View Single Post
  #3  
Old December 29th 06, 04:01 PM posted to alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
0:->
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,968
Default obnoxious people

Greegor wrote:
lostintranslation (Kim Olsen) wrote
Ok, Oscar. Does that mean that when Greg said I should get arrested in
court to challenge a law, he was in fact, breaking the law?


To be a bit technical, I did not suggest you should get arrested.
I suggested you could consider submitting the recordings of
government agents, and warned that you might need to
LITIGATE the issue. Clearly I presented that as an option
that you probably did not want to persue.


"need to LITIGATE the issue?" R R R R R the prince of understatement and
denial. Precious. The first step in her "litigation" would have been to
follow the bailiff's request to present her wrists for cuffing.


But based on what you and your cronies have said, you
ALREADY had the child returned and no longer needed help.


So, after all the tripe you and your cronies have posted about the risks
CPS will come after you again and again (and Dan has proven they do) you
want us to believe that YOU pretend to believe R R R R R ... that she
wouldn't thus put her children in jeopardy of being removed AGAIN by
getting herself R R R R R "litigated?"

Come on Kim, or whoever you are, it was obvious from
early on that you had a huge CHIP on your shoulder long
before I made those statements.


Oh, now Kim's not Kim. Thus not really Kim who is lostintranslation.

Brilliant ploy there, Greg. Every newcomer will immediately question who
Kim is, and who is this wonderboy, Greg, that has exposed her as "not
being Kim."

R R R R R R

What was her "chip," Greg? One of your imaginary pieces of twaddle? She
said 'car' and you, in shock and indignation, corrected her with,
"internal combustion driven conveyance of people and things?"

AND I STILL stand on the idea that privacy laws DO NOT
apply to government agents in the performance of their duty.


Look stupid, they have to preserve THE PRIVACY OF OTHERS. You hapless
twit if they simply spill everything they know by explicit or inferred
babbling about a case they just violated privacy laws.

Any citizen, regardless of their local recording laws should
be able to record all interactions and interviews with CPS agents.


Why? The agent could be talking about things that are private to others
that YOU do not have a right to spread around. Even by inference the
employee would be in violation if they willingly gave information.

Missouri REQUIRES such recordings, thanks to CPSWATCH.
Several other states do as well.


Oh, how was CPSwatch involved?

One caseworker interviewing a parent in such a state recently
claimed his recorder was broken, then immediately
went to interview the child and the recording was perfect.
His recorder miraculously repaired itself!


Twaddle. And absolutely nothing to do with recording another's
conversation without their knowledge in states where it is illegal. You
are meandering, again, Greg.

Does that
mean that when Greg and company say, 'don't stipulate, don't do
anything on the service plan' they are giving out advice illegally?


I am not an attorney. I am also not a rutabaga.


Remember that?


That you are a rutabaga?

Thank you for proving what I have been saying all along was right.


Greg is not only dangerous


To CPS agencies


RR RR R R ....YOU? You are a laugh to CPS agencies, little crusader rabbit.


but is giving illegal advice. Good job, dear chap!


I am not a lawyer. Please find yourself "vigorous representation" if
you can.


You just like to play one, Greg.

9:-