a
>better perspective of the massive job we are asking them to perform for the
>public good and the children.
My wife has. Since she became a lawyer, her respect for the legal system
has declined markedly. Besides the obvious ties between the district
court system and DCYF, she's appalled at the lack of knowledge of the
law of some judges and very disturbed at how judges will ignore the
strongest points in her brief when they write a decision that denies her
pleadings.
Part of the problem is that judges think their role is to _provide_ for the
"common good". In actuality it is to _enforce_ the constitution of NH.
Bob
"Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:iNYd7.808$sr4.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
>
> DontTakeOurKids.com wrote in message ...
> >>...constantly is screaming about the
> >>"rubber stamp" judges we have in our nations family court
> >>system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims >that a
> >vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, >which is it?
> >
> >The judges that are doing the rubber stamping are the corrupt, lazy,
> unjust,
> >and incompetent juvenile court judges. The judges that overturn their
> >rulings are Appelate judges that actually know about things like justice,
> >integrity, and the Constitution. That's why they are appelate judges,
and
> >not stuck in a juvenile justice courtroom somewhere. That's why they
make
> >more money, because they do a better job. Two completely different
> >jurisdictions.
> >www.DontTakeOurKids.com
>
>
> Its easy to point the finger when you are not the one doing the job.
It's also easy to point the finger when you are the one doing the job. How
does that bear on corrupt, lazy,
unjust, and incompetent juvenile court judges?
>Walk a mile in the judges shoes that you hate so much, I guarentee that you
will
> change your mind.
I'll go you one better. I'll trade shoes with the judge (whom BTW I don't
hate) and I guarantee that he will change his mind.
>Spend a week in his court and you might just have a
> better perspective of the massive job we are asking them to perform for
the
> public good and the children.
Let the court spend a week in the life of an innocent child in psychiatric
"care" so s/he can have a better perspective of the massive emotional trauma
caused when s/he fails to perform for the children.
>IOW, dont judge a book by its cover, read it,
> and not just one chapter.
Studies have shown that most people do judge a book by it's cover, so your
advice is probably falling on deaf ears. IOW, IROTFFLMAOAU.
Bob
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
Neal Feldman
Jon Beaver wrote:
That is why JURIES need to be part of the system. But Gestapo CPS and their
supporters, advocates and apologists will fight against that tooth and nail because
they know if they bring 99% of their cases before a jury they would be sent packing
with extreme prejudice!
> A CPS worker would not remove a child
> if they knew that their grounds might not be approved by a judge.
Absolutely! Especially if they lacked their unconstitutional immunity and could be
sued for such criminal removals!
> There is no substitute for a judge who sees himself/herself in the
> role of balancing the risk of abuse against the risk of harm of
> removal. But a judge who is also the primary administrative officer
> in a federally-funded "permanency" program isn't impartial.
>
> - Jon Beaver
Quite true indeed, Jon!
Unfortunately!
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> Has anyone else noted that Neal constantly is screaming about the
> “rubber stamp” judges we have in our nations family court
> system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims that
> a vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, which is
> it?
EVENTUALLY, when they have no choice, they overturn the actions of Gestapo CPS in the majority of cases...
and every so often one gets an honest judge who looks at all the cases in their area and finds, and reports,
that over 70%, if not more, of removals were wholly unjustified.
There is nothing inconsistent in my statements or position in this regard, MoRon Mitty, no matter how
desperately you try and misrepresent, twist and misconstrue.
> One of these days Neal will actually be able to make a statement that
> first of all makes sense,
I have yet to make a statement that does not make sense, MoRon Mitty. You continue to confuse 'makes sense'
with 'agrees with MoRon Mitty'. You really should get some professional help about that, you know?
> and secondly does not contradict any of his earlier statements.
What of my statements contradicts my other statements? If the above is an example of your claim then your
claim is laughable in the extreme, MoRon Mitty.
ROTFLU!
> Im 40 years old and according to national
> statistics I have another 30 years to go, so I have time to wait for
> it. Somehow I don’t think I will ever see it happen.
Ever see me agree with you on the points in this ng, MoRon Mitty? I am inclined to agree with you on that
one... (not one of the points of the ng though)... I am highly unlikely to ever agree with dishonest,
delusional and moronic Gestapo CPS apologists and selfserving kidnappers such as you, MoRon Mitty.
> Just a thought.
And a pretty poor example of the practice... par for the course for the likes of you, MoRon Mitty.
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> DontTakeOurKids.com wrote in message ...
> >>...constantly is screaming about the
> >>"rubber stamp" judges we have in our nations family court
> >>system, but in the very next post and sometimes sentence, claims >that a
> >vast number of CPS cases are overturned by judges? IOW, >which is it?
> >
> >The judges that are doing the rubber stamping are the corrupt, lazy,
> unjust,
> >and incompetent juvenile court judges. The judges that overturn their
> >rulings are Appelate judges that actually know about things like justice,
> >integrity, and the Constitution. That's why they are appelate judges, and
> >not stuck in a juvenile justice courtroom somewhere. That's why they make
> >more money, because they do a better job. Two completely different
> >jurisdictions.
> >www.DontTakeOurKids.com
>
> Its easy to point the finger when you are not the one doing the job.
It is also easy to point the finger when you are RIGHT IN DOING SO, MoRon Mitty.
> Walk a mile in the judges shoes that you hate so much,
Oh? I get to sit on the bench and wear the robes and make the rulings? COOL! I
can see a lot of kids returned to their innocent families AND a lot of Gestapo
CPS caseworkers cooling their heels in jail on contempt citations! Heh heh heh!
When do I get to start, MoRon Mitty?
> I guarentee that you will change your mind.
Only a fool would make such a guarantee... oh... forgot I was talking about
MoRon Mitty... nevermind.... <chuckle>
> Spend a week in his court and you might just have a
> better perspective of the massive job we are asking them to perform for the
> public good and the children.
I have spent a lot of time in their kangaroo courts and viewed first hand how
completely corrupt they and their system is.
> IOW, dont judge a book by its cover, read it, and not just one chapter.
We have read it, researched it, studied it inside and out, chapter and verse...
and our reviews are well founded, MoRon Mitty.
You and your Gestapo CPS apologist ilk have yet to prove otherwise... all you do
is whine about it incessantly.
It is you who are delusionally turning a blind eye and dishonestly attacking the
victims of this corrupt and evil system you happen to personally profit from, or
so you claim, MoRon Mitty.
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> "Neal Feldman" <silve...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:3B788C26...@home.net...
> I have the feeling that the only thing that will enlighten you Mr. Feldman
> is a high speed lead injection.
This is the best you can come up with, MoRon Mitty? ROTFLU!
> Your stupidity is well known, as is your opinion, and they are both way out of
> proportion.
Again you are clearly projecting, MoRon Mitty... for you are only accurately
describing yourself. You are a laughingstock without any significant support
for yourself, MoRon Mitty... I on the other hand have significant support.
The only person I can actually recall agreeing with much of your spewn nonsense
was your alleged Wyoming cop you drafted into making a driveby posting. You are
so desperate for anyone to say you are anything but a complete delusional
buffoon that you recruit posters! ROTFLU!
Oh, MoRon Mitty... you should put warnings at the top of your posts... I am
laughing so hard my sides hurt!
ROTFLU!
Robynne Leighe
"Spend a week in his court..." Oh? Every time I try to spend even a
few minutes in his/her court, I am ushered out. Confidentiality laws,
I'm told.
"...I guarentee that you will change your mind." Not in this
lifetime. I've seen enough to be completely horrified at the lack of
knowledge, ability and fairness, of family court commissioners. By
the by, since they start out as lawyers and then become judges, how do
they suddenly go from "...ain't got a clue", to applying "the legal
standard fairly to all."? Is there some magic dust in those robes
they put on?
I once suffered under the illusion that, in my beloved country, the
justice system was fair, judges were wise and infallible, and lawyers
were...well, just doing their job. That was before my grandchildren
were torn from their home, their family, their friends, and told a
pack of lies that still makes my head spin. The why doesn't matter,
you wouldn't believe it anyway, but here's the part that you might
actually find interesting: When we, through our attorneys, asked why
the children were taken to a foster family in another county, cut off
from everything familiar to them and not placed with extended family,
we were told it was because we are "not cooperative". When pressed
for an explanation of "not cooperative", we were told it was because
we would not accept their "services" and refused to become foster
parents. Doesn't that sound a tad bit like blackmail? "Become part of
the system, agree with our actions, or we keep your kids."
If not for the clear vision, passionate outrage, and "cut to the
chase" advice from Neal to me and others he has helped, I may have let
down my guard. While we are still dealing with the tentacles of this
unruly monster called CPS, I am now able to have my grandchildren for
days at a time, unsupervised and they are back home with their mother.
We did not and will not yield.
We're in a war for the rights of parents everywhere, to guard and
protect their own children from a government agency run amok. While I
may not always be comfortable with Neal's rage, deep down inside, this
"nice old lady" is thinking along the same lines. Truth be known,
there's no one else I'd rather have at my back or in a foxhole. When
this war is won, I hope to one day shake his hand. If I'm still
around.
RLM at BenchTree
http://www.benchtree.com/citizen.html
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
-George Bernard Shaw
Ric Werme
>rob...@benchtree.com (Robynne Leighe) wrote in message news:<8869e232.01081...@posting.google.com>...
>> "Ron" <APositi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<iNYd7.808$sr4.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>...
>Then you are not paying attention to the facts sir/madam. The facts I
>speak of are the cases themselves, what is happening to the children,
>and the reasons the case is in the court. You spout about the lack of
>fairness, knowledge and ability, but you apply it to the wrong people.
> The lack is totally on the side of the parents of the children in
>question. Listen to the testimony, given by the doctors,
There are no doctors in NH who specialize in child abuse. In an
Osteogenesis Imperfecta case my wife had, the genetic counselor the
state picked didn't bother to check the family history (an aunt had
suffered several broken bones as a kid. Back then it was "accident
prone," now it's child abuse. Also, there are no OI experts in NH
and DCYF argued successfully against letting my wife bring one in.
You want facts? Bar hearsay, raise the standard of proof, stop the
smoozing between DCYF and the judges. Oh - and force the state to
honor the rules of discovery (see below).
the
>therapists,
A client in a complex case was ordered by the judge to take psych
counseling to understand that her daughter had been abused. (The
judge had ruled that the girl had been abused.) The non-DCYF approved
therapists my wife contacted were concerned that following such an
order was tantamount to brain washing. The DCYF-approved therapists
had no such qualms, but were unwilling to take the case because my
wife supoenas them in subsequent hearings to get the client's side of
the story out of them. (And to question them about their professional
qualifications and standing, which are often lacking.)
A couple quotes from outside the hearing about that case:
The only reason you want to get a copy of my file is to prove your
case that [the child] was not abused. I'm not going to help you do
that."
NH State Trooper Russ Conte to
Parent Attorney Paula Werme
January 28, 1999
Following the second finding of abuse
in the secret, civil trial.
"We all came to a conclusion that we did not have a definite
diagnosis- it could have been infectious but the cultures were not
helpful, it could have been traumatic but it resolved fairly quickly
and left no scarring."
Dr. Steven Kairys
Former Child Abuse expert at
Dartmouth Hitchcock, on the
same case, in an e-mail to
Paula Werme Feb 24, 1999.
BTW, the girl in this case is back at home after a medical "event" in
a group home that required surgery. It seems that DCYF figured it
would be cheaper if they let mom handle the girl's medical
problems....
> the children,
Like the one who sobbed outside the court room "Why won't he [the
judge] just listen to me?" DCYF had argued that putting the girl on
the stand would be "too traumatic."
and not to the lawyers. Spend a little time
>listening to the facts of the cases and you might just begin to
>understand what its all about.
The judges are well shielded from the facts. They don't see the
visitations, they don't see the interactions, they think DCYF does a
great job, and their opinions show it all.
Neal Feldman
Robynne Leighe wrote:
> If not for the clear vision, passionate outrage, and "cut to the
> chase" advice from Neal to me and others he has helped, I may have let
> down my guard.
Thank you, Robynne... glad that I could be of some service to you and your family.
> While we are still dealing with the tentacles of this
> unruly monster called CPS, I am now able to have my grandchildren for
> days at a time, unsupervised and they are back home with their mother.
Top notch! It pleases me greatly to hear this from you!
> We did not and will not yield.
Nor should you, nor any parent, ever yield to the evil that is Gestapo CPS and its supporters, advocates and
apologists!
> We're in a war for the rights of parents everywhere, to guard and
> protect their own children from a government agency run amok.
Absolutely right we are... and we are winning... which is why the apologists such as MoRon Mitty are running
scared in their delusional ravings....
> While I may not always be comfortable with Neal's rage,
It is meant to be honest, not comfortable.. but I realize it can shake some people up... but some people may need
to be shaken.
> deep down inside, this "nice old lady" is thinking along the same lines.
So are most parents and families. I am honest enough to not only admit it but openly show it and say what needs
to be said... you are honest enough to admit to that which does not necessarily show.
I really have to wonder about parents who could, if their kids were kidnapped by Gestapo CPS, just shrug, say "Oh
well... so it goes" and just walk calmly away, you know what I mean?
> Truth be known, there's no one else I'd rather have at my back or in a foxhole.
And there are few who would be better... people who know me personally will tell you that I am the best friend
you could ever want in the world, and the worst enemy you could ever possibly imagine.
> When this war is won, I hope to one day shake his hand. If I'm still around.
It is a date, Robynne. I would love to sit down with you someday too.
> RLM at BenchTree
> http://www.benchtree.com/citizen.html
> "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
> -George Bernard Shaw
--
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> "Robynne Leighe" <rob...@benchtree.com> wrote in message
> news:8869e232.01081...@posting.google.com...
> > lucky...@netscape.net (Ron) wrote in message
> news:<ac8c23e4.01081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > rob...@benchtree.com (Robynne Leighe) wrote in message
> news:<8869e232.01081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Then you are not paying attention to the facts sir/madam. The facts I
> > > speak of are the cases themselves, what is happening to the children,
> > > and the reasons the case is in the court. You spout about the lack of
> > > fairness, knowledge and ability, but you apply it to the wrong people.
> > > The lack is totally on the side of the parents of the children in
> > > question. Listen to the testimony, given by the doctors, the
> > > therapists, the children, and not to the lawyers. Spend a little time
> > > listening to the facts of the cases and you might just begin to
> > > understand what its all about.
> > >
> > > If you spend all your time critiquing the people you dislike, then you
> > > are going to miss the points that are relevant. Your choice
> > > sir/madam, but you cannot claim to be knowledgeable of the courts
> > > system without looking at all the information. You have one case
> > > worth of knowledge, you really need to expand that base of knowledge
> > > to cases where you have no emotional attachment or interest. The
> > > truth is in that court room, you just need to pay attention.
> > >
> > > As for the “magic dust” theory, you might want to take a
> > > second and note the difference between what a judges job is, and the
> > > job of an attorney. Significant to say the least. And yes, you gotta
> > > be one before you can be the other. Hey, I didnt make the rules.
> > > Dont blame me for your problems with it. The fact is that I am
> > > correct, because by definition the two jobs are significantly
> > > different, and they are designed to be that way.
> > >
> > > > I once suffered under the illusion that, in my beloved country, the
> > > > justice system was fair, judges were wise and infallible, and lawyers
> > > > were...well, just doing their job. That was before my grandchildren
> > > > were torn from their home, their family, their friends, and told a
> > > > pack of lies that still makes my head spin. The why doesn't matter,
> > >
> > > It sounds like your emotional involvement has clouded your ability to
> > > be fair and objective. A common failing. But until you realize that
> > > you are 50% blind you will continue to run into the truth, and fail to
> > > recognize it.
> > >
> > > > you wouldn't believe it anyway, but here's the part that you might
> > > > actually find interesting: When we, through our attorneys, asked why
> > > > the children were taken to a foster family in another county, cut off
> > > > from everything familiar to them and not placed with extended family,
> > > > we were told it was because we are "not cooperative". When pressed
> > > > for an explanation of "not cooperative", we were told it was because
> > > > we would not accept their "services" and refused to become foster
> > >
> > > Your right, that’s interesting. But you failed to state a few
> > > facts about your statement. Who did you ask through your attorney?
> > > That should give us a bit of information about where you went wrong.
> > > Second, were the foster homes in the area full? A relevant fact that
> > > you again failed to advise us of. Third, were your grandchildren
> > > living with you instead of their natural parents? If so, why? Are
> > > your children unable to care for their children? You see, they would
> > > not have been offering YOU services unless you were a primary care
> > > provider and the individuals the HHS were concerned about. So, it is
> > > indeed interesting that you missed some very pertinent facts when
> > > making your statement. The last question is, why did you omit this
> > > information? Was it human error (it happens to all of us), or a brain
> > > fart, or intentional?
> > >
> > > > parents. Doesn't that sound a tad bit like blackmail? "Become part of
> > > > the system, agree with our actions, or we keep your kids."
> > >
> > > Sorry, by your own statement, they are not your kids. But your
> > > grandchildren. Significant difference there.
> > >
> > > > If not for the clear vision, passionate outrage, and "cut to the
> > > > chase" advice from Neal to me and others he has helped, I may have let
> > > > down my guard. While we are still dealing with the tentacles of this
> > > > unruly monster called CPS, I am now able to have my grandchildren for
> > > > days at a time, unsupervised and they are back home with their mother.
> > > > We did not and will not yield.
> > > > We're in a war for the rights of parents everywhere, to guard and
> > > > protect their own children from a government agency run amok. While I
> > > > may not always be comfortable with Neal's rage, deep down inside, this
> > > > "nice old lady" is thinking along the same lines. Truth be known,
> > > > there's no one else I'd rather have at my back or in a foxhole. When
> > > > this war is won, I hope to one day shake his hand. If I'm still
> > > > around.
> > >
> > > A war. Excuse me while I take a few minutes to recover from the
> > > laughter you have just caused me.
> > >
> > > …. You obviously have no idea what “war” is.
> > >
> > > Getting back to the issue, you may indeed feel that you need to battle
> > > a system you think is out of control, but that again is a case of your
> > > emotional attachment to the case blinding you to the truth. The truth
> > > is that while you feel that the case you speak of was unjust, your
> > > emotions prevented you from viewing the case objectively. You
> > > don’t really present enough information here to give us a real
> > > feel for what happened, but your emotionalism is very clear. You also
> > > make it clear that that same emotionalism blinded you to the case
> > > being presented by HHS.
> > >
> > > Hitching your wagon to Neals train may have done what you wished it to
> > > do, but now is the time to look over what he says, what he represents,
> > > and what he does not say. Neal is a leach on the families of this
> > > nation and of the individuals that post to or read this forum. He has
> > > taken your blood, and only given you a disease. Neal is the worst
> > > advocate for his own cause, fanatics usually are. You want to
> > > identify with someone? Try Doug. He at least is intelligent,
> > > knowledgeable, and while decidedly one sided, articulate. Neal is
> > > just one sided, and the rest does not apply. Personally, I think Doug
> > > is on the wrong side, but I have to give him the credit he is due. He
> > > is a much better advocate for your cause, and is just as staunch as
> > > Neal.
> > >
> > > Ron
> >
> > "...case of your emotional attachment to the case..."
> >
> > You are correct, I get pretty darned emotional when children I am
> > related to are terrorized and traumatized and WRONGFULLY removed from
> > their mother's home based on false allegations of an ex-boyfriend,
> > none of which, nearly a year later, the State has been able to prove.
> > Children are part of a FAMILY and include grandparents, aunts, uncles,
> > cousins, etc.
> >
> And yet you choose to place the blame for this "error" at the feet of your
> county HHS system and not the individual that made the report. Is this
> decision designed to make sense?
It makes perfect sense, if you have any, MoRon Mitty. Clearly you do not, so
you are foundering... not much surprise there.
She blames the system because this is not an isolated case of individual error,
but instead as the facts clearly show indicative of an overall issue which
permeates the entire system. This is not an aberration... it is SOP for Gestapo
CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry.
> Doug does indeed wish to be a part of the solution, of this I have no doubt.
> He even approaches it with reason and thought, which I can admire. But,
> Bennidict Arnold thought he was right in what he did also, as do all the
> suicide bombers in Isreal, and members of the Red Army Faction, and the
> SLA..... Get the point?
>
> Ron
Yes I do, MoRon Mitty... you just described yourself... the blind zealot who is
completely wrong but refuses to see it, accept it or admit it, regardless of the
facts.
Your projection problem is again duly noted, MoRon Mitty.
Greg Hanson
US Constitution is a bad thing.
He is duplicitous in his claims
about legal protections. On
one hand he claims parents are
protected by the law. Then he
complains when legal research
makes a good case for parents
rights against CPS abuse.
Ron
"Greg Hanson" <gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:olSe7.9335$sr4.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
Until then you do nothing but blow hot air.
Ron
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> "Greg Hanson" <gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:olSe7.9335$sr4.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> > Ron thinks that respect for the
> > US Constitution is a bad thing.
> > He is duplicitous in his claims
> > about legal protections. On
> > one hand he claims parents are
> > protected by the law. Then he
> > complains when legal research
> > makes a good case for parents
> > rights against CPS abuse.
> >
> Really Greg? Prove your statement.
You have already done so, MoRon Mitty... most times you post.
<chuckle>
> Until then you do nothing but blow hot air.
>
> Ron
No, MoRon Mitty... again that would be you.
You really need to get that projection problem of yours fixed, you know
MoRon Mitty?
<chuckle>
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> "Doug" <do...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FFKe7.14189$ZM2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > If you spend all your time critiquing the people you dislike, then you
> > > are going to miss the points that are relevant. Your choice
> > > sir/madam, but you cannot claim to be knowledgeable of the courts
> > > system without looking at all the information. You have one case
> > > worth of knowledge, you really need to expand that base of knowledge
> > > to cases where you have no emotional attachment or interest.
> >
> > Robynne Has done just that, sir, in the process of researching her book.
> > She is the author of "What C.P.S. Doesn't Want You to Know: A Parent's
> > Manual for Defending Your Rights and Keeping Your Family Intact."
> > (May, 2001; BenchTree Publishing; ISBN: 0-9645308-2-1; 109 pages.)
> >
>
> A published author. We are honored. A rare thing here.
>
> Does that make her an expert? No, obviously not.
Actually, it does make her as much an expert as anyone else, MoRon Mitty. And
it is undoubted that her book is read more than the thesis papers of the
so-called 'experts' that you respect who are only 'experts' because they were
hired into a particular occupational position, not because they know their bum
from a hold in the ground.
And it certainly makes her far more of an expert than the dishonest and
delusional likes of YOU, MoRon Mitty.
<chuckle>
> Knowledgable? Possibly,
> but given the subject and her writings here I dont believe her knowledge is
> as rounded as it should be.
Basically because you disagree with her and she with you... which of course
makes her and her work fail the MoRon Mitty Test... which is to say if it agrees
with you it is clearly gospel and intellectual ambrosia of the Ghods, and if it
disagrees with your purile pap it is clearly 'just an opinion, and a wrong one
at that' regardless of how much evidence and logic backs it up.
You are so easily seen for the raving lunatic net.kook you have shown yourself
to be, MoRon Mitty.
<chuckle>
> But we shall see, I just ordered it from
> Amazon.com. On your reccomendation sir. I'll let you know how the reading
> goes and of course the flaws I note.
Oh, that ought to be amusing.
ROTFLU!
> > After Robynne's daughter was mistreated by Washington CPS workers, the
> > author began an exhaustive study of families in states across this nation.
> > Her descriptions of the experiences of these families is well-documented
> in
> > the book. Robynne conducted extensive research of family law, court
> systems
> > and child welfare policy. Her conclusions in the beautifully written book
> > are well documented.
> >
> She spoke with the parents. And assumed that she was never lied to?
So your assumption, as you have presented it before, MoRon Mitty, is that ALL
parents ALWAYS lie, that they NEVER tell the truth if they disagree with your
BS, huh?Another factor you failed to mention here Doug is that there is no
incentive
> for the parents she has interviewed to tell the whole story.
Sorry, MoRon Mitty, but they need no incentive to do so... they are the
ACCUSED. It is the burden of THEIR ACCUSERS to prove the case against them.
> They can tell
> her what they like without reprecussions of any type. Truth, lie, complete
> fabrication.
Those would be the tactics employed by Gestapo CPS who you desperately play
delusional and dishonest apologist for, MoRon Mitty.
> Half-truths are my favorite,
I bet they are, for you use them so often it is clear that this is true, MoRon
Mitty.
> as well as multiple versions of the same event.
Interesting, MoRon Mitty... in my experience especially in my case and that of
the Gastons the version of the parents is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT while it is
Gestapo CPS with the mercurial versions which ebb and flow to fit their
particular needs and desires at the time.
> Sorry, I have not read the book (and yes I am a bit
> interested) but if all she has to go on is the word of the parents she had
> to have interviewed, and thier friends/family, then the book is a work of
> fiction and not fact.
Ah... Cap'n MoRon Mitty of the USS ClosedMindedGestapoCPSApologist putting up
the Delusion shields at full strength!
<chuckle>
> One more bit of info that you may have missed, Benchtree Publishing seems to
> be the authors own publishing company.
So what?
> That does not bode well for the book or its content.
Oh really, MoRon Mitty? And why is that pray tell?
> It would seem to imply that respectable publishing houses were unwilling to
> publish the book.
Well, MoRon Mitty, considering the general tone in most media to allow the
continuation of the truth being swept under the carpet why would this surprise
anyone?
Were they unwilling because they did not think the book was truthful? Or did
they refuse because it did not fit their agenda?
Most likely they figured it would not, like most books won't, sell a million
copies on pre-order so it was too small an undertaking for them to bother with.
MANY people publish their own works if they can. Even most on YOUR side, MoRon
Mitty.
> For what reason I cannot tell, but it is an interesting fact.
Actually it is an entirely irrelevant fact, and she has made NO secret AT ALL
about it... every post she makes has the link to her website for her publishing
company.
Who was it you were falsely accusing through apparent projection of being a
conspiracy theorist, MoRon Mitty?
<chuckle>
> > I can assure you that Robynne is very well informed about the civil justice
> > dispensed by the child welfare system.
>
> That has yet to be proven.
Her book proves it even if her posts here had not, MoRon Mitty.
All you have proven about yourself is that you are a liar who cavalierly
dismisses anything he disagrees with, ignores all the evidence presented against
his positions, makes unreasonable and irrational demands of his opponents and
who wallows in some of the deepest denial ever witnessed by human eyes!
> > > > If not for the clear vision, passionate outrage, and "cut to the
> > > > chase" advice from Neal to me and others he has helped, I may have let
> > > > down my guard. While we are still dealing with the tentacles of this
> > > > unruly monster called CPS, I am now able to have my grandchildren for
> > > > days at a time, unsupervised and they are back home with their mother.
> > > > We did not and will not yield.
> >
> > I would agree with Robynne here that Neal's vision and passionate, to the
> > point commentary, empowers parents to stand up and protect their families --
>
> > especially the tiniest, most vulnerable members. Children count on their
> > parents for protection against all those who would harm them. Wolves in
> > sheep's clothing still bite.
>
> Neal is most certainly passionate. As an idiot is passionate about his
> trycycle. About his cat. About a catapiller.
So you keep claiming, MoRon Mitty... so you have never even begun to prove. You
are so laughable, especially considering how you have lied to yourself so much
you are actually so delusional you believe your own BS to be the truth.
ROTFLU!
> Neal is the worst possible advocate for your cause, and his.
So you keep claiming, MoRon Mitty... but it seems that you are one of the VERY
FEW who say it... and well well well... every single one who says it seems to be
a Gestapo CPS apologist who dislikes me because I keep sending accurate salvo
after accurate salvo into your sacred cows. Go figure.
Over the years I have had many stand up for me, as Robynnne, Doug and others are
doing here and now...
You know, MoRon Mitty, in all the months (years?) I have read your delusional
tripe I have YET to see anyone stand up for you. Not even once. Not even the
most devout and dedicated Gestapo CPS apologist. Oh they might try desperately
to defend Gestapo CPS, but I have yet to see ANYONE try and defend you except
maybe the one person you drafted into posting... hardly what one can consider a
relevant example.
Interesting, huh?
> But he cannot see that, nor will he ever be able to.
Because it is a lie of yours, like pretty much everything you post, MoRon
Mitty... if we were to eliminate of your posts that which was lie, delusion and
braying idiocy I doubt there would be 1% of your posted text remaining.
> > ...And Neal's compassionate arguments for the rights of families rekindles
> > the spirit ignited by our Founding Father's so long ago, who had wolves of
> > their own to contend with.
>
> Compassionate?
Yes, MoRon Mitty, Compassionate.
> I think not.
Clearly, MoRon Mitty, truer words never types... you think not.
<chuckle>
> His only wish, as he states with each and
> every post to this and other forums, is the elimination of the nations best
> resource for addressing child abuse and neglect.
If this is the best that the nation can do then the nation should do nothing.
It is akin to a fireman attempting to put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto
it.
We already had a system prior to 1974 which worked for thousands of years.
Did it absolutely eliminate any and all child abuse and neglect? Nope.
Does Gestapo CPS for all its violations of the civil, constitutional, human, due
process and parental rights of innocent citizens eliminate any and all child
abuse and neglect? Not hardly! In fact rates of such are higher than they EVER
were in 1973!
It is abundantly clear that Gestapo CPS not only does not REDUCE abuse, it
increases it... it CAUSES it.
It is a bad idea and should be eliminated.
It can even be made selfeliminating... remove 100% of the unconstitutional
immunities possessed by those involved in Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and
Kidnapping Industry. Hold them to the fullest extent of criminal and civil law
for their actions if in a JURY trial they are found to have violated any civil,
constitutional, human, due process or parental right. Restore JURIES to
proceedings. Rip away ALL of the veils of secrecy unless the PARENTS agree (NOT
under duress) to allowing them to be in place.
Just do those things, and you will see Gestapo CPS dry up and blow away... like
a mythic vampire in the full light of day.
(Quite the apt analogy, eh?)
> This is not compassion but fanaticism, and intentional ignorance.
No, MoRon Mitty, you are projecting again... it is you who are exhibiting the
fanaticism and intentional ignorance, not I. I back up my statements, you do
not. My website is referenced at the bottom of every single post I make.
> Your avocation of neal and his means of presenting his position is
> distressing.
Oh, look out Doug,.. you have 'distressed' MoRon Mitty!
<chuckle>
> I was under the impression that you were a logical person.
ROTFLU! Again MoRon Mitty proves me 100% correct and accurate in my assessments
of him... that he has declared Delusional Jihad against me and therefore no one
who does not also do so can be taken as rational by MoRon Mitty.
Again MoRon Mitty proves clearly and conclusively that his perception of the
world is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.
<chuckle>
> A grown-up.
Oh, so NOW to MoRon Mitty anyone who disagrees with his dishonesty and delusion
or (HORRORS!) actually agrees with me on any level (me being his personal Satan
or Boogeyman) is a CHILD... to be an ADULT you have to kowtow to MoRon Mitty's
swaggering ignorance!
Oh... MoRon Mitty... please! Stop! It hurts to laugh this much!!!! ROTFLU!
> We know that neal is not, but I have a different opinion of you.
I am not an adult, huh MoRon Mitty? Quite interesting. I have the pictures of
my children on my website... the eldest is almost 16... nine months of
gestation... means nearly 17 yrs ago I impregnated her mother... since even
though I was sexually active at a fairly early age, it is unlikely I would have
done such impregnating before, say, the age of 10 (it was actually 23). Which
would mean at the YOUNGEST I would be 27... (actually 39). In no place in the
US is someone of such age not an adult, MoRon Mitty.
And it is clear and obvious that I fly circles around you at lightspeed in the
logic department... in fact you and some of your Gestapo CPS apologist fellow
travellers have desperately attempted in the past to use that as an insult and
attack against me, proving of course your own ignorance.
<chuckle>
But do rant on, MoRon Mitty... you are quite amusing when you so clearly and
obviously prove yourself to be a gross net.kook and raving loon... as is duly
noted many times in this post of yours here.
<chuckle>
> All your emotionalism and rehetoristic
What the heck is "rehetoristic", MoRon Mitty?
Keep proving your ignorance and your idiocy... you do it so well!
<chuckle>
> pap was snipped simply because it added nothing to the discussion.
ROTFLU!
> I have made my opinion of neal very clear,
Yup... you don't like me... so what, MoRon Mitty? You have YET to credibly and
legitimately substantiate a single one of your claims against me.
> and he provides nothing to change or modify that opinion.
Nothing that gets past your shields of delusional denial and your perception
which is clearly 180 degrees out of phase with reality, that much is clearly
obvious, MoRon Mitty.
<chuckle>
> Neal is an idiot.
Which coming from you means I must be a supergenius, MoRon Mitty.
> An emotionally crippled, intentionally ignorant, childish adult of limited
> intelligence.
ROTFLU! Oh, it hurts... laughing this hard hurts!
You have just described yourself to a T, MoRon Mitty.
But MoRon Mitty? Didn't above you claim I was NOT an adult? Here you claim I
am... which is it, MoRon Mitty? Which of your statements was the LIE?
> Given that his rhetoric has not changed over the last year
I have had no reason to change what I say because it has not been show to be in
error in any credible or legitimate way, MoRon Mitty. Care to for the first
time make an attempt? Didn't think so.
> despite the proof that has been provided to show his errors,
Oh? What proof is that, MoRon Mitty? When has ANYONE proven me in error on
what I present here regarding Gestapo CPS? Hmmmmm? Such is merely a figment of
your delusional imagination and dishonest personal aspect, MoRon Mitty. What
alleged 'errors' have been shown?
Considering you are the ignorant nincompoop who does not even have the most
basic grasp of mathematics to know you cannot credibly compare raw numbers in
groups of disparate sizes, that you need to use RATES in a common proportion
(say per 1000) I find your ranting here to be quite laugable in the extreme,
MoRon Mitty!
ROTFLU!
> that opinion is not likely to change.
Oh it is abundantly clear your opinions will never change, MoRon Mitty. You
have been clearly and completely disproven more times than easily counted and
yet you have yet to accept or admit such. It is so pathetic. Like the rest of
your Gestapo CPS apologist kind.
<chuckle>
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
> "Doug" <do...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<j7of7.18995$ZM2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > You did not respond to my statement, sir. I had said that in only one state
> > did GAL's represent the wishes of the child. You answered that most GAL's,
> > while not doing the best that they can, represented what they thought was in
> > the best interests of the child. I agree that GAL's do represent what they
> > think is best for the child, but the statement you responded to spoke of
> > what the child herself thought was best.
The Best Interests Of The Child, according to THE LAW, is PRESUMED to be with the PARENTS, MoRon Mitty. Unless significant substantiated evidence showing iminent risk of
SEVERE harm to the child if left with the parents.
I would say by an objective reading of that standard less than 1% if Gestapo CPS removals are anything but kidnappings; wholly unjustified.
> > I think we can learn a lot more by sticking to the issues.
> >
> Sorry, but I call them as I see them. The statements I make about
> neal are facts as I see them. You support him and his line, I do not,
> and have no qualms about giving my reasons.
You have yet to give any reasons, MoRon Mitty. You merely repeat your unfounded and ludicrous accusations and claims. It basically boils down to 'because MoRon Mitty
says so!'.
That you call them as you see them I do not deny, MoRon Mitty... that is one aspect of your delusional state... your perception of the world being 180 degrees out of
phase with reality.
> > > Compassionate? I think not. His only wish, as he states with each and
> > > every post to this and other forums, is the elimination of the nations
> > > best resource for addressing child abuse and neglect.
> >
> > No, no, no. Neal has called for the elimination of CPS.
> > He has repeatedly called upon police to address child abuse and neglect.
>
> Which of course the police are not equipped, trained, or charged with doing.
Hardly, MoRon Mitty. They are equipped, trained and charged with investigating alleged violations of the law and preparing the criminal court system to prosecute and
convict those who are guilty of such and allowing the penal system to incarcerate them.
They are invariably far more (and better) trained than the inexperienced zealots of Gestapo CPS, MoRon Mitty. Of that there is no doubt. Barney Fife is more and better
trained than Gestapo CPS zealots are!
They are equipped, trained and charged well enough to handle kidnappers, murderers, terrorists, rapists, thiefs, muggers, robbers etc... so one has to ask why you
consider them to be so grossly incompetent regarding enforcement and investigation of alleged violations of the laws against child abuse and child neglect?
Huh MoRon Mitty?
In reality is is abundantly clear why you hold this ludicrous position... because you know that the police will see there being nothing in over 90% of the cases that
Gestapo CPS kidnaps kids under... that they will not be able to use hearsay to substantiate hearsay... that they will not be able to operate under a presumtion of guilt
as Gestapo CPS does... and you know full well the flow of innocent kids from innocent households into the money rending maw will slow to the trickle that it should be...
which means less income for the likes of YOU.
The upside, of course, is that social workers who the police can assign kids to when there IS a legitimately founded case against the parents will have the time and
resources to help those kids who really need it, instead of like it is now.
> Asking the police to address this problem is very much like
> asking the army to police the cities of our nation. They are not
> trained or equipped to do so, and the results would turn out to be
> very similar to the representation you see in the film Under Siege.
Delusion on your part, MoRon Mitty. The police enforced he laws which were against child abuse and child neglect up until 1974 quite nicely. And you have yet to show
why they would be so grossly incompetent at doing so today when you seem to support their training and skill regarding the violations of EVERY OTHER law on the books,
except for some apparently selfserving reason those against child abuse and child neglect.
What is it that makes those laws so unique, MoRon Mitty? Hmmmmm?
> > > Your avocation of neal and his means of presenting his position is
> > > distressing.
> >
> > Thank you, sir.
> >
> > >I was under the impression that you were a logical person. A
> > > grown-up.
> >
> > I guess I was until I disagreed with you. <g> Oh, well. I am honored to be
> > in such good company.
> >
> > >We know that neal is not, but I have a different opinion of you.<
> >
> > I have nothing but the highest regard for Neal and many other contributors
> > to this forum.
> >
> > I thank you for your contribution, sir.
>
> You choose strange bedfellows sir.
Actually not so, MoRon Mitty. I guess it must be lonely for you being so alone in your bed over there... since I have YET to see anyone but your recruited buddy
allegedly from the Wyoming State Police posting in support of your delusional and dishonest diatribes, MoRon Mitty.
> IMO, neal is a rabid dog,
And that opinion appears to only be shared by your fellow extremist Gestapo CPS apologists.
I guess King George's men felt much the same about the founding fathers of our nation, MoRon Mitty. Ya think?
<chuckle>
> and should be treated as such. I feel your choice in companions will bite
> you in the end. Be careful what you catch.
>
> Ron
ROTFLU!
Neal Feldman
Doug wrote:
> Prior to the passage of ASFA, in 1997, only 275 of the 1,570 children
> removed by Nebraska CPS were ever returned to their homes. Ron, on the
> other hand, has reported that 99% of the foster children placed in his
> custody were returned to their homes. Given the wide discrepancy in the
> numbers, it is indeed difficult to imagine Ron as a foster caregiver in the
> same state.
MoRon Mitty still has yet to do the very simple act to completely substantiate
his claim of being a foster parent, as repeatedly reasonably requested...
providing the name and office phone number of his government liaison who can
simply confirm or deny whether he is a foster parent.
No confidential info like address or phone number or county... no confidential
info about how much he is paid, how many kids with him, or anything about the
kids.
Simply that he is, or is not, a foster parent out of that office.
MoRon Mitty should, if his claim of being a foster parent is true, likely have
that name and number at the front of his rolodex or equivalent. He should know
it by heart.
Presenting it here for us to call and check on his claim would be simplicity
itself.
Yet he continues to refuse.
Tie that in with his claims and statements which even foster parents have stated
in the newsgroup are ignorant and wrong, his tendency for delusion, dishonesty
and for fabrication of personal histories in a desperate effort to claim
legitimacy for his illegitimate statements... and tie it up with the nice bow
you have proviced above and it becomes clearer and clearer that MoRon Mitty is
not now and never has been a foster parent and is simply the delusional lying
Gestapo CPS apologist we have all seen him prove himself to be.
<chuckle>
Ron
> Ron wrote:
>
> > "Greg Hanson" <gre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:olSe7.9335$sr4.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com...
> > > Ron thinks that respect for the
> > > US Constitution is a bad thing.
> > > He is duplicitous in his claims
> > > about legal protections. On
> > > one hand he claims parents are
> > > protected by the law. Then he
> > > complains when legal research
> > > makes a good case for parents
> > > rights against CPS abuse.
> > >
> > Really Greg? Prove your statement.
>
> You have already done so, MoRon Mitty... most times you post.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > Until then you do nothing but blow hot air.
> >
> > Ron
>
> No, MoRon Mitty... again that would be you.
>
> You really need to get that projection problem of yours fixed, you know
> MoRon Mitty?
>
> <chuckle>
This from a man that could not find the truth, or even evidence of it,
with both hands and a hunting dog.
Oh yeah, your ignorance is famous here Kneal. kneal and Bozo, both
clowns.
Ron
Bob
Most men could not find truth with "both hands and a hunting dog". Maybe you
should sell your dog and look elsewhere, Ron.
Bob
Neal Feldman
Ron wrote:
So you keep claiming, Delusional Dan... however I prove otherwise on my website every moment
of every day, and in every post I make here.
You and your pathetic playmate MoRon Mitty for all your desperately delusional and dishonest
claims have yet to prove otherwise.
DeWayne
>
>
> Ron wrote:
>
>
> So you keep claiming, Delusional Dan... however I prove
otherwise on my website every moment
> of every day, and in every post I make here.
>
> You and your pathetic playmate MoRon Mitty for all your
desperately delusional and dishonest
> claims have yet to prove otherwise.
No question that CPS hates sources of info such as this NG
so they send their little puppies such as Ron, Stevie,
spamh8r, and the other pups here to sow their CPS lies and
propaganda. Thanks for your info Neal!!!!! You are a
warrior!
DeWayne
kane_...@yahoo.com
fabulous post with you.
First let's start with your lies. Lie number one is that I accused you
of "advocating for gun violence."
Fact: I asked you to clarify a statement you made in this post below
that appears to be justification for the use of lethal force by parents
to take their children from state custody.
Asking for a clarification is not accusing you. Nor is it lying.
However, I note that the idea that it would be an accusation, to
someone that has such a belief, might likely follow such a question.
Now if you'll read this post, and it's context, the Christine's and
their adventure in good parenting, and pay especial attention to the
last paragraph, which I've quoted before, I think you can see how one
might be a bit alarmed about what your beliefs appear to be by the
wording and context.
So, Gregory Hanson, do you support or advocate, ethically or morally,
the use by parents of lethal force to take their children from state
custody?
Thanks for your attention to this urgent matter. Say, this cop had some
interesting things to say that puts the lie to a few things claimed
often in this very newsgroup. I think, 0:->, I'll comment:
Greg Hanson wrote:
> ex-cop in a Portland TV chat room
> > I'm always appalled at the ignorance I find in
> > opinions regarding SCF. I worked in child
> > abuse with the Portland Police for a lot of
> > years and dealt with
Interesting you chopped him off here. He was just pointing out what I
have so often...that you are a pack of ignorant, or lying twits.
This, apparently, is a cop assigned to juvenile division, and doing
family calls.
> Must've made you somewhat unpopular
> among your fellow officers.
Actually, no. I think I know who this officer is. He was extremely
popular. And when he worked on a case where a mother's boyfriend took
her little boy and tortured and murdered him both his fellow officers,
and the CPS workers from the nearest branch office brought him flowers
and cards. Each and all knows how hard this work is. Most are parents
and are appalled at what they see people do to their own children.
> More than half
> of one police force by me will not work
> with CPS. "I have a family too."
Oh? Funny not one of them has come here to back you up on that claim.
How many on that "police force by me" are there, greegor, two? Or is
this yet another product of your over fertile imagination?
You seem to be insulting someone that worked with child abuse and
abusers. Someone that had to face it and all it's ugliness and
brutality. A far better man than you, apparently.
> >First, doesn't anyone understand that the
> > courts are involved in these things? CSD
> > and police remove kids, but it is reviewed
> > the next court day by a judge.
He is, of course, knowledgable about processes and field work, and
echoes things I've pointed out as actual practice that some here...R R
R R...have denied, and claimed I didn't know what I was talking about.
Just coincidence, I guess. Two of us "liars" coming up with the same
story about the process. Hmmm?
> In my families case, child was removed by
> police, noteably one who is an over-the-fence
> neighbor of the falsely accusing grandparents,
> further, there was NO court removal order
> for over two weeks.
Yer girlfriend might be withholding something from you, or you might be
lying.
And how do you know when that order was actually given?
> > the kids are taken, the judge, NOT SCF
> > OR THE COPS have any say as to when
> > the kids go back.
>
> It's more like the judge has no say, and
> rubber stamps every CPS request.
Naw, that's just your propaganda claim. The fact they have a heavy
caseload in court doesn't mean they don't read and listen to testimony
and consider it carefully. You are one of a pack of liars and child
abusers and accused child abusers that mumble this shit constantly. Do
you think anyone but your own buddies believe this nonsense?
> This is documented in many statements
> and in caselaw where "thin" cases were
> turned around on appeal.
Nope. No such thing. Produce these "many statements" you claim.
Claims are not proof, just like your "proof" that I accused you was not
followed up with a request of you to prove that claim.
What a lamer stumblebum you are.
> > For the Caring Mom, it is pretty
> > easy to tell when bruises and other injuries
> > are caused by playing and when they are
> > caused by abuse. To say your child will be
> > taken away because he fell off a bike is silly.
>
> would you believe removal for "clutter"?
You didn't shower the little girl. You didn't put her out in Midwest
February cold with no coat, no shoes, no socks, now did you, greegor?
You didn't move in and displace her from her own room, now did you
greegor?
> > And as far as the Christian kids,
>
> surname Christine, not Christian. Broken in to the wrong house
lately?
Would you like an accusation, like you just made, if you made a
spelling error?
Especially of someone's name, which can vary so much from one person to
another even when pronounced the same?
You groomed any little girls for molestation lately?
> > I imagine when these childred finally starved
> > to death, the same people would be
> > screaming because the state didn't do anything.
>
> How many starvation cases were there last year?
How many is sufficient for you to think CPS and the police should
become involved?
> > And, for what it's worth, children are not removed
> > from families because they are homeless.
He is absolutely on the money on that one. I took CPS to task for
picking up homeless childen from people living under overpasses. They
were happy to explain to me that they found five or six families living
under a particular overpass, and ONLY took the children that were
injured and or neglected to a dangerous point.
Homelessness, at least in Oregon, is not sufficient grounds to remove a
child. It does not directly equate in all cases with endangerment. It's
only if a child is sick and untreated, or malnourished and the parents
are not getting food that is available (as it is in Oregon...many such
programs exist), or the child has marks consistent with abuse that
would result in a case being opened for investigation. This cop knows
his stuff.
> > They are
> > removed because of abusive situations. No judge
> > in Oregon would allow poverty to be a reason to
> > remove children.
That is a fack, jack.
> McGuckin accusations were no electricity, not enough food, etc.
Not enough food is grounds for removal, for at least investiation,
greegor. You think it shouldn't be? Expecially if food is available?
There are both private and public food banks and sources, for free, all
over the place. No child has to go hungry in this country. As I recall
the McGuckin's were informed of food sources.
I do not believe that lack of electricity was cited as a reason for
removal, but simply mentioned as part of an overall pattern describing
the case. And in the winter, lack of electricity can be a very serious
concern. It may be the last source of heat available.
By the way, McGuckin was in Idaho. So that's hardly a useful way to
rebutt a police officer discussing Oregon. Bonner County is a very cold
place in winter.
> Christine accusations were malnourishment and dehydration.
R R R ..well, goes to show that I am correct when I ACCUSE you twits of
minimizing and denying, and lying. One daughter had an untreated skull
fracture that the Christine's admitted happened at Brian's hand when he
attempted to grab the child and "discipline" her. Seems she fell on the
bus/home steps.
You obviously get your information from propaganda sites such as these:
http://eionews.addr.com/psyops/christinemcguckinraeupdate.htm
Facts, even when one digs deeply enough in their own sloppy citations
of "news" proves the claims of unfair treatement questionable if not
false.
Fact is Brian and Christine had a jury trial. Fact is they say all the
evidence, heard all the testimony, and whatever it was, they found the
Christine's guilty.
Now they didn't find them guilty of "kidnapping" but of the lessor
charge of "custodial interference" which is obvious, and of using a gun
during the commission of a crime (Brian), a felony. And of theft of
both a van and the contents. The argument has been made that all the
possessions of the workers were found later in the van, intact.
That excuse should work for the next bank robber that leaves the money
behind after the dyepack goes off.
> > And if you really want to know what
> > you are talking about, don't listen to
> > the people who have lost their children
> > because of abusive behavior, but go to
> > a juvenile court one day and listen to
> > the proceedings.
>
> Juvenile court is closed to public.
Oregon's judges have leeway. And mostly they DO allow spectators unless
there is a confidentiality issue effecting the child, and sometimes the
parents/alledged perps. I've sat in the courtrooms of four states in
family and juvenile court as nothing more than a spectator. There's a
lot of lying that goes on here, or a got of ignorance (excusable if it
were'nt used to LIE).
> > And to believe that threatening anyone
> > with a gun to their face is justified is
> > just plain sick.
So here we go. The following is the paragraph, given the context of the
issue under discussion, and the later article on the methheads that
held a foster mother at gunpoint to take their children, that inspired
my question to you.
> THIS from an ex-cop?
> Was this some new kind of unarmed cop?
> I suspect this person was never a cop.
> If he had been, he wouldn't have accused
> himself and fellow officers of being "sick" like this.
Well, first you mock the cop. Then you suspect them of lying about
being a cop (I can assure you they are one hell of a good liar if they
are not a cop, as they know Oregon court and child welfare matters with
considerable precision).
Then you claim if he'd been a real cop he wouldn't have accused himself
and fellow officers of waving a gun in people's faces by implication,
and of being sick like the civilians he made the comment about.
If you cannot see the implication that you justify the waving of guns
in the faces of people by your response to this comment:
"And to believe that threatening anyone with a gun to their face is
justified is just plain sick."
...then kindly explain just what you did mean by your mockery.
To me it appears as justification for waving a gun in peoples faces to
force them to do something you wish them to do, with the same moral
authority the police would have.
Or do you think police should not be allowed to force compliance at the
point of a gun?
Take all the time you need, the question will be here as long as I am.
And I have a funny feeling that even when I'm gone, it will still be
with you, somehow.
Hope you had a nice day at work.
Kane
Greegor
In August 2001
TV Chat room Cop d'geezer (AKA Kane) quoted
"And to believe that threatening anyone
with a gun to their face is justified is
just plain sick."
Greg wrote
kane_...@yahoo.com
Greegor wrote:
> Kane, Where's the THREAT?
Translation: <choke>
Mmmm....you are serious, aren't you? Quaint.
> In August 2001
> TV Chat room Cop d'geezer (AKA Kane) quoted
I'm not d'geezer. We are discussing your comments to the cop, not
d'geezers, or mine.
> "And to believe that threatening anyone
> with a gun to their face is justified is
> just plain sick."
Gosh, there it is, the cop's own statement that you quoted, and went on
to try and refute his claim of it being sick (thus justifying it as NOT
sick).
> Greg wrote
> "THIS from an ex-cop?
Again, you are referring to the cop using the word "threatening." So
there, greegor is the reference to "threat" and where it actually is.
> Was this some new kind of unarmed cop?
Are you claiming cops should be unarmed, or that you know cops are
armed?
> I suspect this person was never a cop.
I think, since you are trying to refute him as a cop, that you are
accepting that cops are armed and you know it and you know why. You are
trying to say he doesn't know, so couldn't be one. But YOU know, or you
couldn't "correct" him in this way.
If you are not trying to refute him, say so. We'll understand a mistake
based on ignorance. There's a lot of that going on around here.
> If he had been, he wouldn't have accused
> himself and fellow officers of being "sick" like this."
Oooo...there yah go, greegor. Logic tells us that you are defending
cops having and using guns, lethal force, and that the "phony" cop
(your claim) is trying to deny that right to other persons by calling
them or the use, 'sick.'
Is this not so?
I mean, you can always say, "I didn't mean that" as an answer to my
question.
Did you mean it's okay for cops to carry, and threaten, and that they
should not criticize citizens who carry and threaten? Or did you mean
no one should carry and threaten?
(Which answers again your question, "where's the THREAT?").
You do a lovely Douggie Waltz, but not with the Fred Astair like grace
of the original.
So, this brings us to the question: Gregory Hanson, do you support or
advocate morally or ethically the right of parents to use lethal force
to take their children from state custody?
Kane
Greegor
and you tried to connect me to some "class" of
people or list of people "marked for death".
I noticed that Dan and you both first tried
to DENY that you had made this accusation.
Then, you respond with a massive amount
of blathering, as if quantity makes up for
quality or proves your assertion.
So, Where's the BEEF?
kane_...@yahoo.com
Greegor wrote:
> Kane, You asserted I had publicly made THREATS,
Please quote my exact words, citing the post they came from by URL, so
that we may see the context.
> and you tried to connect me to some "class" of
> people or list of people "marked for death".
You have been asked a number of times, by myself, and Dan, to provide a
citation for that claim. I patiently and politely request again that
you do so, and again as above, by exact quote of my words, and citing
the post they come from by Web addy so that we may see the context.
> I noticed that Dan and you both first tried
> to DENY that you had made this accusation.
If that is so it would be likely based on fact. And fact is what you
lack. I cannot provide you with information I DIDN'T say that, because
a negative cannot be proven.
If the words don't exsist, then I can't find them. Since I claim I did
not say them, of course it would be silly for ME to go looking for
them.
However, in rereading our posted exchanges I have as yet not come
accross any statements or claims by me that match your accusation.
So, naturally, since I do not trust you, and will not simply accept
your word for it, I ask that you provide the proofs of your claim.
> Then, you respond with a massive amount
> of blathering, as if quantity makes up for
> quality or proves your assertion.
No, I responded with little more than the quoted posts I both of us
were referring to. Would you call your portion of those posts
"blathering?"
And the ex-cops?
> So, Where's the BEEF?
That was my question. Where IS that statement I'm supposed to have made
such statements that you would reply:
"Kane, You asserted I had publicly made THREATS,
and you tried to connect me to some 'class' of
people or list of people 'marked for death'."
Did you not claim I was a caseworker?
Did you not claim I am Don Fisher, who you provided information saying
he was a caseworker?
Have not people in this ng threatened caseworkers with death, and urged
others to kill them, or defended killing them for ethical or moral
reasons?
Would it not follow then that you wish to expose me to those threats
and the possibility one of those readers might pick up the information
you posted as to "who I am, and where I live?"
Sadly, you of course, put someone else at risk, Don Fisher, and likely
his family. He knows that. I made sure.
Personally I would not mess with him.
Now, either I am not Don Fisher, and so all you did was, in your vapid
efforts, was fail in an attempt to expose me to the threats and risks
presented by some in this ng, or I am Don Fisher and you most
definately exposed me to such threats.
Is this not correct?
Listing my, or in this case, Don Fisher's location and that he had been
or was a caseworker, does not in your mind, given the tenor of posts to
this ng in the past, pose any risk to me, or Don Fisher?
If I said I was a racist, a violent racist, and you said, "there's a
fucking ..... now" would not folks think you were putting say, a jew,
or black person at risk?
Well, there are folks that have said, right in this ng, they would kill
workers, and even bystanders, under certain circumstances, and others
that have not even bothered to list the circumstance, or listed those
where the worker was acting well within legal constraints.
You are so busy with your own sick shit, little man, you don't pay
attention to what goes on around you and the ramafications of those
things.
I do.
And you run off at the mouth, like the fool you are, just as you did to
that ex-cop, and your odd commentary about houses falling on
caseworkers.
And you refuse to say you would NOT advocate the use of violence by
parents.
What are we left with?
You claiming I "accused" you of something?
I pointed out facts. A series of them. And I've asked you again and
again to clarify.
And again, I've done it, and ask you again: which of the facts I've
pointed out above are not in fact true?
If they are true, then what is your position on the use of lethal
force, and how do you explain exposing either Don Fisher, or myself,
since you believe I am he, to your little friends by posting his
location?
Take all the time you need. I've got plenty, and know how to use it. So
does Don Fisher.
Kane
Greegor
You deny that you accused me of making public threats,
then you try to JUSTIFY your accusations. : )
Do you see any contradiction between those
two courses of action?