PDA

View Full Version : A Plant's Motivation?


Kane
September 9th 03, 02:51 AM
So,

What makes The Plant give advice to parents who come to these ngs for
help that will cause them MORE pain?

Why does The Plant fumble and flounder about like an Alzheimer's
victim never quite getting It's story straight?

Does The Plant have a money interest in the issues facing families and
agencies working with them?

Does it get fees for its posting here?

Does The Plant receive any state sponsored or paid benefits?

Has The Plant a relative, A Sprout perhaps, that screwed up so badly
It Too had an interaction with CPS?

Has The Plant had such an encounter Itself?

In that fateful encounter in childhood that The Plant has difficutly
remembering did It's father catch it and spank it, or is The Plant
another unspanked child who was spoiled by its parent into the current
lackluster, hapless, good for nothing The Plant appears to be?

Could it be the Father not only caught The Plant as a child and did
spank It, but did so many times, give that The Plant is unable to
clearly remember this incident, there could be others...many,
including beatings, possibly OTHER abuses It cannot "remember" either.

Did the parent protect The Plant from others who might harm It? What
is the mystery of The Plant's childhood then?

Is The Plant doing anything at all to actually help reform CPS or to
help families get their children back?

These and many other important questions remain to be answered.

The Plant won't answer them honestly, so it looks like someone who
knows the Plant will have to dig up the Dirt. Someone NOT connected to
the many organizations The Plant pimps for. Someone NOT an anti CPS
clone, sockpuppet, or other kind of loser...that let's you out,
Dennis, and more especially that all time winner, retire the do
nothing trophy, hapless twit, Greg.

Can it be done? Possibly Duplicitous Doug will step forward in It's
behalf. Risking of course, that I already KNOW what The Plant's story
really is and will blow his ass even more completely out of the water
than in the past when he lies or repeats lies he's been told.

The mystery.

What then, is A Plant's Motivation?

Kane

LaVonne Carlson
September 10th 03, 03:17 AM
Kane,

I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful names. I'd like
to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern, can you address these
questions?

LaVonne

Kane wrote:

> So,
>
> What makes The Plant give advice to parents who come to these ngs for
> help that will cause them MORE pain?
>
> Why does The Plant fumble and flounder about like an Alzheimer's
> victim never quite getting It's story straight?
>
> Does The Plant have a money interest in the issues facing families and
> agencies working with them?
>
> Does it get fees for its posting here?
>
> Does The Plant receive any state sponsored or paid benefits?
>
> Has The Plant a relative, A Sprout perhaps, that screwed up so badly
> It Too had an interaction with CPS?
>
> Has The Plant had such an encounter Itself?
>
> In that fateful encounter in childhood that The Plant has difficutly
> remembering did It's father catch it and spank it, or is The Plant
> another unspanked child who was spoiled by its parent into the current
> lackluster, hapless, good for nothing The Plant appears to be?
>
> Could it be the Father not only caught The Plant as a child and did
> spank It, but did so many times, give that The Plant is unable to
> clearly remember this incident, there could be others...many,
> including beatings, possibly OTHER abuses It cannot "remember" either.
>
> Did the parent protect The Plant from others who might harm It? What
> is the mystery of The Plant's childhood then?
>
> Is The Plant doing anything at all to actually help reform CPS or to
> help families get their children back?
>
> These and many other important questions remain to be answered.
>
> The Plant won't answer them honestly, so it looks like someone who
> knows the Plant will have to dig up the Dirt. Someone NOT connected to
> the many organizations The Plant pimps for. Someone NOT an anti CPS
> clone, sockpuppet, or other kind of loser...that let's you out,
> Dennis, and more especially that all time winner, retire the do
> nothing trophy, hapless twit, Greg.
>
> Can it be done? Possibly Duplicitous Doug will step forward in It's
> behalf. Risking of course, that I already KNOW what The Plant's story
> really is and will blow his ass even more completely out of the water
> than in the past when he lies or repeats lies he's been told.
>
> The mystery.
>
> What then, is A Plant's Motivation?
>
> Kane

Greg Hanson
September 10th 03, 02:45 PM
LaVonne said
> I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
> names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
> can you address these questions?

You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
parents rescued him. The odd part of this is that
this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.

Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
experience from 30 plus years ago.

If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
he posted this large body of work?
No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.
He hangs around your neck like an albatross.

Kane tried using the old
"My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.

Been done before.

The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.
Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
of posting, and the determination of a poster to
post incorrect information.

Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.
I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

They have both tried to act like there was some
improper sexuality based only on minimal family
nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
admitting he walked around with his adult male
privates exposed to young children.
I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
in my families case.

When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
not see you object. Where was your civility then?

The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
communists. If are a moderate of their view and
speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
or at least chastised. And the witch hunt proceeds.

The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.

Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
certainly worthy of question.

Do you not understand that?

There are a bunch of people in here who are
trying to defende themselves or our society from
unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
all accused are guilty, just because they are
biological parents and they are accused.

People under attack and the attackers.

If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
it should be more understandeable than when the
other major faction insults and whitewashes.

Kane is not under attack.

He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
And he sad on a governing board over CPS.

How do you like those ethics?

My fiance' and I want our family back!

Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.
He spews his hatred of bio-parents.
He calls us scum.

His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
newsgroup ""stature"".

But that's what smears are all about.

Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
you know very well that CPS does smear parents.

Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
child beating parents every time he sees a child.

Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
of the US Constitution. A basic Ethical contract
in our society.

I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Many acknowledge the problem.
None want to speak up about it.

So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.

But look at Kane's posts.
He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.
I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
Neal left. (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)
Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,
and a few have had comments in here used in court
to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
(Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
would simply demand that they bring the archive of
the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
all for lack of contextual setting.)

When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.
And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

Dan Sullivan
September 10th 03, 03:58 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> LaVonne said
> > I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
> > names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
> > can you address these questions?
>
> You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
> But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?
>
> Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.

Why is that?

> Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
> he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
> parents rescued him.

Where'd you get that info, Greg?

> The odd part of this is that
> this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
> If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
> late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.

When did Kane claim he was in his mid-forties?

His SON may be in his forties...

> Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.
>
> Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
> experience from 30 plus years ago.

And thirty years of being in the business.

> If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
> glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.

Get yer facts sraight first, Greg, and then ask questions.

> Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
> and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
> He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
> Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
> superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
> smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
> Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
> he posted this large body of work?

Amelioration?

Please explain.

> No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.

No one's apologizing for Kane.

> He hangs around your neck like an albatross.
>
> Kane tried using the old
> "My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.
>
> Been done before.

How many times, Greg?

> The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
> is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.

Which stuff?

> Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
> of posting, and the determination of a poster to
> post incorrect information.
>
> Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
> childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
> times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.

Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?

> I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
> They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department.

> They have both tried to act like there was some
> improper sexuality based only on minimal family
> nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
> revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
> admitting he walked around with his adult male
> privates exposed to young children.
> I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
> bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
> blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

Yeah, I'm against non-related adult males being in the bathroom every time a
little girl needs to get out of the shower.

I'm against non-related adult males physically forcing little girls into the
shower.

I'm against non-related adult males forcing little girls to take cold
showers as punishment for wetting their pants.

> Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
> has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
> in my families case.

Then why is there info about an earlier accusation of child sexual abuse
from a previous CPS investigation regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case,
Greg?

> When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
> not see you object. Where was your civility then?

Who compared you to Father Geoghan?

And when?

> The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
> things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
> HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
> communists. If are a moderate of their view and
> speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
> or at least chastised.

Is that a threat, Greg?

> And the witch hunt proceeds.
>
> The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
> and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
> crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.
>
> Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
> and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
> That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".
>
> Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
> that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
> certainly worthy of question.
>
> Do you not understand that?
>
> There are a bunch of people in here who are
> trying to defende themselves or our society from
> unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
> bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
> all accused are guilty, just because they are
> biological parents and they are accused.

Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only one being accused of
maltreatment.

Your arguement doesn't hold water.

> People under attack and the attackers.
>
> If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
> it should be more understandeable than when the
> other major faction insults and whitewashes.
>
> Kane is not under attack.
>
> He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
> he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
> hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
> as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
> He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
> And he sad on a governing board over CPS.
>
> How do you like those ethics?
>
> My fiance' and I want our family back!
>
> Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.

Kane loves to see CPS lose.

CPS loses for a very good reason... they deserve to lose.

> He spews his hatred of bio-parents.

Not at all. He hates abusers.

> He calls us scum.

You ARE scum, Greg.

> His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.

Many times I've posted my displeasure in the words Kane chooses to use.

> Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
> newsgroup ""stature"".

You've got that backwards, Greg.

> But that's what smears are all about.
>
> Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
> CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
> you know very well that CPS does smear parents.
>
> Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
> child beating parents every time he sees a child.

And you know that how, Greg?

> Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
> away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
> of the US Constitution.

"Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"

The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

> A basic Ethical contract
> in our society.
>
> I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
> them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
> responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
> false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.

Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

> Many acknowledge the problem.
> None want to speak up about it.
>
> So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
> and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.
>
> But look at Kane's posts.
> He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
> He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
> to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.

Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

> My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
> this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
> it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.

It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.

No one ever got their children back from FC.

And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the woman for not fighting
"for society!!!!!"

Yeah, all she did was get her three kids back.

And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

Quite the "insufferable mess."

> I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
> Neal left.

Hoo-FREAKIN-rayyyyyy!

> (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)

Why am I a "twit?"?

What did whatsisname ever do?

He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

After being challenged for months to cite the facts whatsismane finally
posted a news
story in which a policeman was arrested for committing the same offense and
had lost his job because of it!

Possibly permanently!!!

For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper punishment was OK'd by
the courts.

When all along he knew it was a lie.

This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble with CPS... NOT
DEEPER INTO TROUBLE!!!

Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.

Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously) when you and Dennis
can't take the heat.

> Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
> Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.

I communicate very well, Greg.

> The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
> feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,

A few people from CPS have posted here.

> and a few have had comments in here used in court
> to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.

Bull ****, Greg.

Name em.

Name one!

> Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
> details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.

Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's unrecognizable and
untraceable... be inhibited?

That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

> (Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
> would simply demand that they bring the archive of
> the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
> all for lack of contextual setting.)

YOU would demand???

You aren't even allowed in the Courtroom, Greg.

> When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.

What things got sticky for me, Greg?

I haven't lost ONCE to CPS since 1987.

> And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
> convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom everytime a little girl
finished showering, you physically forcing her back into the shower when she
hadn't rinsed off enough, and you forcing her to take cold showers as
punishment for wetting her pants, isn't FREAKIN child maltreatment; WHEN IT
IS!!!

Now be sure you fail to respond to everything I've just posted, Greg, as
usual.

Dan

Greg Hanson
September 10th 03, 09:50 PM
> Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
Not during this case.

> Yeah, I'm against < blah, blah...>
Who gives a rip? Nobody appointed you God.

> Then why is there info about an earlier accusation
> of child sexual abuse from a previous CPS investigation
> regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case, Greg?

1. There never was any prior accusation of any such thing.
2. There is no accusation of sexual abuse in this case.
3. The caseworker LIED, about past, in affidavit to court.

> > The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
> > things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
> > HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
> > communists. If
[you]
> > are a moderate of their view and speak up about their
> > paranoia, expect to be vilified or at least chastised.
>
> Is that a threat, Greg?

How is a description of your mode of operation in
any way a threat from me?

> Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only
> one being accused of maltreatment.

Who else wants to volunteer to stand trial
before you, the grand inquisitor?

> > Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
> > away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
> > of the US Constitution.
>
> "Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"
>
> The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.

Yes, it has.

> > A basic Ethical contract
> > in our society.

> Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.

"Sure! Stick your neck right in this noose! We won't pull it!"

What makes you think that a psychologist (not a hard science remember)
who is unethical enough to accept a 1" stack of documents from
uncredentialed non-professionals would be rightious?
Wouldn't he want to please the CPS amateurs who send him so much
business? Do you think he didn't get the message that this stack
was intended to RIG the psych eval?

We've seen other fiascos first hand that don't put that
outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

> Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.

And you teased because I made a redundant comment? :)

> It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.
> No one ever got their children back from FC.

That is flat out not true. Why did you say it?

> And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the
> woman for not fighting "for society!!!!!"

Is this where you preach blind cooperation at all costs??

> And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.

And you think you were the only person sending them info??
I thought it was pretty hilarious and idiotic how CPS
got a court order to abscond with their computer to look
for incriminating files, considering it was a
WEB TV terminal, which has NO FILES in it whatsoever!

Did you help them launch any action because of the
aggregious illegal search and seizure?

Do you think you have in any way stopped that sort of
violation of people's rights?

They haven't sued for the terrible FISHING EXPEDITION
this computer grab represents?

But I'm not making any claims to stroke my ego.

> Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.

> What did whatsisname ever do?
>
> He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
> punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.

You badgered him about it constantly. Familiar tactic from you.
Any contribution he could have made to this forum was obscured
by your endless and unprompted whining about your attitude.
Nobody Care's about your attitude.
The endless bandwidth wasted dealing with your puke could have
lead to something constructive, aside from your ego.

I posted pleadings. You puked all over it.

Where are yours? At least I TRIED. You didn't.

> After being challenged for months to <blah blah..>

Nobody cares about your hysterical judgements of who you
decide to vilify. You are as rediculous as Joe McCarthy was.
He died of syphilis. What's your excuse?

> For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper <blah.>

> This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble <snip>

Then why to you puke all over it with your incessant inane innuendo?

> Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.
>
> Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously)
> when you and Dennis can't take the heat.

Heat from you? You're just vomitous.

> > and a few have had comments in here used in court
> > to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
>
> Bull ****, Greg.
> Name em.
> Name one!

I don't drop names the way you do.
I'm not a pro, but I know that it would not be proper to do.
If you're such an expert, why don't you understand that?

You have done this sort of challenging a lot, apparently
completely ignorant of privacy laws and ethical issues.
You think I or others OWE you an answer to every question.
You're the grand inquisitor, put us on the rack!

> > Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
> > details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
>
> Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's
> unrecognizable and untraceable... be inhibited?
>
> That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.

Ask Ron! He has the access to certain databases at work.
He thought he was anonymous, that when he posted his info
publicly on the internet, nobody would notice.

> > (Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
> > would simply demand that they bring the archive of
> > the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
> > all for lack of contextual setting.)
>
> YOU would demand???

That's a recommendation to help any who might
have that problem in the future.
If they want to USE THIS, make them BRING IT ALL IN
so that the comments can be put in context and
properly cross examined.

Too complex a concept, Dan?

> You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom <blah.>
Why should I be convinced of <blah.>
When CPS and the court have no legal issue there?

You waste everybody's precious time whining about these
things that the system here says are not issues in this case.

FOR AN EXAMPLE: FROM ANOTHER CASE
I didn't like that story about the cop who diddled
a 16 year old girl who volunteered at a fire station.

Whether I LIKE that or not, however, is NOT an issue
in that state where legally it was consensual.
If it's not illegal, drop it and move along.

Instead of harassing the cop for doing something you
and I both think was rotten, the way to deal with our
displeasure is to change the laws, not to do an
end-run around the meaning of a law because we don't
like it.

You have been redundant in your smear of me for a long time.
You have no grasp of facts from which to lecture me.

Your pretense of helpful attitude is ludicrous in this forum.
You have wasted this bandwidth for a long time.

Your redundant smear of me, prompted generally when
I criticize CPS, does not make you appear very good spirited.

I am able to agree to disagree. You seem unable to.

Dan Sullivan
September 10th 03, 11:46 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
> Not during this case.

Oh, but she was six prior to the removal.

Were you involved with the mother when this girl was six?

Were you living in the house when the girl was six?

How old was the little girl when you became involved with her mother?

> > Yeah, I'm against < blah, blah...>
> Who gives a rip? Nobody appointed you God.

You posted that I had "huge personal hangups."

I simply elaborated in regards to your situation.

That IS what we were speaking about.

> > Then why is there info about an earlier accusation
> > of child sexual abuse from a previous CPS investigation
> > regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case, Greg?
>
> 1. There never was any prior accusation of any such thing.

I wrote that there was INFO about an earlier accusation... not that there
WAS one.

> 2. There is no accusation of sexual abuse in this case.

What is in the CPS caserecord regarding you and the little girl in the
bathroom?

Have you ever read the mother's entire CPS caserecord?

> 3. The caseworker LIED, about past, in affidavit to court.

And that failed to create the suspicion of new sexual abuse?

If sexual abuse isn't part of the mother's case why are you concerned about
the affidavit, Gereg?

> > > The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
> > > things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
> > > HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
> > > communists. If
> [you]
> > > are a moderate of their view and speak up about their
> > > paranoia, expect to be vilified or at least chastised.
> >
> > Is that a threat, Greg?
>
> How is a description of your mode of operation in
> any way a threat from me?

YOU wrote that LaVonne should "EXPECT to be villified or at least
chastised."

> > Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only
> > one being accused of maltreatment.
>
> Who else wants to volunteer to stand trial
> before you, the grand inquisitor?

This IS a newsgroup, Greg.

You do realize that when you post information you WILL get a response.

In fact you even ASKED for comments.

> > > Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
> > > away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
> > > of the US Constitution.
> >
> > "Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"
> >
> > The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.
>
> Yes, it has.
>
> > > A basic Ethical contract
> > > in our society.
>
> > Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.
>
> "Sure! Stick your neck right in this noose! We won't pull it!"

If you've got nothing to hide...

> What makes you think that a psychologist (not a hard science remember)
> who is unethical enough to accept a 1" stack of documents from
> uncredentialed non-professionals would be rightious?
> Wouldn't he want to please the CPS amateurs who send him so much
> business? Do you think he didn't get the message that this stack
> was intended to RIG the psych eval?

When I went for my interview when I was accused in Fam Ct of molesting my
daugher the evaluator was Eileen Treacy.

Kelly Michael's case in NJ et al...

Do a Google on her, Greg.

> We've seen other fiascos first hand that don't put that
> outside the realm of reasonable suspicion.

By the end of the interview she was telling me that her report to the court
was gonna be in my favor and against the person who made the accusation.

Her report forced the Fam Ct Judge to throw the charges against me out of
Court.

Oh yeah, and I did the interview without my attny.

> > Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.
>
> And you teased because I made a redundant comment? :)

Sure. ;-))))))) Sure.

> > It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.
> > No one ever got their children back from FC.
>
> That is flat out not true.

Name one person who came to this NG who was given advice that got them their
children back before the summer of 2001.

> Why did you say it?

'Cause it's true.

> > And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the
> > woman for not fighting "for society!!!!!"
>
> Is this where you preach blind cooperation at all costs??

I never preached blind cooperation.

Try and prove I did, Greg.

> > And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.
>
> And you think you were the only person sending them info??

I never said I was.

And they were sending ME info and having me evaluate it for them!

> I thought it was pretty hilarious and idiotic how CPS
> got a court order to abscond with their computer to look
> for incriminating files, considering it was a
> WEB TV terminal, which has NO FILES in it whatsoever!
>
> Did you help them launch any action because of the
> aggregious illegal search and seizure?

I was never asked.

> Do you think you have in any way stopped that sort of
> violation of people's rights?

I think monumental errors like that on the part of CPS or the County Attny
are a gift to be appreciated and exploited to the MAX.

> They haven't sued for the terrible FISHING EXPEDITION
> this computer grab represents?

I have no idea.

> But I'm not making any claims to stroke my ego.

No, you're just waiting for that BIG lawsuit against DSS with that BIG
payoff that's never gonna come.

> > Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.
>
> > What did whatsisname ever do?
> >
> > He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
> > punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.
>
> You badgered him about it constantly. Familiar tactic from you.

Whatsisname wrote that the red pepper punishment was legal when he knew it
wasn't, and people could have lost their children, their jobs, and possibly
could have gone to prison because his intentional misinformation.

> Any contribution he could have made to this forum was obscured
> by your endless and unprompted whining about your attitude.

Unprompted??? The guy was a LIAR!!!

His advice was DANGEROUS!!!

> Nobody Care's about your attitude.
> The endless bandwidth wasted dealing with your puke could have
> lead to something constructive, aside from your ego.
>
> I posted pleadings. You puked all over it.

YOU asked for comments!!!!

I commented!!!!!

> Where are yours? At least I TRIED.

The only thing you tried was to nail the coffin shut on the possibility of
the mother being reunited with her daughter.

And you succeeded.

Are you really that freakin stupid to think something that obvious (your
true intentions) wouldn't be recognized?

> You didn't.
>
> > After being challenged for months to <blah blah..>
>
> Nobody cares about your hysterical judgements of who you
> decide to vilify. You are as rediculous as Joe McCarthy was.
> He died of syphilis. What's your excuse?

Still have that Motion mentality goin for ya, Greg.

> > For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper <blah.>
>
> > This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble <snip>
>
> Then why to you puke all over it with your incessant inane innuendo?

ooOOoo alliteration!

And I "puked all over" your motion because that was the best it deserved.

> > Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.
> >
> > Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously)
> > when you and Dennis can't take the heat.
>
> Heat from you?

I didn't say from me.

Too many people got fed up with the nonsensical ranting and raving.

Now if only you would see the light, Greg.

> You're just vomitous.
>
> > > and a few have had comments in here used in court
> > > to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
> >
> > Bull ****, Greg.
> > Name em.
> > Name one!
>
> I don't drop names the way you do.
> I'm not a pro, but I know that it would not be proper to do.
> If you're such an expert, why don't you understand that?

I understand you're a lying AH.

> You have done this sort of challenging a lot, apparently
> completely ignorant of privacy laws and ethical issues.
> You think I or others OWE you an answer to every question.
> You're the grand inquisitor, put us on the rack!

If only I could...

> > > Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
> > > details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
> >
> > Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's
> > unrecognizable and untraceable... be inhibited?
> >
> > That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.
>
> Ask Ron! He has the access to certain databases at work.
> He thought he was anonymous, that when he posted his info
> publicly on the internet, nobody would notice.
>
> > > (Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
> > > would simply demand that they bring the archive of
> > > the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
> > > all for lack of contextual setting.)
> >
> > YOU would demand???
>
> That's a recommendation to help any who might
> have that problem in the future.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

> If they want to USE THIS, make them BRING IT ALL IN
> so that the comments can be put in context and
> properly cross examined.
>
> Too complex a concept, Dan?

Not fer a couch potato like yerself, Greg.

> > You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom <blah.>
> Why should I be convinced of <blah.>
> When CPS and the court have no legal issue there?
>
> You waste everybody's precious time whining about these
> things that the system here says are not issues in this case.

Is everything documented, Greg, or are there some concerns discussed in FAM
Ct BEFORE your girlfriend walks in without you?

Now make yer trolly jump the tracks, Greg.

> FOR AN EXAMPLE: FROM ANOTHER CASE
> I didn't like that story about the cop who diddled
> a 16 year old girl who volunteered at a fire station.
>
> Whether I LIKE that or not, however, is NOT an issue
> in that state where legally it was consensual.
> If it's not illegal, drop it and move along.
>
> Instead of harassing the cop for doing something you
> and I both think was rotten, the way to deal with our
> displeasure is to change the laws, not to do an
> end-run around the meaning of a law because we don't
> like it.
>
> You have been redundant in your smear of me for a long time.

I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks... if only you were a cat!

> You have no grasp of facts from which to lecture me.

You have no grasp of reality OR empathy for a little girl and her mother.

> Your pretense of helpful attitude is ludicrous in this forum.

ooOOoo!!

> You have wasted this bandwidth for a long time.

oooOOOooo!!!

> Your redundant smear of me, prompted generally when
> I criticize CPS, does not make you appear very good spirited.

If there two things I can't stand it's CPS doin a bad job and people who
maltreat kids.

> I am able to agree to disagree. You seem unable to.

You seem to be a child abuser!

Dan

Greg Hanson
September 11th 03, 08:52 PM
> And thirty years of being in the business.
And a fine job he did indeed.
Why, kids who didn't even KNOW they were abused by their
parents can now be abused by professionals (CPS).

LaVonne Carlson
September 11th 03, 09:36 PM
Greg Hanson wrote:

> LaVonne said
> > I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
> > names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
> > can you address these questions?
>
> You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?

Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed?

> But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul about
them. Fern is great at making sweeping accusations and providing no
evidence, and at evading all challenges to her agenda and her posted
propaganda. If her posts are so filled with truth, why does she decline
to answer challenges?

> Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
> childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
> times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.
> I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
> They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.

I can see that the discrepancy between the age of 6 and the age of 7
would be a huge determinant in post content.

> They have both tried to act like there was some
> improper sexuality based only on minimal family
> nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
> revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
> admitting he walked around with his adult male
> privates exposed to young children.
> I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
> bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
> blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously you have had a
run-in with CPS, though.

> Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
> has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
> in my families case.

I know nothing about your family's case. I am not commenting on
individual cases. I am objecting the the overt animosity which is
resulting from absurd generalizations to the entire child protection
agency. I am also objecting to the idea that because mistakes have been
made, children are no longer worthy of protection.

> When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
> not see you object. Where was your civility then?

I post on alt.parenting.spanking only. There are individuals who
cross-post with alt.support.child-protective-services. This was either
not cross-posted or I missed it. I do have a life and a full time job.
I do not read all posts that appear. Therefore, if this was posted to
alt.parenting.spanking, I did not see it.

> Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
> and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
> That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".

This is what I mean by over generalization. Whenever you use terms like
"nobody" the burden of proof is on you. And it is a claim you cannot
prove, because you cannot possibly know the record of every individual
involved with CPS.

> Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
> that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
> certainly worthy of question.

You are free to question anything you choose. However, I would like
examples of my uncivilized behavior, since you view my response to Kane
as only temporary civilized. I'll wait for your response.

> There are a bunch of people in here who are
> trying to defende themselves or our society from
> unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
> bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
> all accused are guilty, just because they are
> biological parents and they are accused.

I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services. I'm posting to
alt.parenting.spanking, and yours is a cross-post. Who are the "in
here" people? Be that as it may be, you are over generalizing again.
Yes, I'm sure there are a "bunch of people" who are trying to defend
themselves from CPS allegations. Some of the bunch may be involved in a
legitimate CPS mistake. Others may be objecting for other reasons.
I've met individuals who are defending themselves from what they
consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who have disciplined their
children in ways that resulted in hospitalization over burns and broken
bones.

> If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
> it should be more understandeable than when the
> other major faction insults and whitewashes.

When people are under attack it certainly is understandable. It's a
human reaction. The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing
her hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack. I
understood that. I also understood that what she did was unacceptable.

> Kane is not under attack.

Kane is attacked all the time on the ng for his views. I also know that
Kane does not need my defense. He is perfectly capable of defending
himself!

> He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
> he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
> hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
> as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
> He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
> And he sad on a governing board over CPS.
>
> How do you like those ethics?

Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with CPS, which is a
total lie. I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS and this is
really irrelevant. I'm responding to his posts regarding the protection
of little children.

> My fiance' and I want our family back!

I'm sure you do. I have no idea why you lost them in the first place.
Most people want their children back when they loose them. Some people
should not have their children back because children deserve protection,
and sometimes this is from biological parents.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of this post. You and your fiancé
are obviously very angry because CPS became involved in your lives. I
understand that. I don't know why you lost your children.

I'm not on alt.parenting.spanking to defend Kane. Kane doesn't need
defending. His posts speak for themselves. I'm here to say that
children need protection and CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has
made. I'm on alt.parenting.spanking to talk about the abusive nature of
hitting a child in the name of discipline, and the need for laws in this
country to change.

LaVonne

>
>
> Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.
> He spews his hatred of bio-parents.
> He calls us scum.
>
> His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.
>
> Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
> newsgroup ""stature"".
>
> But that's what smears are all about.
>
> Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
> CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
> you know very well that CPS does smear parents.
>
> Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
> child beating parents every time he sees a child.
>
> Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
> away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
> of the US Constitution. A basic Ethical contract
> in our society.
>
> I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
> them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
> responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
> false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.
>
> Many acknowledge the problem.
> None want to speak up about it.
>
> So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
> and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.
>
> But look at Kane's posts.
> He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
> He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
> to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.
>
> My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
> this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
> it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.
> I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
> Neal left. (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)
> Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
> Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.
>
> The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
> feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,
> and a few have had comments in here used in court
> to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
> Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
> details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
> (Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
> would simply demand that they bring the archive of
> the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
> all for lack of contextual setting.)
>
> When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.
> And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
> convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.

LaVonne Carlson
September 11th 03, 09:38 PM
Oh, give poor Greg a break. He lost his kids to CPS, or so he says. He needs
to engage in the attack game. He has no answers to your questions. I already
asked them (grin).

LaVonne

Dan Sullivan wrote:

> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > LaVonne said
> > > I try very hard not to label people or use disrespectful
> > > names. I'd like to replace "The Plant" with "Fern." Fern,
> > > can you address these questions?
> >
> > You try not to swear and whitewash like Kane?
> > But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?
> >
> > Any point he makes is fruit of a poison tree.
>
> Why is that?
>
> > Kane is so rabidly hateful of bio parents because
> > he feels his bio parents let him down and his adoptive
> > parents rescued him.
>
> Where'd you get that info, Greg?
>
> > The odd part of this is that
> > this story doesn't fit well given Kane's supposed age.
> > If he is indeed middle 40's, he was raised in the
> > late 50's or through the 60's, before Mondale wrote CAPTA.
>
> When did Kane claim he was in his mid-forties?
>
> His SON may be in his forties...
>
> > Back in that era, there basically WAS NO Child Protection.
> >
> > Yet he acts like he knows how it is, based on his own
> > experience from 30 plus years ago.
>
> And thirty years of being in the business.
>
> > If some questions are to be answered, perhaps these
> > glaring inconsistencies about Kane should be answered.
>
> Get yer facts sraight first, Greg, and then ask questions.
>
> > Momentarily acting civilized does not make the length
> > and breadth of Kane's intent to smear and insult go away.
> > He swore a blue streak in ascps for over a year!
> > Despite his pretense at some sort of intellectual
> > superiority, his tactics of name calling, swearing and
> > smear abound in the newsgroup archive.
> > Where were you with your civilized amelioration when
> > he posted this large body of work?
>
> Amelioration?
>
> Please explain.
>
> > No, you can not apologize FOR Kane.
>
> No one's apologizing for Kane.
>
> > He hangs around your neck like an albatross.
> >
> > Kane tried using the old
> > "My buddy the psychologist says you're nutz" gambit.
> >
> > Been done before.
>
> How many times, Greg?
>
> > The nature of newsgroups is such that smearing people
> > is much easier than getting such stuff corrected.
>
> Which stuff?
>
> > Even correcting information loses out to sheer volume
> > of posting, and the determination of a poster to
> > post incorrect information.
> >
> > Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
> > childs stated age correct, referring to the child many
> > times as 6 when she was 7 and older throughout this.
>
> Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
>
> > I have pointed out the factual error, but they don't care.
> > They have since repeated the incorrect age repeatedly.
>
> Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department.
>
> > They have both tried to act like there was some
> > improper sexuality based only on minimal family
> > nakedness in the bathroom. One oddity is that Kane
> > revealed his almost nudist views of nakedness,
> > admitting he walked around with his adult male
> > privates exposed to young children.
> > I am much more conservative than that, yet what little
> > bit of "in passing" nakedness took place has been
> > blown up because DAN has some huge personal hangups.
>
> Yeah, I'm against non-related adult males being in the bathroom every time a
> little girl needs to get out of the shower.
>
> I'm against non-related adult males physically forcing little girls into the
> shower.
>
> I'm against non-related adult males forcing little girls to take cold
> showers as punishment for wetting their pants.
>
> > Neither Dan nor Kane seems to care that CPS here
> > has never seen anything sexual to be an issue
> > in my families case.
>
> Then why is there info about an earlier accusation of child sexual abuse
> from a previous CPS investigation regarding YOU in yer girlfriend's case,
> Greg?
>
> > When they compared me to Father Geoghan, I did
> > not see you object. Where was your civility then?
>
> Who compared you to Father Geoghan?
>
> And when?
>
> > The ""game"" they're running is a LOT like the way
> > things worked for Joseph McCarthy when he ran the
> > HUAC hearings known as the 1950's witch hunts for
> > communists. If are a moderate of their view and
> > speak up about their paranoia, expect to be vilified
> > or at least chastised.
>
> Is that a threat, Greg?
>
> > And the witch hunt proceeds.
> >
> > The crusade to "save kids" gets a strong reaction,
> > and virtually NO reaction to make sure the
> > crusading ""child savers"" are not paranoid.
> >
> > Nobody in the ChildAbuse Industry wants to speak up
> > and demand that false information needs to be corrected.
> > That would be seen as "in favor of child abusers".
> >
> > Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
> > that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
> > certainly worthy of question.
> >
> > Do you not understand that?
> >
> > There are a bunch of people in here who are
> > trying to defende themselves or our society from
> > unwarranted attacks from CPS. There is another
> > bunch in here who seems to want to assert that
> > all accused are guilty, just because they are
> > biological parents and they are accused.
>
> Greg, you aren't a bioparent and you're the only one being accused of
> maltreatment.
>
> Your arguement doesn't hold water.
>
> > People under attack and the attackers.
> >
> > If the people under attack utter any offensive words,
> > it should be more understandeable than when the
> > other major faction insults and whitewashes.
> >
> > Kane is not under attack.
> >
> > He is connected with CPS. He first asserted that
> > he had a close relative who works for CPS. Later we
> > hear that he has experienced this from the inside,
> > as a child. The age he presents makes that dubious.
> > He had already shown that he hates bio-parents.
> > And he sad on a governing board over CPS.
> >
> > How do you like those ethics?
> >
> > My fiance' and I want our family back!
> >
> > Kane is in here denying the WELL known faults of CPS.
>
> Kane loves to see CPS lose.
>
> CPS loses for a very good reason... they deserve to lose.
>
> > He spews his hatred of bio-parents.
>
> Not at all. He hates abusers.
>
> > He calls us scum.
>
> You ARE scum, Greg.
>
> > His good buddy Dan never publicly corrects him.
>
> Many times I've posted my displeasure in the words Kane chooses to use.
>
> > Ethics give way to some sick strategy for
> > newsgroup ""stature"".
>
> You've got that backwards, Greg.
>
> > But that's what smears are all about.
> >
> > Keep in mind if you think that a parent is smearing
> > CPS, that an AGENCY has no civil rights, and that
> > you know very well that CPS does smear parents.
> >
> > Like a lot of the caseworkers, Kane sees evil
> > child beating parents every time he sees a child.
>
> And you know that how, Greg?
>
> > Parents see a fear of caseworkers taking their child
> > away for reasons that don't satisfy the requirements
> > of the US Constitution.
>
> "Parents see a fear of caseworkers... ???"
>
> The trolly has left the tracks again, Greg.
>
> > A basic Ethical contract
> > in our society.
> >
> > I have personally talked to about 7 Social Workers, shown
> > them documentary proof, and asked about the ethical
> > responsibility of Social Workers to demand that known
> > false information in a Juvenile Court case be corrected.
>
> Show yer proof to the psych evaluator and get it into evidence.
>
> > Many acknowledge the problem.
> > None want to speak up about it.
> >
> > So don't wonder why parents under attack are angry
> > and see CPS as a giant RACKET, an industry, a fraud, etc.
> >
> > But look at Kane's posts.
> > He acts like he is the renaissance man. Some model.
> > He smears, slurs, demeans, insults, and what he seems
> > to think is reasoned discourse is just grandiose insult.
>
> Kane believes he insults the people who DESERVE to be insulted.
>
> > My personal view is that Dan and Kane have turned
> > this newsgroup into an insufferable mess so that
> > it is of no use to any parent falsely accused.
>
> It was an "insufferable mess" before I got here.
>
> No one ever got their children back from FC.
>
> And when the first one did whatsisname chastized the woman for not fighting
> "for society!!!!!"
>
> Yeah, all she did was get her three kids back.
>
> And then David and Amy Carl got their five kids back.
>
> Chuck got his daughter back the day before her first birthday.
>
> Quite the "insufferable mess."
>
> > I asked Dan and Neal to stop fighting in here long ago.
> > Neal left.
>
> Hoo-FREAKIN-rayyyyyy!
>
> > (And Dan acted triumphant! What a twit.)
>
> Why am I a "twit?"?
>
> What did whatsisname ever do?
>
> He posted that it was OK to force red pepper into children's mouths as
> punishment and claimed that proof had already been posted on the NG.
>
> After being challenged for months to cite the facts whatsismane finally
> posted a news
> story in which a policeman was arrested for committing the same offense and
> had lost his job because of it!
>
> Possibly permanently!!!
>
> For over a year whatsisname claimed the red pepper punishment was OK'd by
> the courts.
>
> When all along he knew it was a lie.
>
> This NG is a place where people come to get OUT of trouble with CPS... NOT
> DEEPER INTO TROUBLE!!!
>
> Hey, and you didn't mention that Bob SueCPS left too.
>
> Altho he does pop in from time to time ( anonymously) when you and Dennis
> can't take the heat.
>
> > Dan went from one flame war to another in here.
> > Apparently that is the only way Dan communicates.
>
> I communicate very well, Greg.
>
> > The effect on many parents seeking help is that they
> > feel like CPS is watching anything they say in here,
>
> A few people from CPS have posted here.
>
> > and a few have had comments in here used in court
> > to slam them as if they violated privacy laws.
>
> Bull ****, Greg.
>
> Name em.
>
> Name one!
>
> > Even parents smart enough to keep names and identifying
> > details out of this forum are inhibited by the CPS eye.
>
> Why on earth would an anonymous person... someone who's unrecognizable and
> untraceable... be inhibited?
>
> That's the reason they ARE anonymous... NOT to be inhibited.
>
> > (Myself, If they brought something from here in, I
> > would simply demand that they bring the archive of
> > the ENTIRE newsgroup into evidence, or strike it
> > all for lack of contextual setting.)
>
> YOU would demand???
>
> You aren't even allowed in the Courtroom, Greg.
>
> > When things got a little sticky for Dan, Kane showed up.
>
> What things got sticky for me, Greg?
>
> I haven't lost ONCE to CPS since 1987.
>
> > And with the swearing and hostility, I am still not
> > convinced that Kane is not just Dan's sock puppet.
>
> You aren't convinced that you being in the bathroom everytime a little girl
> finished showering, you physically forcing her back into the shower when she
> hadn't rinsed off enough, and you forcing her to take cold showers as
> punishment for wetting her pants, isn't FREAKIN child maltreatment; WHEN IT
> IS!!!
>
> Now be sure you fail to respond to everything I've just posted, Greg, as
> usual.
>
> Dan

LaVonne Carlson
September 11th 03, 09:40 PM
Greg Hanson wrote:

> > Your girlfriend's daughter was never six?
> Not during this case.

So the answer to the big issue about lying and children's ages is now
revealed? Too bad I spent so much time and energy responding to an earlier
post.

Good grief!

LaVonne

Dan Sullivan
September 11th 03, 10:58 PM
"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, give poor Greg a break.
>
> He lost his kids to CPS, or so he says.

Greg didn't lose anything.

His girlfriend did.

Greg is only the couch-sitting, unemployed by choice for three years,
boyfriend of the mother of the little girl who was removed by CPS who thinks
he's gonna get rich by suing DSS for violating his constitutional rights.

It also appears that Greg believes the longer the little girl is kept out of
the house by CPS the greater the amount of money he's gonna get.

All of his behavior since the little girl's beeen removed has been towards
that end.

> He needs to engage in the attack game.

Greg likes to ask questions... he just won't answer any.

Too much of the truth might get revealed.

> He has no answers to your questions. I already
> asked them (grin).
>
> LaVonne

Have ya read Greg's Motion, LaVonne?

His girlfriend's daughter (who has been in FC for TWO AND A HALF YEARS) will
never be reunited with her mother because of a Motion Greg ghost wrote for
the mother and submitted into court BEFORE letting anyone here comment on
it.

For your reading pleasure,

--------------------------------------------

From: Greg Hanson )
Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2002-04-09 14:27:36 PST

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY
JUVENILE DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY

MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES


COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.

The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.

On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan." This is a Federal
regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.

Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.

Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for
disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After
Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me
saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water." (Actually
it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after
only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role
of Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about
nonexistant domestic abuse.

Psychological Evaluation
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry
list of 4 points. The list was:

needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues

It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised
some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was
small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME
didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get
more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months,
and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including
misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported"
presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge
number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect
statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this.
The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of
input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective
concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with
this.

Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using
such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the
impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could
not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts
of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the
hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT
could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers
were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded"
by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in The
Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)

Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury
Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape
interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the
hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification
for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's
past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's
Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of
extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt.

My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about
the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even
perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court
Judge with no explanation.

The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an
internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The bump
was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a
swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it
really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been
brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the
grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to
intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are
written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs.
This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take
her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable
witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer
written all over it!)

The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer
Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for
her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know
more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their
testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather
than "head pushed under shower spray".

Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I
"would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get
rid of Greg to satisfy DHS.

She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole
like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her
report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other
members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child
Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a
bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage.

Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other
side of the one way glass.

I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present
at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said
he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there
specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the
invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush
interview" by a hostile group during that time.

Employment
The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no
explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us
jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies
at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing.
Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men.
Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE
or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied
Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite
ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED
SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child
support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS
targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat
bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of
Rights?

Vocational Rehab
Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the
services required of Greg.
Greg doesn't qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not
disabled. Great one DHS!

Parenting Classes
The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has
had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to
afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through
threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20
cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg
trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not
respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do
anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching
practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the
"rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would
be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept
this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something.

DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future
stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for a
parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political
agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to push
for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our
beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed)
Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need
Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she
used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and
hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for Deb
that the rash was from urea not washed off Child's skin. The
sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a
LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any
paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though
medical treatment was involved. Isn't Deb a mandatory reporter?

All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty
God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person
shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship
against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any
religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of
conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran
Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights
of concience" that parents have.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.

Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's
active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as required
by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations.

It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make
the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of
children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents
vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are
being burdened with.

PLEASE CLARIFY
1A. Do you order imposed parent education?

1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?

1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?

1D. For these parents, wouldn't it be better to to teach parents
how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?

1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?

1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody
of the child from the parents?

2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?

2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents
who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and
are thus rightiously indignant?

2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?

2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly
and indignant?

2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
psychological evaluation would not bias the results?

2F. Don't you think that this INPUT should be carefully
scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the
court?

2G. How would a legal non-party do that?

2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg's constitutional rights?

2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?

2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?

2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
provision of the service plan?

3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?

3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History
reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse
found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST
presented by a Child Protection case?

3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that
caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?

3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an
insignifigance?

3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN?

4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they
wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart?

4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg's non-party status, at the expense of our family
bond?

4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law?

The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in
facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have known
since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers
have not been helpful.

There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year old.
Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family
violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive
grandparents.

No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any
medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve any
alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last
year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.

The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents. The
first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is
supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. "Family preservation will
be the first consideration."

The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.

The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite
the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers.
Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by
the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger
from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
disbursed.

The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
or delay.

REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN

1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost
of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of
Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation"
service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this
assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has
DHS wasted on this case overall?

2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our
home.
These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform to
US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have
asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests
have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then
we ask for this requirement to be voided.

3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.

4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.

5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will
be arranged to address
-Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg
-Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken
place.
-Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional
second guessing
-Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child
-Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill
grandmother

6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
more.

7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the
community.

8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and
Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with an
eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring.

9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's
school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions
and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and
commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly
commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in
this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing
school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The
grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort of
pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the
child's education.

10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
toward unsupervised visits and reunification.

11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS,
personally.
Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his
services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just..

254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439.
COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the
parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in
counseling - and to provide the department with all information
obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to
sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents to
disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not
of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has
no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science,
and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures
presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication hearing
violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their
right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the
patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time
demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their
children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the state's
fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held
repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use
of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the
privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v.
United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States,
supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245,
252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973);
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v.
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v.
Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460,
the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All these
policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional
foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government -
state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its
citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require
the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the
inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of
criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an
individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent
labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it
from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely
on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least
one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence
against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such
compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist,
then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic
sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for any
other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the
accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United
States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment
protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure
of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233
n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the
protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege
against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a
person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty
and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence"
that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The
privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human
personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave
where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378
U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual
feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract
self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also
Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966);
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in
its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of
privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his
detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See
also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).

The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of
adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These
relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the
assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against
either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these
privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition is
given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah),
doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal
communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against
self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges,
marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession
itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful
communication could be given out of fear that something, anything, one
says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot
simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused
and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against
self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged
communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In
contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only
delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be
assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions
must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation.
Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held: "Some
tests seemingly directed to obtain 'physical evidence,' for example,
lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during
interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which
are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing
in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on
the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to
evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations
call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is as
broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any
compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the
production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime,
or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free
government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is
abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of
despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political
liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at
631-632.

It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness shall
not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give
testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564]
subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car.
& P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3 Camp.
210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr.
16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev.
451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v.
Rexford, 6 Cow.


________________________
Suzy Q. Mother
1234 Our Home Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the
attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed on
the pleadings on April 9th, 2002.
By:
_X_ U.S. Mail
Signature:_________________________________

Copy to:

DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad's PD
222 SE 222 Avenue
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker
Iowa Department of Inhumane Services
411 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

What Child, GAL
PO Box 12345
Cedar Rapids, IA 52407

Prosecute On Gossip
Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division
Basement of Linn County Courthouse
Third Avenue Bridge
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

--------------------------------------

Greg Hanson
September 12th 03, 05:44 AM
Dear Iowa DHS Stakeholder: Thursday 10 PM July 24th,
2003

1. Why was no DHS Town Hall Meeting held in Cedar Rapids in June? Why
was the address for the CR Town Hall listed as Washington Iowa? Why
was no Cedar Rapids Town Hall listed in any local newspaper? Or the
DHS press release?

2. I was looking over the DHS "Stakeholder Panel" and of the 66
listings on the revised list I did not see any representatives of any
of the groups out to stop abuses of families by overzealous
investigations and caseworkers.

3. The list of "stakeholders" appears to be stacked with mostly people
and agencies with a huge FINANCIAL stake in what happens to DHS and
their contracts. Noteably a lot of DHS employees and the AFSCME labor
union (?) Stating the obvious, I do believe that FAMILIES have a much
larger STAKE in badly needed changes to be made at DHS, yet only 2 out
of 66 listings look like they might be pro-family and against DHS
abuse of families. From what I can tell though, even those two seem
to have NO INTEREST in really righting the wrongs of ABUSE BY DHS. I
hope that a few of the Panel Members are MUCH MORE CRITICAL OF DHS
than the vast majority of the DHS beneficiaries would obviously be.
Please forgive me if you are the unusual insider who is perhaps even
more critical of DHS than I am. There are caseworkers, former
caseworkers, and fosters who are more critical of DHS than I am, but
they are rare. Do you really think that DHS is not aware of the
presence of groups like CPSWATCH, VOCAL or HSLDA that have been in
Iowa for some time? If DHS can have empty blanks(chairs) for AFSCME,
ODCP, JLAJC, CINCF and ICADV, with no names, addresses or e-mail
addresses available, then why couldn't CPSWATCH, VOCAL and HSLDA be
brought in?

This list of "stakeholders" should make it clear to all of you
exactly why and how DHS and it's own Juvenile Court have become a
bloated overbearing technocracy. The list of "stakeholders" itself
should be an embarassment to each of you, and an example of the
culture of corruption at DHS. Excluding families under siege from
DHS abuses certainly seems dysfunctional for a panel intended to right
the wrongs of DHS.

The concept of "stakeholders" was never intended to be stacked
entirely with people with a FINANCIAL stake in what DHS does.
Certainly NOT at the exclusion of all families and pro-family
activists. The Social Work expert who wrote the ASFA law, Gelles, is
disgusted with the abuses of families by State Child Protection
agencies done to obtain the Federal money. Other Social Work experts
have said for a LONG TIME that because of the culture within Child
Protection agencies, that they are extremely resistant to repair from
within, and the only way to repair them is to destroy them completely
and start over from scratch, avoiding any and every trace of the old
Child Protection agency. I wonder if Gelles isn't coming to the same
sort of conclusion? I bet Gelles would indeed be sickened with the
way this "stakeholders panel" has been turned into a cheerleading
section for the FINANCIAL interests of DHS and their beneficiaries.

4. The very term "Stakeholder" originated with the US DHHS. After a
state Child Protection agency fails a federal audit they interview
"stakeholders". It is the ONLY chance that a family harmed by DHS
gets to address anybody from the US DHHS, so DHS likes to "control"
who talks to DHHS for obvious reasons. The only thing more important
to DHS than Public Relations spin and the false public perceptions
about them is the FEDERAL MONEY.

5. Some of you might be aware of the bill that was signed into
Federal Law by the President on June 25th, 2003. In addition to
reading the "Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003" (S.342)
law itself, I would strongly recommend reading the reports of both the
House and Senate committees that created the bills. Pro-family
activists will no longer be shrugged off as "disgruntled child
abusers" after you read what BOTH HOUSES OF THE U.S. CONGRESS SAID
ABOUT OVERZEALOUS CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES ABUSING FAMILIES.
Caseworkers must now get additional training on the constitutional
rights of US Citizens. This is of course a REDUNDANCY, since they
should ALREADY have been aware of and guided by these principles. One
of my families abusive DHS caseworkers had a Bachelors in Criminology,
so I THINK she must have had some education on the US Constitution.
Are they going to educate Juvenile Court Associate Judge Jane Spande
who said that the 14th Amendment was "for another court"?

Things I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND as the biggest, most tragic failings in
the current Iowa system:

6. Federal CAPTA requires Citizens Review Boards over the Child
Protection agency, yet there are none. Jerry Foxhoven of the Iowa
Citizens Foster Care Review Board (on this panel!) can confirm that my
family does not have access to CRB process!

7. Federal regulation, State law and DHS policy say that families are
supposed to get "Family Active Participation in Formation of the
Service Plan" but when we ASKED for this active participation in the
formation of the DHS Services Plans (3), we were refused. (Juv Court
also ignored that it is a hard prerequisite before Termination of
Parental Rights.)

8. Contract Providers use a mini Service Plan called a Treatment Plan,
and it is supposed to involve the family in "Collaboration" on it.
(Lutheran Social Services unlicensed person and licensed SW supervisor
committed FRAUD when they signed off on ours, asserting that we had
the collaboration when we clearly had not.)

9. Juvenile Court is idealogically "owned" by DHS, rubber stamp court
for DHS.

10. Most Caseworkers and Contract Social Workers are not licensed
professional Social Workers. (Iowa does not license SW's at Bachelors
or below, according to board of Social Work.)

11. The "Stipulation Scam" - Public Defenders push for "stipulation"
(winning through surrender) (Plead guilty and we'll work it out
quicker!) (Pushed by Judges associations!) (All of the efficiency
of Roland Friesler! Or Franz Kafka's "The Trial".)

12. "Public Defenders" often do not. Commonly known as "public
pretenders" for good reason. (Seems to be a conflict of interest
problem for people paid by the state to fight the state.) (Some
report that they "defend" the system and not the family.) (We had one
violate lawyer-client priviledge without good reason or client
consent.)

13. Caseworker immunity, even when they KNOWINGLY lie in court!
(Immune from perjury.) (End this immunity and make the state consent
to being sued for what the state does wrong.)

14. Contract Social Worker rolled hours for "family therapy" into
visit supervision time and effectively "double billed" for the same
hours.

15. Contract Social Worker acted as a complete STOOGE for the
caseworkers bad intent, even doing things that would VIOLATE Social
Worker ethics IF she had a license.

16. Contract Social Worker admitted on the witness stand that for
"family therapy" he pretended to share our dismay about DHS as a
deception, to gain our trust because we were supposedly paranoid.
(Think about this one. Nobody diagnosed us as paranoid, and If we HAD
been paranoid, wouldn't this duplicity be an extremely BAD idea??)
Clearly the intent was to use every form of "therapy" as more witch
hunt to dig for dirt.

17. None of the licenced or unlicensed Social Workers lobbied with DHS
or Juvenile Court to get the caseworker fiction ""Sex Abuse History""
corrected, even when I told them that this giant DHS LIE was a serious
barrier for me. (Social Workers have professional obligations to
DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected!) (Any human being has
MORAL obligations to DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected.)

18. Caseworkers REMOVE CHILDREN based on personal bias, prejudice,
style differences,etc. (For example they push anti-spanking political
agenda, even though spanking is legal in all 50 states.) (Using
Household Clutter for Child Removal makes us wonder how much is CLASS
DISTINCTION.)

19. Caseworkers remove kids for "clutter" despite having NO STANDARDS.
(I suspect the standards on paper would be a source of mockery.)

20. A. Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers pass large amounts of
documentation into psychological evaluations to tell the psychologist
the diagnosis they seek. (In my case, a caseworker fiction ""Sex
Abuse History"" was passed to the Psychologist even months after it
was proven to the caseworker that it was false, with old DHS
documents!) (Yes, this was an attempt to RIG a Psychological
Evaluation.) (So WHO's paranoid??)

Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers (and lots of ER staffers at some
hospitals) still apply several MYTHS that are common in the Child
Protection industry.
B. The myths about SPIRAL FRACTURES indicating child abuse. Over 90%
of pediatric broken bones are proven to be due to bone diseases, and
the 10% in the abuse/unknown category would not logically be all child
abuse. Yet there is a huge problem with caseworkers and ER staff
operating on the old myths, oblivious to the 1997 debunking of the
myth by a British MD. The most horrible part of the research stats is
that 22 kids out of a sample of 128 were permanently adopted out who
later proved to actually have bone diseases. Some portion of 11
others might have been abused. Wrong was done twice as much as
possibly right! ( .PDF Refs Avail.)
C. In Social Work there is a MYTH that is printed in many textbooks
because it is so firmly entrenched. The myth of "The Cycle of Abuse".
The US General Accounting Office invalidated this myth in a September
1996 report. ( .PDF document Refs Avail.)
D. Caseworkers and ER staff vastly over accuse people of Munchhausens
By Proxy. Mothers having children with genuine and in many cases,
well documented bonafide illnesses have been wrongly accused of this
in vast numbers. Psychologists came close to eliminating it from the
DSM-IV diagnosis manual because the vast majority of times they got
referrals to look for it were BOGUS. It is almost as embarassing as
the bogus "recovered memory" fiasco that blew up in their faces a few
years ago. A corollary version of Munchhausens was actually proposed
whereby caseworkers, social workers and attorneys HURT children with
removal, push them to believe they were abused, so they can fulfill an
emotional need to "save the child" from imagined abuse.

21. We had an unlicensed contract SW who thinks that large amounts of
LOBBYING on behalf of DHS for complete submission by the family to all
DHS abuses is BILLABLE "family therapy" and so we have heightened
concerns about what propaganda was pushed on the child in "therapy".

22. Federal Privacy Act violation - refusal by DHS caseworkers to
correct KNOWN FALSEHOODS that they wrote into DHS case file and on an
affidavit in Juvenile Court case file.

23.What's up with prosecutor (Assistant County Attorney) refusal to
CORRECT a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" she had filed in court? She
refused when it was proven false. She refused when she was asked.
Motions for correction spanning 2.5 years were ignored by both the
Assistanc County Attorney and Juvenile Court. DHS has similarly
refused to correct what they KNOW to be false information, all the way
up the DHS chain of command to Governor Vilsack.

24. The phrase ""At Risk Of"" can be misused, abused and cover a
multitude of sins! Harm done by removal itself should not be
justified by thin "possible harm" or "at risk". Preventive removals
should not be so thinly based that THEY are the only REAL abuse!
Preventive removals do not meet Constitutional requirements connected
with big Liberty Interest. Preventive removals carry too great of a
likelihood of agency abuse of families over trivia. Preventive
removals are the ones where the big civil rights law suits HAVE and
WILL be won, because they violate the Constitutional rights of
families. (See Wallis v. Escondido, and Dupuy decision by Judge
Pallmeyer in Illinois. There are so many I lost count.)

25. One of our caseworkers fathered a child in Adultery and another is
about to marry her fiance' who seriously beat her up, arms, legs,
torso, head but she ran to a judge to lift the no-contact order! The
caseworkers fiance has a BAD rap sheet and she's the one with a BA in
Criminology! THESE people sat in moral judgement of MY family? They
wrote up imagined domestic abuse BY ME, but never reported the assault
UPON ME by an accuser grandparent who now provides kinship care.

26. The DHS chain of command has failed to discipline Kevin Ray
Swartzendruber for the fictional ""Sexual Abuse History"" he asserted
in an affidavit to Juvenile Court. I am forced to conclude after this
amount of time that Kevin W. Concannon and his predecessor Jessie
Rasmussen actually CONDONE such LIES from caseworkers. (Governor
Vilsack & LaVerne Armstrong have failed as supervisors to correct this
LIE also.) Who IS watching the watchers?? Do these people pretend
that THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST is served by telling such rotten LIES as
a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" in attempts to break up a family??

27. Juvenile Court Judge Susan Flaherty at one point RECUSED (removed)
herself from the case for bias. (We had known she was biased all
along!) But she actually thought she was going to ""un-recuse""
herself and sit on the case some more. There is no such thing as
un-recusal. It's legally an impossibility like un-breaking an egg,
yet it took place. She signed scheduling orders, and ALMOST sat on
the TPR hearing, making everybody appear before her at the bench and
apparently realizing only then that she might get in trouble for it.

28. Contractors make decisions based on future contract money, at the
expense of the integrity of families. They can write text on a page
saying everything is fine and no more work is needed, but the
supervisor (who was licensed) says to X the Yes box to continue the
work. (and their own contract!)

Jim Ernst (on this panel) recently said in a TV interview: ..."We
spend a lot of our time having to document things that don't
necessarily relate to families, don't necessarily relate to the needs
of the kids but relate to what the funding stream requires." He
pulled for more flexibility and pulled for outcomes vs. process.

This seems odd for me since Jim never lifted a finger when we asked
him to demand that DHS correct the fictional ""Sex Abuse History""
which is harmful to the family and the child.

Two of Jim Ernst's employees, one an unlicensed Social Worker, the
other a Masters of Social Work have similarly refused to demand that
the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" be corrected.

Hey Jim! Where's the flexibility or outcomes vs. process you were
advocating? Seems you help the process drag on. Why not? You get
money when it drags on.

29. Dr. Opdebeek of the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar
Rapids Iowa, when asked on the witness stand, seems to think that sex
abuse exams should be done on kids even when there is ABSOLUTELY NO
REASON to suspect that sex abuse has taken place. Thinking like that
has lead to cases where 30 girls were lined up for gynos in public
schools on the whim of an unqualified Child Protection caseworker (PA
and TX) and some serious law suits.

30. DHS and their court seem to forget that Child Removal itself
causes very real HARM to the child, yet court hands out removal orders
for trivia like clutter or "at risk" delusions. Things that MIGHT be
abuse, prompt removal which does DEFINATE and KNOWN harm to the child.
This is where "Preventive Removals" become evil, abuses themselves.

31. When will caseworkers be subject to thorough psychological
evaluations, to look for evidence of a corrolary version of
Munchhausens, (caseworkers hurting kids to save them), rescue
fantasies", overly righteous attitudes, paranoia and phobia? When you
give amateurs such god like power over families, it makes sense to
scrutinize their psychology and mental health. Teachers can now lose
their jobs over off the job problems. Shouldn't caseworkers also?

32. Will they also have to pass some kind of IQ test? ( Caseworker
complained to court about mother having child spell exoskeleton
saying it was too hard. Child had been given the word a year earlier
by her TEACHER, as child is an advanced reader at a level 4 years
ahead of her school grade. Duh?)

33. Also at the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar Rapids,
even after the needless gyno proves that there was no sexual abuse, an
unlicensed uncertified evidenciary interviewer asks questions for the
25th time on video tape. An older caseworker from DHS tells the
interviewer what to ask, from behind the glass. Studies show that
after asking kids questions about a known fiction only 6 times it is
reported by the child as ""truth"". Goebbels "A lie told often enough
becomes the truth." is especially true with kids and evidenciary
interviews of kids. Suggestive questions are not the only problem.
Kids even figure out what you are "dancing around" with questions.
(Childs head pushed under shower spray was written up as "pushed head
under water") The same older caseworker later interviewed me at a
Police Station and she LIED about what was revealed, pretending that
some fondling had been revealed, like a trick on a bad Cop Show. I
asked the nervous caseworker if she ever had kids. She said that was
irrelevant. I said "I thought not."

34. DHS and their Juvenile Court have refused to investigate the
accuser/caretaker grandmother for Vascular Dementia Alzheimers despite
four big indicators. Prozac for 10 years, Cardiovascular trouble,
Diabetes and a Family History of Vascular Dementia Alzheimers .

35. DHS has also refused to get grandmother accuser caretaker into any
psychological or psychiatric evaluation even though she's been
UNreliably taking Prozac for over 10 years through her General
Practitioner, but never saw a psychiatrist. (We would ask that they
investigate for obsession with the child also!) Kevin Swartzendruber
spent HOURS talking to the grandma about rules and limitations in the
situation as caretakers, came away saying "I don't think she gets it."
but never WROTE THIS ON ANY REPORT. DHS has expended much effort to
AVOID investigating VERY REAL mental illness and reveal well known
feebleness of the grandmother, while digging so HARD to find some dirt
on us that they have turned all services into out and out witch
hunters. The legal term for it is FISHING EXPEDITION. Even a Judge
who seems to be a complete suckup to DHS complained about this FISHING
EXPEDITION aspect, because caseworkers kept putting the 9 year old
girl on the spot by asking her where she wants to go. Even though
this is not legally even an issue in Iowa until the child is 14, DHS
kept putting her on the spot this way and then reporting that she was
conflicted or torn, and DHS blames the falsely accused family for not
surrendering a child. Would you give up YOUR child? Based on DHS
LIES??

36. Prozac through a General Practitioner as a short term fix might be
fine for a few months, but for the General Practitioner to keep the
grandma on Prozac for over TEN YEARS and never send her to a
psychologist/psychiatrist does not seem right. Plus taking it
UNRELIABLY can cause homicidal behavior. We are certain that she
doesn't tell the doctor that she sneaks cigarettes and liquor also.

37. Judge only needed ONE, but could not do a TPR under any of four
legal codes, but decided to do what my family calls a TPR without a
TPR, a ten year plan serving the senile grandparents selfish desire to
have the child. The disservice to the child is obvious, and the Judge
should have noticed that the grandparents did not even attend for fear
the Judge would see how decrepit they really are. (Judge never
mentioned PREREQUISITE Family Active Participation in Formation of the
Services Plan.)

38. Federal US DHHS requirements of Iowa DHS (for the big funding)
say that my family should have access to a hearing process to 45 CFR
205.10 standards regarding problems with SERVICES. US DHHS said in
1983! in a clarification (PIQ) directive to Kevin W. Concannon and his
counterparts in each state "THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH
RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE
PROGRAM". Informed of this, Kevin W. Concannon played stupid and
asserted that we can ONLY access this process if we were denied
services. This is absolutely NOT the case.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=178#686
Why would Concannon WANT to block the required grievance process on
services problems? Concannons denial of this process to us will only
end badly, perhaps in several ways. The conflict of interest for DHS
to simply "wave away" or deny grievances like this seems to display
some sort of Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake." attitude, naive and
stupid. I'm sure Ken Lay of Enron fame wishes he could just "wave
away" the problems. Aside from the GRIEVANCE process on services
problems being spelled out in PIQ directives, it would be utterly
nonsensical to allow no complaints about too many services, bad
services or RIGGED services. Even more frustrating is that extreme
RIGGING of services DO represent DENIAL OF SERVICES, and several
services we requested in writing were denied or ignored.

39. The REAL reason the "Stakeholder Panel" exists is not because of
some thoughtful move by the Governor. It is because Iowa FAILED a
Federal audit by US DHHS. Oh! Didn't they TELL YOU? If Iowa DHS
Child Protection does NOT clean up it's act, they will lose a large
sum of Federal Money. But the newspapers write it up as a bold
command from our decisive governor eh? (Rediculous) Forget the media
"spin", It's about many MILLIONS of dollars that may be withheld from
next years Federal Grant to DHS if they do not bring the agency into
compliance.

40. Some of the things I've described have been required of DHS for a
long time and are still not fulfilled. Some things are subversions of
the way things are supposed to work, according to DHHS literature, and
some of the other things are just plain wrong and should be repaired
regardless of Federal Requirements because anybody with a concience
can see they are BAD situations. My struggle for two years to get
the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" corrected has proven to me how
BROKEN many of the safeguards in our system really are. (I've
learned how many people act ""powerless"" to excuse their inaction.)

41. I do not (yet) know what the new Federal KCAFSA2003 law would
require that wasn't already required, but I sure hope Iowa will not
drag our feet on these requirements the way that this state has on
Citizens Review Boards over Child Protection, and the 45 CFR 205.10
process for GRIEVANCES on services problems. I suspect that if those
two already required processes were made functional, that we would
have fewer problems with Juvenile Court Judges being complete stooges
when ignorant caseworkers LIE or otherwise deliberately violate
families.

42. If DHS can waste the estimated $200K they have on my family over
two years, removing 1 child for household clutter, vilifying me with
LIES, tearing up my family using a raving obsessive Prozac grandma,
rigging services for negative outcome, refusing to get the grandma in
for her first psychiatrist visit ever, etc.... It becomes obvious
that they are not as able to stop the next Shelby Duis because they
are wasting all of these resources. Our real crime by the way was
thumbing our nose at DHS and realizing that the caseworkers are
idiots. One caseworker even REPORTED our negative attitude toward DHS
to the Judge as if that was a crime. (Proving yet again what idiots
they really can be!) Heck, if having a negative attitude toward DHS
were a crime they'd even have to lock up a percentage of DHS staff!

43. The next Shelby Duis or Logan Marr or Rilya may be overlooked
because caseworkers were too busy proving to parents who dislike DHS
just how powerful they can be. Ego and Meglalomania are more
important to caseworkers than TRULY protecting kids. That explains
the coverup of the grandma's psychiatric state in our case. When a
kid reports that a Foster caregiver is hurting them, it must NOT be
covered up because of the political view that the foster caregivers
are FRIENDS or ALLIES of DHS Child Protection. Foster caregivers as
supposed experts should not have more lax standards than those
required of real parents, despite their DHS political "loyalty
factor". Kevin Concannon found out about this in Maine. The woman
who killed Logan Marr was shielded by her "buddy factor" as a former
caseworker. On an observed visit, after Logan complained out loud
about the Foster provider hurting her, the Maine DHS observer stopped
the mother from asking Logan more questions about the ABUSE IN STATE
CARE. This interaction is on a Maine DHS Video Tape.

44. Could somebody please explain to me why Kevin Concannon did not
even apologize to the mother of Logan Marr? It was under his
supervision in Maine that Logan Marr died, at the hands of a former
Child Protection caseworker (who preached never spanking kids!).
Logan had been removed using LOUSY excuses. She ended up dead in the
basement of the former caseworkers house,
suffocated with duct tape.

45. Governor Vilsack lauded hiring Concannon because of his expertise
at bringing in Federal Dollars, but I have seen reports that Maine had
to PAY BACK huge amounts improperly collected, not to mention the law
suit liability that Concannon represents after his malfeasance on the
Logan Marr case. Concannon made comments in the press about "doing
better", but his letter to my family denying us the REQUIRED grievance
process does not impress me that he is doing any better. He seems to
be unwilling to make sure that caseworkers under him do not VIOLATE
families with lies and other abuses.

46. I am forced to ask Vilsack (who has also stonewalled us) why
bringing in Federal Dollars was his stated priority in hiring Kevin
Concannon. (See Vilsack press releases about hiring Concannon.) I
submit that Vilsack is ignorant of the true nature of the ""financial
wizardry"" Concannon used in Maine, and the facts regarding
Concannon's "failure to supervise" resulting in death of a child.

47. When caseworkers, contractors, fosters and anybody profiting in
this "industry" falsify information, ignore proof that an assertion is
false, LIE on paper or on the witness stand, or refuse to correct
known false information, they should NOT be immune. DHS, rather than
defending them in this circumstance, should be the first to PROSECUTE
THEM. After all, this would be "In the best interests of the child",
wouldn't it? But we've seen the opposite, DHS knowing that there is
terrible and false information in both the DHS case file and the Juv
Court case file and refusing to correct it. This makes it no
accident, and culpable. Perhaps it is an adult version of the no
spanking theories?? No disciplinary action?? None? Looks like a
complete lack of discipline, ethical responsibility, supervision and
accountability. This is part of a recipe for disaster.

48. Politically, Child Protection agencies are strange in that their
FAILURES often work to their financial advantage. Shelby Duis died 3
years ago and the Ombudsman's office wrote a report with
recommendations to centralize reporting and make some other
improvements. DHS chose to ignore these suggestions, but Shelby Duis
keeps getting "preyed upon" by DHS to lobby for more money. The
solution to every problem seems to be to throw more money at it,
rather than take corrective action. I read the Ombudsmans report on
the Duis case, and DHS failed miserably. Nothing implied "more
money".

49. In DHS defense, and I hate having to do this, I'd like to point
out that even if DHS were lean, highly expert, and endlessly funded,
it would NEVER be omnicient. Even if it were the most perfect agency,
it is not godlike and all powerful enough to prevent absolutely all
cases of child abuse and child mortality. In fact, as my family can
attest, DHS is so badly tuned at what it does NOW, that the last thing
Iowans or Americans would want is more of the same kind of ham handed
amateurish power-wielding that takes place now. Even if Iowa got rid
of all of the welfare to work caseworkers who are playing God, and put
MSW's into every single caseworker position, there would still be
problems with ego, megalomania and run amok God complexes among them.
My biggest objection there is people who IMAGINE problems based on
some voodoo, whether it fits perfectly in a Social Work textbook or
not. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -Freud (Would you
qualify as a caffeine addict under psychologists DSM-IV?) While I
respect "expertise" I would be very quick to point out that it can be
abused and misused. Doctors make LOTS of mistakes. My Dad, as a
Mortician, buried quite a few doctors mistakes. I own a sterilized
hemostat removed from one.

50. If DHS Child Protection stopped "makework" cases, they would be
like the Maytag Repair Man (Jesse White version) waiting for the phone
to ring. The AFCARS statistics, cooked as they are by DHS itself,
still reveal some interesting oddities like the % of cases where kids
that are removed from their families when NO REASON at all is known.
Even the cases marked as real Child Abuse Neglect must be broken down
from the CAN "lump" to reveal how NEGLECT pads the ABUSE numbers for
the CAN figure. Iowa is noteable for withholding these stats from
the Federal Government a couple of years back, after reporting that
over HALF of all child abuse tips came from CASEWORKERS THEMSELVES one
year. (Images of caseworkers riding around in cars looking for kids?
Hey, Iowa's stats CREATED that image!)

51. This is not a complete and total depiction of my families case. I
hope that communication to this board might be an avenue of redress to
fix some other avenues of redress that are broken or do not exist as
required. I am confident that if the two TEN YEAR OVERDUE FEDERALLY
REQUIRED PROCESSES, A.) Citizens Review Board, and B.) 45 CFR
205.10 Grievance Process on Services problems - would rectify most of
my families problems caused by DHS Agency abuse of my family. Why
would this Panel to Repair a broken DHS and Juvenile Court, not START
with things that are Federally required, as of TEN YEARS AGO yet still
not in place or broken so as to be out of Federal Compliance?? That's
pretty BASIC.

52. If I would be welcome, I would be glad to be an active part of the
Stakeholder Panel. If I can carpool with another panel member from
Cedar Rapids, that would help. I will be glad to contact CPSWATCH,
VOCAL and HSLDA to ask for some other representatives of parents
abused by Child Protection as well. How does one get on this Iowa DHS
Stakeholders Panel?

53. Could I please have a copy of the "report on the Listening Phase"?
The May 28th DHS Press Release Quoted Concannon saying "we're doing
as much as possible in the open for all to see". I would ask that
this letter be added to the "report on the Listening Phase". Is this
something that PSG is doing? Does anybody have an e-mail or web site
for PSG?

54. I ask that another DHS Town Hall meeting be scheduled and
publicized in downtown Cedar Rapids Iowa due to the apparent mistake
on the publicized schedule. I would gladly publicize the scheduled
date as soon as it is arranged.

55. One of the "Defining Project Success" parameters is "Balance
flexibility with accountability". I question the premise. Why
should accountability EVER be sacrificed for the sake of flexibility?
DHS Director Concannon's hope to have flexibility must NEVER be at the
expense of accountability. As it is, Concannon has given Kevin Ray
Swartzendruber the ""flexibility"" to fabricate complete and utter
LIES about a ""Sex Abuse History"" and I have seen NO EVIDENCE of any
sort of accountability! (Supervisory or otherwise!) Could somebody
please explain to me how flexibility got connected in ANY way to
accountability? I do not see the logic in flexibility prevented by
accountability or accountability prevented by flexibility. Was this
some whiney attempt to weasel out of fulfilling the TEN YEAR OVERDUE
requirements that DHS has not yet implemented?

Or was this "flexibility" about the stupid way that caseworkers expect
that caring for kids can be a 9 to 5 job and they'll never be called
at home?? (We ran into that when the caretakers went AWOL with the
child and a Police officer called caseworker at home. Holding the
"upper hand", caseworker whined about getting called at home, while
ignoring the AWOL child circumstance completely!) When caseworkers
step into a childs life and a families life in this intrusive way, and
a kid goes missing, they'd better not whine and demand 9-5 contact
only. Another caseworker seemed to think that she had a right to tell
a client not to e-mail her at her government @DHS.state.ia.us e-mail
address as if it was her personal property, which of course it isn't.
How "flexible" is that?

56. Is the Federal Audit that Iowa DHS failed, publicly available?

57. On the Panel Charter circa May 27, 2003: "Boundaries: What is the
authority of the Stakeholder Panel? - Is not a decision making group
for the project." conflicts with "Defining Project Success"
...."redesigned system will be fully implemented by 7/1/04" and..(On
Charter again) "DHS will support the work of the panel, it's
functioning, and the fulfillment of its responsibilities."

If this Panel turns out really good recommendations for serious
IMPROVEMENT, DHS can ignore it. DHS ignored recommendations made by
the Ombudsman's report on the Shelby Duis death case. Ombudsman's
report strongly urged Centralized telephone tracking of abuse report
calls which might have enhanced accountability and responsiveness. I
suspect DHS was dissappointed that the "repair" suggested would not
have justified MILLIONS of dollars more for the agency. Don't let DHS
fool you though, any good results of this Stakeholders Panel will very
likely be watched by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
US DHHS, and could easily effect MANY MILLIONS IN FUNDING for IOWA
DHS. Since Child Protection Agencies nationwide have failed
miserably, results will be watched closely by PSG, because if the
results can fix this mess, there are 49 other states urgently looking
for solutions to fixing their failed Child Protection systems. Just
like Iowa, they face the loss of MANY MILLIONS of Federal Money if
they don't fix their broken Child Protection systems. That includes
as a HIGH priority, respecting the Constitutional Rights of families,
something my family spoke out about from the beginning, but up until
recently, caseworkers just laughed at our Constitutional claims and
Juvenile Court panned them too. Parts of the new June 25, 2003
Federal Law, and the Congressional Committee Reports behind it support
us however.

58. The 15/22 month rule to go for TPR is an abuse, considering that
the delays are often due to court or DHS intractibility about
correcting service problems (See 6,7,8,9 11,12, 17 and more above)
both in and out of court. It seems to be a Sword and shield approach,
refusal to fix anything that is BOTCHED BADLY, while demanding and
threatening the parent with TPR. DHS actually uses the 15/22 month
rule as a SOLE BASIS for TPR in some cases, and often Courts do it.
But in several other states it has been STRUCK DOWN as stupid
considering how slothful courts and bureaucracy are. It is only a
matter of time before this evil and stupid practice is struck down in
Iowa as well. ( "In the Childs Best Interest"? Indeed! ) A Father
in Ottumwa is facing a TPR in the coming month based on this travesty.

Summary of my biggest requests from you:

A. Where is the Federally Required Citizens Review Board to oversee
Child
Protective Investigations and removal? 51, 6, 41
(Why is this existing ten year old requirement still unfulfilled?)

B. Why is Kevin Concannon denying Grievance Process on services,
violating US
DHHS PIQ directives? 38, 41, 51 (Concannon directly contradicted
what a
US DHHS PIQ directive dictates, failure can cost millions in Federal
dollars)

C. Will you make the "Report on the Listening Phase" sheduled for June
26th,
public? 53 (The chart I saw did NOT reflect the input from people
who went
to those Town Halls. Not at all.)

D. What legal expert will break down all of the new requirements in
the KCFSA
Federal Law? 5 (The Panel needs to implement the protections
spelled out
in the new law! Respecting the Constitutional Rights of Families
and
curbing Child Protection Abuse of families is "In the Best Interests
of the
Child"! But you KNEW that, right?)

E. How do I and other pro-family anti-CPS AGENCY ABUSE people get
appointed
to the Stakeholders Panel? 52, 2,3,4
(Why are parents under DHS seige not seen as crucial stakeholders?)

F. Will you please schedule a Town Hall meeting for Cedar Rapids?
54
It was mentioned in one document, but not in the Press Release and
not on the
Matrix displayed on the DHS web site.

(Name, address, zip, e-mail address)

Dan Sullivan
September 12th 03, 10:31 AM
(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Dear Iowa DHS Stakeholder: Thursday 10 PM July 24th,
> 2003

April, 2001, Greg writes his first post on asCPS.

April, 2002, Greg posts his hilarious Fam Ct Motion.

July, 2003, Greg writes a letter.

September, 2003, Greg advises the mother of a child removed to foster care,

"You are done. Think damage control and some way for the Dad to keep the
kid, definately away from you. For good of child."

"You will lose any future kids to them too, so you may as well make sure
your tubes are tied."

and

"Honestly I suggest tying tubes for good."

Your level of activism is almost imperceptable, Greg.

And your advice speaks for itself.

Dan

Kane
September 12th 03, 12:55 PM
(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Dear Iowa DHS Stakeholder: Thursday 10 PM July 24th,
> 2003
>
> 1. Why was no DHS Town Hall Meeting held in Cedar Rapids in June? Why
> was the address for the CR Town Hall listed as Washington Iowa? Why
> was no Cedar Rapids Town Hall listed in any local newspaper? Or the
> DHS press release?
>
> 2. I was looking over the DHS "Stakeholder Panel" and of the 66
> listings on the revised list I did not see any representatives of any
> of the groups out to stop abuses of families by overzealous
> investigations and caseworkers.
>
> 3. The list of "stakeholders" appears to be stacked with mostly people
> and agencies with a huge FINANCIAL stake in what happens to DHS and
> their contracts. Noteably a lot of DHS employees and the AFSCME labor
> union (?) Stating the obvious, I do believe that FAMILIES have a much
> larger STAKE in badly needed changes to be made at DHS, yet only 2 out
> of 66 listings look like they might be pro-family and against DHS
> abuse of families. From what I can tell though, even those two seem
> to have NO INTEREST in really righting the wrongs of ABUSE BY DHS. I
> hope that a few of the Panel Members are MUCH MORE CRITICAL OF DHS
> than the vast majority of the DHS beneficiaries would obviously be.
> Please forgive me if you are the unusual insider who is perhaps even
> more critical of DHS than I am. There are caseworkers, former
> caseworkers, and fosters who are more critical of DHS than I am, but
> they are rare. Do you really think that DHS is not aware of the
> presence of groups like CPSWATCH, VOCAL or HSLDA that have been in
> Iowa for some time? If DHS can have empty blanks(chairs) for AFSCME,
> ODCP, JLAJC, CINCF and ICADV, with no names, addresses or e-mail
> addresses available, then why couldn't CPSWATCH, VOCAL and HSLDA be
> brought in?
>
> This list of "stakeholders" should make it clear to all of you
> exactly why and how DHS and it's own Juvenile Court have become a
> bloated overbearing technocracy. The list of "stakeholders" itself
> should be an embarassment to each of you, and an example of the
> culture of corruption at DHS. Excluding families under siege from
> DHS abuses certainly seems dysfunctional for a panel intended to right
> the wrongs of DHS.
>
> The concept of "stakeholders" was never intended to be stacked
> entirely with people with a FINANCIAL stake in what DHS does.
> Certainly NOT at the exclusion of all families and pro-family
> activists. The Social Work expert who wrote the ASFA law, Gelles, is
> disgusted with the abuses of families by State Child Protection
> agencies done to obtain the Federal money. Other Social Work experts
> have said for a LONG TIME that because of the culture within Child
> Protection agencies, that they are extremely resistant to repair from
> within, and the only way to repair them is to destroy them completely
> and start over from scratch, avoiding any and every trace of the old
> Child Protection agency. I wonder if Gelles isn't coming to the same
> sort of conclusion? I bet Gelles would indeed be sickened with the
> way this "stakeholders panel" has been turned into a cheerleading
> section for the FINANCIAL interests of DHS and their beneficiaries.
>
> 4. The very term "Stakeholder" originated with the US DHHS. After a
> state Child Protection agency fails a federal audit they interview
> "stakeholders". It is the ONLY chance that a family harmed by DHS
> gets to address anybody from the US DHHS, so DHS likes to "control"
> who talks to DHHS for obvious reasons. The only thing more important
> to DHS than Public Relations spin and the false public perceptions
> about them is the FEDERAL MONEY.
>
> 5. Some of you might be aware of the bill that was signed into
> Federal Law by the President on June 25th, 2003. In addition to
> reading the "Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003" (S.342)
> law itself, I would strongly recommend reading the reports of both the
> House and Senate committees that created the bills. Pro-family
> activists will no longer be shrugged off as "disgruntled child
> abusers" after you read what BOTH HOUSES OF THE U.S. CONGRESS SAID
> ABOUT OVERZEALOUS CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES ABUSING FAMILIES.
> Caseworkers must now get additional training on the constitutional
> rights of US Citizens. This is of course a REDUNDANCY, since they
> should ALREADY have been aware of and guided by these principles. One
> of my families abusive DHS caseworkers had a Bachelors in Criminology,
> so I THINK she must have had some education on the US Constitution.
> Are they going to educate Juvenile Court Associate Judge Jane Spande
> who said that the 14th Amendment was "for another court"?
>
> Things I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND as the biggest, most tragic failings in
> the current Iowa system:
>
> 6. Federal CAPTA requires Citizens Review Boards over the Child
> Protection agency, yet there are none. Jerry Foxhoven of the Iowa
> Citizens Foster Care Review Board (on this panel!) can confirm that my
> family does not have access to CRB process!
>
> 7. Federal regulation, State law and DHS policy say that families are
> supposed to get "Family Active Participation in Formation of the
> Service Plan" but when we ASKED for this active participation in the
> formation of the DHS Services Plans (3), we were refused. (Juv Court
> also ignored that it is a hard prerequisite before Termination of
> Parental Rights.)
>
> 8. Contract Providers use a mini Service Plan called a Treatment Plan,
> and it is supposed to involve the family in "Collaboration" on it.
> (Lutheran Social Services unlicensed person and licensed SW supervisor
> committed FRAUD when they signed off on ours, asserting that we had
> the collaboration when we clearly had not.)
>
> 9. Juvenile Court is idealogically "owned" by DHS, rubber stamp court
> for DHS.
>
> 10. Most Caseworkers and Contract Social Workers are not licensed
> professional Social Workers. (Iowa does not license SW's at Bachelors
> or below, according to board of Social Work.)
>
> 11. The "Stipulation Scam" - Public Defenders push for "stipulation"
> (winning through surrender) (Plead guilty and we'll work it out
> quicker!) (Pushed by Judges associations!) (All of the efficiency
> of Roland Friesler! Or Franz Kafka's "The Trial".)
>
> 12. "Public Defenders" often do not. Commonly known as "public
> pretenders" for good reason. (Seems to be a conflict of interest
> problem for people paid by the state to fight the state.) (Some
> report that they "defend" the system and not the family.) (We had one
> violate lawyer-client priviledge without good reason or client
> consent.)
>
> 13. Caseworker immunity, even when they KNOWINGLY lie in court!
> (Immune from perjury.) (End this immunity and make the state consent
> to being sued for what the state does wrong.)
>
> 14. Contract Social Worker rolled hours for "family therapy" into
> visit supervision time and effectively "double billed" for the same
> hours.
>
> 15. Contract Social Worker acted as a complete STOOGE for the
> caseworkers bad intent, even doing things that would VIOLATE Social
> Worker ethics IF she had a license.
>
> 16. Contract Social Worker admitted on the witness stand that for
> "family therapy" he pretended to share our dismay about DHS as a
> deception, to gain our trust because we were supposedly paranoid.
> (Think about this one. Nobody diagnosed us as paranoid, and If we HAD
> been paranoid, wouldn't this duplicity be an extremely BAD idea??)
> Clearly the intent was to use every form of "therapy" as more witch
> hunt to dig for dirt.
>
> 17. None of the licenced or unlicensed Social Workers lobbied with DHS
> or Juvenile Court to get the caseworker fiction ""Sex Abuse History""
> corrected, even when I told them that this giant DHS LIE was a serious
> barrier for me. (Social Workers have professional obligations to
> DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected!) (Any human being has
> MORAL obligations to DEMAND that proven falsehoods be corrected.)
>
> 18. Caseworkers REMOVE CHILDREN based on personal bias, prejudice,
> style differences,etc. (For example they push anti-spanking political
> agenda, even though spanking is legal in all 50 states.) (Using
> Household Clutter for Child Removal makes us wonder how much is CLASS
> DISTINCTION.)
>
> 19. Caseworkers remove kids for "clutter" despite having NO STANDARDS.
> (I suspect the standards on paper would be a source of mockery.)
>
> 20. A. Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers pass large amounts of
> documentation into psychological evaluations to tell the psychologist
> the diagnosis they seek. (In my case, a caseworker fiction ""Sex
> Abuse History"" was passed to the Psychologist even months after it
> was proven to the caseworker that it was false, with old DHS
> documents!) (Yes, this was an attempt to RIG a Psychological
> Evaluation.) (So WHO's paranoid??)
>
> Unlicensed, amateurish caseworkers (and lots of ER staffers at some
> hospitals) still apply several MYTHS that are common in the Child
> Protection industry.
> B. The myths about SPIRAL FRACTURES indicating child abuse. Over 90%
> of pediatric broken bones are proven to be due to bone diseases, and
> the 10% in the abuse/unknown category would not logically be all child
> abuse. Yet there is a huge problem with caseworkers and ER staff
> operating on the old myths, oblivious to the 1997 debunking of the
> myth by a British MD. The most horrible part of the research stats is
> that 22 kids out of a sample of 128 were permanently adopted out who
> later proved to actually have bone diseases. Some portion of 11
> others might have been abused. Wrong was done twice as much as
> possibly right! ( .PDF Refs Avail.)
> C. In Social Work there is a MYTH that is printed in many textbooks
> because it is so firmly entrenched. The myth of "The Cycle of Abuse".
> The US General Accounting Office invalidated this myth in a September
> 1996 report. ( .PDF document Refs Avail.)
> D. Caseworkers and ER staff vastly over accuse people of Munchhausens
> By Proxy. Mothers having children with genuine and in many cases,
> well documented bonafide illnesses have been wrongly accused of this
> in vast numbers. Psychologists came close to eliminating it from the
> DSM-IV diagnosis manual because the vast majority of times they got
> referrals to look for it were BOGUS. It is almost as embarassing as
> the bogus "recovered memory" fiasco that blew up in their faces a few
> years ago. A corollary version of Munchhausens was actually proposed
> whereby caseworkers, social workers and attorneys HURT children with
> removal, push them to believe they were abused, so they can fulfill an
> emotional need to "save the child" from imagined abuse.
>
> 21. We had an unlicensed contract SW who thinks that large amounts of
> LOBBYING on behalf of DHS for complete submission by the family to all
> DHS abuses is BILLABLE "family therapy" and so we have heightened
> concerns about what propaganda was pushed on the child in "therapy".
>
> 22. Federal Privacy Act violation - refusal by DHS caseworkers to
> correct KNOWN FALSEHOODS that they wrote into DHS case file and on an
> affidavit in Juvenile Court case file.
>
> 23.What's up with prosecutor (Assistant County Attorney) refusal to
> CORRECT a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" she had filed in court? She
> refused when it was proven false. She refused when she was asked.
> Motions for correction spanning 2.5 years were ignored by both the
> Assistanc County Attorney and Juvenile Court. DHS has similarly
> refused to correct what they KNOW to be false information, all the way
> up the DHS chain of command to Governor Vilsack.
>
> 24. The phrase ""At Risk Of"" can be misused, abused and cover a
> multitude of sins! Harm done by removal itself should not be
> justified by thin "possible harm" or "at risk". Preventive removals
> should not be so thinly based that THEY are the only REAL abuse!
> Preventive removals do not meet Constitutional requirements connected
> with big Liberty Interest. Preventive removals carry too great of a
> likelihood of agency abuse of families over trivia. Preventive
> removals are the ones where the big civil rights law suits HAVE and
> WILL be won, because they violate the Constitutional rights of
> families. (See Wallis v. Escondido, and Dupuy decision by Judge
> Pallmeyer in Illinois. There are so many I lost count.)
>
> 25. One of our caseworkers fathered a child in Adultery and another is
> about to marry her fiance' who seriously beat her up, arms, legs,
> torso, head but she ran to a judge to lift the no-contact order! The
> caseworkers fiance has a BAD rap sheet and she's the one with a BA in
> Criminology! THESE people sat in moral judgement of MY family? They
> wrote up imagined domestic abuse BY ME, but never reported the assault
> UPON ME by an accuser grandparent who now provides kinship care.
>
> 26. The DHS chain of command has failed to discipline Kevin Ray
> Swartzendruber for the fictional ""Sexual Abuse History"" he asserted
> in an affidavit to Juvenile Court. I am forced to conclude after this
> amount of time that Kevin W. Concannon and his predecessor Jessie
> Rasmussen actually CONDONE such LIES from caseworkers. (Governor
> Vilsack & LaVerne Armstrong have failed as supervisors to correct this
> LIE also.) Who IS watching the watchers?? Do these people pretend
> that THE CHILDS BEST INTEREST is served by telling such rotten LIES as
> a fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" in attempts to break up a family??
>
> 27. Juvenile Court Judge Susan Flaherty at one point RECUSED (removed)
> herself from the case for bias. (We had known she was biased all
> along!) But she actually thought she was going to ""un-recuse""
> herself and sit on the case some more. There is no such thing as
> un-recusal. It's legally an impossibility like un-breaking an egg,
> yet it took place. She signed scheduling orders, and ALMOST sat on
> the TPR hearing, making everybody appear before her at the bench and
> apparently realizing only then that she might get in trouble for it.
>
> 28. Contractors make decisions based on future contract money, at the
> expense of the integrity of families. They can write text on a page
> saying everything is fine and no more work is needed, but the
> supervisor (who was licensed) says to X the Yes box to continue the
> work. (and their own contract!)
>
> Jim Ernst (on this panel) recently said in a TV interview: ..."We
> spend a lot of our time having to document things that don't
> necessarily relate to families, don't necessarily relate to the needs
> of the kids but relate to what the funding stream requires." He
> pulled for more flexibility and pulled for outcomes vs. process.
>
> This seems odd for me since Jim never lifted a finger when we asked
> him to demand that DHS correct the fictional ""Sex Abuse History""
> which is harmful to the family and the child.
>
> Two of Jim Ernst's employees, one an unlicensed Social Worker, the
> other a Masters of Social Work have similarly refused to demand that
> the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" be corrected.
>
> Hey Jim! Where's the flexibility or outcomes vs. process you were
> advocating? Seems you help the process drag on. Why not? You get
> money when it drags on.
>
> 29. Dr. Opdebeek of the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar
> Rapids Iowa, when asked on the witness stand, seems to think that sex
> abuse exams should be done on kids even when there is ABSOLUTELY NO
> REASON to suspect that sex abuse has taken place. Thinking like that
> has lead to cases where 30 girls were lined up for gynos in public
> schools on the whim of an unqualified Child Protection caseworker (PA
> and TX) and some serious law suits.
>
> 30. DHS and their court seem to forget that Child Removal itself
> causes very real HARM to the child, yet court hands out removal orders
> for trivia like clutter or "at risk" delusions. Things that MIGHT be
> abuse, prompt removal which does DEFINATE and KNOWN harm to the child.
> This is where "Preventive Removals" become evil, abuses themselves.
>
> 31. When will caseworkers be subject to thorough psychological
> evaluations, to look for evidence of a corrolary version of
> Munchhausens, (caseworkers hurting kids to save them), rescue
> fantasies", overly righteous attitudes, paranoia and phobia? When you
> give amateurs such god like power over families, it makes sense to
> scrutinize their psychology and mental health. Teachers can now lose
> their jobs over off the job problems. Shouldn't caseworkers also?
>
> 32. Will they also have to pass some kind of IQ test? ( Caseworker
> complained to court about mother having child spell exoskeleton
> saying it was too hard. Child had been given the word a year earlier
> by her TEACHER, as child is an advanced reader at a level 4 years
> ahead of her school grade. Duh?)
>
> 33. Also at the Saint Lukes Child Protection Center in Cedar Rapids,
> even after the needless gyno proves that there was no sexual abuse, an
> unlicensed uncertified evidenciary interviewer asks questions for the
> 25th time on video tape. An older caseworker from DHS tells the
> interviewer what to ask, from behind the glass. Studies show that
> after asking kids questions about a known fiction only 6 times it is
> reported by the child as ""truth"". Goebbels "A lie told often enough
> becomes the truth." is especially true with kids and evidenciary
> interviews of kids. Suggestive questions are not the only problem.
> Kids even figure out what you are "dancing around" with questions.
> (Childs head pushed under shower spray was written up as "pushed head
> under water") The same older caseworker later interviewed me at a
> Police Station and she LIED about what was revealed, pretending that
> some fondling had been revealed, like a trick on a bad Cop Show. I
> asked the nervous caseworker if she ever had kids. She said that was
> irrelevant. I said "I thought not."
>
> 34. DHS and their Juvenile Court have refused to investigate the
> accuser/caretaker grandmother for Vascular Dementia Alzheimers despite
> four big indicators. Prozac for 10 years, Cardiovascular trouble,
> Diabetes and a Family History of Vascular Dementia Alzheimers .
>
> 35. DHS has also refused to get grandmother accuser caretaker into any
> psychological or psychiatric evaluation even though she's been
> UNreliably taking Prozac for over 10 years through her General
> Practitioner, but never saw a psychiatrist. (We would ask that they
> investigate for obsession with the child also!) Kevin Swartzendruber
> spent HOURS talking to the grandma about rules and limitations in the
> situation as caretakers, came away saying "I don't think she gets it."
> but never WROTE THIS ON ANY REPORT. DHS has expended much effort to
> AVOID investigating VERY REAL mental illness and reveal well known
> feebleness of the grandmother, while digging so HARD to find some dirt
> on us that they have turned all services into out and out witch
> hunters. The legal term for it is FISHING EXPEDITION. Even a Judge
> who seems to be a complete suckup to DHS complained about this FISHING
> EXPEDITION aspect, because caseworkers kept putting the 9 year old
> girl on the spot by asking her where she wants to go. Even though
> this is not legally even an issue in Iowa until the child is 14, DHS
> kept putting her on the spot this way and then reporting that she was
> conflicted or torn, and DHS blames the falsely accused family for not
> surrendering a child. Would you give up YOUR child? Based on DHS
> LIES??
>
> 36. Prozac through a General Practitioner as a short term fix might be
> fine for a few months, but for the General Practitioner to keep the
> grandma on Prozac for over TEN YEARS and never send her to a
> psychologist/psychiatrist does not seem right. Plus taking it
> UNRELIABLY can cause homicidal behavior. We are certain that she
> doesn't tell the doctor that she sneaks cigarettes and liquor also.
>
> 37. Judge only needed ONE, but could not do a TPR under any of four
> legal codes, but decided to do what my family calls a TPR without a
> TPR, a ten year plan serving the senile grandparents selfish desire to
> have the child. The disservice to the child is obvious, and the Judge
> should have noticed that the grandparents did not even attend for fear
> the Judge would see how decrepit they really are. (Judge never
> mentioned PREREQUISITE Family Active Participation in Formation of the
> Services Plan.)
>
> 38. Federal US DHHS requirements of Iowa DHS (for the big funding)
> say that my family should have access to a hearing process to 45 CFR
> 205.10 standards regarding problems with SERVICES. US DHHS said in
> 1983! in a clarification (PIQ) directive to Kevin W. Concannon and his
> counterparts in each state "THERE MUST BE A SYSTEM THROUGH WHICH
> RECIPIENTS MAY PRESENT GRIEVANCES ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE SERVICE
> PROGRAM". Informed of this, Kevin W. Concannon played stupid and
> asserted that we can ONLY access this process if we were denied
> services. This is absolutely NOT the case.
> http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=178#686
> Why would Concannon WANT to block the required grievance process on
> services problems? Concannons denial of this process to us will only
> end badly, perhaps in several ways. The conflict of interest for DHS
> to simply "wave away" or deny grievances like this seems to display
> some sort of Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake." attitude, naive and
> stupid. I'm sure Ken Lay of Enron fame wishes he could just "wave
> away" the problems. Aside from the GRIEVANCE process on services
> problems being spelled out in PIQ directives, it would be utterly
> nonsensical to allow no complaints about too many services, bad
> services or RIGGED services. Even more frustrating is that extreme
> RIGGING of services DO represent DENIAL OF SERVICES, and several
> services we requested in writing were denied or ignored.
>
> 39. The REAL reason the "Stakeholder Panel" exists is not because of
> some thoughtful move by the Governor. It is because Iowa FAILED a
> Federal audit by US DHHS. Oh! Didn't they TELL YOU? If Iowa DHS
> Child Protection does NOT clean up it's act, they will lose a large
> sum of Federal Money. But the newspapers write it up as a bold
> command from our decisive governor eh? (Rediculous) Forget the media
> "spin", It's about many MILLIONS of dollars that may be withheld from
> next years Federal Grant to DHS if they do not bring the agency into
> compliance.
>
> 40. Some of the things I've described have been required of DHS for a
> long time and are still not fulfilled. Some things are subversions of
> the way things are supposed to work, according to DHHS literature, and
> some of the other things are just plain wrong and should be repaired
> regardless of Federal Requirements because anybody with a concience
> can see they are BAD situations. My struggle for two years to get
> the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"" corrected has proven to me how
> BROKEN many of the safeguards in our system really are. (I've
> learned how many people act ""powerless"" to excuse their inaction.)
>
> 41. I do not (yet) know what the new Federal KCAFSA2003 law would
> require that wasn't already required, but I sure hope Iowa will not
> drag our feet on these requirements the way that this state has on
> Citizens Review Boards over Child Protection, and the 45 CFR 205.10
> process for GRIEVANCES on services problems. I suspect that if those
> two already required processes were made functional, that we would
> have fewer problems with Juvenile Court Judges being complete stooges
> when ignorant caseworkers LIE or otherwise deliberately violate
> families.
>
> 42. If DHS can waste the estimated $200K they have on my family over
> two years, removing 1 child for household clutter, vilifying me with
> LIES, tearing up my family using a raving obsessive Prozac grandma,
> rigging services for negative outcome, refusing to get the grandma in
> for her first psychiatrist visit ever, etc.... It becomes obvious
> that they are not as able to stop the next Shelby Duis because they
> are wasting all of these resources. Our real crime by the way was
> thumbing our nose at DHS and realizing that the caseworkers are
> idiots. One caseworker even REPORTED our negative attitude toward DHS
> to the Judge as if that was a crime. (Proving yet again what idiots
> they really can be!) Heck, if having a negative attitude toward DHS
> were a crime they'd even have to lock up a percentage of DHS staff!
>
> 43. The next Shelby Duis or Logan Marr or Rilya may be overlooked
> because caseworkers were too busy proving to parents who dislike DHS
> just how powerful they can be. Ego and Meglalomania are more
> important to caseworkers than TRULY protecting kids. That explains
> the coverup of the grandma's psychiatric state in our case. When a
> kid reports that a Foster caregiver is hurting them, it must NOT be
> covered up because of the political view that the foster caregivers
> are FRIENDS or ALLIES of DHS Child Protection. Foster caregivers as
> supposed experts should not have more lax standards than those
> required of real parents, despite their DHS political "loyalty
> factor". Kevin Concannon found out about this in Maine. The woman
> who killed Logan Marr was shielded by her "buddy factor" as a former
> caseworker. On an observed visit, after Logan complained out loud
> about the Foster provider hurting her, the Maine DHS observer stopped
> the mother from asking Logan more questions about the ABUSE IN STATE
> CARE. This interaction is on a Maine DHS Video Tape.
>
> 44. Could somebody please explain to me why Kevin Concannon did not
> even apologize to the mother of Logan Marr? It was under his
> supervision in Maine that Logan Marr died, at the hands of a former
> Child Protection caseworker (who preached never spanking kids!).
> Logan had been removed using LOUSY excuses. She ended up dead in the
> basement of the former caseworkers house,
> suffocated with duct tape.
>
> 45. Governor Vilsack lauded hiring Concannon because of his expertise
> at bringing in Federal Dollars, but I have seen reports that Maine had
> to PAY BACK huge amounts improperly collected, not to mention the law
> suit liability that Concannon represents after his malfeasance on the
> Logan Marr case. Concannon made comments in the press about "doing
> better", but his letter to my family denying us the REQUIRED grievance
> process does not impress me that he is doing any better. He seems to
> be unwilling to make sure that caseworkers under him do not VIOLATE
> families with lies and other abuses.
>
> 46. I am forced to ask Vilsack (who has also stonewalled us) why
> bringing in Federal Dollars was his stated priority in hiring Kevin
> Concannon. (See Vilsack press releases about hiring Concannon.) I
> submit that Vilsack is ignorant of the true nature of the ""financial
> wizardry"" Concannon used in Maine, and the facts regarding
> Concannon's "failure to supervise" resulting in death of a child.
>
> 47. When caseworkers, contractors, fosters and anybody profiting in
> this "industry" falsify information, ignore proof that an assertion is
> false, LIE on paper or on the witness stand, or refuse to correct
> known false information, they should NOT be immune. DHS, rather than
> defending them in this circumstance, should be the first to PROSECUTE
> THEM. After all, this would be "In the best interests of the child",
> wouldn't it? But we've seen the opposite, DHS knowing that there is
> terrible and false information in both the DHS case file and the Juv
> Court case file and refusing to correct it. This makes it no
> accident, and culpable. Perhaps it is an adult version of the no
> spanking theories?? No disciplinary action?? None? Looks like a
> complete lack of discipline, ethical responsibility, supervision and
> accountability. This is part of a recipe for disaster.
>
> 48. Politically, Child Protection agencies are strange in that their
> FAILURES often work to their financial advantage. Shelby Duis died 3
> years ago and the Ombudsman's office wrote a report with
> recommendations to centralize reporting and make some other
> improvements. DHS chose to ignore these suggestions, but Shelby Duis
> keeps getting "preyed upon" by DHS to lobby for more money. The
> solution to every problem seems to be to throw more money at it,
> rather than take corrective action. I read the Ombudsmans report on
> the Duis case, and DHS failed miserably. Nothing implied "more
> money".
>
> 49. In DHS defense, and I hate having to do this, I'd like to point
> out that even if DHS were lean, highly expert, and endlessly funded,
> it would NEVER be omnicient. Even if it were the most perfect agency,
> it is not godlike and all powerful enough to prevent absolutely all
> cases of child abuse and child mortality. In fact, as my family can
> attest, DHS is so badly tuned at what it does NOW, that the last thing
> Iowans or Americans would want is more of the same kind of ham handed
> amateurish power-wielding that takes place now. Even if Iowa got rid
> of all of the welfare to work caseworkers who are playing God, and put
> MSW's into every single caseworker position, there would still be
> problems with ego, megalomania and run amok God complexes among them.
> My biggest objection there is people who IMAGINE problems based on
> some voodoo, whether it fits perfectly in a Social Work textbook or
> not. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." -Freud (Would you
> qualify as a caffeine addict under psychologists DSM-IV?) While I
> respect "expertise" I would be very quick to point out that it can be
> abused and misused. Doctors make LOTS of mistakes. My Dad, as a
> Mortician, buried quite a few doctors mistakes. I own a sterilized
> hemostat removed from one.
>
> 50. If DHS Child Protection stopped "makework" cases, they would be
> like the Maytag Repair Man (Jesse White version) waiting for the phone
> to ring. The AFCARS statistics, cooked as they are by DHS itself,
> still reveal some interesting oddities like the % of cases where kids
> that are removed from their families when NO REASON at all is known.
> Even the cases marked as real Child Abuse Neglect must be broken down
> from the CAN "lump" to reveal how NEGLECT pads the ABUSE numbers for
> the CAN figure. Iowa is noteable for withholding these stats from
> the Federal Government a couple of years back, after reporting that
> over HALF of all child abuse tips came from CASEWORKERS THEMSELVES one
> year. (Images of caseworkers riding around in cars looking for kids?
> Hey, Iowa's stats CREATED that image!)
>
> 51. This is not a complete and total depiction of my families case. I
> hope that communication to this board might be an avenue of redress to
> fix some other avenues of redress that are broken or do not exist as
> required. I am confident that if the two TEN YEAR OVERDUE FEDERALLY
> REQUIRED PROCESSES, A.) Citizens Review Board, and B.) 45 CFR
> 205.10 Grievance Process on Services problems - would rectify most of
> my families problems caused by DHS Agency abuse of my family. Why
> would this Panel to Repair a broken DHS and Juvenile Court, not START
> with things that are Federally required, as of TEN YEARS AGO yet still
> not in place or broken so as to be out of Federal Compliance?? That's
> pretty BASIC.
>
> 52. If I would be welcome, I would be glad to be an active part of the
> Stakeholder Panel. If I can carpool with another panel member from
> Cedar Rapids, that would help. I will be glad to contact CPSWATCH,
> VOCAL and HSLDA to ask for some other representatives of parents
> abused by Child Protection as well. How does one get on this Iowa DHS
> Stakeholders Panel?
>
> 53. Could I please have a copy of the "report on the Listening Phase"?
> The May 28th DHS Press Release Quoted Concannon saying "we're doing
> as much as possible in the open for all to see". I would ask that
> this letter be added to the "report on the Listening Phase". Is this
> something that PSG is doing? Does anybody have an e-mail or web site
> for PSG?
>
> 54. I ask that another DHS Town Hall meeting be scheduled and
> publicized in downtown Cedar Rapids Iowa due to the apparent mistake
> on the publicized schedule. I would gladly publicize the scheduled
> date as soon as it is arranged.
>
> 55. One of the "Defining Project Success" parameters is "Balance
> flexibility with accountability". I question the premise. Why
> should accountability EVER be sacrificed for the sake of flexibility?
> DHS Director Concannon's hope to have flexibility must NEVER be at the
> expense of accountability. As it is, Concannon has given Kevin Ray
> Swartzendruber the ""flexibility"" to fabricate complete and utter
> LIES about a ""Sex Abuse History"" and I have seen NO EVIDENCE of any
> sort of accountability! (Supervisory or otherwise!) Could somebody
> please explain to me how flexibility got connected in ANY way to
> accountability? I do not see the logic in flexibility prevented by
> accountability or accountability prevented by flexibility. Was this
> some whiney attempt to weasel out of fulfilling the TEN YEAR OVERDUE
> requirements that DHS has not yet implemented?
>
> Or was this "flexibility" about the stupid way that caseworkers expect
> that caring for kids can be a 9 to 5 job and they'll never be called
> at home?? (We ran into that when the caretakers went AWOL with the
> child and a Police officer called caseworker at home. Holding the
> "upper hand", caseworker whined about getting called at home, while
> ignoring the AWOL child circumstance completely!) When caseworkers
> step into a childs life and a families life in this intrusive way, and
> a kid goes missing, they'd better not whine and demand 9-5 contact
> only. Another caseworker seemed to think that she had a right to tell
> a client not to e-mail her at her government @DHS.state.ia.us e-mail
> address as if it was her personal property, which of course it isn't.
> How "flexible" is that?
>
> 56. Is the Federal Audit that Iowa DHS failed, publicly available?
>
> 57. On the Panel Charter circa May 27, 2003: "Boundaries: What is the
> authority of the Stakeholder Panel? - Is not a decision making group
> for the project." conflicts with "Defining Project Success"
> ..."redesigned system will be fully implemented by 7/1/04" and..(On
> Charter again) "DHS will support the work of the panel, it's
> functioning, and the fulfillment of its responsibilities."
>
> If this Panel turns out really good recommendations for serious
> IMPROVEMENT, DHS can ignore it. DHS ignored recommendations made by
> the Ombudsman's report on the Shelby Duis death case. Ombudsman's
> report strongly urged Centralized telephone tracking of abuse report
> calls which might have enhanced accountability and responsiveness. I
> suspect DHS was dissappointed that the "repair" suggested would not
> have justified MILLIONS of dollars more for the agency. Don't let DHS
> fool you though, any good results of this Stakeholders Panel will very
> likely be watched by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the
> US DHHS, and could easily effect MANY MILLIONS IN FUNDING for IOWA
> DHS. Since Child Protection Agencies nationwide have failed
> miserably, results will be watched closely by PSG, because if the
> results can fix this mess, there are 49 other states urgently looking
> for solutions to fixing their failed Child Protection systems. Just
> like Iowa, they face the loss of MANY MILLIONS of Federal Money if
> they don't fix their broken Child Protection systems. That includes
> as a HIGH priority, respecting the Constitutional Rights of families,
> something my family spoke out about from the beginning, but up until
> recently, caseworkers just laughed at our Constitutional claims and
> Juvenile Court panned them too. Parts of the new June 25, 2003
> Federal Law, and the Congressional Committee Reports behind it support
> us however.
>
> 58. The 15/22 month rule to go for TPR is an abuse, considering that
> the delays are often due to court or DHS intractibility about
> correcting service problems (See 6,7,8,9 11,12, 17 and more above)
> both in and out of court. It seems to be a Sword and shield approach,
> refusal to fix anything that is BOTCHED BADLY, while demanding and
> threatening the parent with TPR. DHS actually uses the 15/22 month
> rule as a SOLE BASIS for TPR in some cases, and often Courts do it.
> But in several other states it has been STRUCK DOWN as stupid
> considering how slothful courts and bureaucracy are. It is only a
> matter of time before this evil and stupid practice is struck down in
> Iowa as well. ( "In the Childs Best Interest"? Indeed! ) A Father
> in Ottumwa is facing a TPR in the coming month based on this travesty.
>
> Summary of my biggest requests from you:
>
> A. Where is the Federally Required Citizens Review Board to oversee
> Child
> Protective Investigations and removal? 51, 6, 41
> (Why is this existing ten year old requirement still unfulfilled?)
>
> B. Why is Kevin Concannon denying Grievance Process on services,
> violating US
> DHHS PIQ directives? 38, 41, 51 (Concannon directly contradicted
> what a
> US DHHS PIQ directive dictates, failure can cost millions in Federal
> dollars)
>
> C. Will you make the "Report on the Listening Phase" sheduled for June
> 26th,
> public? 53 (The chart I saw did NOT reflect the input from people
> who went
> to those Town Halls. Not at all.)
>
> D. What legal expert will break down all of the new requirements in
> the KCFSA
> Federal Law? 5 (The Panel needs to implement the protections
> spelled out
> in the new law! Respecting the Constitutional Rights of Families
> and
> curbing Child Protection Abuse of families is "In the Best Interests
> of the
> Child"! But you KNEW that, right?)
>
> E. How do I and other pro-family anti-CPS AGENCY ABUSE people get
> appointed
> to the Stakeholders Panel? 52, 2,3,4
> (Why are parents under DHS seige not seen as crucial stakeholders?)
>
> F. Will you please schedule a Town Hall meeting for Cedar Rapids?
> 54
> It was mentioned in one document, but not in the Press Release and
> not on the
> Matrix displayed on the DHS web site.
>
> (Name, address, zip, e-mail address)

Yah know, Greegor the Whore, I was going to save the eyes of the
reader and snip all this, but just couldn't destroy your masterpiece.

It is a fitting bookend to the other missive that Dan thoughfully
reposted for you and your admirerers.

But I notice that it really doesn't address the strange content of the
first document.

Truly a monumental smoke induced ramble, one might imagine.

Did you have fun?

Is your head feeling better now that you've taken out the garbage bags
of propaganda you had stored there?

We certainly hope so.

R R R R R

bingo bango bongo. .

Stoneman

Greg Hanson
September 12th 03, 08:42 PM
LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed?

GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps. See archive.

GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?

LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul

GH: Of course not. How convenient for you.

GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the

LC: would be a huge determinant in post content.

LC: I have no idea what you are talking about.
LC: Obviously

LC: I know nothing about your family's case.
LC: I am not commenting on individual cases.

GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne?
GH: What AGENCY do you work for?

GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought.

LC: I do have a life and a full time job.

GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth.
GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families.
GH: Is being fully competent optional?

LC: the burden of proof is on you.

GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers,
GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct
GH: proven falsehood?
GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS..

GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding
GH: incompetent social workers?
GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it?
GH: How many do you need to see?

LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove,

GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"!
GH: Do you know why that is relevant here?

GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids
GH: removed, no proven effectiveness.

GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute
GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring
GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation
GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their
GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that
GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically?

GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative.

GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise.

LC: because you cannot possibly know the record
LC: of every individual involved with CPS.

GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't.
GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't.
GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what?
GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again.

GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
GH: certainly worthy of question.

GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior,
GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized.

GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here?

GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING
GH: but personal attack, and you come along feigning
GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your
GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum??
GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker!
GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage
GH: them in your academic abstracts?

LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services.
LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours
LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people?

GH: You answered your own question.

LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake.

GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed!

GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons.
GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from
GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who
GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in
GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones.

GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH.

GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and
GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family,
GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT!
GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!)

LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her
LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack.

Did you witness this?
Was it a foster parent?
Were there burns?
Who told you this?
Was it boiling water, hot or tepid?

Do you know what epistomology is?
CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the
use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance)

A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions
that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer
in Escondido California was involved in removing kids
from this family. Read the JUDGES words.
Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer.

Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child
Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the
Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result.
Just whining from the CPS agency.

Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account
for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT

GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with
GH: CPS, which is a total lie.

GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended.

LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS

GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection.
GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck.

LC: and this is really irrelevant.

GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive?
GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest
GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position?
GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks?
GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts?

GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because
GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that.
GH: I don't know why you lost your children.

GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware
GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped.
GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to
GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc..

GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional
GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means.
GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly.
GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is
GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc.

GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup.
You should know that while you and yours might not approve
of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable
grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like
the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal
that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal
is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is.

GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody
says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.

GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child
removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run.

GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse
have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that
women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.)

GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't
be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless)
pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER
labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda.

LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and
LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made.

GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda.
GH: You should not prop them up when they do that.
GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more.
GH: Until you get some laws passed.
GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises
GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about
GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for.
GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an
GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal.

LC: need for laws in this country to change.

GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction.
GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"".
GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having
GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune
GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall!
GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so.

GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies.

GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on
KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child
with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where
Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's.
Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption
over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents
of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good.

GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the
abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly.

GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution.
Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk?
And removal itself is an abuse.
But they don't factor that in and they should.

GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some
of why that is when you described some horror stories.
But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS.

GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim
does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or
sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one
in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no
less harm.

GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what
crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and
told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of
thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue.
Just the opposite.

GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say.

GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really? :)

GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about
terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS
operating with DHHS moneys.

GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed
they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders".
GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours.

GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do?
Quit pretending it is not relevant.

Dan Sullivan
September 12th 03, 09:35 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed?
>
> GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps.

Only to the people he thought deserved it.

> See archive.

Who cares?

> GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?
>
> LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul
>
> GH: Of course not. How convenient for you.
>
> GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
>
> LC: would be a huge determinant in post content.
>
> LC: I have no idea what you are talking about.
> LC: Obviously
>
> LC: I know nothing about your family's case.
> LC: I am not commenting on individual cases.
>
> GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne?
> GH: What AGENCY do you work for?
>
> GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought.
>
> LC: I do have a life and a full time job.

Oh ****!!!

I read that fast and thought Greg posted it...

Silly me!

> GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth.
> GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families.
> GH: Is being fully competent optional?
>
> LC: the burden of proof is on you.
>
> GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers,
> GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct
> GH: proven falsehood?
> GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS..

If these SWs don't work for CPS you might as well ask the milkman.

> GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding
> GH: incompetent social workers?
> GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it?
> GH: How many do you need to see?
>
> LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove,
>
> GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"!
> GH: Do you know why that is relevant here?
>
> GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids
> GH: removed, no proven effectiveness.
>
> GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute
> GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring
> GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation
> GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their
> GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that
> GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically?
>
> GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative.
>
> GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise.
>
> LC: because you cannot possibly know the record
> LC: of every individual involved with CPS.
>
> GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't.
> GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't.
> GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what?
> GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again.
>
> GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
> GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
> GH: certainly worthy of question.
>
> GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior,
> GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized.
>
> GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here?
>
> GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING
> GH: but personal attack,

FYI Kane helped everyone on this NG who got their kids back, Greg.

> and you come along feigning
> GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your
> GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum??
> GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker!
> GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage
> GH: them in your academic abstracts?
>
> LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services.
> LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours
> LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people?
>
> GH: You answered your own question.
>
> LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake.
>
> GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed!
>
> GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons.
> GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from
> GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who
> GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in
> GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones.
>
> GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH.
>
> GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and
> GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family,
> GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT!
> GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!)
>
> LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her
> LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack.
>
> Did you witness this?
> Was it a foster parent?
> Were there burns?
> Who told you this?
> Was it boiling water, hot or tepid?
>
> Do you know what epistomology is?
> CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the
> use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance)
>
> A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions
> that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer
> in Escondido California was involved in removing kids
> from this family. Read the JUDGES words.
> Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer.
>
> Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child
> Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the
> Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result.
> Just whining from the CPS agency.
>
> Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account
> for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT
>
> GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with
> GH: CPS, which is a total lie.
>
> GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended.
>
> LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS
>
> GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection.
> GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck.
>
> LC: and this is really irrelevant.
>
> GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive?
> GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest
> GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position?
> GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks?
> GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts?
>
> GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because
> GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that.
> GH: I don't know why you lost your children.
>
> GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware
> GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped.
> GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to
> GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc..
>
> GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional
> GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means.
> GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly.
> GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is
> GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc.
>
> GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup.
> You should know that while you and yours might not approve
> of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable
> grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like
> the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal
> that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal
> is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is.
>
> GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody
> says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
>
> GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child
> removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run.
>
> GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse
> have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that
> women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.)
>
> GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't
> be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless)
> pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER
> labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda.
>
> LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and
> LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made.
>
> GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda.
> GH: You should not prop them up when they do that.
> GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more.
> GH: Until you get some laws passed.
> GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises
> GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about
> GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for.
> GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an
> GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal.
>
> LC: need for laws in this country to change.
>
> GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction.
> GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"".
> GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having
> GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune
> GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall!
> GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so.
>
> GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies.
>
> GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on
> KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child
> with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where
> Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's.
> Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption
> over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents
> of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good.
>
> GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the
> abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly.
>
> GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution.
> Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk?
> And removal itself is an abuse.
> But they don't factor that in and they should.
>
> GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some
> of why that is when you described some horror stories.
> But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS.
>
> GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim
> does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or
> sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one
> in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no
> less harm.
>
> GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what
> crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and
> told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of
> thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue.
> Just the opposite.
>
> GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say.
>
> GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really? :)
>
> GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about
> terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS
> operating with DHHS moneys.
>
> GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed
> they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders".
> GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours.
>
> GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do?
> Quit pretending it is not relevant.

Greg Hanson
September 15th 03, 11:11 PM
LaVonne?
Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor?
Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection
to CPS?

Are you an heir to a large family estate?

LaVonne Carlson
September 18th 03, 04:15 AM
Lost your child, huh?

Greg Hanson wrote:

> LC: Where has Kane sworn and whitewashed?
>
> GH: He swore a blue streek for over a year in ascps. See archive.
>
> GH: But you would like Kane's foul questions answered?
>
> LC: Yes, I would like Kane's questions answered. I saw nothing foul
>
> GH: Of course not. How convenient for you.
>
> GH: Kane and Dan can't even get a simple fact like the
>
> LC: would be a huge determinant in post content.
>
> LC: I have no idea what you are talking about.
> LC: Obviously
>
> LC: I know nothing about your family's case.
> LC: I am not commenting on individual cases.
>
> GH: Where are you employed, LaVonne?
> GH: What AGENCY do you work for?
>
> GH: To children and families it's NOT academic or abstract thought.
>
> LC: I do have a life and a full time job.
>
> GH: I see. You are just too busy to investigate the truth.
> GH: Good for you, bad for the kids and families.
> GH: Is being fully competent optional?
>
> LC: the burden of proof is on you.
>
> GH: So, you think it's unusual that of seven Social Workers,
> GH: in our faces, not one sees fit to ask CPS to correct
> GH: proven falsehood?
> GH: Not to mention the chain of command at DHS..
>
> GH: What stats do you choose to accept regarding
> GH: incompetent social workers?
> GH: Does a Board of Social Work license removal do it?
> GH: How many do you need to see?
>
> LC: And it is a claim you cannot prove,
>
> GH: Sure, if you let me use the "preponderance standard"!
> GH: Do you know why that is relevant here?
>
> GH: 41 Billion $ industry, thousands of kids
> GH: removed, no proven effectiveness.
>
> GH: But I have to prove that social work contractors are prostitute
> GH: to CPS money and will not demand that they correct glaring
> GH: errors used to harm a family? That their ethical obligation
> GH: to truth, the kids and families is less important than their
> GH: "life and a full time job" ? Do I have to prove that
> GH: bureaucrats act bureaucratically?
>
> GH: Next you'll be telling me they vote conservative.
>
> GH: And demanding that I prove otherwise.
>
> LC: because you cannot possibly know the record
> LC: of every individual involved with CPS.
>
> GH: Why should I? The people at CPS calling the shots don't.
> GH: The Juvenile Court Judges don't.
> GH: Heck, attorneys can't even know all laws! So what?
> GH: Perhaps you're being a bit too academic again.
>
> GH: Your temporary ""civilized"" behavior in a forum
> GH: that Kane labeled "A Plant's Motivation" is
> GH: certainly worthy of question.
>
> GH: However, I would like examples of my uncivilized behavior,
> GH: since you view my response to Kane as only temporary civilized.
>
> GH: Do you think the old good cop bad cop tactic is apropo here?
>
> GH: Kane swears for over a year, does almost NOTHING
> GH: but personal attack, and you come along feigning
> GH: ignorance about the "environment" you act as if your
> GH: pretense of reasonableness has emerged out of a vacuum??
> GH: You are indeed a blessed peacemaker!
> GH: Do you walk into the middle of bar fights and engage
> GH: them in your academic abstracts?
>
> LC: I don't post to alt.support.child-protective-services.
> LC: I'm posting to alt.parenting.spanking, and yours
> LC: is a cross-post. Who are the "in here" people?
>
> GH: You answered your own question.
>
> LC: Some of the bunch may be involved in a legitimate CPS mistake.
>
> GH: Well, they number enough that the US Congress is steamed!
>
> GH: Others may be objecting for other reasons.
> GH: I've met individuals who are defending themselves from
> GH: what they consider unwarranted attacks from CPS who
> GH: have disciplined their children in ways that resulted in
> GH: hospitalization over burns and broken bones.
>
> GH: I haven't seen one like that yet in person or in CPSWATCH.
>
> GH: But I could give you a long list where CPS badly did wrong and
> GH: removed children without proper cause. Logan Marr, Dupuy family,
> GH: Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer, and many of them LOST IN COURT!
> GH: (So much for the court doing the right thing!)
>
> LC: The parent I knew who disciplined her child by forcing her
> LC: hands in boiling water for touching the stove was under attack.
>
> Did you witness this?
> Was it a foster parent?
> Were there burns?
> Who told you this?
> Was it boiling water, hot or tepid?
>
> Do you know what epistomology is?
> CPS and child removals have a lot of trouble with the
> use of gossip IN COURT. (abuse of preponderance)
>
> A patient in a locked psych ward called in assertions
> that a child was to be ritually sacrificed. Caseworker Spencer
> in Escondido California was involved in removing kids
> from this family. Read the JUDGES words.
> Look up Wallis v. Escondido/Spencer.
>
> Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer ruled that Illinois' Child
> Protection System was wholly unconstitutional, in the
> Dupuy case and demanded things be fixed. No result.
> Just whining from the CPS agency.
>
> Statistically, burns and blood and major bruises account
> for a very SMALL percent of child removals. -US GOVT
>
> GH: Fern has repeatedly asserted that I am connected with
> GH: CPS, which is a total lie.
>
> GH: If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, don't be offended.
>
> LC: I have no idea if Kane is connected to CPS
>
> GH: It took him almost a year to explain his connection.
> GH: It was obvious. He walked like a duck, and talked like a duck.
>
> LC: and this is really irrelevant.
>
> GH: No, it is NOT irrelevant! Are you really that naive?
> GH: If a politician gets MILLIONS from some special interest
> GH: you think that has NOTHING to do with their political position?
> GH: And CPS people who lobby for their own paychecks?
> GH: And contractors who lobby for their own contracts?
>
> GH: You and your fiancé are obviously very angry because
> GH: CPS became involved in your lives. I understand that.
> GH: I don't know why you lost your children.
>
> GH: If we were mentally diminished we might not be aware
> GH: that our constitutional rights have been raped.
> GH: Caseworkers telling terrible huge LIES, refusing to
> GH: correct the falsehood when proven so, etc..
>
> GH: You should know that CPS is violating the US Constitutional
> GH: protections. The imagined ends do NOT justify the means.
> GH: Ethics and laws are flounted by CPS constantly.
> GH: The crusade is crushing people, based on stuff that is
> GH: NOT boiled flesh, burning as discipline, etc.
>
> GH: You have frequented the anti-spanking newsgroup.
> You should know that while you and yours might not approve
> of spanking, it is LEGAL, and therefore NOT an acceptable
> grounds for child removal. Even though you don't like
> the spanking, you should be OBJECTING to child removal
> that is not LEGAL. If for no other reason than that removal
> is proven to harm kids, not debateable as spanking is.
>
> GH: It's a bit like that old expression that I don't like what somebody
> says, but I will defend to my death their right to say it.
>
> GH: You should know also that this illegal underpinning for child
> removal might actually hurt your cause in the long run.
>
> GH: (Much like some women working to stop domestic abuse
> have realized that the extreme bias in presumption that
> women are never the perpetrators will hurt their cause.)
>
> GH: You might not like that some parents spank, but don't
> be too cheerful about anti-spank caseworkers (often childless)
> pushing their agenda illegally (sneaky) by sticking OTHER
> labels on parents to make cases because of this agenda.
>
> LC: I'm here to say that children need protection and
> LC: CPS is needed, in spite of errors CPS has made.
>
> GH: CPS has no LEGAL right to enforce your personal agenda.
> GH: You should not prop them up when they do that.
> GH: That you call spanking child abuse is an opinion, nothing more.
> GH: Until you get some laws passed.
> GH: Since CPS own stats show that for every case of bruises
> GH: blood, broken bones or sexual abuse, there are about
> GH: 80 kids removed for stuff they should not be removed for.
> GH: Difference of opinion regarding parenting is NOT an
> GH: ethical or acceptable reason for removal.
>
> LC: need for laws in this country to change.
>
> GH: I agree that laws need to change, but probably opposite direction.
> GH: Privacy must never be sacrificed to a ""good cause"".
> GH: And I see the ""good cause"" of child protection as having
> GH: been preyed upon by leeches and bloodsuckers to the tune
> GH: of 41 Billion dollars per year overall!
> GH: Gelles, Congress, many others and I think so.
>
> GH: CPS acencies have not just had a few little oopsies.
>
> GH: Even Dan and Kane found out that CPS often operated on
> KNOWN false information when they presumed that a child
> with spiral fractures was abused. Search back to where
> Dan posted the link to a British doctors report from the 80's.
> Yet kids have been removed on this automatic assumption
> over the last decade! And nobody is trying to clear parents
> of charges or return kids wrongly taken for good.
>
> GH: LaVonne, you really should study up some more about the
> abuses that CPS causes directly or indirectly.
>
> GH: Out of the frying pan and into the fire is no solution.
> Out of an IMAGINED risk, and into KNOWN risk?
> And removal itself is an abuse.
> But they don't factor that in and they should.
>
> GH: Caseworkers ARE paranoid. You displayed some
> of why that is when you described some horror stories.
> But that is not valid logic to REMOVE KIDS.
>
> GH: Causing harm to 80 kids by removing on a whim
> does not save the 1 who is being burned, scalded or
> sexually abused. In fact it seems to put that one
> in even more danger. And harming the 80 is no
> less harm.
>
> GH: Our biggest crime is we cooperated until we realized what
> crooks the caseworkers are, called them *******s and
> told them we will SUE them. They made the mistake of
> thinking that beating us down more would make us not sue.
> Just the opposite.
>
> GH: I hope you know that puts limits on what I can say.
>
> GH: You're "not commenting on individual cases" ?? Really? :)
>
> GH: That's what the US DHHS says when contacted about
> terrible abuses of families by state proxy agencies CPS
> operating with DHHS moneys.
>
> GH: People who lived in town near Dachau and Auschwitz claimed
> they didn't know. Guards said they were "just following orders".
> GH: US DHHS uses a quote like yours.
>
> GH: What is your field of study and what kind of work do you do?
> Quit pretending it is not relevant.

LaVonne Carlson
September 18th 03, 04:28 AM
Greg,

I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor. I
have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a
contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education and
Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many
years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's
Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early
Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for
many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach
graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are
enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program.

This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS.
She was a liar, Greg.

LaVonne

Greg Hanson wrote:

> LaVonne?
> Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor?
> Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection
> to CPS?
>
> Are you an heir to a large family estate?

dickinson
September 18th 03, 05:41 AM
<advice> Too much information LaVonne. Be careful............there's
some pretty weird vindictive folks out there.

kev

"LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
...
> Greg,
>
> I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor.
I
> have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a
> contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education
and
> Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many
> years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's
> Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early
> Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for
> many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach
> graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are
> enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program.
>
> This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS.
> She was a liar, Greg.
>
> LaVonne
>
> Greg Hanson wrote:
>
> > LaVonne?
> > Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor?
> > Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection
> > to CPS?
> >
> > Are you an heir to a large family estate?
>

Doan
September 18th 03, 06:34 AM
And I afraid to debate with Doan because I just can't!!! That is
why I am avoiding him for over 11 weeks now! ;-)

Doan

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> Greg,
>
> I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor. I
> have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a
> contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education and
> Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many
> years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's
> Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early
> Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for
> many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach
> graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are
> enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program.
>
> This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS.
> She was a liar, Greg.
>
> LaVonne
>
> Greg Hanson wrote:
>
> > LaVonne?
> > Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor?
> > Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection
> > to CPS?
> >
> > Are you an heir to a large family estate?
>
>

Greg Hanson
September 18th 03, 02:53 PM
So even though you work for the U of MN you say you
don't work for the state of Minnesota?

That's a good one LaVonne.

As a former student of a STATE UNIVERSITY in MN,
I think you're getting a little carried away with
the ""independence"" of the U of M.

The more you heap on those kinds of credentials
the more I think you're in La La land, ivory tower
academia disconnected from reality.
The zeal, the cause, the esprit d'corps, the latent hippies.
Ah Minneapolis radicalism... How IS Jim McGuire?

Ah, Minnesota, Land of 10,000 BUREAUCRATS sharing a brain.
Also known as Land of 10,000 taxes.
Only state besides DC to go for Mondale, and just barely.
The power of massive bureaucracy.
Like they'd vote for their own pay cuts?

Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
opposite of a SERVICE to society.

As for MY situation, which you brought up in Dan's style,
I should remind you that the SOCIAL WORK definition of family
is considerably BROADER than the courts, and that courts
have often been decades behind reality as society changes.

That said, Yes, My family had a child removed.

Kind of slow on the uptake aren't you?
Don't bother to READ, because you're an expert! He he (cough)

Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?

Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.

None of that eh?

Might have made you seem less like you were being
self-serving as in serving your industry.
Less economic incentive to be loyal to your paycheck.

Dan Sullivan
September 18th 03, 04:34 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

<<<snip>>>

> The more you heap on those kinds of credentials
> the more I think you're in La La land, ivory tower
> academia disconnected from reality.

A good education disconnects people from reality?

You want LaVonne to smoke some weed, Greg?

> The zeal, the cause, the esprit d'corps, the latent hippies.
> Ah Minneapolis radicalism... How IS Jim McGuire?
>
> Ah, Minnesota, Land of 10,000 BUREAUCRATS sharing a brain.
> Also known as Land of 10,000 taxes.
> Only state besides DC to go for Mondale, and just barely.

So what?

> The power of massive bureaucracy.
> Like they'd vote for their own pay cuts?

This from a guy who's chosen to be unemployed for three years!

Why didn't you get a job after the little girl was removed, Greg?

Who are you a stay-at-home dad for?

> Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> opposite of a SERVICE to society.

What do ya think those people would say if they knew what you did to the
little girl and what you were doing now?

Are you sponging off society or have ya narrowed it down to the little
girl's mother?

> As for MY situation, which you brought up in Dan's style,
> I should remind you that the SOCIAL WORK definition of family
> is considerably BROADER than the courts, and that courts
> have often been decades behind reality as society changes.

The reality is that many live-in boyfriends are responsible for the
maltreatment of the children in the house.

They are leeches who slip into a home, dominate everyone in the family for
as long as they possibly can, and then move on when their girlfriend finally
comes to her senses (either on her own or with the encouragement of CPS and
Fam Ct) and decides she can't tolerate it anymore.

Your girlfriend hasn't been to court enough, Greg.

I imagine it's gonna go on for years... but you don't care.

In the meantime you're livin on Easy Street.

> That said, Yes, My family had a child removed.

Yeah, right.

And yer gonna marry the mother as soon as the little girl can attend the
ceremony.

2012?

2013?

I got my tux on reserve.

> Kind of slow on the uptake aren't you?

The only one who doesn't get it, Greg, is YOU!

> Don't bother to READ, because you're an expert! He he (cough)

Try bonging it, Greg.

> Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?

Why?

Do ya want to move in with LaVonne if she is?

> Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.

Where'd ya get this, Greg?

> None of that eh?
>
> Might have made you seem less like you were being
> self-serving as in serving your industry.
> Less economic incentive to be loyal to your paycheck.

"Paycheck???"

I'm surprised you still know what they're called, Greg.

Dan

Greg Hanson
September 18th 03, 11:28 PM
> This from a guy who's chosen to be unemployed for three years!
> Why didn't you get a job after the little girl was removed, Greg?
> Who are you a stay-at-home dad for?

I refuse to answer that question under the 5th Amendment to the
US Constitution, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

That new law against taking a sabbatical is a real killer.

Do you think they'll apply it to trust fund babies and
people who get a lot of royalties? Gotta make them work?
Gosh, pushing back retirement age was a drag, now this!

Do you have a cite for that law, Dan?

> > Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> > The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> > woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> > provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> > liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> > conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> > themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> > that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> > opposite of a SERVICE to society.
>
> What do ya think those people would say if they knew
> what you did to the little girl and what you were doing now?

Hey Dan! You found some ALLIES THERE!
When they're not throwing bowling balls through plate
glass windows at the military recruiters office, as
part of the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League..

Or protesting styrofoam burger pods in a big rant
in front of a McDonalds headquarters..

Jim is a "professional protester".

I'm REALLY very concerned about what they think! NOT.

> Are you sponging off society or have ya narrowed
> it down to the little girl's mother?

I am Deuce Bigelow. Got my "mangina" working great. :)

No, not getting any welfare, Dan.
Do you know what a sabbatical is?

> The reality is that many live-in boyfriends
> are responsible for the maltreatment of the
> children in the house.

That is a statistic.
Presumption or PHOBIA based on that is truly evil.

It would be like saying that since black people
commit a lot of crime you are going to presume
them all guilty.

And we HAVE covered this before, Dan.
Did you forget?

Foster care providers have TWO unrelated adults,
so would have TWICE the risk due to this effect!

Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
state legislature here with that logic.

> They are leeches who slip into a home, dominate
> everyone in the family for as long as they possibly
> can, and then move on when their

Sounds like CHILD PROTECTION so far.

> girlfriend finally comes to her senses (either on
> her own or with the encouragement

encouragement? Nice word choice.
Are you painting smiley faces on atom bombs again?

> > Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?
> > Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> > rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.
>
> Where'd ya get this, Greg?

Minneapolis Star and Tribune, circa late 1980's

> "Paycheck???"
> I'm surprised you still know what they're called, Greg.

Is your employer so backward they don't use EFT?

Kane
September 19th 03, 04:42 AM
(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> > This from a guy who's chosen to be unemployed for three years!
> > Why didn't you get a job after the little girl was removed, Greg?
> > Who are you a stay-at-home dad for?
>
> I refuse to answer that question under the 5th Amendment to the
> US Constitution, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.

Of course.

> That new law against taking a sabbatical is a real killer.

I don't recall that law. I do recall what society thinks of men that
sponge off women though.

If you can work, work. If you can't, admit it.

> Do you think they'll apply it to trust fund babies and
> people who get a lot of royalties? Gotta make them work?
> Gosh, pushing back retirement age was a drag, now this!

So you are saying that you have a source of income adequate to take a
"sabbatical" and pay your way, hmm?

Odd that your orginal posts on this subject never mentioned that and
in fact went into long rationalizing explanations about how someone
had to stay home and care for the child and since momma had a job you
and she "decided" she'd work and you care for the child.

Haven't taken one sabbatical myself many years ago I had always
understood it to be for an opportunity to get away from the academic
scene and explore one's chosen field more fully with out the stress of
work.

So tell us, Greegor The Whore, what IS your chosen field of academic
study, hhmmmm?

And if that were the case, a sabbatical, why are you taking up the new
exciting profession of bottle and can humping for pocket money?

Methinks you are lying through your teeth, and squeezing the result
out your asshole.

> Do you have a cite for that law, Dan?

Did he say it was illegal to sit on your ass in this country?

I would have sworn Dan had a take on your moral rectitude.

I know that was what I was ranting about.

> > > Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> > > The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> > > woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> > > provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> > > liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> > > conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> > > themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> > > that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> > > opposite of a SERVICE to society.
> >
> > What do ya think those people would say if they knew
> > what you did to the little girl and what you were doing now?
>
> Hey Dan! You found some ALLIES THERE!

He didn't ask to join. He just asked what even fellow lowlife's would
say.

> When they're not throwing bowling balls through plate
> glass windows at the military recruiters office, as
> part of the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League..
>
> Or protesting styrofoam burger pods in a big rant
> in front of a McDonalds headquarters..
>
> Jim is a "professional protester".

My bet is they'd ask to take a seminar from you.

> I'm REALLY very concerned about what they think! NOT.

Naw, you really ought to look for someone somewhere to support your
unethical cruel torture of a child.

Hey, they might go for it.

> > Are you sponging off society or have ya narrowed
> > it down to the little girl's mother?
>
> I am Deuce Bigelow. Got my "mangina" working great. :)

You aren't even up to Ace Littlehigh standards.

> No, not getting any welfare, Dan.

Interesting. I wonder why? Cause you can't? Momma makes too much and
is supporting your lazy ass? That will usually do it, as the welfare
folks tend to count household income and make their decisions on that.

> Do you know what a sabbatical is?

I do, here teacher, over I, let me tell you.

For the rest of the world it's a PAID or unpaid break by someone that
has the resources to take off time to get a fresh unencumbered look at
his or her chosen field of study and expertise.

For you it's yet another silly, and unethical, attempt to minimize or
deny you are a freeloading little scum sack.

> > The reality is that many live-in boyfriends
> > are responsible for the maltreatment of the
> > children in the house.
>
> That is a statistic.

Actually it's just a look at some data. Statistics are based on
collections of data. The data, unaddressed by statistical analysis,
shows that mothers boyfriends present a very high risk to her
children.

Studies of other primates shows that when some primate males create a
mating situation by killing the offspring of their rival. The urge my
still be buried, that competative male urge, somewhere in the limbic
reptilian portion of our brain. Fortunately most of us are civilized
and don't respond to it.

> Presumption or PHOBIA based on that is truly evil.

A presumption would simply be the recognition that the odds go up in
such situations, hardly "evil" to recognize the odds. A phobia would
be neurotic at least, or pathological (crazy) at worst, but it seems
evil to assign evil to someone that doesn't care for you torturing a
child, now doesn't it.

> It would be like saying that since black people
> commit a lot of crime you are going to presume
> them all guilty.

No, it would be like saying that a black person that just described
doing a crime to you would be even more likely to have committed a
crime.

It does not condem all black people as criminals and on perfectly
clear evidence they are not.

It does say there is a data based risk for that trend.

> And we HAVE covered this before, Dan.

Could you refresh my memory? A USENET pointer would be nice.

> Did you forget?

I did, honest I did. And I am having trouble picking a word to search
on. I got no results on Greg, Honest, moral, ethical...wonder what's
wrong?

> Foster care providers have TWO unrelated adults,
> so would have TWICE the risk due to this effect!

Couple of differences.

CPS is watching them, vetted them for behaviors rather like the ones
you exhibited, and would weed them out with your history.

The other is that foster parents are taught that the foster father
does NOT bathe the little girls without supervision, and really just
shouldn't at all. In fact they are taught not to even be alone, in
private, with them.

It protects him from false allegations, and protects the little girls
from getting cold showers to punish them. Thus reducing the chance of
them wetting themselves out of fear of the foster father.

It's all covered in the training manuals.

> Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
> That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
> state legislature here with that logic.

Really? They suggested that foster fathers would be a risk in that
way?

Well, by doggies, whodahthought.

The point is, Greegor you Whore, you have all the earmarks of a freak
trying to manipulate the situation you thrust yourself into so that
you have MORE access to the little girl naked.

Shower attendents are not needed by little girls six and up, and if
they do it had best be a lady shower attendent.

> > They are leeches who slip into a home, dominate
> > everyone in the family for as long as they possibly
> > can, and then move on when their
>
> Sounds like CHILD PROTECTION so far.

Not quite. It sound's like you.

> > girlfriend finally comes to her senses (either on
> > her own or with the encouragement
>
> encouragement? Nice word choice.

Absolutely. In most instances CPS DOES want to preserve the family,
the mother and children, and when some sick little self serving prick
comes a sliding into the family, they give the momma the chance to
handle it herself.

If she doesn't then they have to. I think they did an admirable job on
you.

It isn't just what you did, but your attitude, your minmizing, you
incapacity to see what harm you have done the child (not to mention
momma when she wakes up), and you just keep grinning.

> Are you painting smiley faces on atom bombs again?

Nice metaphore. I think he is. He then drops them on people like you,
and on some in CPS, that would, as a public agency, have to have a few
just like you, morally, inside. A few bombs and they usually cave.

You on the other hand have found a deep bunker to hide out in.

> > > Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?
> > > Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> > > rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.
> >
> > Where'd ya get this, Greg?
>
> Minneapolis Star and Tribune, circa late 1980's

They had articles about 2nd generation wealthy kids that were guilty?
I've known a lot of rich folks...had two businesses that catered to
them...and those kind are rare indeedy.

> > "Paycheck???"
> > I'm surprised you still know what they're called, Greg.
>
> Is your employer so backward they don't use EFT?

So your excuse that you might not know what a paycheck looks like is
that had electronic fund transfer to your account.

It would also include, from your employer, in your hand, a piece of
paper with the entire disposition of your check, benies, insurance,
taxes, SS, and how much was deposited to your account.

Funny you didn't mention that...maybe you don't know what a pay
voucher looks like either, hhhhmmmmmmmmm?

Dan's just playing nice with you, Prick. I don't feel the need.

You are a scummy little lowlife beetle that rolled your dungball into
someone else's life and ruined it for the soul purpose of having a
soft berth for yourself.

You spend your days and nights, now there is no kid to shower, on this
ng trying to figure out ways to hide from yourself, using the
responses of others to keep you away from the mirror and your own
thoughts.

Do you have a gas stove in the mobil home?

Kane

Dan Sullivan
September 20th 03, 12:02 AM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > This from a guy who's chosen to be unemployed for three years!
> > Why didn't you get a job after the little girl was removed, Greg?
> > Who are you a stay-at-home dad for?
>
> I refuse to answer that question under the 5th Amendment to the
> US Constitution, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.
>
> That new law against taking a sabbatical is a real killer.

2 1/2 YEARS?????

> Do you think they'll apply it to trust fund babies and
> people who get a lot of royalties? Gotta make them work?
> Gosh, pushing back retirement age was a drag, now this!

Where's all YOUR money comin from, Greg?

Or as long as the girlfriend pays the bills you can vegetate?

Have ya met Fern, Greg?

> Do you have a cite for that law, Dan?
>
> > > Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> > > The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> > > woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> > > provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> > > liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> > > conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> > > themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> > > that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> > > opposite of a SERVICE to society.
> >
> > What do ya think those people would say if they knew
> > what you did to the little girl and what you were doing now?
>
> Hey Dan! You found some ALLIES THERE!

So you know they'd disapprove of your behavior.

Conservatives would too.

Most people would.

> When they're not throwing bowling balls through plate
> glass windows at the military recruiters office, as
> part of the Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League..
>
> Or protesting styrofoam burger pods in a big rant
> in front of a McDonalds headquarters..
>
> Jim is a "professional protester".

And you're just an amateur pervert?

> I'm REALLY very concerned about what they think! NOT.
>
> > Are you sponging off society or have ya narrowed
> > it down to the little girl's mother?
>
> I am Deuce Bigelow. Got my "mangina" working great. :)

Enjoy it while you still have it.

> No, not getting any welfare, Dan.
> Do you know what a sabbatical is?
>
> > The reality is that many live-in boyfriends
> > are responsible for the maltreatment of the
> > children in the house.
>
> That is a statistic.
> Presumption or PHOBIA based on that is truly evil.

Why is that?

> It would be like saying that since black people
> commit a lot of crime you are going to presume
> them all guilty.
>
> And we HAVE covered this before, Dan.
> Did you forget?

And I have pointed out that we know what you did to the little girl.

No assumptions have to be made.

> Foster care providers have TWO unrelated adults,
> so would have TWICE the risk due to this effect!

Aren't foster parents evaluated before they can foster?

I believe you've been avoiding an eval for almost three years now, Greg.

Something to hide?

Take the fifth.

> Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
> That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
> state legislature here with that logic.

Was that in the papers?

> > They are leeches who slip into a home, dominate
> > everyone in the family for as long as they possibly
> > can, and then move on when their
>
> Sounds like CHILD PROTECTION so far.
>
> > girlfriend finally comes to her senses (either on
> > her own or with the encouragement
>
> encouragement? Nice word choice.
> Are you painting smiley faces on atom bombs again?

Hey, you're still there WITH all the encouragement of the Court's and CPS.

> > > Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?
> > > Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> > > rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.
> >
> > Where'd ya get this, Greg?
>
> Minneapolis Star and Tribune, circa late 1980's

They wrote about "guilty socialism in the second generation rich?"

Citations please.

> > "Paycheck???"
> > I'm surprised you still know what they're called, Greg.
>
> Is your employer so backward they don't use EFT?

I am my employer.

Dan

Greg Hanson
September 21st 03, 08:43 PM
Dan said
> And I have pointed out that we know
> what you did to the little girl.

Who is WE? Are you a committee?
Or are you you playing Joseph McCarthy again Dan?

> No assumptions have to be made.

Darn, that leaves you with nothing but insults!

> > Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
> > That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
> > state legislature here with that logic.
>
> Was that in the papers?

I'm not sure. Ask Doug, he TESTIFIED before the legislature.

> Citations please.
On 2nd generation Rich having guilt?
Minneapolis Star Tribune 1980's (84-90) closest I can recall.
For more detail, do your own research.
You might also want to search with keywords like
Peavey, Pillsbury, Cargill, Carlson Companies, GUILT, etc..

> I am my employer.

You sell crack eh?

If you're an entrepeneur, then WHY have you been pushing the
idea that I should be a ""wage slave"" and punch a clock?

And everybody knows that people who make a living at
self employment have endless free time to post in newsgroups
and ""consult"" people for gratis about Child Protection.

Riight!

I think it's just another DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!

You ARE a disability case on SSI aren't you?

Dan Sullivan
September 21st 03, 11:08 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Dan said
> > And I have pointed out that we know
> > what you did to the little girl.
>
> Who is WE? Are you a committee?
> Or are you you playing Joseph McCarthy again Dan?

"We" are the people who read what's posted on this NG.

And "we" know what you did because you posted the information.

> > No assumptions have to be made.
>
> Darn, that leaves you with nothing but insults!

Nothing but facts.

And unanswered questions.

> > > Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
> > > That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
> > > state legislature here with that logic.
> >
> > Was that in the papers?
>
> I'm not sure. Ask Doug, he TESTIFIED before the legislature.
>
> > Citations please.
> On 2nd generation Rich having guilt?
> Minneapolis Star Tribune 1980's (84-90) closest I can recall.
> For more detail, do your own research.
> You might also want to search with keywords like
> Peavey, Pillsbury, Cargill, Carlson Companies, GUILT, etc..
>
> > I am my employer.
>
> You sell crack eh?

No.

> If you're an entrepeneur, then WHY have you been pushing the
> idea that I should be a ""wage slave"" and punch a clock?

The real question is, why do you think your girlfriend should support YOU?

Is there something that makes you incapable of employment?

> And everybody knows that people who make a living at
> self employment have endless free time to post in newsgroups
> and ""consult"" people for gratis about Child Protection.
>
> Riight!
>
> I think it's just another DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!
>
> You ARE a disability case on SSI aren't you?

If I were would that somehow explain something?

Do you think only a disabled person would come to the defense of an abused
little girl?

Dan

Kane
September 22nd 03, 03:35 AM
On 21 Sep 2003 12:43:06 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>Dan said
>> And I have pointed out that we know
>> what you did to the little girl.
>
>Who is WE? Are you a committee?

Super****ed Dad, Myself, I believe Sherman, and various and assorted
folks that have come and gone here and told you what a lowlife scumbag
you are and that you should get a job, or get out, or both.

Some have, <shocked voice> even suggested they want you to come to
some harm. Tsk............. tsk.............. tsk...............

>Or are you you playing Joseph McCarthy again Dan?

I'm always amused at this referance to Joe McCarthy. I found him, and
I actually watched him on TV during the hearings, as a thoroughly
ugly offensive pig of a man, but he did not go after anyone but a few
people in the military that in fact some DID prove to be members of
the Communist party when they were most assuredly a serious security
risk to this country.

Now they are more like you, impotent crackpots. Thanks to Joe
McCarthy. You might want to do a little research before you try to
smear someone. Like using what they have actually said.

It was the HUAC that went after folks in the media and created the
unfair and brutal attacks on people.

I just can't imagine Dan doing that to you, can you?

I notice you have been making referrence to my life experience that
clearly show you are willing to lie about me. That is to make a claim
that has no basis in fact and is, if one reads what I wrote, obviously
something else entirely.

For instance, you and the Plant suggested I was "terminated." I said I
was fostered. Fostered children are not necessarily terminated. In
fact only about 30% are, so you are a 60% liar.

Don't you like it having at least one redeeming thing you can boast
about?

Notice that everything Dan says about you or questions he asks you are
directly related to things YOU have written about yourself and the
situation you find yourself so comfortably in.

>> No assumptions have to be made.
>
>Darn, that leaves you with nothing but insults!

My goodness gracious me, is this going to devolve or escalate into yet
another posting by Dan or I of your actual newgroup postings about the
issues Dan and I and a slew of others here have confronted you about?

You've never said the things you did were not true, in fact you
defended them. And with utter and complete nonsense that pointed
clearly to you either being a dunce, stupid as a post, or a malicious
little twit that deliberately displaced a child to make a soft berth
for himself.

Why do you think no one defends your "motion" when it's
presented...quick, backchannel your Pumpkin. ... I'm sure IT will
defend your motion as a piece of art all CPS involved families should
emulate.

But in fact, if they did, the outcome would be exactly what has
happened to the little girl and her mother, who have lost each other
now.

Just to answer, once again, your lie that I despise the natural
parents, though I find your paramour questionable in chosing you over
her child, I am deeply saddened that when the little girl grows up and
catches on to YOU, she will also be confronted with the spector of an
abandoning mother.

I can think of no worse event in a human life than to find that one's
own mother betrayed one. That is too much of a burden to ask a child
to take on no matter WHAT YOU WANT, you little prick.

Just the thought of that would jar awake someone with a conscience.

But.....

That let's you out....so far.

>> > Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
>> > That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
>> > state legislature here with that logic.
>>
>> Was that in the papers?
>
>I'm not sure. Ask Doug, he TESTIFIED before the legislature.

I wonder if Doug would move into a single mother's mobil home, and
take up showering her little girl?

And lots of folks testify before legislatures. My wife has. It's not
the act, it's the content of the testimony.

It's not made true because of the setting, so kindly use things you
can support with something more factually varifiable, than, "Doug said
it so it must be true."

>> Citations please.
>On 2nd generation Rich having guilt?
>Minneapolis Star Tribune 1980's (84-90) closest I can recall.
>For more detail, do your own research.
>You might also want to search with keywords like
>Peavey, Pillsbury, Cargill, Carlson Companies, GUILT, etc..

Fabulous. Even the Plant could do better. You, a nonworking adult male
with a computer and an internet connection, want someone that works
for his living, and uses large amounts of his time helping others, to
do reseach on a subject (rich guilty people) you brought up.

Excellent. Right up there with the best The Plant has cut and pasted
and demanded others make the connections to CPS, the thread, or A
Nodule on It's Root System.

>> I am my employer.
>
>You sell crack eh?

Are you calling Dan Sullivan a drug dealer? If so I suggest you
apologize or produce some solid evidence quickly.

You are as stupid in your debate as you are as a pseudoparent.

But then what have you to risk. If someone nails you for your lies are
you going to give up the shopping cart you use to collect and hump
bottles and cans in the ball park?

From now on I'm going to use HBCBP to designate that phrase. I
wouldn't want to overload our computer system with too many bytes of
info.

Or did you buy top of the line after your last sojourn with a
"fiance?"

>If you're an entrepeneur, then WHY have you been pushing the
>idea that I should be a ""wage slave"" and punch a clock?

I don't think he cares how you earn the money you should to support
yourself.

If you can hump HBCBP and actually pull half your weight, in food and
half the rent or mortgage payment, then you are a really good boy, and
Dan has made an error of judgement.

You can see, and I certainly can, why he might make that mistake going
by the long posting history we have access to here in USENET.

So, do you pay for half the utilities, food, your own medical
insurance or bills, entertainment, and rent in the form of half the
mortage or rent?

Hell, I'll bet you don't even pay for half the KY Jelly you use to
**** that poor needy woman up the ass.

>And everybody knows that people who make a living at
>self employment have endless free time to post in newsgroups
>and ""consult"" people for gratis about Child Protection.

Actually it's only you that doesn't know how much an entrepeneur can
mangage his time and entertainments. Though I guess of you are HBCBP
you certainly can manage your time so you an post here often.

Personally I'm grateful for Dan's gratis consultations with families
in crises with CPS.

The reason I am is that unlike you I'm in touch with reality and I
count the successes he's had and how he did it, or coached them to do
it.

He's done things that with all my many years of experience I had not
learned or caught onto, tactically. I've used that info in behalf of
families. I'm pleased to say he's been my teacher on many a CPS
related issue.

Now, Prick, what have YOU to teach me?

>Riight!

Yes, that's right. He has consulted with families, and served them
very well indeed. Jealous, or are you posting as a proxie for Dennis
the Ill-noise CPSWatch maven?

>I think it's just another DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!

YOU? THINK?

So write us a "Motion." Prove that Dan hasn't helped families. Hey,
I'll be the first to get after him for fooling me...but let me tell
you, from what I know, even if he was kidding he'd be considerably
more than you, Gigolo.

>You ARE a disability case on SSI aren't you?

Now wouldn't that be interesting. Imagine, Dan Sullivan, disabled, and
running a business, and along with that doing the considerably amount
of work it takes to research state after state CPS information to
provide families the tools to get their children back.

While you...well, here you are, apparently an able bodied strapping
big hunk a burning love, that gets only as far as the ball park for
his pin money, has no child in the home to parent, and sits there on
his 3 year sabbatical (I loved that...it means one year, doofus) just
aching to sue someone.

I keep praying you are that stupid.

You'd really look good in court. Like a Rueben Sandwich.

Yah know, what you don't say about about your situation and the little
girl is as telling as what you do say.

As far as I've been able to find I've never located a kinds
sympathetic empathetic word by you about the little girl, her pain and
loss, her confusion.

(and Doug thinks I'm being an amateur psychologist...r r r r r)

And in fact the only thing I can find (you'll point me to something
more won't you) that you say about her describes her in blameful
terms, as though she is out to get you and that's why the punishment
detail.

About the only person you don't badmouth is the mother, and I think we
can assume that has a great deal to do with her taking care of you
(instead of her child). Wouldn't want jeaordize that, now would we,
Whore?

Am I wrong?

Or more importantly, will you me answer me at all?

Kane

Greg Hanson
September 23rd 03, 10:15 AM
> >Who is WE? Are you a committee?
>
> Super****ed Dad, Myself, I believe Sherman,
> and various and assorted folks

Really? You left off Charles Manson and Jerry Howe.
But I suggest you get their permission to speak FOR THEM.

> that have come and gone here and told you what a lowlife scumbag
> you are and that you should get a job, or get out, or both.

People hurling insults On the INTERNET?
That's so amazing Mr Wizard!

> Some have, <shocked voice> even suggested they want you to come to
> some harm. Tsk............. tsk.............. tsk...............

Back to the intellectual high road again there eh Kane?

Kane expounds
> but he did not go after anyone but a few people in the
> military

FALSE

> that in fact some DID prove to be members of
> the Communist party when they were most assuredly a
> serious security risk to this country.

Since this is now archived history, please name names.

> Now they are more like you, impotent crackpots.
> Thanks to Joe McCarthy. You might want to do a
> little research before you try to smear someone.
> Like using what they have actually said.

Does THIS qualify?

> It was the HUAC that went after folks in the
> media and created the unfair and brutal attacks
> on people.

And who was the Chairman? When Elia Kazan was questioned?

> I just can't imagine Dan doing that to you, can you?
>
> I notice you have been making referrence to my life experience that
> clearly show you are willing to lie about me. That is to make a claim
> that has no basis in fact and is, if one reads what I wrote, obviously
> something else entirely.

> I just can't imagine Dan doing that to you, can you?
> I just can't imagine Dan doing that to you, can you?

>
> For instance, you and the Plant suggested I was "terminated." I said I
> was fostered. Fostered children are not necessarily terminated. In
> fact only about 30% are, so you are a 60% liar.

Are you saying you went back to your parents?

That would not fit your hatred of blood parents and
your downright filial love for the foster caregivers.

> Don't you like it having at least one redeeming
> thing you can boast about?
>
> Notice that everything Dan says about you or questions he asks you are
> directly related to things YOU have written about yourself and the
> situation you find yourself so comfortably in.

Yes, generally in inappropriate places. Others have complained.

> >> No assumptions have to be made.
> >
> >Darn, that leaves you with nothing but insults!
>
> My goodness gracious me, is this going to devolve or escalate into yet
> another posting by Dan or I of your actual newgroup postings about the
> issues Dan and I and a slew of others here have confronted you about?

You just proved me right. You are empty.

You threaten me with escalation? Way to go dude!

If you're that stupid, I won't stop you.

Do you think you're going to WIN something?

> You've never said the things you did were not true, in fact you
> defended them. And with utter and complete nonsense that pointed
> clearly to you either being a dunce, stupid as a post, or a malicious
> little twit that deliberately displaced a child to make a soft berth
> for himself.

Empty. Vacuous. Void of content.

> Why do you think no one defends your "motion" when it's
> presented...quick, backchannel your Pumpkin. ... I'm sure IT will
> defend your motion as a piece of art all CPS involved families should
> emulate.

Empty.

> But in fact, if they did, the outcome would be exactly what has
> happened to the little girl and her mother, who have lost each other
> now.

Factual error. WAG

> Just to answer, once again, your lie that I despise the natural
> parents, though I find your paramour questionable in chosing you over
> her child, I am deeply saddened that when the little girl grows up and
> catches on to YOU, she will also be confronted with the spector of an
> abandoning mother.

Not unless they destroy all of the documents. Not possible.

> I can think of no worse event in a human life than to find that one's
> own mother betrayed one. That is too much of a burden to ask a child
> to take on no matter WHAT YOU WANT, you little prick.

Well, for a patriotic person in the Home of the Brave, being
betrayed by the government and court system comes close.
Judges who cheat and violate oath, laws ignored...

> Just the thought of that would jar awake someone with a conscience.
>
> But.....
>
> That let's you out....so far.

Yep, I'm just a thoughtless person.
But you sure seem a might bothered by someone as seemingly
unimportant as me!

> >> > Hardly a selling point for CPS initiatives.
> >> > That's what got the CPS boobs laughed out of the
> >> > state legislature here with that logic.
> >>
> >> Was that in the papers?
> >
> >I'm not sure. Ask Doug, he TESTIFIED before the legislature.
>
> I wonder if Doug would move into a single mother's mobil home, and
> take up showering her little girl?
>
> And lots of folks testify before legislatures. My wife has. It's not
> the act, it's the content of the testimony.

Or the results. As I said the idea got booed out.
(Public at large thought it was an incredibly stupid idea also!)

> It's not made true because of the setting, so kindly use things you
> can support with something more factually varifiable, than, "Doug said
> it so it must be true."

Is this the new standard for proving your blathering?

> >> Citations please.
> >On 2nd generation Rich having guilt?
> >Minneapolis Star Tribune 1980's (84-90) closest I can recall.
> >For more detail, do your own research.
> >You might also want to search with keywords like
> >Peavey, Pillsbury, Cargill, Carlson Companies, GUILT, etc..
>
> Fabulous. Even the Plant could do better. You, a nonworking adult male
> with a computer and an internet connection, want someone that works
> for his living, and uses large amounts of his time helping others, to
> do reseach on a subject (rich guilty people) you brought up.
>
> Excellent. Right up there with the best The Plant has cut and pasted
> and demanded others make the connections to CPS, the thread, or A
> Nodule on It's Root System.
>
> >> I am my employer.
> >
> >You sell crack eh?
>
> Are you calling Dan Sullivan a drug dealer? If so I suggest you
> apologize or produce some solid evidence quickly.

I'll just quote Dan: "Get stuffed!"

> You are as stupid in your debate as you are as a pseudoparent.

Debate? And you think that passes for forensic skill?

> But then what have you to risk. If someone nails you for your lies are
> you going to give up the shopping cart you use to collect and hump
> bottles and cans in the ball park?

Actually didn't ever use a grocery cart at the ball field.
Did you have to bend over to extract that idea?

> From now on I'm going

Oh what a relief!

> to use HBCBP to designate that phrase. I wouldn't want
> to overload our computer system with too many bytes of info.

Gibberish.

> Or did you buy top of the line after your last
> sojourn with a "fiance?"

Pointless.

> >If you're an entrepeneur, then WHY have you been pushing the
> >idea that I should be a ""wage slave"" and punch a clock?
>
> I don't think he cares how you earn the money you should to support
> yourself.
>
> If you can hump HBCBP and actually pull half your weight, in food and
> half the rent or mortgage payment, then you are a really good boy, and
> Dan has made an error of judgement.
>
> You can see, and I certainly can, why he might make that mistake going
> by the long posting history we

Look, either you are speaking for other people, or you're
talking in third person plural which is really freaky.
Get help.

> have access to here in USENET.
>
> So, do you pay for half the utilities, food, your own medical
> insurance or bills, entertainment, and rent in the form of half the
> mortage or rent?

Pointless. Delusions of grandeur. Pretense at "authorita"

> Hell, I'll bet you don't even pay for half the
> KY Jelly you use to [e.d.] that poor needy
> woman up the [e.d.].

Yes, you are an expert ""debater"". :)

Thanks for all the love, man.

> >And everybody knows that people who make a living at
> >self employment have endless free time to post in newsgroups
> >and ""consult"" people for gratis about Child Protection.
>
> Actually it's only you that doesn't know how much an entrepeneur can
> mangage his time and entertainments. Though I guess of you are HBCBP
> you certainly can manage your time so you an post here often.
>
> Personally I'm grateful for Dan's gratis consultations with families
> in crises with CPS.
>
> The reason I am is that unlike you I'm in touch with reality and I
> count the successes he's had and how he did it, or coached them to do
> it.

OK, Dude. Yeah. Reality. Whatever! :)

> He's done things that with all my many years of experience I had not
> learned or caught onto, tactically. I've used that info in behalf of
> families. I'm pleased to say he's been my teacher on many a CPS
> related issue.

Yes, it was obvious you were his lap dog. Tonguing him now?

> Now, Prick, what have YOU to teach me?

You are not ready, grasshopper.

> >Riight!
>
> Yes, that's right. He has consulted with
> families, and served them very well indeed.

Broiled and on a silver platter?

chorus:
Some say the Devil is dead
Devil is dead
Devil is dead
Some say the Devil is dead
And buried in Killarney.
I say he rose again
I say he rose again
I say he rose again
And joined the British Army.

> Jealous, or are you posting as a proxie for Dennis
> the Ill-noise CPSWatch maven?

If I was to see a rodent eat it's young would I be jealous?

No pack behavior, that's your thing.


>
> >I think it's just another DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!
>
> YOU? THINK?
>
> So write us a "Motion." Prove that Dan hasn't helped families. Hey,
> I'll be the first to get after him for fooling me...but let me tell
> you, from what I know,

Does a Methane wind pass for knowledge?

> even if he was kidding he'd be considerably more than you, Gigolo.

Be all that you can be? A Sock puppet?

> >You ARE a disability case on SSI aren't you?
>
> Now wouldn't that be interesting. Imagine, Dan Sullivan, disabled, and
> running a business, and along with that doing the considerably amount
> of work it takes to research state after state CPS information to
> provide families the tools to get their children back.

Yeah, when CPS finishes their witch hunt, and wants to burn
the parents at the stake, Dan offers the parents matches.

> While you...well, here you are, apparently an able bodied strapping
> big hunk a burning love,
yes

> that gets only as far as the ball park for his pin money,
covered a lot of car washes also

> has no child in the home to parent, and sits there on
> his 3 year sabbatical
> (I loved that...it means one year, doofus)

Get a better dictionary.
One that has Coprolalia in it also.

> just aching to sue someone.
yes
That's the civilized thing to do when you're wronged like this.

> I keep praying you are that stupid.
Since when do atheists pray?

> You'd really look good in court.
> Like a Rueben Sandwich.
Now you're just making me hungry.

> Yah know, what you don't say about about
> your situation and the little
> girl is as telling as what you do say.

Try tea leaves or a Ouija Board, more accurate.
But I know you like your methane.

> As far as I've been able to find I've never
> located a kinds sympathetic empathetic word
> by you about the little girl, her pain and
> loss, her confusion.

There is more of that from me in this case
than there is from the state stooges.

>
> (and Doug thinks I'm being an amateur psychologist...r r r r r)

You couldn't buy a vowel with cash.

> And in fact the only thing I can find (you'll point me to something
> more won't you) that you say about her describes her in blameful
> terms, as though she is out to get you and that's why the punishment
> detail.

"she is out to get me"? More delusions, Kane? Never said any such.

> About the only person you don't badmouth is the mother, and I think we
> can assume that has a great deal to do with her taking care of you
> (instead of her child). Wouldn't want jeaordize that, now would we,
> Whore?

If we were perfect we would not be human.
Taking the high road again, Kane?

> Am I wrong?
Constantly.

> Or more importantly, will you me answer me at all?

Yeah, That's important in a Jerry Howe kinda way, isn't it?

Dan Sullivan
September 23rd 03, 12:54 PM
"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

<<<snip>>>

> Yeah, when CPS finishes their witch hunt, and wants to burn
> the parents at the stake, Dan offers the parents matches.

I offer the parents the tactics and strategy to get their children back from
FC.

Successful tactics... successful strategy.

And the kids come home.

I even wrote you hours of emails on the subject back in 2001, Greg.

And you ignored them all.

You weren't looking to get the little girl home.

You were lookin for someone to teach you how to sue CPS.

And all you've come up with so far is the Motion.

You've got nothing.

What's your strategy, Greg?

What are you working on now in your girlfriend's case?

Is the thought or reunification long gone?

Dan

LaVonne Carlson
September 29th 03, 11:18 PM
Thank you. I've sent this to the administrators of my net account. They
will be following up.

LaVonne

dickinson wrote:

> <advice> Too much information LaVonne. Be careful............there's
> some pretty weird vindictive folks out there.
>
> kev
>
> "LaVonne Carlson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Greg,
> >
> > I do not work for the state of MN, as an employee or as a contractor.
> I
> > have never worked for the state of MN as either an employee or as a
> > contractor. I have a teaching license in Early Childhood Education
> and
> > Early Childhood Special Education. I taught both disciplines for many
> > years. I have an undergraduate degee in Child Development, a Master's
> > Degree in Earch Childhood Special Education, and a Ph.D. in Early
> > Childhood Educatiohn/Early Childhood Special Education. I worked for
> > many years in child care. I worked in special education. I now teach
> > graduate courses at the University of Minnesota for students who are
> > enrolled in the ECE/ECSE licensure program.
> >
> > This is why I acted like Fern was a liar about my connection to CPS.
> > She was a liar, Greg.
> >
> > LaVonne
> >
> > Greg Hanson wrote:
> >
> > > LaVonne?
> > > Do you work directly for the state of MN or as a contractor?
> > > Why did you act like Fern was a liar about your connection
> > > to CPS?
> > >
> > > Are you an heir to a large family estate?
> >

LaVonne Carlson
September 29th 03, 11:45 PM
Greg Hanson wrote:

> So even though you work for the U of MN you say you
> don't work for the state of Minnesota?
>
> That's a good one LaVonne.

Felt the need to cut attributes again, huh?

> As a former student of a STATE UNIVERSITY in MN,
> I think you're getting a little carried away with
> the ""independence"" of the U of M.

As a former student you would not understand the benefit system, Greg.

> The more you heap on those kinds of credentials
> the more I think you're in La La land, ivory tower
> academia disconnected from reality.
> The zeal, the cause, the esprit d'corps, the latent hippies.
> Ah Minneapolis radicalism... How IS Jim McGuire?

Losing your chidren was maybe a good idea This is an example of the
irrational posts that I referred to earlier.

> Ah, Minnesota, Land of 10,000 BUREAUCRATS sharing a brain.
> Also known as Land of 10,000 taxes.
> Only state besides DC to go for Mondale, and just barely.
> The power of massive bureaucracy.
> Like they'd vote for their own pay cuts?

More irrational content. This isn't about politics, Greg. This is
about children.

> Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> opposite of a SERVICE to society.

What in the world was the purpose of this paragraph?

> As for MY situation, which you brought up in Dan's style,
> I should remind you that the SOCIAL WORK definition of family
> is considerably BROADER than the courts, and that courts
> have often been decades behind reality as society changes.

Really.

> That said, Yes, My family had a child removed.

I'm not surprised.

> Kind of slow on the uptake aren't you?
> Don't bother to READ, because you're an expert! He he (cough)

Actually I do read, but I also have a job. If I missed your original
post, I apologize. I also post only from aps and have read through
ascps a few times. Since you have cross-posted to aps, I read and
respond.

> Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?

Lordy would that be wonderful. I'm a third generation heir to a to a
Swedish potato farmer that left Sweden for a better life. He came to
America and farmed for 70 years. He never became part of the huge
Carlson corporate estate, darn him anyway (grin). We weren't even
related.

> Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.

What an incredibly stupid statement, Greg.

Wow! Read the rest of Greg's post. He really does think I'm a Carlson
corporate heir! What a hoot you are on this level, Greg. And how sad
this must be for you child that I'm becoming more and more convinced
that you abused.

LaVonne

>
>
> None of that eh?
>
> Might have made you seem less like you were being
> self-serving as in serving your industry.
> Less economic incentive to be loyal to your paycheck.

LaVonne Carlson
September 29th 03, 11:55 PM
Dan Sullivan wrote:

> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> > The more you heap on those kinds of credentials
> > the more I think you're in La La land, ivory tower
> > academia disconnected from reality.
>
> A good education disconnects people from reality?

Only in Greg's life.

> You want LaVonne to smoke some weed, Greg?

Probably. I don't smoke weed.

> > The zeal, the cause, the esprit d'corps, the latent hippies.
> > Ah Minneapolis radicalism... How IS Jim McGuire?
> >
> > Ah, Minnesota, Land of 10,000 BUREAUCRATS sharing a brain.
> > Also known as Land of 10,000 taxes.
> > Only state besides DC to go for Mondale, and just barely.
>
> So what?

So Greg is off on another tangent to draw attention away from why he's posting
here in the first place. His child was removed.

> > The power of massive bureaucracy.
> > Like they'd vote for their own pay cuts?
>
> This from a guy who's chosen to be unemployed for three years!

Surprises abound.

> Why didn't you get a job after the little girl was removed, Greg?

Must have been too emotionally distraught (grin).

>
> Who are you a stay-at-home dad for?

How scary would that be, if it were true?

>
>
> > Oh yes, I had Spaghetti at Joe Sommers house before he passed away.
> > The highlight of the evening was when the charity case pregant
> > woman spouted off that society owed her (welfare)since she
> > provided society with such a service, making a baby. Even my
> > liberal SO at the time got a gut ache over that stupidity. As a
> > conservative I had fun watching the liberals fall all over
> > themselves trying to tactfully tell the utterly ignorant woman
> > that she was only serving HERSELF, and performing quite the
> > opposite of a SERVICE to society.
>
> What do ya think those people would say if they knew what you did to the
> little girl and what you were doing now?

Maybe this was the "pre-child-abuser" Gerg.

> Are you sponging off society or have ya narrowed it down to the little
> girl's mother?

I'd suspect society. And he's probably paying money to the mother. It may be
another reason whyt he is so irrationally angry.

The rest of your post is great. I especially like where Greg continues to go
back to his imaginary association with me to the Carlson empire. Greg would be
funny if he didn't abuse children.

LaVonne

>
> > As for MY situation, which you brought up in Dan's style,
> > I should remind you that the SOCIAL WORK definition of family
> > is considerably BROADER than the courts, and that courts
> > have often been decades behind reality as society changes.
>
> The reality is that many live-in boyfriends are responsible for the
> maltreatment of the children in the house.
>
> They are leeches who slip into a home, dominate everyone in the family for
> as long as they possibly can, and then move on when their girlfriend finally
> comes to her senses (either on her own or with the encouragement of CPS and
> Fam Ct) and decides she can't tolerate it anymore.
>
> Your girlfriend hasn't been to court enough, Greg.
>
> I imagine it's gonna go on for years... but you don't care.
>
> In the meantime you're livin on Easy Street.
>
> > That said, Yes, My family had a child removed.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
> And yer gonna marry the mother as soon as the little girl can attend the
> ceremony.
>
> 2012?
>
> 2013?
>
> I got my tux on reserve.
>
> > Kind of slow on the uptake aren't you?
>
> The only one who doesn't get it, Greg, is YOU!
>
> > Don't bother to READ, because you're an expert! He he (cough)
>
> Try bonging it, Greg.
>
> > Are you an heir to the huge Carlson corporate estate?
>
> Why?
>
> Do ya want to move in with LaVonne if she is?
>
> > Love that guilty socialism in 2nd generation
> > rich, who didn't earn it and feel guilty.
>
> Where'd ya get this, Greg?
>
> > None of that eh?
> >
> > Might have made you seem less like you were being
> > self-serving as in serving your industry.
> > Less economic incentive to be loyal to your paycheck.
>
> "Paycheck???"
>
> I'm surprised you still know what they're called, Greg.
>
> Dan

dickinson
September 30th 03, 08:02 AM
dickinson wrote:

> X posting removed:

Put back in :-) as I've realised that you arrived at
alt.support.foster-parents via another group and may well not be reading
here (asfp)

> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>
> You're welcome :-)
>
>> I've sent this to the administrators of my net account.
>> They will be following up.
>
> I'm no computer whizz but from experienced gained ("persons" attracted
> from/on certain newsgroups) I would suggest that you use one mail box
> at your server or via an anonymous remailer to post only on
> newsgroups, and another for your private mail that you give only to
> your personal acquaintances. This means that any spammers or
> "vindictives" who "trawl" addresses from newsgroups never get to your
> private mailbox but are collected in a "spam trap" that you can
> peruse at the "webmail" at your server without actually downloading.
>
> I also use http://www.mailwasher.net/ which you can download for free.
> This allows you to view your messages *before* they are downloaded and
> even bounce them back to sender as undelivered mail thereby giving the
> impression that they have a wrong address.
>
> At the moment Oz is inundated with virus ridden mails purporting to be
> from Microsoft. As many as 400 a day are filling the mailboxes of
> those who have used newsgroups, causing genuine mail to be rejected,
> whilst some folks who don't use mailgroups are relatively unscathed.
> One way of defeating this is to use message rules in Outlook Express
> to reject all mails over 140 kb (the virus ones tend to be between
> 143 and 157).
>
> Hope this is of help to anyone with similar problems atm
>
> kev
>
>
>> LaVonne
>>
>> dickinson wrote:
>>
>>> <advice> Too much information LaVonne. Be careful............there's
>>> some pretty weird vindictive folks out there.
>>>
>>> kev
<snip>

Doug
October 2nd 03, 06:14 PM
LaVonne Carlson writes:

> More irrational content. This isn't about politics, Greg. This is
> about children.

Hi, LaVonne!

Actually, feminist social workers correctly address the realities of child
welfare practice with their tenet, "the personal is political."

This is, indeed, all about children. This is about the institutional abuse
of children who encounter the child welfare system, which is enmeshed in
politics.

As a social worker, you should know this, LaVonne. The situation is so
clear that our fellow social workers, child welfare experts Lela Costin, Dr.
Karger and others wrote an entire book entitled "The Politics of Child
Abuse."

No one can ignore the politics within any large bureaucracy. Contending
with it is a survival skill in family-systems social work. Ask anyone in
the trenches.

Greg Hanson
October 3rd 03, 01:34 PM
Not politics? Haw!

Why did you mention benefits? Aren't you in AFSCME?

LaVonne Carlson
October 9th 03, 11:18 AM
>
> Yah know, Greegor the Whore, I was going to save the eyes of the
> reader and snip all this, but just couldn't destroy your masterpiece.
>
> It is a fitting bookend to the other missive that Dan thoughfully
> reposted for you and your admirerers.
>
> But I notice that it really doesn't address the strange content of the
> first document.
>
> Truly a monumental smoke induced ramble, one might imagine.
>
> Did you have fun?
>
> Is your head feeling better now that you've taken out the garbage bags
> of propaganda you had stored there?
>
> We certainly hope so.
>
> R R R R R
>
> bingo bango bongo. .
>
> Stoneman

I must agree with Kane. Hitler had the right idea. Parents have no
rights! Children belong to the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LaVonne I. Carlson

Greg Hanson
October 9th 03, 02:14 PM
LaVonne?
Hello. Is this thing working? Hello?

Aren't you in AFSCME and MEA? What other Labor Unions?

Kane
October 9th 03, 06:01 PM
On 09 Oct 2003 16:24:09 GMT, (Fern5827) lies again:

Banana, notice the article doesn't say it was a CPS accusation. CPS
doesn't accuse. It investigates. A malicious employee Accused.

Why do you feel the need to lie all the time?

Is your case against CPS so weak you have to resort to such tactics?

I find it odd that HSLDA didn't bother to say they made the
investigation go away. I thought they were such a highpowered
adversary for CPS.

If this had gone as far as a removal I wonder if they would have shown
up in NM and defended the family in court? Or can they practice law in
NM at all?

Do you really think that this family was at risk? Given that the
answer to the allegation was so easy to provide CPS?

In other words, yet another fabulous win for HSLDA where all they had
to do was make a phone call.

Oh goodie!

It's a really poor example if you wish to shill for HSLDA. They have
done a few tougher cases. A very few.

Kane


>FWD from http://www.hslda.org
>
>False and Malicious Accusations in New Mexico
>
>
>When the Royer family (not their real name) first heard from Child
Protective
>Services, it wasn't a surprise. They had recently fired an employee
in their
>family business for destructive behavior, outright lies, and other
problems.
>When the employee intercepted a phone call complaining about his
conduct, he
>pretended to be the boss. At this point his job was over: but not,
the family
>suspects, his destructive influence on their life.
>
>
>A New Mexico social worker left a business card at the Royer's shop,
informing
>them that there had been an allegation of abuse/neglect against them.
When the
>family called HSLDA, attorney Scott Somerville asked them to provide
written
>authorization to the social workers to discuss the matter with
attorneys here.
>Attorney Somerville then contacted the investigator.
>
>
>HSLDA asked the investigator to describe the allegations. She
explained that an
>anonymous reporter said the child "did no work," that she was "way
behind her
>grade level," and that "they say she is being homeschooled, but she
really
>isn't." When they were informed of these allegations the Royers were
>astonished. Their thirteen-year-old daughter is successfully
completing eighth
>grade work, using traditional Christian textbooks.
>
>
>Attorney Somerville called Child Protective Services to explain the
situation.
>While the Royers would be happy to prove to any reasonable person
that their
>child was succeeding academically, they believe that it isn't
appropriate to
>respond to a false and malicious complaint. HSLDA asked the
investigator to
>contact her supervisor or an attorney for the agency to address the
problem of
>malicious reporting.
>
>
>Please pray for this family, and others across the country that are
facing
>similar situations. By working hard and working together, HSLDA
members are
>changing the way that Child Protective Services deal with false and
malicious
>allegations. We will not passively allow evil people to attack our
families by
>abusing a system that was intended to protect people.
>
>
>FWD Newsgroup alt support child protective services.
>
>http://www.familyrightsassociation.com Look, especially for the
New Contacts
>and New Members area. Networking support within the states to
counter false
>allegations of neglect and abuse.
>
>
>
>
>© Site Copyright 1996-2003 Home School Legal Defense Association
>P.O. Box 3000 · Purcellville, VA 20134-9000 · Phone: (540) 338-5600 ·
Fax:
>(540) 338-2733 · E-mail:
>
>
>

Greg Hanson
October 9th 03, 11:12 PM
(LaVonne Carlson)
> I must agree with Kane. Hitler had the right idea. Parents have no
> rights! Children belong to the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> LaVonne I. Carlson

Is it a fake LaVonne or was that just too hot to post from a U account?

LaVonne Carlson
October 12th 03, 03:25 AM
My email is incorrect in this post as is my signature. Please be aware,
fellow posters. My legitimate email account has been hit with thousands of
virus warning messages per day -- which thanks to abuse reporting -- has
dwindled considerably.

LaVonne

LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> >
> > Yah know, Greegor the Whore, I was going to save the eyes of the
> > reader and snip all this, but just couldn't destroy your masterpiece.
> >
> > It is a fitting bookend to the other missive that Dan thoughfully
> > reposted for you and your admirerers.
> >
> > But I notice that it really doesn't address the strange content of the
> > first document.
> >
> > Truly a monumental smoke induced ramble, one might imagine.
> >
> > Did you have fun?
> >
> > Is your head feeling better now that you've taken out the garbage bags
> > of propaganda you had stored there?
> >
> > We certainly hope so.
> >
> > R R R R R
> >
> > bingo bango bongo. .
> >
> > Stoneman
>
> I must agree with Kane. Hitler had the right idea. Parents have no
> rights! Children belong to the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> LaVonne I. Carlson

LaVonne Carlson
October 12th 03, 03:27 AM
It was a fake, Greg. I do not post from the email account specified nor
do I sign my name in the way it was signed. Because of hacking that has
been going on with my account, the post with the appropriate attributes
has been sent to my net administrators at the U.

LaVonne

Greg Hanson wrote:

> (LaVonne Carlson)
> > I must agree with Kane. Hitler had the right idea. Parents have no
> > rights! Children belong to the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > LaVonne I. Carlson
>
> Is it a fake LaVonne or was that just too hot to post from a U account?

dickinson
October 12th 03, 03:49 AM
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> My email is incorrect in this post as is my signature. Please be
> aware, fellow posters. My legitimate email account has been hit with
> thousands of virus warning messages per day -- which thanks to abuse
> reporting -- has dwindled considerably.
>
> LaVonne

LaVonne, The virus is generated to addies trawled from newsgroups, As I
have mentioned before, one should never post to newsgroups from a
private email address.
The addy I use for newsgroups is attracting over 200 infected posts
daily.....my private one attracts nil.

kev

Greg Hanson
October 16th 03, 01:51 PM
Didn't you read this, LaVonne?
Maybe you should ask "never spanked boy" Kane.
You are on swearin..er talking terms with him aren't you?
Why did you post this attached to my name?

From: Greg Hanson )
Subject: Denial of Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2003-09-10 20:19:24 PST

Somebody has been sending e-mail viral attacks repeatedly to
select e-mail addresses skimmed from this newsgroup.
One a day was not a problem. Got several today.

The most common form has a 200+K attachment that gives it away.
Another viral e-mail is much shorter.
Who else in this newsgroup is receiving these little gems?

I am making this public in the belief that Kane is not
really THIS dumb, and somebody else is trying to frame him.
The idea that it IS Kane is just a bit too easy to be true.
Is > a correct e-mail address for you Kane?
Did I underline the right telnet or DNS address for the sender?
I understand that this address can't easily be forged.

From: "Microsoft Network Public Services" >
To: "Microsoft Customer" < >
Subject: Last Security Pack
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:03:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from mc6-f8.hotmail.com ([65.54.252.144]) by
mc6-s1.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 9 Sep
2003 22:46:08 -0700
Received: from smtp2.poczta.onet.pl ([213.180.130.30]) by
mc6-f8.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 9 Sep
2003 22:44:45 -0700
Received: from l2451.biaman.pl ([212.33.82.51]:33028 "HELO ZDfun")by
------------
ps2.test.onet.pl with SMTP id <S846822AbTIISD5>;Tue, 9 Sep 2003
20:03:57 +0200
X-Message-Info: KtxBqYfPyq2q+b5GbwSpcOB7JqceyN7g
Message-Id: >
Return-Path:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2003 05:44:45.0407 (UTC)
FILETIME=[A3BADEF0:01C3775E]

Microsoft Customer

this is the latest version of security update, the
"September 2003, Cumulative Patch" update which eliminates all <snip>

From: Fern5827 ) Subject: Re: Denial of Service and
viral attacks

Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-11
10:02:12 PST

.....Hmmmmm......thanks for the heads up, Greg.

From: JustMel ) Subject: Re: Denial of Service
and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-11
13:47:14 PST

hummm, That showed up here this afternoon. it didn't get through
either.

From: Ron ) Subject: Re: Denial of
Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-11
18:59:41 PST

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Somebody has been sending e-mail viral attacks repeatedly to
> select e-mail addresses skimmed from this newsgroup.
> One a day was not a problem. Got several today.
>
> The most common form has a 200+K attachment that gives it away.
> Another viral e-mail is much shorter.
> Who else in this newsgroup is receiving these little gems?
>
> I am making this public in the belief that Kane is not
> really THIS dumb, and somebody else is trying to frame him.
> The idea that it IS Kane is just a bit too easy to be true.
> Is > a correct e-mail address for you Kane?
> Did I underline the right telnet or DNS address for the sender?
> I understand that this address can't easily be forged.

I am. But then again I use a public email address such as Netscape
and they
pre-screen all email coming into their systems. Add to that the fact
that I
have a very good virus program and more than one firewall inline on my
system and I don't give these things much thought. At least not until
one
of my overwatch programs let me know there is a problem. They have
not done
so for more than 2 months now, and about every 2 months on the
average.

Spend a little money greg and get McAfee's Virus Scanner/Firewall set.
About $40.00 a year or so.

I don't really give a dam about out differences when it comes to this
issue,
as far as I am concerned as are on the same side on this.

Ron

http://us.mcafee.com/


From: AdoptaDad ) Subject: Re: Denial of Service
and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-13
07:24:35 PST

>Subject: Denial of Service and viral attacks
>From: (Greg Hanson)
>Date: 9/10/03 11:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Somebody has been sending e-mail viral attacks repeatedly to
>select e-mail addresses skimmed from this newsgroup.
>One a day was not a problem. Got several today.
>
>The most common form has a 200+K attachment that gives it away.
>Another viral e-mail is much shorter.

If you don't know the sender, don't open the attachment - no
matter what
the size. Period.

Why anyone would even *open* unsolicited email from an unknown
sender is a
mystery to me. Got a lot of time on your hands, Greg?

>Who else in this newsgroup is receiving these little gems?

Not I.

>I am making this public in the belief that Kane is not
>really THIS dumb,

Kane may be many things. Dumb is not one of them.

>and somebody else is trying to frame him.

Or cast aspersions his direction.

>The idea that it IS Kane is just a bit too easy to be true.

And yet you keep bringing it up. Why is that? Just whom do you
think you're
kidding?

< rest snipped >

Dad

From: Greg Hanson ) Subject: Re: Denial of
Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-14
17:27:41 PST

adoptadad
> And yet you keep bringing it up. Why is that?
> Just whom do you think you're kidding?

I sent one post. Where do you get this "keep bringing it up"??

I expressed suspicion it was a frame up.
What did I do wrong?

Ron is the only one of you pro-CPS folks to
see beyond the mindless vilification mindset?
I saw BEYOND battle lines and so did Ron.
That is the ethical thing to do in this situation.

Isn't it?

From: Kane )
Subject: Re: Denial of Service and viral attacks
View: Complete Thread (10 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2003-09-14 18:07:13 PST


On 14 Sep 2003 17:27:40 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

>adoptadad
>> And yet you keep bringing it up. Why is that?
>> Just whom do you think you're kidding?
>
>I sent one post. Where do you get this "keep bringing it up"??

Gosh, maybe from three mentions of my name, maybe.

"I am making this public in the belief that Kane is not really THIS
dumb"

"The idea that it IS Kane is just a bit too easy to be true."

"Is > a correct e-mail address for you Kane?"

Plus this request that I defend myself as not being the sender framed
as asking if it's MY correct address.

Like you were just doing Internet abuse research...yahsure, youbetcha.

>I expressed suspicion it was a frame up.

If I ask you three times what your intention was in giving a little
girl not related to you towelboy services and punishment in the form
of showers and pushing her under the shower to "get the shampoo" out
of her hair, do you not think it obvious the point I am making?

>What did I do wrong?

Nothing this time. It's your hapless impotent attempt we are
discussing.

You might conclude though, using the same logic you used in posting my
name three times within the notice of a virus attack, that this poster
you respond to does not like or trust you.

Just a guess, of course.

>Ron is the only one of you pro-CPS folks to
>see beyond the mindless vilification mindset?

Naw, Ron vilifies you quite nicely. Can't say it's mindless though, as
all of us who are hartily sick of your self indulgence at the expense
of a child, can say we have put our minds to our exposure of you.

>I saw BEYOND battle lines and so did Ron.

Oh, I don't think it escaped Ron that you mentioned me three times and
in addition posted a virus originating addy that had my name as part
of itself.

He just didn't bring it up, being as virii are serious business.

Of all the viruses out there you seemed to want to focus on this
particular one. Why is that?

As a matter of fact why is it that you focused on getting a child nude
and into a shower as a punishement while you stood by as towelboy?

She could have taken a shower, not cold, not as a punishment, to clean
up the urine from her wetting herself and THEN you could have chosen a
punishment (stupid vicious little **** that you are to punish a child
for wetting themselves) that didn't include her getting naked for you.

>That is the ethical thing to do in this situation.

Odd. Just like the little girl and the naked punishment you could have
chose another response. Like simply doing a search, they are so very
easy, on the name and seeing it's a notorious MP3 download group
member name.

That would have given you the clue that it wasn't me. And to claim I
am too smart to use my own name in a virus attack source addy just
makes it clear that you don't believe that or you wish others to
believe something about me that is less then friendly.

Now why, pray tell, didn't you check out ALL the Kanes on the web?
There are droves of them.

Do you really think we believe that virus attacks weren't happening
until this addy hit your inbox? Puuuulezzzzzzzzz. I get half a dozen a
week.

I think one of them had an addy with your name inbedded. Notice I
didn't come here to ask you? What would be the point unless I secretly
either believed your were guilty or wanted others to think so. I knew
it wasn't you. You are too gutless for even that remote an attack on
someone. You attack little girls and their needy mothers.

Do you now understand the reason for the posters point?

You kept bringing it up.

>Isn't it?

Sure, but your motives are questionable, as always.

I begin to think you have an argument for the same exuse used in
criminal trials...mental incompetence.

It is possible, barely, that you are completely unaware of how you
present here and how it makes it clear to the rest of us that you are
what we accuse you of.

And we tend NOT to play little cute games but to simply ask you to
explain yourself, and we give our opinion of you.

When are you going to catch on? We tend to believe you are a
thoroughgoing pervert by your own inadvertant admission by not by
honest confession.

It's your own words that lead us to the speculation.

I'd love to see you in court answering a few questions. Any chance we
could get you there? By the way, one thing you can count on, when CPS
doesn't claim any sexual abuse interests in a case like yours they are
keeping their cards face down, not telling you you aren't under
suspicion.

"Yes, I did make the six year old daughter of my "fiance" take a
shower with me standing by as towelboy, and did so a number of times."
"No, she was not incompetent, in fact rather bright and yes she could
have gotten her own towel or I could have had the foresight to leave
one in the bathroom for her." "Ahhh...I forgot, yeah that's it, I
forgot."

"Why no, I had no prurient interest in her. I just like to hang around
and discipline six year old girls with cold showers." "Really, no
sexual intent, honest, none at all, really."

So you see, dipwad, we aren't hinting or making some sly references.
We are telling you you'd better grow up quick. You did everything but
french kiss that kid.

And we don't know you didn't, and from your own splendid renditions it
looked like a wet dream for you.

Methinks thee dost protest too much, me boy.

Wherever is grandpa when he was needed....oh, wait. He did in fact
come to the rescue. Thank him for me, heartfelt of you will, please.
There's a good lad.

How's that jaw? Wake you up a night sometime? Are you going to be able
to predict the weather with it? I deeply hope so. For life.

I would not want to be you at the end of our life.

Unless you grow up and square this with the child, her mother, and the
family court, and you might throw in an apology to CPS.

At worst you were a perv. At the least, stupid as your Locust Post
friend. So tell us, which is it?

I hate to break the spell of this lovely exchange with you, but you
haven't responded to my challenges to defend your positions with a
bet, nor have you replied to my challenge of your claim that someone
with a Honeypot set on their system could be sued by the intruder that
takes the incorrect information.

Any chance you are going to respond, chicken{e.d.]? To anything?

Kane

From: Greg Hanson ) Subject: Re: Denial of
Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-15
06:39:42 PST

Remember this the next time you want to accuse
anti-CPS people of being rabid in their beliefs.
Post a follow-up to this message

From: Greg Hanson ) Subject: Re: Denial of
Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-16
06:45:28 PST

Another one. Are you SURE the DNS numbers are forged?
DNS numbers seem to be tripping up bulk SPAM senders.

Subject : FWD: Prove that pack from Microsoft
Date : Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:31:39 -0700
Attachment : update38.exe (208k) MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from smtp801.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.180]) by
mc9-f41.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 15 Sep
2003 09:29:18 -0700
Received: from adsl-67-121-191-147.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net (HELO
lwilson) (gka-lauraXsbcglobal.netX67.121.191.147 with login) by
smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2003 16:28:57
-0000
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+YDSEg8qKPPD
Message-ID: <000701c37ba6$d6c18460$7700a8c0@lwilson>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165


From: Kane ) Subject: Re: Denial of
Service and viral attacks
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services Date: 2003-09-16
13:09:55 PST

On 16 Sep 2003 06:45:26 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Gheez, I'd a thought you had enough time on your hands to study up on
this.

Google anonymous remailers and how they shove the packets along from
one node to the next, each time replacing the DNS numbers with their
own, thus layering concealment of the origin DNS.

It's not rocket science and it's paid for but some places in Europe
(and I'd bet in Asia) offer services that claim they "lose" all the
orginating header info so they can't be subpoened.. They lie, of
course, in some places, because a Finnish (I think it was) outfit got
shut down for trying to refuse a warrant.

Nevertheless that's the routine. Forward replace, forward replace.

So the last header isn't forged. It's perfectly real but you won't
find the orginator by looking at it.

Now, and for the not terminally stuck to the couch, sometimes the
really stupid virus jockey sends out a virus without adequate
concealment, or without knowing that some in the IP community are
friends of folks and will help them out if victimized. r r r r r r.

I've done my share of phone and email contact to friends who are IP
admins.

Note the source is now munged from a something or other kane to a
gka-laura. I'd bet they are using a addy randomising routine, probably
in the Microsoft Basic, to do that. It's a simple routine you can pick
up anywhere on the net.

>Another one. Are you SURE the DNS numbers are forged?
>DNS numbers seem to be tripping up bulk SPAM senders.
>Subject : FWD: Prove that pack from Microsoft
>Date : Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:31:39 -0700
>Attachment : update38.exe (208k) MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from smtp801.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.168.180]) by
>mc9-f41.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Mon, 15
Sep
>2003 09:29:18 -0700
>Received: from adsl-67-121-191-147.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net (HELO
>lwilson) (gka-lauraXsbcglobal.netX67.121.191.147 with login) by
>smtp-sbc-v1.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Sep 2003 16:28:57
>-0000
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+YDSEg8qKPPD
>Message-ID: <000701c37ba6$d6c18460$7700a8c0@lwilson>
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
>Importance: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Again, this ploy, the Microsoft special notice, is growing a beard.
Pretty much no one falls for it now.

My archive machine not physically or electronically connected to my
Internet server has about 6 bugbears, and 12 various common
virus/worm/trojans and a dead as a doornail nicely pin mounted LovSan.
I like to dissect these for my amusement, and all in just 48 hours.

You ain't nothin' special.

Relax. Let your virus checker do its work. Notice you aren't getting a
huge reponse from the ng other than a breathless "thank you for the
heads up Greg" from The Plant?

What's up with you these days?

Run out of little girls to give showers to, or kids to spank?

Kane