The system of Child Welfare is out of control. Children are beingtaken from good families.

[fx]

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=1350

House Committee on Ways and Means


Statement of Kandy Helson, Racine, Wisconsin

Here is my statement. I am dismayed. I am an American citizen and I
have voted in every election. The system of Child Welfare is out of
control. Children are being taken from good families. The states
receive adoption bonuses, this bonus system had a place but now it is no
longer necessary. It is being abused. Here is why, a high percentage
of child abuse cases are some form of neglect. The parents are very
poorly represented in court. The child welfare workers have a money
incentive to terminate parents rights. A HIGH percentage of these
parents are having their rights terminated with no criminal charges. If
criminal charges are not being filed a hardly see a reason enough to
terminate parents rights. A serious child abuse crime should of been
committed for parents to lose all rights. Not only do parents lose
their rights but the rest of the extended family do as well. I believe
this violates the civil rights of those relatives to see and continue a
relationship with their blood relative. Another serious problem is the
child welfare system receives more money if they can label the child
with a mental disorder. They classify children who throw tantrums as
behavior disorders. The children are being mentally abused by the
separation from their families. Then they are drugged because that
leads to more funding for the system. What child never throws a
tantrum? How is there valid enough reason to terminate parents rights
but not valid enough reason to file charges criminally. The funding
should provide a way to prevent the neglect that led to the child being
in the system. As neglect is the largest single reason children are
removed from their families. A free government should not interfere
with the family so harshly as what is being done now. A convicted
murderer behind bars has more rights to visit, phone calls and letters
from their children. The American public would be outraged if they knew
exactly what the system that is supposed to protect children has turned
into. It is a money making industry. It need a complete overhaul with
an investigation and criminal charges brought against any worker at all
levels who ripped apart families and abused their power. To continue to
let it happen should lead to all government officials who were contacted
and or notified of the abuses perpetrated on American families to be
investigated who did not take action to investigate and correct this
horrible tragedy.

[Ron]

So, basically its a letter to congress from a citizen.

No facts, no numbers, no professional assessments. Pretty much nothing but
opinion. Nice. Useless.

Try again kenny, this one is as lame as the rest of your arguments.

Ron


"fx" > wrote in message
...
> http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=1350
>
> House Committee on Ways and Means
>
>
> Statement of Kandy Helson, Racine, Wisconsin
>
> Here is my statement. I am dismayed. I am an American citizen and I have
> voted in every election. The system of Child Welfare is out of control.
> Children are being taken from good families. The states receive adoption
> bonuses, this bonus system had a place but now it is no longer necessary.
> It is being abused. Here is why, a high percentage of child abuse cases
> are some form of neglect. The parents are very poorly represented in
> court. The child welfare workers have a money incentive to terminate
> parents rights. A HIGH percentage of these parents are having their
> rights terminated with no criminal charges. If criminal charges are not
> being filed a hardly see a reason enough to terminate parents rights. A
> serious child abuse crime should of been committed for parents to lose all
> rights. Not only do parents lose their rights but the rest of the
> extended family do as well. I believe this violates the civil rights of
> those relatives to see and continue a relationship with their blood
> relative. Another serious problem is the child welfare system receives
> more money if they can label the child with a mental disorder. They
> classify children who throw tantrums as behavior disorders. The children
> are being mentally abused by the separation from their families. Then
> they are drugged because that leads to more funding for the system. What
> child never throws a tantrum? How is there valid enough reason to
> terminate parents rights but not valid enough reason to file charges
> criminally. The funding should provide a way to prevent the neglect that
> led to the child being in the system. As neglect is the largest single
> reason children are removed from their families. A free government should
> not interfere with the family so harshly as what is being done now. A
> convicted murderer behind bars has more rights to visit, phone calls and
> letters from their children. The American public would be outraged if
> they knew exactly what the system that is supposed to protect children has
> turned into. It is a money making industry. It need a complete overhaul
> with an investigation and criminal charges brought against any worker at
> all levels who ripped apart families and abused their power. To continue
> to let it happen should lead to all government officials who were
> contacted and or notified of the abuses perpetrated on American families
> to be investigated who did not take action to investigate and correct this
> horrible tragedy.

[Dan Sullivan]

On Mar 15, 6:42 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> So, basically its a letter to congress from a citizen.
>
> No facts, no numbers, no professional assessments. Pretty much nothing but
> opinion. Nice. Useless.

Just to remind you, Ron, people for the most part vote based on their
own opinion rather than professional assessmants.

She has a right to her opinion... as do you and I.

[0:-]]

.... the concerns are legitimate in this testimony?

Are all of them based on accurate information and logical premise?

Kane

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:37:54 -0700, fx > wrote:

>http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=1350
>
>House Committee on Ways and Means
>
>
>Statement of Kandy Helson, Racine, Wisconsin
>
>Here is my statement. I am dismayed. I am an American citizen and I
>have voted in every election. The system of Child Welfare is out of
>control. Children are being taken from good families. The states
>receive adoption bonuses, this bonus system had a place but now it is no
>longer necessary. It is being abused. Here is why, a high percentage
>of child abuse cases are some form of neglect. The parents are very
>poorly represented in court. The child welfare workers have a money
>incentive to terminate parents rights. A HIGH percentage of these
>parents are having their rights terminated with no criminal charges. If
>criminal charges are not being filed a hardly see a reason enough to
>terminate parents rights. A serious child abuse crime should of been
>committed for parents to lose all rights. Not only do parents lose
>their rights but the rest of the extended family do as well. I believe
>this violates the civil rights of those relatives to see and continue a
>relationship with their blood relative. Another serious problem is the
>child welfare system receives more money if they can label the child
>with a mental disorder. They classify children who throw tantrums as
>behavior disorders. The children are being mentally abused by the
>separation from their families. Then they are drugged because that
>leads to more funding for the system. What child never throws a
>tantrum? How is there valid enough reason to terminate parents rights
>but not valid enough reason to file charges criminally. The funding
>should provide a way to prevent the neglect that led to the child being
>in the system. As neglect is the largest single reason children are
>removed from their families. A free government should not interfere
>with the family so harshly as what is being done now. A convicted
>murderer behind bars has more rights to visit, phone calls and letters
>from their children. The American public would be outraged if they knew
>exactly what the system that is supposed to protect children has turned
>into. It is a money making industry. It need a complete overhaul with
>an investigation and criminal charges brought against any worker at all
>levels who ripped apart families and abused their power. To continue to
>let it happen should lead to all government officials who were contacted
>and or notified of the abuses perpetrated on American families to be
>investigated who did not take action to investigate and correct this
>horrible tragedy.

[Sherman]

"fx" > wrote in message
...
> http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=1350
>
> House Committee on Ways and Means
>
>
> Statement of Kandy Helson, Racine, Wisconsin
>
> Here is my statement. I am dismayed. I am an American citizen and I have
> voted in every election. The system of Child Welfare is out of control.
> Children are being taken from good families. The states receive adoption
> bonuses, this bonus system had a place but now it is no longer necessary.
> It is being abused. Here is why, a high percentage of child abuse cases
> are some form of neglect. The parents are very poorly represented in
> court. The child welfare workers have a money incentive to terminate
> parents rights. A HIGH percentage of these parents are having their
> rights terminated with no criminal charges. If criminal charges are not
> being filed a hardly see a reason enough to terminate parents rights. A
> serious child abuse crime should of been committed for parents to lose all
> rights. Not only do parents lose their rights but the rest of the
> extended family do as well. I believe this violates the civil rights of
> those relatives to see and continue a relationship with their blood
> relative. Another serious problem is the child welfare system receives
> more money if they can label the child with a mental disorder. They
> classify children who throw tantrums as behavior disorders. The children
> are being mentally abused by the separation from their families. Then
> they are drugged because that leads to more funding for the system. What
> child never throws a tantrum? How is there valid enough reason to
> terminate parents rights but not valid enough reason to file charges
> criminally. The funding should provide a way to prevent the neglect that
> led to the child being in the system. As neglect is the largest single
> reason children are removed from their families. A free government should
> not interfere with the family so harshly as what is being done now. A
> convicted murderer behind bars has more rights to visit, phone calls and
> letters from their children. The American public would be outraged if
> they knew exactly what the system that is supposed to protect children has
> turned into. It is a money making industry. It need a complete overhaul
> with an investigation and criminal charges brought against any worker at
> all levels who ripped apart families and abused their power. To continue
> to let it happen should lead to all government officials who were
> contacted and or notified of the abuses perpetrated on American families
> to be investigated who did not take action to investigate and correct this
> horrible tragedy.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=1348
House Committee on Ways and Means


Statement of Greg S. Hanson, and Lisa R. Watkins, Hiawatha, Iowa

Child Protection has become an INDUSTRY. The Contract the states entered
into for Federal Grant Money was contingent upon states meeting many
standards. The threat of cutting off funds if states didn't fulfill all of
the requirements has NOT been followed through by the federal government
however.

Up until recently these agencies used to fend off any correction or any
decision unfavorable to them by saying that the politician was "Against
Child Protection". A few congressmen have experienced this McCarthy era like
demogoguery from the Child Protection Industry. Now things for their
INDUSTRY have gotten bad enough that politicians don't have to fear this
tactic of demogoguery as in the past.

I basically don't think ANY government agency should remove kids or
reimburse states for removing kids unless there is some VERY serious reason
in that individual case to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of a family to be
intact.

Much like with Enron, Child Protection has been too much motivated by
funding streams and "bean counting" at the expense of ethics, fairness and
even responsible handling of money. The main data provided to the federal
government to qualify state Child Protection agencies for federal money is
in fact generated by ""judgement calls"" made by the agencies themselves,
with an urge to grow endlessly. All they have to do is call every case
"Imminent Danger" even where they removed a child from their home for
"Clutter" or "messy house". The federal government feeds them money for
this. Caseworkers are immune from perjury, so they do it a lot.

Hasn't Congress ever noticed that Child Abuse and Neglect is used as one
term, CAN, for funding? What most citizens would consider to be real child
abuse is about 3% of all child removals. The vast majority of child removals
are for neglect, not abuse. Neglect is a large catch all that can range from
drug addiction issues to simply "messy house". The percentage of cases where
state agencies really DON'T KNOW why the child was removed is the most
revealing, a percentage usually higher than the 3%. In other words,
statistically, serious child abuse is statistically small enough to hide
within the margin of error. Keep in mind that these numbers might be of
considerably less utility to the state agencies if the state agencies were
not the ones REPORTING these numbers.

Another factor is that if Child Protection were to accuse 1000 parents
wrongly, an amazingly large number would find the overbearing corrupt
Juvenile Courts just too much to cope with, almost terroristic in their
approach, and would surrender completely, seeing the struggle as futile. I
personally watched my fiance' get fall prey to what I have dubbed "the
stipulation scam" where her own lawyer pushed her to ""stipulate"" without
any serious consultation, just 15 minutes of pressure before court. 90+ % of
all cases are "stipulated", a term in Juvenile Courts which is comparable to
a guilty plea, even thought the Judas lawyer said it was not, and all of the
effects are exactly like a guilty plea. ""Stipulations"" are generally not
signed and rarely involve a document to consider or time to consider it. My
fiance' only agreed to CONSIDER one, but her attorney agreed FOR HER. She
never saw a document to consider nor signed any.

A Judges Association in one area openly and outright urged local Family Law
attorneys to talk most families into stipulation to save on court time. No
reference was made to guilt or innocence, which fits my experience.

Child Protection and Juvenile Court tread on a most precious LIBERTY
INTEREST, 14th Amendment right to Family Association, yet the standard of
evidence and the constitutional protections in Juvenile Court are INFERIOR
to those for a petty theft.

Bottom line: The overbearing system cons large numbers of families into
being marked guilty when they are not. Americans are "cowed" into "winning
through surrender". Once the "stipulation scam" takes place, Caseworkers
"own" the family and are quite used to playing god. For the family to
asserting Constitutional Rights at that point angers caseworkers and makes
the situation adversarial because caseworkers pretend they don't know they
are violating the constitution. Even the caseworker with a Bachelors degree
in criminology claimed ignorance of the US Constitution.

For the Federal OR State government to invoke PARENS PATRIAE (Child of the
State) they SHOULD have to:

1.. Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent. So far government has
failed MISERABLY, generally doing WORSE than many of the supposedly failing
parents that get children removed from them. It's like the Hog in the wallow
calling the Horse dirty.

2.. Stop calling every little nit-picky thing "Imminent Danger" in order
to justify depriving CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to family integrity. Caseworkers
act like Chicken Little making big cases out of small issues, while the sky
really IS falling for some other kid. Kids should NOT be removed for clutter
or messy house which is a SUBJECTIVE call and could probably be used to
describe HALF of all homes, according to a 'Nam Vet ambulance driver I
talked to. Don't they have more pressing issues than to be whining that a
parents "lived in" home is ""messy""?

3.. True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile Courts to be complete
Rubber Stamps for caseworkers. This defeats the entire purpose of Juvenile
Court. Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from violating the rights
of families and kids. This one-sided rubber stamping and even polarized bias
has to stop. They ignore motions from parents for reasonable, basic and
required fairness and protection of rights.

4.. AVENUES OF REDRESS AND CORRECTION that are broken or twisted to be
denied in Iowa and other states. These have been required for over ten
years, yet have never been implemented, have been twisted or dead ended.
When US DHHS Audited all 50 States I don't think they even investigated
these three requirements that would assist protection of basic citizen
rights, because there seems to be no action to repair these functions in the
works. The only way to force the states to honor their ten year old contract
regarding these is to stop their money.

Yes, they are all about money. State Child Protection agencies have become
all about the money, Kevin W. Concannon is infamous for being in charge in
Maine when Logan Marr was removed for reasons reminiscent of Rube Goldberg
devices, only to end up dead in state care. The foster/adopter was a former
Child Protection caseworker who didn't believe in spanking, yet duct taped
the girl to a high chair in her basement and duct taped over her mouth.
Later when DHS director Concannon left Maine, Iowa hired him to Direct DHS
here, actually stating the reason was his ability to bring this state more
Federal Dollars for DHS programs. The Governor must not have noticed the
revolving account repayment obligations and law suit settlements Maine got
saddled with thanks to Concannon.

But several avenues of redress are broken all over?

1.. Citizens Review Board, required for over TEN YEARS, each state was to
have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more, as review boards over Child
Protective Services case problems. These could have provided Hope for
families dealing with caseworkers telling BIG LIES as in my families' case.
Citizens Review Boards are required over CPS case problems. Not just over
Foster Care, but over Child Protection malfunction. Iowa DID have a CRB two
years ago which was all loaded with Child Protection workers and
contractors, which by the way was against regulations. Now there is NO CRB
except over Foster Care. (CRB combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB )

2.. DHHS "PIQ" directive ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) directs states to
proivide Administrative hearing process to Federal 45 CFR 205.10 standards
regarding GRIEVANCES ABOUT SERVICES PROBLEMS Notice the DATE on that DHHS
"PIQ" Directive? Kevin W. Concannon, director of Iowa DHS claims that we
cannot have access to this process even though we meet the criteria.
Concannon clung to some State Law that is inferior to the Federal law,
denying us access to this grievance process for reasons which violate the
Federal Law. Even though we DID claim to have been denied services in our
complaint, he said we could not have access to this process since we were
not denied services. Think about this a moment though, This creates a mess
where MORE services is better, even if the services are needless, baseless,
or in some way malfunctioning or rigged. As he spelled it out, this process
could not REMOVE services applied without basis, and of course this process
could never address qualitative problems with services, like bias, twisting
or misuse. The process as described by Concannon is, effectively, of no use
to correct grievous wrongs.

3.. The US DHHS holds purse strings and are supposed to require that state
Child Protection Agencies comply with regulations to provide FAIRNESS and
quality of service. The problem is that this is done on a FISCAL basis and
DHHS refuses to investigate complaints from individual families about ABUSES
BY STATE AGENCIES. DHHS refuses to investigate reports of agency abuses even
where a state fails to provide a required corrective process like the
Grievance Process on Services Problems. DHHS does not enforce their own PIQ
directives to the states, and when the states get reviewed, the festering
bad cases don't come to DHHS attention.

This last summer, after Iowa DHS Child Protection failed an audit (every
state failed), the state formed a "stakeholders panel" that was to be
representative of both insiders (financial stakeholders) and families with a
LIBERTY INTEREST stake in correcting DHS. The panel, as I found out, was
completely stacked with people who financially benefit from the system as
broken as it is. The state propagandized this as their genius and good
intention, not mentioning the failed DHHS audit as a reason. The only person
on the stakeholders panel who appeared to be a concerned parent e-mailed me
back that she "would have to check with her advisors" and never got back to
me. That seemed odd. <sarcastic grin> Open meetings to collect public input
were held in several places around the state, and a report on these comments
was to be made public on a date set ahead of time. Large crowds of angry
parents showed up at most of the open meetings and DHS did not make the
report on public comments available on the web as promised. The DHS press
release guy failed to answer my e-mail asking where this report is.

4.. Administrative Appeal on Child Neglect and Abuse REGISTRY When we
turned in our appeal, Iowa took 100 days to even acknowledge receiving it,
gave us 10 days to add more, and told us it was in their work stack. Then we
heard nothing for over a YEAR. Then when we brought it up they held up the
process waiting for the Judicial Process, which has gone on now with my
family for almost 3 years.

If ANY government fails to provide these required protections, they are
guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of children and parents, and
failure to protect citizens rights to due process. Parens Patriae is NOT
just about kids. Our governments make LOUSY parents to citizens in general,
why would you trust government with kids?
MY OWN FAMILY has been betrayed for almost 3 years by corrupt State
officials. The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens probably won't come
from the State, and citizens have to beg the Federal Courts to protect them
from bad State Government officials. I hear that the Federal Courts are
reluctant to protect Citizens Constitutional Rights when it involves
reversing bad decisions by state agencies.

The Federal Government needs to take a more active role in correcting bad
actions by the state Child Protection agencies in individual cases. Early on
in this process, after learning that US DHHS regulations for Child
Protection agencies were NOT being followed, my family was thoroughly
disgusted to find that US DHHS turned away our inquiries seeking corrective
help. The US DHHS does not want to talk to individual families about their
case, even when DHHS regulations are being violated badly by the state Child
Protection agency.

Privacy laws are being perverted to deny families the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO CROSS EXAMINE DOCUMENTS USED AGAINST US IN JUVENILE COURT and even into
the Iowa Supreme Court. The sophistry used is that we are not CRIMINALLY
CHARGED, so we don't get our CONSTITUTIONAL protections! The state only
REMOVED A CHILD! Isn't that a LIBERTY INTEREST as serious as a charge of
murder?

My fiance discovered that a transcript of a Juvenile Court hearing was
"doctored" or altered badly. We had wondered why this short one took an
inordinately long time to get to her and was not signed. The Iowa Supreme
Court ruled against her request for the original source tape for
verification. Imagine being told to proceed into the Iowa Supreme Court with
a bogus and unsigned transcript to write the appeal brief from!

The States and the Federal government have failed to protect their own
citizens from bad state state actors, run amok Child Protection caseworkers
and Rubber Stamp Juvenile Courts who take caseworker lies as absolute truth.

Many Child Protection caseworkers are living out some "Rescue Fantasy" and
carry an anti-spanking political agenda even though it is LEGAL in every one
of the 50 states. Many of the anti-spankers like to think of or represent
judiciously used spanking as BEATING. This ruse does not generally play well
outside of their socialist worker circles. If a caseworker doesn't like what
they find out about a family that spanks their kids, they can't use SPANKING
in court since it's legal within limits in EVERY state, so they they merely
accuse the family of clutter or messy house and order Parent Skills classes.
Virtually every parent skills class is anti-spanking. AND 90 percent of the
parent skills class itself preaches no-spanking. Caseworkers commonly write
down clutter or Messy House as catch-all designations, used when caseworkers
are suspicious or don't like a parent but they don't have anything on them
to make a case.

The HYSTERIA about Child Abuse has to stop and RIGHTS need to be put back on
a pedestal. I charge both Fed and State governments with "failure to
protect" Citizens Constitutional Rights in the face of the Child Protection
INDUSTRY.

YOU IN CONGRESS have not supervised the US DHHS well enough to discover that
the states have failed to truly meet the TEN YEAR OLD obligations to
fairness and self-correction (4 A,B and D above).

My family has been trampled on for 2 years and 9 months. Yes, we had
clutter, but we did not have filth. A witch hunt ensued, caseworkers got
caught at terrible LIES. Juvenile Court refused to correct the lies, despite
proof. Caseworkers are IMMUNE, so they LIE all the time to have their way.
We were refused required Active Participation in FORMATION of Services Plan.
This is the list of "services", mini industries or "hoops" that parents are
expected to jump through to get their kids back. Services were corrupted,
tainted with gossip, fed with false information and in other words twisted
to be against us from before we even started. UNFAIR.

I was to go to a Psychological Evaluation, no apparent basis for assigning
this service, just a list of ""issues"" made up by caseworkers playing at
amateur psychology. One issue was my "need to be the victim" which they
eventually removed quietly after the guy who assaulted me plead guilty to a
simple assault. (charge should have been breaking and entering, but he's an
ally to the state in this.) Later after I went to one session and the
psychologist didn't find anything, he said he needed more information from
Child Protection. I signed a release, and a stack of Child Protection
documents an inch thick was sent to him. I began to ask a LOT of questions
about how fair my ""Psychological Evaluation"" was going to be. Too many
parents similarly situated have told me that the psychologist reported
exactly what the caseworkers WANTED him to report, generally in complete
disagreement with the raw data from the standardized tests that they use for
this. (Remember Psychology is an ARTS degree.)

My fiance' went to Domestic Violence victim counseling that she was ORDERED
into, even though there was never any Domestic Violence between us. It made
SOME sense to inoculate her because I had Domestic Violence convictions many
years before (I had a severely bi-polar wife years ago). But after Child
Protection had their INPUT into this service the counselor became like the
grand inquisitor trying to force some deep dark secrets out of her. When my
fiance' denied what was in fact false, the counselor though she was "in
denial". The counselor told a twisted story that I had pushed the childs
"head under water" (was actually a shower spray to rinse off shampoo head
that looked like an ice cream swirly) The counselor was trying to guilt and
shame my fiance into getting rid of me. Child Protection commonly uses the
"divide and conquer" tactic. My fiance' though, had already seen how Child
Protection caseworkers LIED, twisted and distorted virtually everything
innocent to portray it as EVIL.

So we did not cooperate with ""services"", asking over and over for them to
be repaired, made fair and not RIGGED. We were told, even yelled at to just
do the services, and threatened with Termination of Parental Rights.

When we found old documents from the very same Child Protection Agency
showing that there was never any sexual abuse even HINTED at, we showed
these documents to a contract Social Worker first.

Then I showed them to the caseworker who fabricated the lie that I had a
""Sex Abuse History"". He verbally acknowledged that they did indeed
disprove his sworn-to assertions in his affidavit to court.

But STILL, to this day, nobody has corrected the ""Sex Abuse History""
fiction.

- Juvenile Court here has refused many MOTIONS to correct the ""Sex Abuse
History"" and refused hearings to correct it The exculpatory old documents
were attached as exhibits.

- Iowa Department of Human Services refuses to correct it. (All the way up
the chain of command, Director and Governor even)

- You would THINK that Social Workers should have ethical requirements to
demand that proven falsehoods harming a family should be corrected, even if
the Social Worker has to "bite the hand that feeds them" by urgently
requesting that Iowa DHS correct the fictional ""Sex Abuse History"".

- You would EXPECT contract Social Workers to have a duty to the TRUTH,
especially when known falsehood harms a family. Apparently however, pleasing
the state agency caseworkers and getting their state contract renewed is
more important than demanding that a PROVEN FALSE fabricated ""Sex Abuse
History"" be corrected. Lutheran Social Services is the LARGEST contract
provider of Social Workers in the world, yet, even after seeing exculpatory
documents their Social Workers refused to ask Iowa DHS to correct the proven
false ""Sex Abuse History"".

- DHHS doesn't take complaints in individual cases of state agency abuses of
families. Regardless of circumstances.

The Jackson family starvation case recently caught the attention of
Congress, but there have been large numbers of much less sensational cases
that have done harm to massive numbers of families, partly because of the
problems with OVERSIGHT and CORRECTION processes that are not working
properly.

PAYING states to get kids out of Foster Care only enabled them to REMOVE
more needlessly and reward their friends who seek to adopt, like the woman
who killed Logan Marr. Paying states to get kids adopted out only revved up
a meatgrinder that has destroyed healthy families with relatively MINOR
problems.

I personally feel that the vast majority of children removed probably should
NOT have been removed.

Child Protection Caseworkers have treated my family as criminals, when in
fact, no criminal law was broken. The more the caseworkers get proven WRONG
in some cases, the more irate and vindictive they become. We had a
caseworker who moved a visit into the Child Protection "fishbowl room" for
vindictive reasons. Then she looked for any complaints she could make about
parenting skills. The complaint she wrote up IN COURT was that the mother
was asking her daughter to spell words that were ""too difficult"". The
words the caseworker actually complained about were "exoskeleton" and
"Hubble Space Telescope".

Not only was that caseworkers comments an intrusion into the mother's
Constitutional right to direct her child's education, but the child's first
grade teacher had assigned the word exoskeleton about a year earlier. The
child had previously been tested as reading and spelling at a level YEARS
ahead of her age group in school, and was in an Extended Learning Program in
school.

That would be a better way to reduce clogged and not functional Foster care
systems. Stop FEEDING so many children to Foster Care homes. Stop the
STATE's financial incentive to juggle kids in Foster Care, AND the
incentives for people to BECOME Foster Care providers for financial reasons.
(As with the Jackson family in New Jersey.)

Why are there so many incentives to REMOVE kids, Terminate Parental Rights,
and place kids in Foster/Adoptive situations? Where are the financial
incentives for Child Protection agencies to REUNITE families?

Please quickly force states to repair the required avenues of redress (4 A,
B and D above), and please direct US DHHS to cut the money if states fail
the ten year old obligations even one day more. Iowa is still showing no
signs of honoring those OLD requirements, much less the new requirements
that Congress and the President made law on June 25, 2003. What good will
the Protecting Families and Children act (HR14 S.342 HR3839 Keeping Children
and Families Safe Act President signed into law June 25, 2003) do when the
previous TEN YEAR OLD requirements are still not met? Why wasn't the money
cut off BEFORE, if not for the political demogoguery and political fears of
smear tactics?

A Federal District Judge in Illinois is angry because Child Protection
changes he ordered 12 years ago have still not been implemented. Another
one, Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer in the Dupuy case declared the Illinois
Child Protection system to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The agencies are so corrupt
that they refuse to do the right things, drag feet with STUDIES costing
millions, and DARE you in Congress to cut their precious funding.

I say stop the flow of "blood money" to Child Protection. Withhold funding
to state Child Protection agencies until they fulfill their contractual
obligations to provide those safeguards of families, 4 A, B and D above,
agreed to ten years ago, in exchange for the money.

[Condoleezza HaHa]

Don - please take your personal attacks on Greegor to email.
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ron]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 15, 6:42 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>> So, basically its a letter to congress from a citizen.
>>
>> No facts, no numbers, no professional assessments. Pretty much nothing
>> but
>> opinion. Nice. Useless.
>
> Just to remind you, Ron, people for the most part vote based on their
> own opinion rather than professional assessmants.
>
> She has a right to her opinion... as do you and I.

Quite true Dan, quite true. The difference here being that my opinion is
based upon facts, both observed and statistical, not upon anecdotal
evidence.

We all know that there are problems with the system, no one here is going to
deny that. But to make unsupported statements such as "The system of Child
Welfare is out of control" is just plain irresponsible. Fortunately, even
with as much as we citizens complain about them, our elected representatives
are not idiots. They will take what this woman had to say and place upon it
the weight it deserves. Little. If she had come in with, or had provided
written statistics from reputable sources, when presenting her opinion it
would have counted for more than the 1 millionth of a percent that they are
likely to give it.

But very much like the members of the "anti-CPS" mob that we have resident
here, she didn't. Opinion and fact make for a better presentation than
opinion alone.

Ron

[Greegor]

Ron, Do you speak bureaucratese "agency speak"?
What is your opinion of it as a communication style?

Yes, facts and figures can be persuasive, but THAT"S
how the damned bureaucracy got this bad to start with.

Walter Mondale said he wishes he had NEVER
written CAPTA in the first place.

The facts and figures and statistics DO NOT
justify the Bill Of Rights violations that the Child
Protection INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX wreaks on
even ONE family.

Sometimes ANECDOTES are more important than
the lies told with statistics and demagoguery.

I worked at a store once that was robbed a lot.
It was never by a white person, even though it
was in a white neighborhood.

The stats might support prejudice but it would still be wrong,
even if it was only ONCE.

That's kind of how it IS when discussing
issues that involve such sacred LIBERTY INTERESTS.

Didn't they teach you that in COP SCHOOL Ron?

Or in your extensive Foster Contractor training?

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ron, Do you speak bureaucratese "agency speak"?
> What is your opinion of it as a communication style?

Nope.

> Yes, facts and figures can be persuasive, but THAT"S
> how the damned bureaucracy got this bad to start with.

Facts are facts gregg, no matter who states them.

> Walter Mondale said he wishes he had NEVER
> written CAPTA in the first place.
>
> The facts and figures and statistics DO NOT
> justify the Bill Of Rights violations that the Child
> Protection INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX wreaks on
> even ONE family.

Once again you make the claim of violations of rights. Yet you have never
made a credible argument to support the statement. Care to give it a try
now?

> Sometimes ANECDOTES are more important than
> the lies told with statistics and demagoguery.

Lies? Please, give us an example where the stats lie.

> I worked at a store once that was robbed a lot.
> It was never by a white person, even though it
> was in a white neighborhood.
>
> The stats might support prejudice but it would still be wrong,
> even if it was only ONCE.
>
> That's kind of how it IS when discussing
> issues that involve such sacred LIBERTY INTERESTS.

Liberty interests. Hmmm, funny how that always seems to apply only to the
parents when you mobsters speak. What about the liberty interests of the
child gregg? Like the right to grow up free from abuse and neglect by
parents? Besides, there is nothing "sacred" about them gregg. Inalienable
yes, sacred, no.

> Didn't they teach you that in COP SCHOOL Ron?
>
> Or in your extensive Foster Contractor training?

School, training. Well, at least I have some of each gregg. Can you say
the same?

Ron

[Ron]

It does not look like an attack to me kenny, more like a question. Can you
tell the difference?

Ron

"Condoleezza HaHa" > wrote in message
.. .
> Don - please take your personal attacks on Greegor to email.
>>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Greegor]

Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
trying to justify violating the parents rights
"for the good of the child".

You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Of course you do, because every cop should know very
well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
be a television program, did you decide that
the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
barging in without a search warrant?

And when you figure out that the initial call
that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
for other things to complain about right?

What's wrong with this picture?

Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
> trying to justify violating the parents rights
> "for the good of the child".

Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the eyes
of the law than the childs gregg?

> You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?

Limited gregg, not quashed.

> Of course you do, because every cop should know very
> well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
> when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.

Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.

> When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
> some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
> in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?

I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.

As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling whoppers
or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on the
part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record with
my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
concerns would be a reasonable action.

Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness gregg,
only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.

> And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
> be a television program, did you decide that
> the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
> barging in without a search warrant?

Barging? Not likely.

> And when you figure out that the initial call
> that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
> for other things to complain about right?

Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.

> What's wrong with this picture?

Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
But not to worry, we are use to that.

> Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?

A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference is
that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident couch
potato. So you are catching up.

Ron

[Greegor]

On Mar 17, 7:42 am, "Ron" > wrote:
> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
> > trying to justify violating the parents rights
> > "for the good of the child".
>
> Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the eyes
> of the law than the childs gregg?
>
> > You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?
>
> Limited gregg, not quashed.

Can you use the protection of the child with no probable cause
to violate the parents rights against unreasonable search?

Is that the "limitation" Ron?

The absolute upholding of the 4th Amendment and
requirement of serious "Probable Cause"?

Is that a "limitation" Ron?


> > Of course you do, because every cop should know very
> > well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
> > when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.
>
> Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.

Do you?

> > When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
> > some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
> > in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?
>
> I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.
>
> As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
> the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
> Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
> drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling whoppers
> or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
> dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on the
> part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
> access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record with
> my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
> concerns would be a reasonable action.
>
> Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness gregg,
> only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
> complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.

Yes, the rights of an LEO to intrude are VERY complicated,
so complicated you just can't explain. Right.

> > And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
> > be a television program, did you decide that
> > the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
> > barging in without a search warrant?
>
> Barging? Not likely.
>
> > And when you figure out that the initial call
> > that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
> > for other things to complain about right?
>
> Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
> coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.

That voids the need for a search warrant to be SPECIFIC?

> > What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
> But not to worry, we are use to that.
>
> > Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?
>
> A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference is
> that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident couch
> potato. So you are catching up.

So you were a cop for 6 years? Big career?

[Greegor]

WP: Amid concerns, FBI lapses went on
Records collection brought internal questions but little scrutiny
By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
The Washington Post
Updated: 4:02 a.m. CT March 18, 2007
FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to
obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period
when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns
about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department
officials and documents.

FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did
not closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials
acknowledged. They also did not understand the scope of the problem
until the Justice Department launched an investigation, FBI officials
said.

Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism
agents last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the
information the bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI
headquarters official -- whom the bureau declined to name -- signed
these "national security letters" without including the required proof
that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage
investigations, an FBI official said.

Fauly claims, broken rules
The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for
records, called "exigent circumstance" letters, which contained false
or undocumented claims. They also included national security letters
that were issued without FBI rules being followed. Both types of
request were served on three phone companies.

Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E.
Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department
Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: "It is . . . difficult to imagine why
there should not have been swift and severe consequences for anyone
who knowingly signed . . . a letter containing false statements.
Anyone at the FBI who knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an
obligation to put a stop to it and report it immediately."

A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the
exigency letters "circumvented" the law that governs the FBI's access
to personal information about U.S. residents.

The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed
information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later.
There is no basis in the law to compel phone companies to turn over
information using such letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents
never followed up with the promised subpoenas, he said.

But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to
legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security
letters last year.

Calls to curtail program
Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a
news conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took
responsibility for the lapses. In a letter to Fine that was released
along with the March 9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's
agents had used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and
made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.

Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this
month, although he defended their value and denied that the agency had
intentionally violated the law.

Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.

Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they
involved procedural and documentation failures, not intentional
misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide
audit, which began Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of
exigency letters went beyond one headquarters unit.

"We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner,
corrections had been made and the process was more transparent," FBI
Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday.

Some records may have to be destroyed
Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the
exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain
records related to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials
acknowledged that the process was so flawed that they may have to
destroy some phone records to keep them from being used in the future,
if the bureau does not find proof they were gathered in connection
with an authorized investigation.

Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal
audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters
Friday.

Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort
to block some of its data requests, said that if the agency cannot
prove a link between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its
requests were "a total fishing expedition."

The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the
matter, would speak for the agency.

Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters
and why the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice.
Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee
copies of all FBI e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as
transcripts of the interviews Fine conducted on the issue.

The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as
the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends
to question Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni.


Rush jobs that weren't
FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue
were drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which
comprises about a dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records
and other communications for counterterrorism investigators. They sent
the secret requests to three companies -- AT&T, Verizon and a third
firm whose identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist
attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of supplying such
records almost instantaneously in a form that its agents can readily
examine, according to the report and the senior FBI official.

In each letter, the FBI asserted that "due to exigent circumstances,
it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone
numbers be provided." The bureau promised in most of the letters that
subpoenas for the same information "have been submitted to the U.S.
Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally."

But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters
were "not sent in exigent circumstances" and that "there sometimes
were no open or pending national security investigations tied to the
request," contrary to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had
actually been requested before the letters were sent. The phone
companies nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in
anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, FBI
officials said.

'Uncontrolled' use of security letters
The use of such letters was virtually "uncontrolled," said an FBI
official who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU
agents had begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had
collected for a year or more that were not covered by the appropriate
documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials.

A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring
questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis , who would not
confirm nor deny the existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said
that "every day Verizon subpoena units respond to emergency requests
from federal, state and local law enforcement for particular calling
records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI emergency
requests in terrorist matters, and we had every reason to believe they
were legitimate emergency situations."

The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency
letters was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York
office used to obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist
bombings. When officials from that office were later reassigned to
create the CAU in Washington, the senior FBI official said, "they
brought their business practices with them" and continued to use the
same letter "for reasons that I cannot explain."

Follow-up work neglected
But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests,
and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the
promised legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so
speedily, and in many cases ignored the request altogether.


"In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do
the paperwork is reduced," the senior FBI official said.

When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice
Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications
were frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents
to "change their process," the senior official said. "Our advice was
instead to . . . use these letters only in true emergencies" and
institute "covering practices."

These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related
investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to
provide legal backing for the demand.


Concerns not acted on
Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the
tardy legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in
early 2005, according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn.

"He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that
to his chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no
action," Kohn said, adding that "their initial response was to deny
the scope of the problem."

Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a
promotion because of discrimination based on his ethnicity.

Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at
headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-
around: Its lawyers proposed creating special, catch-all investigative
files that could be used to authorize quick phone-records seizures
that did not involve open field investigations.

But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine
emergency requests for the records "were few and far between,"
according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by
The Washington Post, and the idea was never implemented. The account
referred to efforts by one of the bureau's top lawyers to brief
"higher ups" in the agency about the problem.

"At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters"
still in use, the senior official said. "We believed the problem had
resolved itself . . . in retrospect, it never got resolved."

Playing catch-up
One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that
Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office did not review
until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent
to the phone companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were
unaware that some of the letters contained false statements about
forthcoming subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.


Bureau officials ultimately decided to "clean up" the problem by
writing seven national security letters designed to provide legal
backing for all the telephone records requests that still needed it,
the senior FBI official said. In every case, these requests in 2006
covered records already in the FBI's possession and lacked the
required cover memos spelling out the investigative requirements for
the requests.

At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit
attempt to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been
used, with the result that Mueller and others in senior management did
not learn about the scope of the problem until two months ago, when
Fine informed them, the senior official said.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17652865/

[0:-]]

On 18 Mar 2007 08:41:23 -0700, "Greegor" > wrote:
......"I'm an idiot with nothing to say, so I'm going to up the ante on
CPS and LEO innuendo and insinuation." <snarfle drool drool drool>...


Do me a favor. Search on the word "child" in your stupid post, little
man.

Try "family."

Try "Greg is a puckering anti government wacko nutcase."


The FBI apparently is charged with going out of bounds. The issue is
being exposed, stupid puckering idiot.

Our system is WORKING. Just as it was intended to from the Founders.

Three branches of government, and 'the press.'

Just how puckering stupid ARE you Greg?


>WP: Amid concerns, FBI lapses went on
>Records collection brought internal questions but little scrutiny
>By R. Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon
>The Washington Post
>Updated: 4:02 a.m. CT March 18, 2007
>FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to
>obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period
>when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns
>about the practice, according to senior FBI and Justice Department
>officials and documents.
>
>FBI lawyers raised the concerns beginning in late October 2004 but did
>not closely scrutinize the practice until last year, FBI officials
>acknowledged. They also did not understand the scope of the problem
>until the Justice Department launched an investigation, FBI officials
>said.
>
>Under pressure to provide a stronger legal footing, counterterrorism
>agents last year wrote new letters to phone companies demanding the
>information the bureau already possessed. At least one senior FBI
>headquarters official -- whom the bureau declined to name -- signed
>these "national security letters" without including the required proof
>that the letters were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage
>investigations, an FBI official said.
>
>Fauly claims, broken rules
>The flawed procedures involved the use of emergency demands for
>records, called "exigent circumstance" letters, which contained false
>or undocumented claims. They also included national security letters
>that were issued without FBI rules being followed. Both types of
>request were served on three phone companies.
>
>Referring to the exigent circumstance letters, Sen. Charles E.
>Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in a letter Friday to Justice Department
>Inspector General Glenn A. Fine: "It is . . . difficult to imagine why
>there should not have been swift and severe consequences for anyone
>who knowingly signed . . . a letter containing false statements.
>Anyone at the FBI who knew about that kind of wrongdoing had an
>obligation to put a stop to it and report it immediately."
>
>A March 9 report by Fine bluntly stated that the FBI's use of the
>exigency letters "circumvented" the law that governs the FBI's access
>to personal information about U.S. residents.
>
>The exigency letters, created by the FBI's New York office after the
>Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, told telephone providers that the FBI needed
>information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later.
>There is no basis in the law to compel phone companies to turn over
>information using such letters, Fine found, and in many cases, agents
>never followed up with the promised subpoenas, he said.
>
>But Fine's report made no mention of the FBI's subsequent efforts to
>legitimize those actions with improperly prepared national security
>letters last year.
>
>Calls to curtail program
>Fine's report brought a deluge of criticism on the FBI, prompting a
>news conference at which Director Robert S. Mueller III took
>responsibility for the lapses. In a letter to Fine that was released
>along with the March 9 report, Mueller acknowledged that the bureau's
>agents had used unacceptable shortcuts, violated internal policies and
>made mistakes in their use of exigent circumstance letters.
>
>Mueller also said he had banned the future use of such letters this
>month, although he defended their value and denied that the agency had
>intentionally violated the law.
>
>Some lawmakers immediately proposed curtailing the government's
>expansive anti-terrorism powers under the USA Patriot Act.
>
>Other FBI officials acknowledged widespread problems but said they
>involved procedural and documentation failures, not intentional
>misgathering of Americans' phone records. Mueller ordered a nationwide
>audit, which began Friday, to determine if the inappropriate use of
>exigency letters went beyond one headquarters unit.
>
>"We wish, in retrospect, that we had learned about this sooner,
>corrections had been made and the process was more transparent," FBI
>Assistant Director John Miller said yesterday.
>
>Some records may have to be destroyed
>Fine's report said the bureau's counterterrorism office used the
>exigency letters at least 739 times between 2003 and 2005 to obtain
>records related to 3,000 separate phone numbers. FBI officials
>acknowledged that the process was so flawed that they may have to
>destroy some phone records to keep them from being used in the future,
>if the bureau does not find proof they were gathered in connection
>with an authorized investigation.
>
>Disciplinary action may be taken when the bureau completes an internal
>audit, a senior FBI official said in an interview at headquarters
>Friday.
>
>Ann Beeson, an attorney for the ACLU who has sued the FBI in an effort
>to block some of its data requests, said that if the agency cannot
>prove a link between the letters and an ongoing investigation, its
>requests were "a total fishing expedition."
>
>The FBI agreed that one senior official, who spoke on the condition of
>anonymity because of forthcoming House and Senate hearings on the
>matter, would speak for the agency.
>
>Lawmakers have begun to probe who knew about the use of the letters
>and why the department did not act more swiftly to halt the practice.
>Grassley asked that Fine turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee
>copies of all FBI e-mails related to the letters of demand, as well as
>transcripts of the interviews Fine conducted on the issue.
>
>The committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, with Mueller as
>the chief witness. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee intends
>to question Fine and FBI general counsel Valerie Caproni.
>
>
>Rush jobs that weren't
>FBI and Justice Department officials said most of the letters at issue
>were drafted by the Communications Analysis Unit (CAU), which
>comprises about a dozen people assigned to analyze telephone records
>and other communications for counterterrorism investigators. They sent
>the secret requests to three companies -- AT&T, Verizon and a third
>firm whose identity could not be learned. Since the 2001 terrorist
>attacks, the FBI has been paying the companies' cost of supplying such
>records almost instantaneously in a form that its agents can readily
>examine, according to the report and the senior FBI official.
>
>In each letter, the FBI asserted that "due to exigent circumstances,
>it is requested that records for the attached list of telephone
>numbers be provided." The bureau promised in most of the letters that
>subpoenas for the same information "have been submitted to the U.S.
>Attorney's office who will process and serve them formally."
>
>But the inspector general's probe concluded that many of the letters
>were "not sent in exigent circumstances" and that "there sometimes
>were no open or pending national security investigations tied to the
>request," contrary to what U.S. law requires. No subpoenas had
>actually been requested before the letters were sent. The phone
>companies nonetheless promptly turned over the information, in
>anticipation of getting a more legally viable document later, FBI
>officials said.
>
>'Uncontrolled' use of security letters
>The use of such letters was virtually "uncontrolled," said an FBI
>official who was briefed on the issue in early 2005. By that fall, CAU
>agents had begun creating spreadsheets to track phone records they had
>collected for a year or more that were not covered by the appropriate
>documents, according to FBI e-mails and interviews with officials.
>
>A spokesman for AT&T declined to discuss the topic, referring
>questions to the FBI. Verizon spokesman Peter Thonis , who would not
>confirm nor deny the existence of an FBI contract with his firm, said
>that "every day Verizon subpoena units respond to emergency requests
>from federal, state and local law enforcement for particular calling
>records. After 9/11, of course, Verizon responded to FBI emergency
>requests in terrorist matters, and we had every reason to believe they
>were legitimate emergency situations."
>
>The inspector general's report said that the wording of the exigency
>letters was copied from a standard letter that the FBI's New York
>office used to obtain urgently needed records after the 2001 terrorist
>bombings. When officials from that office were later reassigned to
>create the CAU in Washington, the senior FBI official said, "they
>brought their business practices with them" and continued to use the
>same letter "for reasons that I cannot explain."
>
>Follow-up work neglected
>But the unit was not authorized under FBI rules to make such requests,
>and from the outset in 2003 it asked FBI field offices to submit the
>promised legal follow-up documents. The offices rarely did so
>speedily, and in many cases ignored the request altogether.
>
>
>"In practice, if you have already got the records, the incentive to do
>the paperwork is reduced," the senior FBI official said.
>
>When a lawyer in the FBI's national security law branch, Patrice
>Kopistansky, noted in late 2004 that the proper legal justifications
>were frequently missing or extremely late, she did not advise agents
>to "change their process," the senior official said. "Our advice was
>instead to . . . use these letters only in true emergencies" and
>institute "covering practices."
>
>These included ensuring that the bureau's agents had opened a related
>investigation and promptly sent a formal national security letter to
>provide legal backing for the demand.
>
>
>Concerns not acted on
>Bassem Youssef, who currently heads the CAU, raised concerns about the
>tardy legal justifications shortly after he was assigned to the job in
>early 2005, according to his lawyer, Steve Kohn.
>
>"He discovered they were not in compliance, and then he reported that
>to his chain of command. They defended the procedures and took no
>action," Kohn said, adding that "their initial response was to deny
>the scope of the problem."
>
>Youssef has battled the FBI in court over whether he was denied a
>promotion because of discrimination based on his ethnicity.
>
>Eventually, the general counsel's office organized a meeting at
>headquarters on Sept. 26, 2005, where the bureau considered a work-
>around: Its lawyers proposed creating special, catch-all investigative
>files that could be used to authorize quick phone-records seizures
>that did not involve open field investigations.
>
>But one official at the meeting, Youssef, argued that genuine
>emergency requests for the records "were few and far between,"
>according to an e-mail summarizing the meeting that was reviewed by
>The Washington Post, and the idea was never implemented. The account
>referred to efforts by one of the bureau's top lawyers to brief
>"higher ups" in the agency about the problem.
>
>"At some point, they told us there were not that many such letters"
>still in use, the senior official said. "We believed the problem had
>resolved itself . . . in retrospect, it never got resolved."
>
>Playing catch-up
>One reason that FBI officials did not act more quickly is that
>Kopistansky and others in the general counsel's office did not review
>until May 2006 copies of any of the exigent circumstances letters sent
>to the phone companies from 2003 to 2005. As a result, they were
>unaware that some of the letters contained false statements about
>forthcoming subpoenas and urgent deadlines, the senior official said.
>
>
>Bureau officials ultimately decided to "clean up" the problem by
>writing seven national security letters designed to provide legal
>backing for all the telephone records requests that still needed it,
>the senior FBI official said. In every case, these requests in 2006
>covered records already in the FBI's possession and lacked the
>required cover memos spelling out the investigative requirements for
>the requests.
>
>At no time did senior FBI officials outside the communications unit
>attempt to tally how often the exigent circumstances letters had been
>used, with the result that Mueller and others in senior management did
>not learn about the scope of the problem until two months ago, when
>Fine informed them, the senior official said.
>
>© 2007 The Washington Post Company
>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17652865/
>

[Ron]

"Greegor" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 17, 7:42 am, "Ron" > wrote:
>> "Greegor" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > Ronald Van Dyne, a former COP is sitting on here
>> > trying to justify violating the parents rights
>> > "for the good of the child".
>>
>> Are you of the opion that the parents rights are more important in the
>> eyes
>> of the law than the childs gregg?
>>
>> > You DO know that high courts have quashed that right?
>>
>> Limited gregg, not quashed.
>
> Can you use the protection of the child with no probable cause
> to violate the parents rights against unreasonable search?
>
> Is that the "limitation" Ron?
>
> The absolute upholding of the 4th Amendment and
> requirement of serious "Probable Cause"?
>
> Is that a "limitation" Ron?
>
>
>> > Of course you do, because every cop should know very
>> > well that the ends do NOT justify the means, even
>> > when you pit one citizens rights against anothers or many.
>>
>> Ahh, so you are unsure of the answer to my question. I understand.
>
> Do you?
>
>> > When you were a cop, if the town drunk told you that
>> > some kid was being held in a basement dungeon
>> > in town, did you go barging in like Geraldo into Capone's vault?
>>
>> I didn't usually have sledge hammers and drills in the patrol car.
>>
>> As to the rest of your question gregg, hmmm lets see. Knowing that he is
>> the town drunk I can also assume that I know him fairly well, right?
>> Therefore we can also assume that I know if he is a credible individual,
>> drunk or sober. I should also know if he has a history of telling
>> whoppers
>> or not and if he has access to the area he is reporting as a "basement
>> dungeon". Given all these things gregg, it would be a judgment call on
>> the
>> part of the officer in question. IF the drunk does not tell lies, has
>> access to the area in question, and in the past has a favorable record
>> with
>> my fellow police officers for conduct, I would say that investigating his
>> concerns would be a reasonable action.
>>
>> Being the town drunk does not imply that he is an unreliable witness
>> gregg,
>> only that he likes his beer. The answer to your question is far more
>> complicated than you think, which is why I was a cop and you were not.
>
> Yes, the rights of an LEO to intrude are VERY complicated,
> so complicated you just can't explain. Right.

I did explain it gregg, you didnt read it. Naturally. Might as well pound
my head into a door as try to explain it to you again. The outcome would be
about the same.

>> > And if you did hear a child crying that turns out to
>> > be a television program, did you decide that
>> > the child was in IMMINENT DANGER and go
>> > barging in without a search warrant?
>>
>> Barging? Not likely.
>>
>> > And when you figure out that the initial call
>> > that got you inside was bogus, you looked around
>> > for other things to complain about right?
>>
>> Plain sight rule. If I go looking for kids in danger but find a kilo of
>> coke sitting on the kitchen table I dont just walk out gregg.
>
> That voids the need for a search warrant to be SPECIFIC?

Plain sight rules avoid the need for warrants period. I cant go looking in
your windows, but if I get called to your house because of a noise complaint
and you are smoking a joint when you answer the door....... Or even if I am
called to get the cat out of the tree, and I note that the garden contains
several pot plants....

IOW gregg, if you are going to call the cops, make sure that you have your
stash stashed.

>> > What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Whats wrong is that as usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
>> But not to worry, we are use to that.
>>
>> > Tell me Ron, HOW LONG was your career as an LEO?
>>
>> A bit longer than you have been freeloading off of Lisa. The difference
>> is
>> that I am no longer in law enforcement, and you are still her resident
>> couch
>> potato. So you are catching up.
>
> So you were a cop for 6 years? Big career?

We all do things for our own reasons gregg. For as long as we choose. 3
years or 30, either way its experience that you don't have and cannot make
reasonable comments on. So how long are you going to continue to freeload?
I'd like to know so that I can tell you when you have surpassed my time as a
LEO.

Ron