Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Prediction: They'll be flooded with calls from yahoos and crackpots just
like you, Greg, and of course with abusive parents in deep denial.

You'll claim there is a HUGE corruption going on without waiting for the
results of the investigation, as you ****ants always do.

But you are worth a chuckle. So, chuckle,

Tell it to US Judge Pallmeyer.
Maybe she'll retract her DUPUY ruling that Illinois Child Protection is
unconstitutional.

chuckle


chuckle That's not what Judge Pallmeyer ruled, Greg.

The judge ruled on a single issue being unconstitutional and in fact did
NOT fault CPS in general except for that one area. But then that's what
judicial rulings are about.

Judges, and other relatively honest people, unlike you, tend to NOT try
to generalize a single failing in one area to be totally inclusive
making the subject out to be villains. AS YOU DO.

"The court's initial decision on March 30, 2001 found several aspects of
the DCFS investigative processes unconstitutional."

That would be their investigative process, not DCFS itself, as you claim.

Why, Greg, would you lie like that? Most of us here are very familiar
with the Pallmeyer ruling. You cite it yet you don't understand it, as
usual.

Here, I'll educate you again, sigh:

"Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer held that DCFS guilt determinations were
based on a "practically nominal" standard of "credible evidence" that
did not require investigators to gather evidence that might prove a
child care professional was innocent of abuse or neglect allegations
against him or her."

The above is the issue, Greg, not DCFS in general. YOU, of course must
maintain your fiction "pretending to claim" the this agency in Illinois
is totally corrupt and unconstitutional on its very existence.

Why would you lie like that, other than you are stupid dip**** with
delusions of grandeur and a belief that YOU are important in some way
you are not?

All the ruling did was make it possible for (and I've said repeatedly
that I support citizens RIGHTS, so your chuckle is rather stupid) for an
accused person to appeal the registry entry. AND stupid, they can lose
that appeal based on evidence and the judges ruling in their specific case.

All Pallmeyer has done is reiterate the Constitution. It's nice, but
it's not a blanket indictment of ALL OF ILLINOIS DCFS.

But you have to have your delusions.

My bet is you have not even read the Pallmeyer decision, Greg. Here,
enlighten yourself:

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE/P...OPIN/dupuy.pdf

Note: Among things you tend to overlook when you get all woodie, boy:

"Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is therefore granted in
part and denied in part."

Do you understand that statement by the judge?

It means that not even the claims by the "litigant" plaintiff were
agreed with in full.

And for a judge that YOU claim held DCFS to be "unconstitutional" (you
silly exaggerating twit) she certainly let them off lightly:

"The court will not, however, dictate a remedy or draft revisions to the
regulatory structure. Instead, it directs the parties themselves to
develop a workable solution , and present it to the court, within 60 days."

It has been noted also that DCFS had already instituted one of the
solutions some two years previously and was being judged by Pallmeyer on
actions corrected over two years ago. You really should read more, Greg.

"3. Effective March 1, 1996, DCFS promulgated regulations which directed
ALJs to apply a “preponderance of the evidence” standard in
administrative hearing recommendations. The new regulations direct the
Director of DCFS to apply this same “preponderance of the evidence”
standard when reviewing the ALJ’s recommended decision.
(ILL. ADMIN. CODE tit . 89, §§ 336.120(h), 336.150(a).)"

This memorandum and order (not a judicial "finding" at all) was dated
2001, and the regulations cited above, 1996. The corrections on this
issue had already been instituted.

You babble a lot, study not at all.

In fact, if I were the mean sort you are, I'd point out that if you read
the entire document carefully you'll find clearly where a crony of yours
has lied, or spread his ignorant kant in this newsgroup. It's about what
child abuse investigators are, and their duties, stupid. Learn to think
for yourself and gather your OWN information not let someone else
interpret for you.

I keep giving you the chance, and you keep running back to spin artists
and those with sick agendas to tell you what to think, while patting
your little pointy head and reassuring you that you are "thinking for
yourself."

Why is that, I wonder.

In the judges order, Greg, do you know what else she said?

She requires that DCFS do BETTER INVESTIGATION because she recognizes
the child's rights to be free of harm. She mentions that the real perps
may escape being uncovered and the children exposed to them unsafely.

A constant balancing act for CPS, Greg.

Do you know what that takes, Greg?

More better trained investigators.

Do you know what THAT takes, Greg?

Yet another judge that agrees with me.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)