Greegor
January 2nd 07, 01:33 PM
I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.
I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.
And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.
The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.
All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.
Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!
Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.
Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.
As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?
Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
> >> > bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and
> >> > submitting to
> >> > their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your
> >> > book?
> >>
> >> ROFL!
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
> >> > lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look
> >> > like
> >> > the victim.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
> >>
> >> Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
> >> an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
> >> the family is entitled to!
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Though most everyone that's ****ed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull
> >> > off
> >> > their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most
> >> > rarely.
>
> > Note that Kane didn't even mention lawyers or attornies as Greg claimed..
>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Worked for us for over 30 years.
>
> >> Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.
> >
> > NO surrender, Greg.
>
> > A win before Court by producing the real facts of the case.
>
> >> I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
> >> approach.
> >
> > Teased me about something I never said.
> >
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
> >> > following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
> >> > simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
> >> > they even got to court.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
> >> > enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
> >> > court...because the judge decides.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
>
> >> Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
> >> Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
> >> left.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Bull****.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
>
> > Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.
>
> You know - I know lots of "activists" who make the same claim. Too bad
> it is almost never true when you look closely at the claims. Bull**** does
> NOT win cases, EVIDENCE does, PROOF does and a vigorous lawyer compelling
> the judge to hear it.
>
> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> >> caseworker?
> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> >> conspiracy to do same?
>
> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>
> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> >> sue the agency.
>
> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>
> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
> >>
> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>
> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>
> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
>
> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>
> > So?
>
> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
> hidden agendas and folk myth bull****.
>
> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>
> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>
> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
>
> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> > present.
>
> You mean "BULL****" that they present!
>
> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>
> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
> caseworkers presented was BULL****!
>
> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>
> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>
> Same for you Dan.
>
> >> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> >> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>
> >> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> >> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> >> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> >> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> >> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>
> > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
>
> Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
> attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
> only in the most eggregious cases.
>
> >> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
> >> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>
> > What???
>
> You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that? It
> is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
> that? In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error. You can't do that
> easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> >> > > Hey Dennis!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> >> >> >> > mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he found a job.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he took some parenting classes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he cleaned up the house.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And disposed of his excess belongings.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> >> >> >> > responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well
> >> >> >> > being
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > that little girl.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been
> >> >> >> > returned
> >> >> >> > LAST year.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can
> >> >> >> never
> >> >> >> male a 'deal" with Satan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Satan will NEVER keep its word!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So your alternative is???
> >>
> >> >> You asked me that before and when I answered you accused me of
> >> >> trying
> >> >> to "DRUM UP BUSINESS!"
> >>
> >> > That was someone else. I ddidn't accuse you of drumming up business.
> >>
> >> >> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
> >> >> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
> >> >> ropes,
> >> >> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
> >>
> >> > I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
> >>
> >> Most folks can raise it when they stop feeling sorry for themselves.
> >> I
> >> see people all the time facing criminal charges, worrying about their
> >> credit
> >> rating. I ask them "after you get convicted, WHERE do you think you'll be
> >> using that Platinum Amex Card?" Tell me Dan, when you are convicted of a
> >> felony, what do you think your credit rating is???????? Think you score
> >> an
> >> 800?
>
> > Most people I help are in Family Court, not Criminal.
>
> It's not real hard for somebody not using a lwyer to quickly find
> themselves in criminal court, and it isn't infrequent.
>
> >> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
>
> > I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
> > bacck..
>
> What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
> family, and making sure that once it is over they never come back.
>
> >> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
>
> > But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
>
> And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.
>
> >> You can't negotiate with those folks.
>
> > Not at all?
>
> Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
> sure they do.
>
> >> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> >> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> >> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
>
> > I don't make people do anything.
>
> Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
> people.
krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
> >>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
> >>> who
> >>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
> >>> the
> >>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> >>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
> > False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
> majority" are NOT victims.
>
> >> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
>
> > Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.
>
> Oh really? Then EVERY child in America should be taken from their homes
> without exception. And because the care within the system is equally at
> risk, what are you going to do? Send them to another planet?
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.
I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.
And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.
The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.
All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.
Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!
Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.
Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.
As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?
Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
> >> > bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and
> >> > submitting to
> >> > their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your
> >> > book?
> >>
> >> ROFL!
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
> >> > lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look
> >> > like
> >> > the victim.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!
> >>
> >> Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
> >> an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
> >> the family is entitled to!
> >>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Though most everyone that's ****ed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull
> >> > off
> >> > their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most
> >> > rarely.
>
> > Note that Kane didn't even mention lawyers or attornies as Greg claimed..
>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Worked for us for over 30 years.
>
> >> Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.
> >
> > NO surrender, Greg.
>
> > A win before Court by producing the real facts of the case.
>
> >> I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
> >> approach.
> >
> > Teased me about something I never said.
> >
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
> >> > following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
> >> > simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
> >> > they even got to court.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Yeah that works! <heavy sarcasm>
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
> >> > enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
> >> > court...because the judge decides.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!
>
> >> Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
> >> Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
> >> left.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Bull****.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
>
> > Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.
>
> You know - I know lots of "activists" who make the same claim. Too bad
> it is almost never true when you look closely at the claims. Bull**** does
> NOT win cases, EVIDENCE does, PROOF does and a vigorous lawyer compelling
> the judge to hear it.
>
> >> But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
> >> caseworker?
> >> Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
> >> of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
> >> conspiracy to do same?
>
> > Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?
>
> >> He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
> >> sue the agency.
>
> >> He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.
>
> > Kane's retired and tends to his garden.
>
> >> Kane wrote
> >> > Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
> >> > by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.
> >>
> >> krp wrote
> >> > Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"
> >>
> >> In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
> >> in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
> >> but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.
>
> > They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"
>
> Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!
>
> >> Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
> >> as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".
>
> > So?
>
> So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
> hidden agendas and folk myth bull****.
>
> >> The "preponderance" ( >50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
> >> by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.
>
> > The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.
>
> And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
> legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
> paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.
>
> > It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
> > present.
>
> You mean "BULL****" that they present!
>
> > It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.
>
> It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
> caseworkers presented was BULL****!
>
> >> This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
> >> preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
> >> is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.
>
> > Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.
>
> Same for you Dan.
>
> >> The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
> >> and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.
>
> >> Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
> >> referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
> >> transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
> >> of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
> >> Many hearings are also not transcribed.
>
> > Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.
>
> Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
> attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
> only in the most eggregious cases.
>
> >> So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
> >> the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.
>
> > What???
>
> You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that? It
> is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
> proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
> that? In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
> appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error. You can't do that
> easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.
krp wrote:
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> >> >> > > Hey Dennis!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What do you think would've happened if Greg said,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
> >> >> >> > mistake and it was never gonna happen again?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he found a job.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he took some parenting classes.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And he cleaned up the house.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And disposed of his excess belongings.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
> >> >> >> > responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well
> >> >> >> > being
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > that little girl.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been
> >> >> >> > returned
> >> >> >> > LAST year.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can
> >> >> >> never
> >> >> >> male a 'deal" with Satan.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Satan will NEVER keep its word!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So your alternative is???
> >>
> >> >> You asked me that before and when I answered you accused me of
> >> >> trying
> >> >> to "DRUM UP BUSINESS!"
> >>
> >> > That was someone else. I ddidn't accuse you of drumming up business.
> >>
> >> >> The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
> >> >> can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
> >> >> ropes,
> >> >> experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.
> >>
> >> > I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.
> >>
> >> Most folks can raise it when they stop feeling sorry for themselves.
> >> I
> >> see people all the time facing criminal charges, worrying about their
> >> credit
> >> rating. I ask them "after you get convicted, WHERE do you think you'll be
> >> using that Platinum Amex Card?" Tell me Dan, when you are convicted of a
> >> felony, what do you think your credit rating is???????? Think you score
> >> an
> >> 800?
>
> > Most people I help are in Family Court, not Criminal.
>
> It's not real hard for somebody not using a lwyer to quickly find
> themselves in criminal court, and it isn't infrequent.
>
> >> I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.
>
> > I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
> > bacck..
>
> What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
> family, and making sure that once it is over they never come back.
>
> >> The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.
>
> > But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.
>
> And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.
>
> >> You can't negotiate with those folks.
>
> > Not at all?
>
> Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
> sure they do.
>
> >> You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
> >> negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
> >> Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.
>
> > I don't make people do anything.
>
> Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
> people.
krp wrote:
> "0:->" > wrote in message
> news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@scnresearch. com...
>
> >>> You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
> >>> who
> >>> HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
> >>> the
> >>> vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
> >>> those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> The majority of kids in the system are not victims.
>
> > False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.
>
> Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
> majority" are NOT victims.
>
> >> The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.
>
> > Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.
>
> Oh really? Then EVERY child in America should be taken from their homes
> without exception. And because the care within the system is equally at
> risk, what are you going to do? Send them to another planet?