In response to a Federal Judges RULING
Kane wrote
... without closely reading this case and the
judges opinion. And once again not applying
logic to a case and the opinions.

Much of this is a joke. A long rambling
political manifesto rather than a thoughtful ruling.

How many other judges would take this seriously?

It's funny you should mention that, because when
this judge went to apply an order for Federal Court
supervision regarding the abuses, she found that
another Federal judge had ALREADY put the agency
under one ten years before, which the agency
basically ignored.

Neither Judge knew about the other's findings
until then.

You love it, of course, just like you and others
here have done in the past with this and
other cases where you THINK this has great
meaning that it indeed does not.

PLEASE keep thinking that!

You cherry pick, even leaving out the context
that relates to a statement. Very sad, and
very much the tactics of liars.

I posted what I got, the only editing I did was
to remove page numbers.

It's a public document, please feel free to
post the entirety!

I presume this is in rebuttal to my subject
line, and not the case of the rat bitten infant.

Can you find a rat bite case newer than 2 years old?

Otherwise I would chalk it up to revealing the
real RATS, who fraud up cases for CPS.

So please show us where anything in this
decision below indicates we do not need
CPS. Thanks.

Busybodies hysterically turning loose their
fertive and perverted imaginations as if they
are professional anythings?

All to enforce prosecution of non-crimes?

Who needs that?

Certainly not the kids.

Did it help the Dupuy kids?
The Wallis kids?
Shelby Duis?
Rilya Wilson?