DEFINITION OF INSANITY

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm

October 30, 2006
THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY...
....is, of course, doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a different result. And that means the latest plans from the
New York City Administration for Children's Services flunk the sanity
test.
In the wake of the death of another child "known to the system,"
four-month-old Preston Hertzog, the City is launching a massive ad
campaign to get anyone and everyone to report anything and everything
that may vaguely resemble a hint of child maltreatment.
There also is a plan to provide more "training" to professionals
required to report. In the current climate in New York, that translates
into more pressure to call in the slightest suspicion.
But if getting more people to report their slightest suspicion of child
abuse makes children safer, New York City children should be 22 percent
safer now than they were last year. Because, in the wake of the death
of Nixzmary Brown and other publicized cases, reports jumped 22 percent
in Fiscal Year 2006 compared to the previous year, according to the
Mayor's Management Report. (In fact, as is discussed below, there is
clear evidence children are no safer at all).
And, contrary to ACS' claim that the increase in removals is
proportionate to the increase in reports, removals actually increased
faster, by 27 percent.
But that didn't prevent the death of Preston Hertzog.
Furthermore, after Nixzmary Brown died, a private organization launched
a huge ad campaign of its own, complete with celebrity spokeswoman. The
ads seemed to be on every bus and subway car.
That didn't prevent the death of Preston Hertzog either.
If anything, Preston may have been the victim of not one, but two,
foster-care panics. The Daily News reports that the state concluded ACS
did not investigate thoroughly enough after Preston's sister died.
Authorities think that death was a homicide but they lacked enough
evidence to charge anyone. That was in 2000, a year when ACS took away
9,390 children and still was only beginning to recover from the panic
that followed the death of Elisa Izquierdo.
And now we have a case for which a thorough investigation would have
required checking records back six years and asking a lot of questions
when Preston's mother allegedly was hiding her pregnancy. During a
foster-care panic workers have less time to ask questions and check
records.
But there is a far better indicator that encouraging anyone and
everyone to report anything and everything, and taking away far more
children, is a failed strategy: As noted on this Blog in September,
according to the Mayor's Management Report, reabuse of children left
in their own homes increased in FY 2006 compared with FY 2005.
That doesn't mean safety actually got worse. As I said last month,
the change is too small, over just one year, to draw that conclusion.
It's also true that there were similar, small increases in this
measure in the previous two fiscal years, when removals were going
down, (after an improvement over the year before, when removals also
were going down).
But there certainly is no evidence that a 22 percent increase in
reports and a 27 percent increase in families torn apart did anything
to make children safer. So what ACS has done is the equivalent of
switching from treating a patient with an effective drug that has few
side effects, to using an equally effective drug -foster care -- with
much worse side effects.
Unfortunately, ACS is still "in denial" about this being a
foster-care panic, still claiming there is no panic because removals
increased at "only" the same rate as reports. Even were that
accurate, and it turns out it's not quite accurate, it would be
misleading. The quality of reports is likely to decline sharply during
a foster-care panic, with mandated reporters already thoroughly
terrified into calling in absurd suspicions, to protect not children,
but themselves. So the proportion of reports leading to removal should
go down.
But instead of learning from this mistake, ACS now proposes to repeat
it on a grand scale. And while, according to the New York Post, ACS
says caseloads are back down to 12 per worker, once the ad campaign
starts they won't be for long.
As for "training" mandated reporters, that also was tried - by
New York State after the death of Lisa Steinberg 20 years ago. At the
time, one expert said that would work only if mandated reporters were
trained both in what to report and what not to report, so as not to
simply encourage false reports and trivial cases.
I was a reporter for a newspaper in upstate New York at the time. A
colleague covered one of the new training sessions. He asked the
trainers if they would explain both what to report and what not to
report. He told me their reaction: "They had no idea what I meant."

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm
October 30, 2006 THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY... snip

The quality of reports is likely to decline sharply during a
foster-care panic, with mandated reporters already thoroughly terrified
into calling in absurd suspicions, to protect not children, but
themselves.
....
As for "training" mandated reporters, that also was tried - by
New York State after the death of Lisa Steinberg 20 years ago. At the
time, one expert said that would work only if mandated reporters were
trained both in what to report and what [ NOT ] to report, so as not to
simply encourage false reports and trivial cases.

I was a reporter for a newspaper in upstate New York at the time. A
colleague covered one of the new training sessions. He asked the
trainers if they would explain both what to report and what [ NOT ] to
report. He told me their reaction: "They had no idea what I meant."

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm
October 16, 2006
WHY FOSTER-CARE PANICS DON'T WORK IN REVERSE
I write often about the phenomenon of "foster-care panic," huge
surges in removals of children following the high-profile death or
serious injury of a child "known to the system."
"Well, then," reporters sometimes say, "It must work in reverse.
If the child dies in foster care there must be a drop in removals."
The comment often comes with the not-very-subtle implication that,
perhaps after a child dies in foster care workers become too reluctant
to tear children from their parents.
Some reporters even assume this as fact without checking, or take the
word of those who make such a claim, in part because it feeds into the
longing of so many reporters for anything that smacks of a "swinging
pendulum."
But it's not true. Foster-care panics almost never work in reverse.
On the contrary, no matter where a child dies, a high profile child
abuse fatality is likely to lead to an increase in children taken from
their homes.
After it was revealed that Rilya Wilson had been missing from her
Florida foster home (and presumed dead) for fifteen months before
anyone at the state Department of Children and Families noticed, there
was an increase in removals of children from their homes.
And that's what's happening now in Butler County, Ohio. That's
where three-year-old Marcus Fiesel lived, until he was taken from his
desperately overwhelmed mother. His foster parents are accused of tying
Marcus up and leaving him in a sweltering closet. After Marcus died,
the foster mother allegedly made up an elaborate story to fool
authorities, while the foster father allegedly burned the body.
So what's happened to the number of children taken from their homes
in Butler County? According to a story in the Journal News
http://www.journal-news.com/hp/conte...06removal.html
, the newspaper based in the county seat of Hamilton, Ohio, it's gone
up. Way up.
That would be bad in any county, it's worse in Butler, which has a
long history of embracing a take-the-child-and-run approach to child
welfare. Last week NCCPR released it's Ohio Rate-of-Removal Index
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/ohioror.pdf
, comparing the propensity of counties in that state to take children
from their parents. Only five counties took children at a higher rate
than Butler. And that was in 2005 - before Marcus died.
But why does it happen? Why is it that when a child dies, allegedly at
the hands of birth parents, removals go up, while when a child dies,
allegedly at the hands of foster parents, removals go - - up?
Two reasons, I think.
Reason #1: When the birth parents did it, it's easy to find a
scapegoat. Typically one worker, or perhaps one worker and one
supervisor, made the decision to leave the child in his or her own
home. That means one or two people who can be fired, demoted,
suspended, and/or raked over the coals in news accounts. Workers know
this. That's why when a case hits the paper, they become terrified
that the next case will be one of theirs and they rush to take away
more children.
In contrast, when the child dies in foster care the blame is more
diffuse. The worker who removed the child often is not the one who
chose the foster home. And even if she did, someone else had the
responsibility to license the foster parents, so the worker who placed
the children can't be blamed. The licensing may have taken place
years before, so that worker can't be blamed either. And, for that
matter, the foster parents who kill the child might be the second or
third or fourth placement.
So when a child dies in foster care the response of caseworkers is the
same: If I leave a child in his own home and something goes wrong,
I'm the scapegoat; if another child dies in foster care, no one's
going to blame me.
The dynamic is compounded by -
Reason #2: the profound double standard in media coverage of "lessons
learned." When the birth parent is the culprit there is an immediate
rush to blame "family preservation." There is a ready supply of
spokespeople, often from agencies that make their living off foster
care, anxious to come forward and say, "See: This case proves that
the state or county is doing too much to keep families together."
When the child dies in foster care it's written off as an aberration,
something that can be fixed with more frequent caseworker visits to
foster homes or tightening of licensing standards and background
checks.
Nowhere is the double standard more blatant than in Michigan right now.
Three children have died in foster homes under suspicious circumstances
in just over a year, two of them in just the past three months.
Had there been three such cases with birth parents as suspects one can
easily imagine the fury on the editorial pages about the state's
allegedly excessive efforts to keep families together. But with three
children dead in foster care, I have found no comment on any editorial
page or from any columnist questioning whether Michigan is taking away
too many children.
There are only two occasions I know of in which foster care panics
worked "in reverse" - and both times children benefited
enormously. One case was in Maine, where Logan Marr was taken
needlessly from her birth mother, only to be tied to a high chair by
her foster mother with 42 feet of duct tape and asphyxiated. The other
was in Springfield Missouri, where Dominic James was taken needlessly
from his father, only to be killed by his foster father.
In both cases, newspapers refused to be suckered by the "it's an
aberration" argument. In both cases they refused to settle for
bromides about background checks and licensing standards. In Maine, the
Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and Bangor Daily News all began
asking why the number of children trapped in foster care on any given
day in Maine was, proportionately, among the highest in the country.
Today, the number of children taken away over each year in Maine is
down by 25 percent, and the proportion of foster children placed with
relatives has doubled - and it's been done with no compromise in
safety.
In Missouri, the Springfield News-Leader refused to settle for pat
answers. They asked why Missouri was taking away children at a rate
well above the national average, and Greene County (which includes
Springfield) was taking children at a rate well above the state
average. The 66,000-daily circulation Gannett paper even sent a
reporter, photographer and editorial writer to Alabama to look at the
reforms there. The News-Leader's reporting caught the attention of
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which also did some very good work.
Today, the number of children taken from their parents is down 15
percent statewide, with no compromise of safety. In St. Louis, which
also is home to an innovation called Community Partnerships for Child
Protection, the decline is 36 percent, and safety has improved.
But those are the exceptions. Because the journalists at those news
organizations were exceptional.

Greegor wrote:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm
October 16, 2006
WHY FOSTER-CARE PANICS DON'T WORK IN REVERSE
I write often about the phenomenon of "foster-care panic," huge
surges in removals of children following the high-profile death or
serious injury of a child "known to the system."
"Well, then," reporters sometimes say, "It must work in reverse.
If the child dies in foster care there must be a drop in removals."
The comment often comes with the not-very-subtle implication that,
perhaps after a child dies in foster care workers become too reluctant
to tear children from their parents.
Some reporters even assume this as fact without checking, or take the
word of those who make such a claim, in part because it feeds into the
longing of so many reporters for anything that smacks of a "swinging
pendulum."
But it's not true. Foster-care panics almost never work in reverse.
On the contrary, no matter where a child dies, a high profile child
abuse fatality is likely to lead to an increase in children taken from
their homes.
After it was revealed that Rilya Wilson had been missing from her
Florida foster home (and presumed dead) for fifteen months before
anyone at the state Department of Children and Families noticed, there
was an increase in removals of children from their homes.
And that's what's happening now in Butler County, Ohio. That's
where three-year-old Marcus Fiesel lived, until he was taken from his
desperately overwhelmed mother. His foster parents are accused of tying
Marcus up and leaving him in a sweltering closet. After Marcus died,
the foster mother allegedly made up an elaborate story to fool
authorities, while the foster father allegedly burned the body.
So what's happened to the number of children taken from their homes
in Butler County? According to a story in the Journal News
http://www.journal-news.com/hp/conte...06removal.html
, the newspaper based in the county seat of Hamilton, Ohio, it's gone
up. Way up.
That would be bad in any county, it's worse in Butler, which has a
long history of embracing a take-the-child-and-run approach to child
welfare. Last week NCCPR released it's Ohio Rate-of-Removal Index
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/ohioror.pdf
, comparing the propensity of counties in that state to take children
from their parents. Only five counties took children at a higher rate
than Butler. And that was in 2005 - before Marcus died.
But why does it happen? Why is it that when a child dies, allegedly at
the hands of birth parents, removals go up, while when a child dies,
allegedly at the hands of foster parents, removals go - - up?
Two reasons, I think.
Reason #1: When the birth parents did it, it's easy to find a
scapegoat. Typically one worker, or perhaps one worker and one
supervisor, made the decision to leave the child in his or her own
home. That means one or two people who can be fired, demoted,
suspended, and/or raked over the coals in news accounts. Workers know
this. That's why when a case hits the paper, they become terrified
that the next case will be one of theirs and they rush to take away
more children.
In contrast, when the child dies in foster care the blame is more
diffuse. The worker who removed the child often is not the one who
chose the foster home. And even if she did, someone else had the
responsibility to license the foster parents, so the worker who placed
the children can't be blamed. The licensing may have taken place
years before, so that worker can't be blamed either. And, for that
matter, the foster parents who kill the child might be the second or
third or fourth placement.
So when a child dies in foster care the response of caseworkers is the
same: If I leave a child in his own home and something goes wrong,
I'm the scapegoat; if another child dies in foster care, no one's
going to blame me.
The dynamic is compounded by -
Reason #2: the profound double standard in media coverage of "lessons
learned." When the birth parent is the culprit there is an immediate
rush to blame "family preservation." There is a ready supply of
spokespeople, often from agencies that make their living off foster
care, anxious to come forward and say, "See: This case proves that
the state or county is doing too much to keep families together."
When the child dies in foster care it's written off as an aberration,
something that can be fixed with more frequent caseworker visits to
foster homes or tightening of licensing standards and background
checks.
Nowhere is the double standard more blatant than in Michigan right now.
Three children have died in foster homes under suspicious circumstances
in just over a year, two of them in just the past three months.
Had there been three such cases with birth parents as suspects one can
easily imagine the fury on the editorial pages about the state's
allegedly excessive efforts to keep families together. But with three
children dead in foster care, I have found no comment on any editorial
page or from any columnist questioning whether Michigan is taking away
too many children.
There are only two occasions I know of in which foster care panics
worked "in reverse" - and both times children benefited
enormously. One case was in Maine, where Logan Marr was taken
needlessly from her birth mother, only to be tied to a high chair by
her foster mother with 42 feet of duct tape and asphyxiated. The other
was in Springfield Missouri, where Dominic James was taken needlessly
from his father, only to be killed by his foster father.
In both cases, newspapers refused to be suckered by the "it's an
aberration" argument. In both cases they refused to settle for
bromides about background checks and licensing standards. In Maine, the
Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and Bangor Daily News all began
asking why the number of children trapped in foster care on any given
day in Maine was, proportionately, among the highest in the country.
Today, the number of children taken away over each year in Maine is
down by 25 percent, and the proportion of foster children placed with
relatives has doubled - and it's been done with no compromise in
safety.

Unn....oh Goober, Greg? You there.

They put more money into the system, stupid.

In Missouri, the Springfield News-Leader refused to settle for pat
answers. They asked why Missouri was taking away children at a rate
well above the national average, and Greene County (which includes
Springfield) was taking children at a rate well above the state
average. The 66,000-daily circulation Gannett paper even sent a
reporter, photographer and editorial writer to Alabama to look at the
reforms there. The News-Leader's reporting caught the attention of
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which also did some very good work.
Today, the number of children taken from their parents is down 15
percent statewide, with no compromise of safety. In St. Louis, which
also is home to an innovation called Community Partnerships for Child
Protection, the decline is 36 percent, and safety has improved.
But those are the exceptions. Because the journalists at those news
organizations were exceptional.

Removals are down everywhere, stupid, because abuse is down. How dumb
are you Goober?

Lying propaganda with extreme bias, Greg.

Just frantic to find something else to discuss than the issue currently
under consideration here....why you lie, and how you lie, and how you
avoid being confronted with those lies.

Show us how Dan Sullivan was "ejected" Greg.

Prove up your claim.

Show us how hearsay evidence isn't admitted in criminal cases, Greg.

Prove to us that providing advice to someone to break the law isn't
"legal advice" you should be arrested for giving, Greg.

In fact, just prove that your legal advice to get herself arrested by
commiting a crime IN COURT
has any chance of her getting the rest of her children
back.....remembering that CPS already returned one.

Go ahead, stand up for your beliefs and advice Greg.

And stop this shuffling and looking for old issues to bring up to avoid
your scummy dangerous postings.

Any time now, Greg.

And tell us, what would be the significance of Dan were in a
wheelchair? Or Sherman lived in Oregon, or I was "Don of Bend?

Or that Dan thought the Red Cross contributed to the aftermath cleanup
of the Twin Towers?

What has any of this to do with reality and reasons and blame?

Just how does any of that effect what any of us post here?

Let me tell you what DOES matter here, Greg.

People that post things like telling people to break the law. YOU want
another Ruth and Brian case, do you?

What do you think was going on when that couple bludgeoned a social
worker to death, Greg? Think they might have had a little incouragement
from people such as you and their lying stories of innocence and their
mightly 'struggle' against 'the system.'

You won't take responsibility for anything, will you stupid.

Give some more legal advice. Send a copy to your state's attorney's
general, and that of the state where the recipient recieves your
advice. Go stand up in court for them.

YOu do know that the court and CPS KNOWS Dan Sullivan don't you? And
they do NOT like him, and you know that.

Yet he continues for the simple reason he does not give legal advice
nor does he give BAD DANGEROUS ADVICE THAT COSTS PEOPLE THEIR FAMILIES.


As you and your cronies do.

0:-

On Nov 6, 9:15 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
How's your bitterness and BILE doing, Kane? (grin)
It's like getting Hate mail from Hitler! I love it! Highest
praise!

On Nov 6, 3:12 pm, "0:-" wrote:



Greegor wrote:
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/blog.htm
October 16, 2006
WHY FOSTER-CARE PANICS DON'T WORK IN REVERSE
I write often about the phenomenon of "foster-care panic," huge
surges in removals of children following the high-profile death or
serious injury of a child "known to the system."
"Well, then," reporters sometimes say, "It must work in reverse.
If the child dies in foster care there must be a drop in removals."
The comment often comes with the not-very-subtle implication that,
perhaps after a child dies in foster care workers become too reluctant
to tear children from their parents.
Some reporters even assume this as fact without checking, or take the
word of those who make such a claim, in part because it feeds into the
longing of so many reporters for anything that smacks of a "swinging
pendulum."
But it's not true. Foster-care panics almost never work in reverse.
On the contrary, no matter where a child dies, a high profile child
abuse fatality is likely to lead to an increase in children taken from
their homes.
After it was revealed that Rilya Wilson had been missing from her
Florida foster home (and presumed dead) for fifteen months before
anyone at the state Department of Children and Families noticed, there
was an increase in removals of children from their homes.
And that's what's happening now in Butler County, Ohio. That's
where three-year-old Marcus Fiesel lived, until he was taken from his
desperately overwhelmed mother. His foster parents are accused of tying
Marcus up and leaving him in a sweltering closet. After Marcus died,
the foster mother allegedly made up an elaborate story to fool
authorities, while the foster father allegedly burned the body.
So what's happened to the number of children taken from their homes
in Butler County? According to a story in the Journal News
http://www.journal-news.com/hp/conte...cal/2006/10/15....
, the newspaper based in the county seat of Hamilton, Ohio, it's gone
up. Way up.
That would be bad in any county, it's worse in Butler, which has a
long history of embracing a take-the-child-and-run approach to child
welfare. Last week NCCPR released it's Ohio Rate-of-Removal Index
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/ohioror.pdf
, comparing the propensity of counties in that state to take children
from their parents. Only five counties took children at a higher rate
than Butler. And that was in 2005 - before Marcus died.
But why does it happen? Why is it that when a child dies, allegedly at
the hands of birth parents, removals go up, while when a child dies,
allegedly at the hands of foster parents, removals go - - up?
Two reasons, I think.
Reason #1: When the birth parents did it, it's easy to find a
scapegoat. Typically one worker, or perhaps one worker and one
supervisor, made the decision to leave the child in his or her own
home. That means one or two people who can be fired, demoted,
suspended, and/or raked over the coals in news accounts. Workers know
this. That's why when a case hits the paper, they become terrified
that the next case will be one of theirs and they rush to take away
more children.
In contrast, when the child dies in foster care the blame is more
diffuse. The worker who removed the child often is not the one who
chose the foster home. And even if she did, someone else had the
responsibility to license the foster parents, so the worker who placed
the children can't be blamed. The licensing may have taken place
years before, so that worker can't be blamed either. And, for that
matter, the foster parents who kill the child might be the second or
third or fourth placement.
So when a child dies in foster care the response of caseworkers is the
same: If I leave a child in his own home and something goes wrong,
I'm the scapegoat; if another child dies in foster care, no one's
going to blame me.
The dynamic is compounded by -
Reason #2: the profound double standard in media coverage of "lessons
learned." When the birth parent is the culprit there is an immediate
rush to blame "family preservation." There is a ready supply of
spokespeople, often from agencies that make their living off foster
care, anxious to come forward and say, "See: This case proves that
the state or county is doing too much to keep families together."
When the child dies in foster care it's written off as an aberration,
something that can be fixed with more frequent caseworker visits to
foster homes or tightening of licensing standards and background
checks.
Nowhere is the double standard more blatant than in Michigan right now.
Three children have died in foster homes under suspicious circumstances
in just over a year, two of them in just the past three months.
Had there been three such cases with birth parents as suspects one can
easily imagine the fury on the editorial pages about the state's
allegedly excessive efforts to keep families together. But with three
children dead in foster care, I have found no comment on any editorial
page or from any columnist questioning whether Michigan is taking away
too many children.
There are only two occasions I know of in which foster care panics
worked "in reverse" - and both times children benefited
enormously. One case was in Maine, where Logan Marr was taken
needlessly from her birth mother, only to be tied to a high chair by
her foster mother with 42 feet of duct tape and asphyxiated. The other
was in Springfield Missouri, where Dominic James was taken needlessly
from his father, only to be killed by his foster father.
In both cases, newspapers refused to be suckered by the "it's an
aberration" argument. In both cases they refused to settle for
bromides about background checks and licensing standards. In Maine, the
Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and Bangor Daily News all began
asking why the number of children trapped in foster care on any given
day in Maine was, proportionately, among the highest in the country.
Today, the number of children taken away over each year in Maine is
down by 25 percent, and the proportion of foster children placed with
relatives has doubled - and it's been done with no compromise in
safety.Unn....oh Goober, Greg? You there.

They put more money into the system, stupid.

In Missouri, the Springfield News-Leader refused to settle for pat
answers. They asked why Missouri was taking away children at a rate
well above the national average, and Greene County (which includes
Springfield) was taking children at a rate well above the state
average. The 66,000-daily circulation Gannett paper even sent a
reporter, photographer and editorial writer to Alabama to look at the
reforms there. The News-Leader's reporting caught the attention of
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which also did some very good work.
Today, the number of children taken from their parents is down 15
percent statewide, with no compromise of safety. In St. Louis, which
also is home to an innovation called Community Partnerships for Child
Protection, the decline is 36 percent, and safety has improved.
But those are the exceptions. Because the journalists at those news
organizations were exceptional.Removals are down everywhere, stupid, because abuse is down. How dumb
are you Goober?

Lying propaganda with extreme bias, Greg.

Just frantic to find something else to discuss than the issue currently
under consideration here....why you lie, and how you lie, and how you
avoid being confronted with those lies.

Show us how Dan Sullivan was "ejected" Greg.

Prove up your claim.

Show us how hearsay evidence isn't admitted in criminal cases, Greg.

Prove to us that providing advice to someone to break the law isn't
"legal advice" you should be arrested for giving, Greg.

In fact, just prove that your legal advice to get herself arrested by
commiting a crime IN COURT
has any chance of her getting the rest of her children
back.....remembering that CPS already returned one.

Go ahead, stand up for your beliefs and advice Greg.

And stop this shuffling and looking for old issues to bring up to avoid
your scummy dangerous postings.

Any time now, Greg.

And tell us, what would be the significance of Dan were in a
wheelchair? Or Sherman lived in Oregon, or I was "Don of Bend?

Or that Dan thought the Red Cross contributed to the aftermath cleanup
of the Twin Towers?

What has any of this to do with reality and reasons and blame?

Just how does any of that effect what any of us post here?

Let me tell you what DOES matter here, Greg.

People that post things like telling people to break the law. YOU want
another Ruth and Brian case, do you?

What do you think was going on when that couple bludgeoned a social
worker to death, Greg? Think they might have had a little incouragement
from people such as you and their lying stories of innocence and their
mightly 'struggle' against 'the system.'

You won't take responsibility for anything, will you stupid.

Give some more legal advice. Send a copy to your state's attorney's
general, and that of the state where the recipient recieves your
advice. Go stand up in court for them.

YOu do know that the court and CPS KNOWS Dan Sullivan don't you? And
they do NOT like him, and you know that.

Yet he continues for the simple reason he does not give legal advice...

read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -