MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION

[Greegor]

MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION
Notice also the improper court order - no petition or case number?

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200612070.asp

Michigan December 7, 2006 Social Worker 'Fishing Expedition'
Case Dismissed

The Willits family was faithfully homeschooling their eight children in
Lenawee County, Michigan. Little did they know the trouble that was
around the corner-false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
expedition, an improper court order-and a happy ending with the case
dismissed!

The Willits family stood on their constitutional rights in refusing to
allow a social worker to interview their children.
It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted social services to
report the Willitses for allegedly having housing that was inadequate,
particularly the family's sleeping quarters. The social worker
visited the home unannounced but the father wisely refused entry and
set a time the next day for her to come back.

The father then voluntarily let the social worker into their home-but
had the rest of the family gone. The social worker found the family's
home to be very clean, neat, and adequate, especially the sleeping
quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she was looking for
neglect and abuse, but she did not find anything that evidenced that.

However, the social worker was not satisfied because she had not
completed her protocol in interviewing the children separately and
alone. The Willitses, shocked that the investigation did not close
immediately because it was obviously false, contacted Home School Legal
Defense Association.

HSLDA's Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately drafted a letter on
the family's behalf, stating he believed the anonymous tipster to be
malicious, since the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
the Willitses to give a number of character reference letters from
people in the community who could vouch for them being good parents. In
addition, he instructed the parents to take their children to their
pediatrician to prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
health.

Klicka's letter explained to the social worker that an interview was
not necessary since the social worker would receive doctor's reports,
as well as letters from the community vouching for the family's
innocence. He also indicated that since the social worker had already
determined the allegation to be false, he was advising the family that
they were under no legal obligation to have their children interviewed.


The social worker has a track record of getting her way, but the family
remained steadfast, refusing an interview in order to protect their
children from a fishing expedition.

Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted them again,
insisting on an interview or else. But the family held firm, refusing
this unnecessary trauma to their children.

Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the Willitses were served
with a court order. Apparently, the social worker had a hearing with
the prosecutor and the court referee and asked for a court
order-without the other side being present.

The court order stated "it appears to the court upon the filing of a
petition, together with further proofs as required by the court, that
there are reasonable grounds for removal of the children. . . because
conditions or surroundings of the children are such as to endanger the
health, safety, or welfare of the children and it is contrary to the
welfare of the children to remain in the home because the Department of
Human Services is asking to talk to the Willits children per Department
policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk with the
children. . . it is ordered the Department of Human Services may talk
to the children . . . without the parents being present within 72 hours
of service."

However, the court order had no petition attached, which is required by
law. The social worker by petition has to present actual evidence of
wrongdoing-not just verbal complaints about the family not
cooperating with the social worker's unconstitutional demands.
Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an interview if there is
no evidence of a crime or neglect.

Also, the court order did not have a case number as required by law.

Upon being secured to represent the Willitses, Michigan attorney Dave
Kallman immediately called the court referee to ask for a hearing to
cancel the court order. But he first inquired why the order did not
have petition or case number.

The court referee said, "that is just the way we do it here." But
as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the court order further, the court
referee began to falter. Then he finally said he would check on it and
talk with the judge.

The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said the court order was
withdrawn.

Praise God! The Willits family was elated.

[Greegor]

Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.


Greegor wrote:
> MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION
> Notice also the improper court order - no petition or case number?
>
> http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200612070.asp
>
> Michigan December 7, 2006 Social Worker 'Fishing Expedition'
> Case Dismissed
>
> The Willits family was faithfully homeschooling their eight children in
> Lenawee County, Michigan. Little did they know the trouble that was
> around the corner-false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
> expedition, an improper court order-and a happy ending with the case
> dismissed!
>
> The Willits family stood on their constitutional rights in refusing to
> allow a social worker to interview their children.
> It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted social services to
> report the Willitses for allegedly having housing that was inadequate,
> particularly the family's sleeping quarters. The social worker
> visited the home unannounced but the father wisely refused entry and
> set a time the next day for her to come back.
>
> The father then voluntarily let the social worker into their home-but
> had the rest of the family gone. The social worker found the family's
> home to be very clean, neat, and adequate, especially the sleeping
> quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she was looking for
> neglect and abuse, but she did not find anything that evidenced that.
>
> However, the social worker was not satisfied because she had not
> completed her protocol in interviewing the children separately and
> alone. The Willitses, shocked that the investigation did not close
> immediately because it was obviously false, contacted Home School Legal
> Defense Association.
>
> HSLDA's Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately drafted a letter on
> the family's behalf, stating he believed the anonymous tipster to be
> malicious, since the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
> the Willitses to give a number of character reference letters from
> people in the community who could vouch for them being good parents. In
> addition, he instructed the parents to take their children to their
> pediatrician to prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
> health.
>
> Klicka's letter explained to the social worker that an interview was
> not necessary since the social worker would receive doctor's reports,
> as well as letters from the community vouching for the family's
> innocence. He also indicated that since the social worker had already
> determined the allegation to be false, he was advising the family that
> they were under no legal obligation to have their children interviewed.
>
>
> The social worker has a track record of getting her way, but the family
> remained steadfast, refusing an interview in order to protect their
> children from a fishing expedition.
>
> Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted them again,
> insisting on an interview or else. But the family held firm, refusing
> this unnecessary trauma to their children.
>
> Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the Willitses were served
> with a court order. Apparently, the social worker had a hearing with
> the prosecutor and the court referee and asked for a court
> order-without the other side being present.
>
> The court order stated "it appears to the court upon the filing of a
> petition, together with further proofs as required by the court, that
> there are reasonable grounds for removal of the children. . . because
> conditions or surroundings of the children are such as to endanger the
> health, safety, or welfare of the children and it is contrary to the
> welfare of the children to remain in the home because the Department of
> Human Services is asking to talk to the Willits children per Department
> policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk with the
> children. . . it is ordered the Department of Human Services may talk
> to the children . . . without the parents being present within 72 hours
> of service."
>
> However, the court order had no petition attached, which is required by
> law. The social worker by petition has to present actual evidence of
> wrongdoing-not just verbal complaints about the family not
> cooperating with the social worker's unconstitutional demands.
> Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an interview if there is
> no evidence of a crime or neglect.
>
> Also, the court order did not have a case number as required by law.
>
> Upon being secured to represent the Willitses, Michigan attorney Dave
> Kallman immediately called the court referee to ask for a hearing to
> cancel the court order. But he first inquired why the order did not
> have petition or case number.
>
> The court referee said, "that is just the way we do it here." But
> as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the court order further, the court
> referee began to falter. Then he finally said he would check on it and
> talk with the judge.
>
> The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said the court order was
> withdrawn.
>
> Praise God! The Willits family was elated.

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
> Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.

If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.

Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
> Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.

Dan Sullivan wrote
> If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.
> Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.

Why didn't you post something helpful, since it
has been here for 5 whole days?

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
>> Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
>> Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
>> If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.
>> Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.
>
> Why didn't you post something helpful, since it
> has been here for 5 whole days?

Ken didn't do as you suggested.

You seem to think Dan's reactions, and mine would be like a caseworkers.
Why not prove that in some way?

Like post what you think our reaction would be.

As requested.

What would Dan have posted that was helpful?

Do you expect us to jump to your silly bull**** questions, Greg?

When you won't answer serious ones from us?

Do your own work.

What would Dan and I say in a reactions that would be caseworker like?

Be specific.

Thanks.

By the by, questions of you have gone unanswered for years, Greg. Whole
years, one after the other. Sometimes asked of you again and again with
you dodging and ignoring.

Why not clear up some of those and clean up your act, eh?

As it is you are running, especially with Dennis coming to your rescue
so stupidly ... as per his usual rant ... a credibility meter of minus ten.

I wouldn't trust you to teach a cat how to lick it's ass even if you
demonstrated.

Kane

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION
Notice also the improper court order - no petition or case number?

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200612070.asp
>
> Michigan December 7, 2006 Social Worker 'Fishing Expedition'
> Case Dismissed
>
> The Willits family was faithfully homeschooling their eight children in
> Lenawee County, Michigan. Little did they know the trouble that was
> around the corner-false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
> expedition, an improper court order-and a happy ending with the case
> dismissed!
>
> The Willits family stood on their constitutional rights in refusing to
> allow a social worker to interview their children.
> It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted social services to
> report the Willitses for allegedly having housing that was inadequate,
> particularly the family's sleeping quarters. The social worker
> visited the home unannounced but the father wisely refused entry and
> set a time the next day for her to come back.
>
> The father then voluntarily let the social worker into their home-but
> had the rest of the family gone. The social worker found the family's
> home to be very clean, neat, and adequate, especially the sleeping
> quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she was looking for
> neglect and abuse, but she did not find anything that evidenced that.
>
> However, the social worker was not satisfied because she had not
> completed her protocol in interviewing the children separately and
> alone. The Willitses, shocked that the investigation did not close
> immediately because it was obviously false, contacted Home School Legal
> Defense Association.
>
> HSLDA's Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately drafted a letter on
> the family's behalf, stating he believed the anonymous tipster to be
> malicious, since the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
> the Willitses to give a number of character reference letters from
> people in the community who could vouch for them being good parents. In
> addition, he instructed the parents to take their children to their
> pediatrician to prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
> health.
>
> Klicka's letter explained to the social worker that an interview was
> not necessary since the social worker would receive doctor's reports,
> as well as letters from the community vouching for the family's
> innocence. He also indicated that since the social worker had already
> determined the allegation to be false, he was advising the family that
> they were under no legal obligation to have their children interviewed.
>
>
> The social worker has a track record of getting her way, but the family
> remained steadfast, refusing an interview in order to protect their
> children from a fishing expedition.
>
> Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted them again,
> insisting on an interview or else. But the family held firm, refusing
> this unnecessary trauma to their children.
>
> Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the Willitses were served
> with a court order. Apparently, the social worker had a hearing with
> the prosecutor and the court referee and asked for a court
> order-without the other side being present.
>
> The court order stated "it appears to the court upon the filing of a
> petition, together with further proofs as required by the court, that
> there are reasonable grounds for removal of the children. . . because
> conditions or surroundings of the children are such as to endanger the
> health, safety, or welfare of the children and it is contrary to the
> welfare of the children to remain in the home because the Department of
> Human Services is asking to talk to the Willits children per Department
> policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk with the
> children. . . it is ordered the Department of Human Services may talk
> to the children . . . without the parents being present within 72 hours
> of service."
>
> However, the court order had no petition attached, which is required by
> law. The social worker by petition has to present actual evidence of
> wrongdoing-not just verbal complaints about the family not
> cooperating with the social worker's unconstitutional demands.
> Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an interview if there is
> no evidence of a crime or neglect.
>
> Also, the court order did not have a case number as required by law.
>
> Upon being secured to represent the Willitses, Michigan attorney Dave
> Kallman immediately called the court referee to ask for a hearing to
> cancel the court order. But he first inquired why the order did not
> have petition or case number.
>
> The court referee said, "that is just the way we do it here." But
> as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the court order further, the court
> referee began to falter. Then he finally said he would check on it and
> talk with the judge.
>
> The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said the court order was
> withdrawn.
>
> Praise God! The Willits family was elated.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION
> Notice also the improper court order - no petition or case number?

Yet another assinine pointless non specific question, Greg. See that
squiggle you put at the end?

The only thing your respondant can answer, if they chose to at all, is
'yes, I noticed.'

If you have a question, be specific.

Now, here's mine.

Just how stupid are you, Greg? Say on a scale of one to ten. Ten being
Einstein, and one being an ameoba.

I'll give you a 3, on your best days. (Roadkill frog).

R R RRRR R R R R RR R


>
> http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200612070.asp
> >
> > Michigan December 7, 2006 Social Worker 'Fishing Expedition'
> > Case Dismissed
> >
> > The Willits family was faithfully homeschooling their eight children in
> > Lenawee County, Michigan. Little did they know the trouble that was
> > around the corner-false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
> > expedition, an improper court order-and a happy ending with the case
> > dismissed!
> >
> > The Willits family stood on their constitutional rights in refusing to
> > allow a social worker to interview their children.
> > It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted social services to
> > report the Willitses for allegedly having housing that was inadequate,
> > particularly the family's sleeping quarters. The social worker
> > visited the home unannounced but the father wisely refused entry and
> > set a time the next day for her to come back.
> >
> > The father then voluntarily let the social worker into their home-but
> > had the rest of the family gone. The social worker found the family's
> > home to be very clean, neat, and adequate, especially the sleeping
> > quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she was looking for
> > neglect and abuse, but she did not find anything that evidenced that.
> >
> > However, the social worker was not satisfied because she had not
> > completed her protocol in interviewing the children separately and
> > alone. The Willitses, shocked that the investigation did not close
> > immediately because it was obviously false, contacted Home School Legal
> > Defense Association.
> >
> > HSLDA's Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately drafted a letter on
> > the family's behalf, stating he believed the anonymous tipster to be
> > malicious, since the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
> > the Willitses to give a number of character reference letters from
> > people in the community who could vouch for them being good parents. In
> > addition, he instructed the parents to take their children to their
> > pediatrician to prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
> > health.
> >
> > Klicka's letter explained to the social worker that an interview was
> > not necessary since the social worker would receive doctor's reports,
> > as well as letters from the community vouching for the family's
> > innocence. He also indicated that since the social worker had already
> > determined the allegation to be false, he was advising the family that
> > they were under no legal obligation to have their children interviewed.
> >
> >
> > The social worker has a track record of getting her way, but the family
> > remained steadfast, refusing an interview in order to protect their
> > children from a fishing expedition.
> >
> > Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted them again,
> > insisting on an interview or else. But the family held firm, refusing
> > this unnecessary trauma to their children.
> >
> > Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the Willitses were served
> > with a court order. Apparently, the social worker had a hearing with
> > the prosecutor and the court referee and asked for a court
> > order-without the other side being present.
> >
> > The court order stated "it appears to the court upon the filing of a
> > petition, together with further proofs as required by the court, that
> > there are reasonable grounds for removal of the children. . . because
> > conditions or surroundings of the children are such as to endanger the
> > health, safety, or welfare of the children and it is contrary to the
> > welfare of the children to remain in the home because the Department of
> > Human Services is asking to talk to the Willits children per Department
> > policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk with the
> > children. . . it is ordered the Department of Human Services may talk
> > to the children . . . without the parents being present within 72 hours
> > of service."
> >
> > However, the court order had no petition attached, which is required by
> > law. The social worker by petition has to present actual evidence of
> > wrongdoing-not just verbal complaints about the family not
> > cooperating with the social worker's unconstitutional demands.
> > Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an interview if there is
> > no evidence of a crime or neglect.
> >
> > Also, the court order did not have a case number as required by law.
> >
> > Upon being secured to represent the Willitses, Michigan attorney Dave
> > Kallman immediately called the court referee to ask for a hearing to
> > cancel the court order. But he first inquired why the order did not
> > have petition or case number.
> >
> > The court referee said, "that is just the way we do it here." But
> > as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the court order further, the court
> > referee began to falter. Then he finally said he would check on it and
> > talk with the judge.
> >
> > The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said the court order was
> > withdrawn.
> >
> > Praise God! The Willits family was elated.

[Greegor]

Greegor wrote:
> MI HSLDA Documented FISHING EXPEDITION
> Notice also the improper court order - no petition or case number?

http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/mi/200612070.asp

> > > Michigan December 7, 2006 Social Worker 'Fishing Expedition'
> > > Case Dismissed
> > >
> > > The Willits family was faithfully homeschooling their eight children in
> > > Lenawee County, Michigan. Little did they know the trouble that was
> > > around the corner-false allegations, threats, an attempted fishing
> > > expedition, an improper court order-and a happy ending with the case
> > > dismissed!
> > >
> > > The Willits family stood on their constitutional rights in refusing to
> > > allow a social worker to interview their children.
> > > It all started when an anonymous tipster contacted social services to
> > > report the Willitses for allegedly having housing that was inadequate,
> > > particularly the family's sleeping quarters. The social worker
> > > visited the home unannounced but the father wisely refused entry and
> > > set a time the next day for her to come back.
> > >
> > > The father then voluntarily let the social worker into their home-but
> > > had the rest of the family gone. The social worker found the family's
> > > home to be very clean, neat, and adequate, especially the sleeping
> > > quarters. The social worker also mentioned that she was looking for
> > > neglect and abuse, but she did not find anything that evidenced that.
> > >
> > > However, the social worker was not satisfied because she had not
> > > completed her protocol in interviewing the children separately and
> > > alone. The Willitses, shocked that the investigation did not close
> > > immediately because it was obviously false, contacted Home School Legal
> > > Defense Association.
> > >
> > > HSLDA's Senior Counsel Chris Klicka immediately drafted a letter on
> > > the family's behalf, stating he believed the anonymous tipster to be
> > > malicious, since the allegation was so absurd. Klicka also instructed
> > > the Willitses to give a number of character reference letters from
> > > people in the community who could vouch for them being good parents. In
> > > addition, he instructed the parents to take their children to their
> > > pediatrician to prove that all eight of their children were in perfect
> > > health.
> > >
> > > Klicka's letter explained to the social worker that an interview was
> > > not necessary since the social worker would receive doctor's reports,
> > > as well as letters from the community vouching for the family's
> > > innocence. He also indicated that since the social worker had already
> > > determined the allegation to be false, he was advising the family that
> > > they were under no legal obligation to have their children interviewed.
> > >
> > >
> > > The social worker has a track record of getting her way, but the family
> > > remained steadfast, refusing an interview in order to protect their
> > > children from a fishing expedition.
> > >
> > > Finally, a month later, the social worker contacted them again,
> > > insisting on an interview or else. But the family held firm, refusing
> > > this unnecessary trauma to their children.
> > >
> > > Then surprise! On the evening of November 6, the Willitses were served
> > > with a court order. Apparently, the social worker had a hearing with
> > > the prosecutor and the court referee and asked for a court
> > > order-without the other side being present.
> > >
> > > The court order stated "it appears to the court upon the filing of a
> > > petition, together with further proofs as required by the court, that
> > > there are reasonable grounds for removal of the children. . . because
> > > conditions or surroundings of the children are such as to endanger the
> > > health, safety, or welfare of the children and it is contrary to the
> > > welfare of the children to remain in the home because the Department of
> > > Human Services is asking to talk to the Willits children per Department
> > > policy. Parents have refused to let the Department talk with the
> > > children. . . it is ordered the Department of Human Services may talk
> > > to the children . . . without the parents being present within 72 hours
> > > of service."
> > >
> > > However, the court order had no petition attached, which is required by
> > > law. The social worker by petition has to present actual evidence of
> > > wrongdoing-not just verbal complaints about the family not
> > > cooperating with the social worker's unconstitutional demands.
> > > Parents have the right in Michigan to refuse an interview if there is
> > > no evidence of a crime or neglect.
> > >
> > > Also, the court order did not have a case number as required by law.
> > >
> > > Upon being secured to represent the Willitses, Michigan attorney Dave
> > > Kallman immediately called the court referee to ask for a hearing to
> > > cancel the court order. But he first inquired why the order did not
> > > have petition or case number.
> > >
> > > The court referee said, "that is just the way we do it here." But
> > > as Kallman pushed the impropriety of the court order further, the court
> > > referee began to falter. Then he finally said he would check on it and
> > > talk with the judge.
> > >
> > > The next day, Kallman checked with him and he said the court order was
> > > withdrawn.
> > >
> > > Praise God! The Willits family was elated.

[Dan Sullivan]

Greegor wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
> > Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.
>
> Dan Sullivan wrote
> > If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.
> > Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.
>
> Why didn't you post something helpful, since it
> has been here for 5 whole days?

Kill yourself, Greg.

That would be helpful.

[Greegor]

Dan Sullivan wrote:
> Greegor wrote:
> > Greegor wrote:
> > > Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
> > > Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.
> >
> > Dan Sullivan wrote
> > > If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.
> > > Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.
> >
> > Why didn't you post something helpful, since it
> > has been here for 5 whole days?
>
> Kill yourself, Greg.
>
> That would be helpful.

Constructive as ever.
A true humanitarian.

[0:->]

Greegor wrote:
> Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>> Ken, If you ask Dan and Kane about this, watch their reactions.
>>>> Pretty much the same reactions you'd expect from caseworkers.
>>> Dan Sullivan wrote
>>>> If you already know what my reaction would be, Greg.
>>>> Then save me the trouble and write it and post it for me.
>>> Why didn't you post something helpful, since it
>>> has been here for 5 whole days?
>> Kill yourself, Greg.
>>
>> That would be helpful.
>
> Constructive as ever.
> A true humanitarian.

You see.

Here's a place where Dan and I are in sharp disagreement. I can't
believe he'd be so crude, Greg.

Castration, sure, but death?

No, for you see, I want you here were we can keep and eye on you. All
these families that have come here in the past that you've attacked. I'm
looking them up and inviting them back to examine the strong possibility
you are a CPS AGENT PROVOCATEUR.

It can't just be that they are all wrong and you are right in all their
cases...that they did it "wrong," but oddly, got their kids back, the
lot of them. Well, with a couple of exceptions you ****ants sabotaged.

That's what inspires me to be a huge pain in the butt for you, Greg.

All I have to do is think of those families and you and your cronies and
I know that there is no giving up. As they say, Greg, Never Again.

You and your CPS AGENT cronies here are out of business. For good.

It's far too obvious, you are too stupid, to hide the fact that you have
routinely, consistently, and for a very many years, thoroughly attacked
families coming here for help.

The proof is in your posts, and theirs.

You are a liar, a fraud, and a phony "parents rights advocate."

You are nothing of the kind our you would not attack them no matter HOW
they managed to get their children away from CPS, but there you are,
smirking your little sick smirk, making remarks about gender, weight,
beliefs, and whatever you could find to attack.

YOU ARE A FAMILY HATER WORKING FOR CPS, ADMIT IT.

0:-]



>