What if CPS caseworker brings police along?

On 18 Jul 2004 16:31:54 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane,

I have read at least one high court opinion
very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense
legal advice without acting as an attorney.

Then cite and post please. For some reason I have trouble taking your
word for things.

The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders
doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some
of this has become caselaw.

Boy, this Plant just told someone to refuse entry to police officer.
Not that may NOT result in any untoward outcomes, but would YOU want
to follow that advice, without first taking to an attorney in your
state, or at the very least looking up the statutes in your state and
county, as well as city, to see just what a police officers choices
are in such matters?

The Plant seems perfectly willing, as usual, and as YOU do, to
dispense advice or misleading information that could result in very
serious consequences for those taking that advice or using that
information.

It was either about Suzanne Shell or part of
the caselaw that Suzanne Shell used to defend herself.

R R R R .... Exactly my point.

Basically, anybody can do legal research,

Yes, and that IS what I recommended. The Plant said to refuse entry to
a police officer. And said this what NO caveats whatsoever, leaving
the reader, or who ever It was responding to, to assume it is possible
to do this regardless of the circumstances at the time of the events.

it
would be just plain unAmerican to tell people
that they could not research it or tell what
they had found. This is NOT the same as
pretending to be an attorney.

Please point out were I told someone not to research.

In fact I did exactly the opposite, you ****in' mindless parasite.

I told them NOT to take advice from a pack of self serving sick little
****s like you on the Web, and go get REAL legal advice, and REAL
information.

You want to defend telling them to refuse entry to a police officer,
be my guest, but know that you place OTHERS in jeapordy by such
advice.

Somebody once posted that early Americans
actually prohibited Barristers (Lawyers) from
flooding into the new world.
Barristers/Lawyers were much hated even then.

Now there's a usual piece of information for 2004 decision making.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln ever had
to go to law school or pass a BAR EXAM
before he practiced law?

There are, I believe, about 6 states, that still allow for NOT
attending an accredited college of law and take the bar exam.
Preparation, as A. Lincoln did, is called "Reading the Law." It is
usually done, I'm told, by actually working in a law office, likely as
a clerk or para, and then taking the bar.

My understand was there was no such thing as a bar exam in Lincolns
time but he met the criteria common to all in those days.

Just as todays ambitious want to be legal beagles must.

But that isn't the issue. The Plant has NO "Reading the Law"
experience It has shared with us, and the perfect example of It's
ignorance is posted from time to time here, and THIS example was a
perfect one.

An advice to refuse entry to a police officer.

I highly doubt that the US Constitution
was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to
understand our laws,

Nope. You are free to study the Constituion however you wish. Go read
it. You have 24 hours to prepare for a quiz.

now convoluted beyond
even the abilities of barristers.

No, Constitution is anything but convoluted. I has hardly changed
except for some additions that were a natural outgrowth of an evolving
society of humans.


Despite that old expression that "Ignorance
of the law is no excuse." now'days it
is sort of a nonsense comment.

No, it isn't. That still stands as fact. Ignorance will NOT excuse you
from charges. It might help you in court.

You see, assbrain, you and The Plant and some others who have haunted
this ng from time to time have spouted tons of garbage on legal
issues, failing to even discriminate between the branches of
government...constantly mixing up their duties and responsibilities to
spread your whining complaining stupid **** around.

The law of the land in THIS country is a wonderfully fine and simple
document....The United States Constitution. I'll bet you've never even
read it through, including the BOR and the rest of the amendments, now
have you?

It takes a
giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all
of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc.

Yer babbling, as usual. Go to a law library. People on foot will go to
the stacks for you and pull out exactly what you are looking for
without resorting to a computer. There sometimes is a small fee for
copying.

The attempts to make the law complicated are typical of jailhouse
lawyers, those guilty of crimes, caught or not, that want to avoid the
simple facts in the law. Start standing around little naked girls
taking showers again and watch what happens to you, dummy.

The Judge in the decision I refer to above
could not get around the value of such
research and advocacy.

There is no case mentioned "above." What ARE you babbling about again?

Stop snipping attributions and maybe you'd make some sense.

Put even simpler, it seemed like the CPS
and their attorneys were being GIANT CRYBABIES
in trying to pretend that providing legal
research was in fact providing legal advice.

Totally incoherent garbage. I know of nothing in this thread that
would explain you mumbling whine.

It was a desperate tactic used by
desperate prosecutors.

What case are you referring to? You've completely obscured any case by
NOT citing the previous posts that have that content.

I will not discuss a case with you unless you actually have the prior
referances to it so I know WHICH ****in' case you are talking about.

Other people have lives, couch croucher, and haven't time to keep with
five or six of you babblers and your subject matter.

In another case CPS actually PROTESTED
in court that an advocate group had
helped a mother find a home and a job!

Citation please, and source access.

(As if it was somehow UNFAIR!)
The Judge was not happy with CPS that day.

How do YOU know they though it unfair, other than from the opinion of
some asshole anti CPS freak?

Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics.

Prosecutors try lots of things, inluding the truth about ****heels
such as you.

You are one of the luckiest ****ers in Iowa to have gotten away with
what you did.

Now you are doing the con number, trying to deflect people from YOUR
viscous treatement of a child and her mother.

Go **** yourself, asshole.

Because of your innate dishonesty, and weaselly tactics I've had to do
your work for you, and so I've pasted the post you are responding to
below.

You are a very serious passive agressive, aren't you, asshole, in
addition to being a narcissistic twit.

Kane





(Kane) wrote in message . com...
On 17 Jul 2004 12:18:33 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Fern wrote
Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later.

Kane wrote
You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

Is that your legal opinion, Kane?

Nope, just an opinion. My own lawyer told me so.

Legal in your state?

To tell someone not to give legal advice....sure. Is it legal to give
legal advice in your state if you are not a lawyer? If not, don't do
it. It's not in The Plant's.

Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution
is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right?

Why would I say that? Can't imagine me doing anything so stupid, but
you, on the other hand, might just be stupid enough to encourage The
Plant to NOT actually site the constitution and just babble.

It did not say "here is the law" or "go find out what the law is in
your state." Instead it risked THE OTHER PERSON'S SAFETY AND CHILD AND
FAMILY. See why I am such a millstone around the collective neck of
you evil vicious thugs?

Now take a look at that sentence of It's.

It says:
"Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later."

The first sentence provides NO caveat...such as "unless...etc....."
And there one hell of a lot of "unless" and "etc." when a sworn law
enforcement officer presents him or herself at your door and requests
entry.

The correct, and NON-legal advice should be, "ask politely if the
officer has a warrant to serve to to see it." I think even the nutso
anti government anit cps crusader organizations know to do that.

Now look at the next sentence. "Grounds for lawsuit later."

The Brazil Nut doesn't have the slighest idea of what constitutes
grounds for a lawsuit. .... especially in that the homehomer cannot
know, while reading that piece of LEGAL ADVICE, if such a situation
will even present itself.

Do YOU know the kind of advice Ruth and Brian Christine got.....and
that their chidren are being raise by their parents now, and both are
in jail for many years because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE? And Brian
damn near murdered someone, because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE?

That is EXACTLY what nailed them.

All hail the priesthood of the law.

Sonny, you couldn't drive three blocks and not get killed without "the
priesthood of the law." The traffic laws require enforcment to work,
legislation to determine them, and a judicial to apply sanctions
against having broken them.

What system would YOU suggest to replace LAW?

Law are nothing more than the rules we make between us to stay alive,
less injured, and have much more fun...like being able to work for a
living and be responsible for oursel.....oppps! Sorry. I forgot about
you and your "situation."

The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power.

Please point out how my suggesting that The Plant NOT give legal
advice, and my personal advice to the inquirer that he or she DO seek
competent legal advice equates to that nonsense ...

Or could it just be we are all being treated sigh once again, to a
segue into YOUR particularly sordid mess that destroyed a loving
family by YOUR actions and that mother's stupid choice to take YOU
over her own daughter?

Kane

On 18 Jul 2004 16:31:54 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane,

I have read at least one high court opinion
very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense
legal advice without acting as an attorney.

Then cite and post please. For some reason I have trouble taking your
word for things.

The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders
doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some
of this has become caselaw.

Boy, this Plant just told someone to refuse entry to police officer.
Not that may NOT result in any untoward outcomes, but would YOU want
to follow that advice, without first taking to an attorney in your
state, or at the very least looking up the statutes in your state and
county, as well as city, to see just what a police officers choices
are in such matters?

The Plant seems perfectly willing, as usual, and as YOU do, to
dispense advice or misleading information that could result in very
serious consequences for those taking that advice or using that
information.

It was either about Suzanne Shell or part of
the caselaw that Suzanne Shell used to defend herself.

R R R R .... Exactly my point.

Basically, anybody can do legal research,

Yes, and that IS what I recommended. The Plant said to refuse entry to
a police officer. And said this what NO caveats whatsoever, leaving
the reader, or who ever It was responding to, to assume it is possible
to do this regardless of the circumstances at the time of the events.

it
would be just plain unAmerican to tell people
that they could not research it or tell what
they had found. This is NOT the same as
pretending to be an attorney.

Please point out were I told someone not to research.

In fact I did exactly the opposite, you ****in' mindless parasite.

I told them NOT to take advice from a pack of self serving sick little
****s like you on the Web, and go get REAL legal advice, and REAL
information.

You want to defend telling them to refuse entry to a police officer,
be my guest, but know that you place OTHERS in jeapordy by such
advice.

Somebody once posted that early Americans
actually prohibited Barristers (Lawyers) from
flooding into the new world.
Barristers/Lawyers were much hated even then.

Now there's a usual piece of information for 2004 decision making.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln ever had
to go to law school or pass a BAR EXAM
before he practiced law?

There are, I believe, about 6 states, that still allow for NOT
attending an accredited college of law and take the bar exam.
Preparation, as A. Lincoln did, is called "Reading the Law." It is
usually done, I'm told, by actually working in a law office, likely as
a clerk or para, and then taking the bar.

My understand was there was no such thing as a bar exam in Lincolns
time but he met the criteria common to all in those days.

Just as todays ambitious want to be legal beagles must.

But that isn't the issue. The Plant has NO "Reading the Law"
experience It has shared with us, and the perfect example of It's
ignorance is posted from time to time here, and THIS example was a
perfect one.

An advice to refuse entry to a police officer.

I highly doubt that the US Constitution
was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to
understand our laws,

Nope. You are free to study the Constituion however you wish. Go read
it. You have 24 hours to prepare for a quiz.

now convoluted beyond
even the abilities of barristers.

No, Constitution is anything but convoluted. I has hardly changed
except for some additions that were a natural outgrowth of an evolving
society of humans.


Despite that old expression that "Ignorance
of the law is no excuse." now'days it
is sort of a nonsense comment.

No, it isn't. That still stands as fact. Ignorance will NOT excuse you
from charges. It might help you in court.

You see, assbrain, you and The Plant and some others who have haunted
this ng from time to time have spouted tons of garbage on legal
issues, failing to even discriminate between the branches of
government...constantly mixing up their duties and responsibilities to
spread your whining complaining stupid **** around.

The law of the land in THIS country is a wonderfully fine and simple
document....The United States Constitution. I'll bet you've never even
read it through, including the BOR and the rest of the amendments, now
have you?

It takes a
giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all
of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc.

Yer babbling, as usual. Go to a law library. People on foot will go to
the stacks for you and pull out exactly what you are looking for
without resorting to a computer. There sometimes is a small fee for
copying.

The attempts to make the law complicated are typical of jailhouse
lawyers, those guilty of crimes, caught or not, that want to avoid the
simple facts in the law. Start standing around little naked girls
taking showers again and watch what happens to you, dummy.

The Judge in the decision I refer to above
could not get around the value of such
research and advocacy.

There is no case mentioned "above." What ARE you babbling about again?

Stop snipping attributions and maybe you'd make some sense.

Put even simpler, it seemed like the CPS
and their attorneys were being GIANT CRYBABIES
in trying to pretend that providing legal
research was in fact providing legal advice.

Totally incoherent garbage. I know of nothing in this thread that
would explain you mumbling whine.

It was a desperate tactic used by
desperate prosecutors.

What case are you referring to? You've completely obscured any case by
NOT citing the previous posts that have that content.

I will not discuss a case with you unless you actually have the prior
referances to it so I know WHICH ****in' case you are talking about.

Other people have lives, couch croucher, and haven't time to keep with
five or six of you babblers and your subject matter.

In another case CPS actually PROTESTED
in court that an advocate group had
helped a mother find a home and a job!

Citation please, and source access.

(As if it was somehow UNFAIR!)
The Judge was not happy with CPS that day.

How do YOU know they though it unfair, other than from the opinion of
some asshole anti CPS freak?

Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics.

Prosecutors try lots of things, inluding the truth about ****heels
such as you.

You are one of the luckiest ****ers in Iowa to have gotten away with
what you did.

Now you are doing the con number, trying to deflect people from YOUR
viscous treatement of a child and her mother.

Go **** yourself, asshole.

Because of your innate dishonesty, and weaselly tactics I've had to do
your work for you, and so I've pasted the post you are responding to
below.

You are a very serious passive agressive, aren't you, asshole, in
addition to being a narcissistic twit.

Kane





(Kane) wrote in message . com...
On 17 Jul 2004 12:18:33 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Fern wrote
Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later.

Kane wrote
You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

Is that your legal opinion, Kane?

Nope, just an opinion. My own lawyer told me so.

Legal in your state?

To tell someone not to give legal advice....sure. Is it legal to give
legal advice in your state if you are not a lawyer? If not, don't do
it. It's not in The Plant's.

Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution
is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right?

Why would I say that? Can't imagine me doing anything so stupid, but
you, on the other hand, might just be stupid enough to encourage The
Plant to NOT actually site the constitution and just babble.

It did not say "here is the law" or "go find out what the law is in
your state." Instead it risked THE OTHER PERSON'S SAFETY AND CHILD AND
FAMILY. See why I am such a millstone around the collective neck of
you evil vicious thugs?

Now take a look at that sentence of It's.

It says:
"Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later."

The first sentence provides NO caveat...such as "unless...etc....."
And there one hell of a lot of "unless" and "etc." when a sworn law
enforcement officer presents him or herself at your door and requests
entry.

The correct, and NON-legal advice should be, "ask politely if the
officer has a warrant to serve to to see it." I think even the nutso
anti government anit cps crusader organizations know to do that.

Now look at the next sentence. "Grounds for lawsuit later."

The Brazil Nut doesn't have the slighest idea of what constitutes
grounds for a lawsuit. .... especially in that the homehomer cannot
know, while reading that piece of LEGAL ADVICE, if such a situation
will even present itself.

Do YOU know the kind of advice Ruth and Brian Christine got.....and
that their chidren are being raise by their parents now, and both are
in jail for many years because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE? And Brian
damn near murdered someone, because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE?

That is EXACTLY what nailed them.

All hail the priesthood of the law.

Sonny, you couldn't drive three blocks and not get killed without "the
priesthood of the law." The traffic laws require enforcment to work,
legislation to determine them, and a judicial to apply sanctions
against having broken them.

What system would YOU suggest to replace LAW?

Law are nothing more than the rules we make between us to stay alive,
less injured, and have much more fun...like being able to work for a
living and be responsible for oursel.....oppps! Sorry. I forgot about
you and your "situation."

The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power.

Please point out how my suggesting that The Plant NOT give legal
advice, and my personal advice to the inquirer that he or she DO seek
competent legal advice equates to that nonsense ...

Or could it just be we are all being treated sigh once again, to a
segue into YOUR particularly sordid mess that destroyed a loving
family by YOUR actions and that mother's stupid choice to take YOU
over her own daughter?

Kane