Dan Sullivan Declares "The story doesn't change when you tell the truth."

On Aug 9, 6:46 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:
Posted 9-21-2001...

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

If the dialog starts with a poke in CPS' eye the conversation is going
to come to a stop real fast. (didn't that just happen to you Greg?)

I would like to see an ongoing discussion in every county in every
state with as many CPS people as can be found because you will learn
the flaws and holes in CPS' procedures and then you can use them to
your advantage!

For example, I was told by the state, by the metropolitan regional
office, and my local CPS that when there is something wrong in a
family and they don't know what it is they make a finding of
Inadequate Guardianship-IG for short. Each of their stories were
almost word for word identical, which leads me to believe that's what
they're taught, but that really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is
the fact that CPS is SUPPOSED to have credible evidence to support
their decision to found someone for a specific type of child abuse, so
HOW can they found someone for something if they don't know what the
it IS? I am willing to bet that almost all findings of IG can be
overturned. CPS will even document in the case record for you that
they don't know what the problem is!

I learned that the only way to prove an accusation of emotional
neglect is with an evaluation of the child by a qualified
professional. CPS rarely if ever has the evaluation done, but that
doesn't stop them from handing out EN findings like candy. A simple
statement in a request for review that points out that fact will get
the finding overturned on a dime!

As an example of what CPS thinks is credible evidence, when I was
"founded" for molesting my 3 year old daughter, besides sending to the
review CPS' own report that concluded there was no evidence that I had
done anything, I pointed out that in the case record the caseworker
wrote that she believed the proof that I molested my daughter came
from my little girl because she said to CPS and the detectives, "My
daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." AND THEN in the
next sentence the caseworker wrote "We didn't know what she was trying
to say." My question was, how can this statement of my daughters be
credible evidence if no one knew what she was trying to say? I won.

As a side bar - I got a copy of my file from the DA's office to see
why I wasn't arrested. Their report stated that there was no evidence
anywhere that my little girl was even harmed. AND my daughter didn't
accuse me of anything. AND there was a letter in the file from the CW
to them stating that the forensic rape exam results were inconclusive!
In spite of the fact that CPS AND the detectives did their interviews
at the exact same time standing side by side their reports didn't
match in any way at all. In fact if I went to trial in family court I
would have called the detectives as MY witnesses. The petition to
family court from CPS even claimed that the detectives were present
when my daughter made her "credible evidence" statement. AND the CW
stated in the petition that the forensic examination concluded that
there WAS evidence of molestation! Can you say "fabrication?" You know
sometimes I wish I did go to trial, but like I always say, "Stay out
of court."

BTW the caseworker resigned from CPS on a Monday morning following the
Friday that I picked up my copy of the case record and started
alerting everyone from the state on down about how insane the
caseworker acted AND documented in the case record and petition! I was
petitioned to family court in September and the CW documented in the
CR that in March she did a vaginal exam on my daughter and attempted
on three different visits after that to program my daughter into
accusing me of molesting her, all documented in the case record! "As
the labia were gently separated the little girl said STOP IT HURTS."
Isn't that special! One supervisor from a local CPS told me that CPS
workers were trained to examine injuries. I told him that a sexual
abuse accusation had not even been made at the time and he got real
loud and said, "How do you know THAT?" I said I read it in the case
record. Then he said even louder, "How did you get a copy of the case
record?" I love it when they lose control. In NY CPS does NOT want to
give out copies of the case record to anyone, subjects of the reports
AND their attnys included. PLUS from March to September I had MORE
visitation than my visitation agreement specified and no one including
CPS tried to get the visitation even reduced. The CW worked in the
garment industry in Manhattan before she worked for CPS, do you think
that's where she got her medical training? She also went BACK there
after her stint at CPS! Two hours on the train in the morning and
another two at night, I can't tell you how bad I feel.

I requested the DA info because I thought it was a good idea to see
what was in THEIR file so I asked for it, my attny thought it was a
waste of time because I wasn't arrested. And he used to be an
assistant DA! Another freakin' expert!"

Anyhow back at the ranch, you don't want to ask what they do wrong,
you want to ask how things work, and be prepared to LISTEN AND LEARN!"

This all sounds good Dan, except I already documented
that the agency workers ran a complete BLOCKADE of communication.
You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

On cross the caseworker's reason for not answering the
e-mail questions was they were "irrational".

Calling up the first e-mail document the other side had
introduced, I asked "What is irrational about this e-mail?".

The guy spent about 5 minutes silently reading ONE PAGE
then "speechified" without answering the question for about 5 minutes.

The Judge didn't stop him. Why do you suppose that was?
The Judge should have directed him to answer the question.

I just waited and asked the question again.

"What is irrational about this e-mail?"
He says "Nothing."

Called up second e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."
Called up third e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

How were we supposed to have gently learned
from these people when they were deliberately
refusing to communicate?

Face to face they did the same crap.
At one point they were walking around in our
"cluttered" house and gawking as if they were
some kind of retarded idiots.

Refused to answer anything about anything.

What good would sweet talk and "listening" do
when they are doing that?

How about the part where the worker OK'd
delivery of stuff to the girl at school and then
tried to get me charged for violating a no-contact
order that DIDN'T EXIST?

Or the Police Station interview where she tried
the "TV Cop" trick with the lie about washing privates?

I was listening and I was learning but there
was no chance of any sweet relationship.

You supposedly know that these caseworkers do
and assert the most rotten stuff, but what you fail
to acknowledge is that some are worse than others.

You write up some good stuff at times, but I have
concluded that you do it the way people used to
"salt" mines. In other words, you do it as a con.

WHY ELSE would you write as if you were
on the receiving end (TEN YEARS AGO!) and
then turn around and shout down somebody
for commenting on a story about a FOSTER
contractor who got sent hundreds of
young boys to butt rape?

Why is it that important and serious questions
about the Judith Leekin disaster yield the GFYS
answer from you? It looks like you are protecting
Public Relations for the agencies when you do that!

Certainly a man who has experienced what you
CLAIM YOU HAVE would not feel a bit of sympathy
as the Child Protection INDUSTRY collapses
from the weight of it's own EXCESS.

What father who experienced what you CLAIM TO
would push for "reform from within" even though
the Child Protection INDUSTRY has had over
THIRTY YEARS to right the wrongs and has not?

On Aug 9, 9:52 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Aug 9, 6:46 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:



Posted 9-21-2001...

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

If the dialog starts with a poke in CPS' eye the conversation is going
to come to a stop real fast. (didn't that just happen to you Greg?)

I would like to see an ongoing discussion in every county in every
state with as many CPS people as can be found because you will learn
the flaws and holes in CPS' procedures and then you can use them to
your advantage!

For example, I was told by the state, by the metropolitan regional
office, and my local CPS that when there is something wrong in a
family and they don't know what it is they make a finding of
Inadequate Guardianship-IG for short. Each of their stories were
almost word for word identical, which leads me to believe that's what
they're taught, but that really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is
the fact that CPS is SUPPOSED to have credible evidence to support
their decision to found someone for a specific type of child abuse, so
HOW can they found someone for something if they don't know what the
it IS? I am willing to bet that almost all findings of IG can be
overturned. CPS will even document in the case record for you that
they don't know what the problem is!

I learned that the only way to prove an accusation of emotional
neglect is with an evaluation of the child by a qualified
professional. CPS rarely if ever has the evaluation done, but that
doesn't stop them from handing out EN findings like candy. A simple
statement in a request for review that points out that fact will get
the finding overturned on a dime!

As an example of what CPS thinks is credible evidence, when I was
"founded" for molesting my 3 year old daughter, besides sending to the
review CPS' own report that concluded there was no evidence that I had
done anything, I pointed out that in the case record the caseworker
wrote that she believed the proof that I molested my daughter came
from my little girl because she said to CPS and the detectives, "My
daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." AND THEN in the
next sentence the caseworker wrote "We didn't know what she was trying
to say." My question was, how can this statement of my daughters be
credible evidence if no one knew what she was trying to say? I won.

As a side bar - I got a copy of my file from the DA's office to see
why I wasn't arrested. Their report stated that there was no evidence
anywhere that my little girl was even harmed. AND my daughter didn't
accuse me of anything. AND there was a letter in the file from the CW
to them stating that the forensic rape exam results were inconclusive!
In spite of the fact that CPS AND the detectives did their interviews
at the exact same time standing side by side their reports didn't
match in any way at all. In fact if I went to trial in family court I
would have called the detectives as MY witnesses. The petition to
family court from CPS even claimed that the detectives were present
when my daughter made her "credible evidence" statement. AND the CW
stated in the petition that the forensic examination concluded that
there WAS evidence of molestation! Can you say "fabrication?" You know
sometimes I wish I did go to trial, but like I always say, "Stay out
of court."

BTW the caseworker resigned from CPS on a Monday morning following the
Friday that I picked up my copy of the case record and started
alerting everyone from the state on down about how insane the
caseworker acted AND documented in the case record and petition! I was
petitioned to family court in September and the CW documented in the
CR that in March she did a vaginal exam on my daughter and attempted
on three different visits after that to program my daughter into
accusing me of molesting her, all documented in the case record! "As
the labia were gently separated the little girl said STOP IT HURTS."
Isn't that special! One supervisor from a local CPS told me that CPS
workers were trained to examine injuries. I told him that a sexual
abuse accusation had not even been made at the time and he got real
loud and said, "How do you know THAT?" I said I read it in the case
record. Then he said even louder, "How did you get a copy of the case
record?" I love it when they lose control. In NY CPS does NOT want to
give out copies of the case record to anyone, subjects of the reports
AND their attnys included. PLUS from March to September I had MORE
visitation than my visitation agreement specified and no one including
CPS tried to get the visitation even reduced. The CW worked in the
garment industry in Manhattan before she worked for CPS, do you think
that's where she got her medical training? She also went BACK there
after her stint at CPS! Two hours on the train in the morning and
another two at night, I can't tell you how bad I feel.

I requested the DA info because I thought it was a good idea to see
what was in THEIR file so I asked for it, my attny thought it was a
waste of time because I wasn't arrested. And he used to be an
assistant DA! Another freakin' expert!"

Anyhow back at the ranch, you don't want to ask what they do wrong,
you want to ask how things work, and be prepared to LISTEN AND LEARN!"

This all sounds good Dan, except I already documented
that the agency workers ran a complete BLOCKADE of communication.

Because you're a wacko pervert.

You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.

On July 12, 2001 you posted "Just boxes of household items, electronic
parts, tools, raw speakers, nuts, bolts, televisions, wires and
cables, spare phones, computer parts, books and magazines, etc. not
terribly disorganized, just too much VOLUME of stuff in the single
wide mobile home we got out of."

On cross the caseworker's reason for not answering the
e-mail questions was they were "irrational".

Who's emails ?

When were the emails sent?

Calling up the first e-mail document the other side had
introduced, I asked "What is irrational about this e-mail?".

When did this questioning take place?

The guy spent about 5 minutes silently reading ONE PAGE
then "speechified" without answering the question for about 5 minutes.

The Judge didn't stop him. Why do you suppose that was?
The Judge should have directed him to answer the question.

I just waited and asked the question again.

"What is irrational about this e-mail?"
He says "Nothing."

Called up second e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."
Called up third e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.

How were we supposed to have gently learned
from these people when they were deliberately
refusing to communicate?

Because you acted like you didn't know the trailer was cluttered when
anyone in their right mind knew you did.

Face to face they did the same crap.
At one point they were walking around in our
"cluttered" house and gawking as if they were
some kind of retarded idiots.

Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.

Kids need room to enjoy themselves.

How much fun was it for her to have to play in a place filled with
"boxes of household items, electronic parts, tools, raw speakers,
nuts, bolts, televisions, wires and cables, spare phones, computer
parts, books and magazines?"

Refused to answer anything about anything.

What good would sweet talk and "listening" do
when they are doing that?

You had already blown any chance you might have had.

How about the part where the worker OK'd
delivery of stuff to the girl at school and then
tried to get me charged for violating a no-contact
order that DIDN'T EXIST?

Or the Police Station interview where she tried
the "TV Cop" trick with the lie about washing privates?

I was listening and I was learning but there
was no chance of any sweet relationship.

You supposedly know that these caseworkers do
and assert the most rotten stuff, but what you fail
to acknowledge is that some are worse than others.

You write up some good stuff at times, but I have
concluded that you do it the way people used to
"salt" mines. In other words, you do it as a con.

WHY ELSE would you write as if you were
on the receiving end (TEN YEARS AGO!) and
then turn around and shout down somebody
for commenting on a story about a FOSTER
contractor who got sent hundreds of
young boys to butt rape?

Hundreds?

And the foster people sent the boys to be butt raped?

I don't think so.

Why is it that important and serious questions
about the Judith Leekin disaster yield the GFYS
answer from you? It looks like you are protecting
Public Relations for the agencies when you do that!

Truthfully I think you deserve a GFYS every time you post...
regardless of the thread.

Certainly a man who has experienced what you
CLAIM YOU HAVE would not feel a bit of sympathy
as the Child Protection INDUSTRY collapses
from the weight of it's own EXCESS.

What father who experienced what you CLAIM TO
would push for "reform from within" even though
the Child Protection INDUSTRY has had over
THIRTY YEARS to right the wrongs and has not?

GFYS, Greg.

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
oups.com...


INteresting Tautology follows:

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.

Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.

Kids need room to enjoy themselves.

Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks. Let's just say we
note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy themselves" and leave
it at that!

" krp" wrote in message
news:TBWui.4322$V53.1424@trnddc08...

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
oups.com...


INteresting Tautology follows:

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.

Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.

Kids need room to enjoy themselves.

Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks.

Are you afraid to say something I can add to the list of quotable
quotes?

Let's just say we note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy
themselves" and leave it at that!

I said they need ROOM to enjoy themselves.

And they need to enjoy themselves, too.

That's what being a kid is all about.

How much could one of your kids have enjoyed themselves if they lived
in a
single wide with, as Greg said, "boxes of household items, electronic
parts,
tools, raw speakers, nuts, bolts, televisions, wires and cables,
spare
phones, computer parts, books and magazines, etc. not terribly
disorganized,
just too much VOLUME of stuff in the single wide mobile home we got
out of."

Greg also said "the standard for the childs room was higher than for
the
rest of the house, but because it was a small room (maximized with a
loft I
built) and an easy goal for the child to attain.
We had a disused back room that was a giant closet.
We pulled stuff out of it to make part of it a computer room.
It became like a workshop."

And Greg said of the little girl "We also took away TV in room until
room
cleaned."

So Greg took the little girl's "small (bed) room" and built a loft in
it,
ordered her to keep it cleaner than the rest of the single wide... and
when
she didn't do what he said... he took away her TV.

As opposed to the rest of the place, including the "back room" that
he
converted to a computer and workshop room for himself.

Where do you think he put all the "stuff" he pulled out of the back
room?

In the kitchen?

Living room?

It's no wonder CPS walked around the single wide stunned at what they
were
seeing.

And THAT'S the truth,

" krp" wrote in message

news:TBWui.4322$V53.1424@trnddc08...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
oups.com...

INteresting Tautology follows:

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.

Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.

Kids need room to enjoy themselves.

Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks.

Are you afraid to say something I can add to the list of quotable
quotes?

Let's just say we note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy
themselves" and leave it at that!

I said they need ROOM to enjoy themselves.

And they need to enjoy themselves, too.

That's what being a kid is all about.

How much could one of your kids have enjoyed themselves if they lived
in a single wide with, as Greg said, "boxes of household items,
electronic parts, tools, raw speakers, nuts, bolts, televisions, wires
and cables, spare phones, computer parts, books and magazines, etc.
not terribly disorganized, just too much VOLUME of stuff in the single
wide mobile home we got out of."

Greg also said "the standard for the child's room was higher than for
the rest of the house, but because it was a small room (maximized with
a loft I built) and an easy goal for the child to attain.
We had a disused back room that was a giant closet.
We pulled stuff out of it to make part of it a computer room.
It became like a workshop."

And Greg said of the little girl "We also took away TV in room until
room cleaned."

So Greg took the little girl's "small (bed) room" and built a loft in
it, ordered her to keep it cleaner than the rest of the single wide...
and when she didn't do what he said... he took away her TV.

As opposed to the rest of the place, including the "back room" that he
converted to a computer and workshop room for himself.

Where do you think he put all the "stuff" he pulled out of the back
room?

In the kitchen?

Living room?

It's no wonder CPS walked around the single wide stunned at what they
were seeing.

And THAT'S the truth,

On Aug 10, 8:52 am, Dan Sullivan wrote:
" krp" wrote in message

news:TBWui.4322$V53.1424@trnddc08...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -



"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
roups.com...
INteresting Tautology follows:
I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!
Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."
Back to my message,
"Noooooo.....
I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.
I already know that.
I don't want stats either.
You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.
For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.
We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.
Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.
So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?
You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.
Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.
Kids need room to enjoy themselves.
Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks.

Are you afraid to say something I can add to the list of quotable
quotes?

Let's just say we note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy
themselves" and leave it at that!

I said they need ROOM to enjoy themselves.

And they need to enjoy themselves, too.

That's what being a kid is all about.

How much could one of your kids have enjoyed themselves if they lived
in a single wide with, as Greg said, "boxes of household items,
electronic parts, tools, raw speakers, nuts, bolts, televisions, wires
and cables, spare phones, computer parts, books and magazines, etc.
not terribly disorganized, just too much VOLUME of stuff in the single
wide mobile home we got out of."

Greg also said "the standard for the child's room was higher than for
the rest of the house, but because it was a small room (maximized with
a loft I built) and an easy goal for the child to attain.
We had a disused back room that was a giant closet.
We pulled stuff out of it to make part of it a computer room.
It became like a workshop."

And Greg said of the little girl "We also took away TV in room until
room cleaned."

So Greg took the little girl's "small (bed) room" and built a loft in
it, ordered her to keep it cleaner than the rest of the single wide...
and when she didn't do what he said... he took away her TV.

As opposed to the rest of the place, including the "back room" that he
converted to a computer and workshop room for himself.

Where do you think he put all the "stuff" he pulled out of the back
room?

In the kitchen?

Living room?

It's no wonder CPS walked around the single wide stunned at what they
were seeing.

And THAT'S the truth,

BTW Greg and Lisa had the stones to include in a Motion to the Family
Court a request that the Judge order CPS to pay an $80 monthly bill
for a storage locker for all of the unused crap in the single wide.

On Aug 10, 4:54 am, " krp" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

oups.com...

INteresting Tautology follows:



I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.
You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.
Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.
So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?
You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.
Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.
Kids need room to enjoy themselves.

Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks. Let's just say we
note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy themselves" and leave
it at that!

On Aug 10, 8:55 am, Dan Sullivan wrote:
On Aug 10, 8:52 am, Dan Sullivan wrote:



" krp" wrote in message

news:TBWui.4322$V53.1424@trnddc08...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
roups.com...
INteresting Tautology follows:
I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!
Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."
Back to my message,
"Noooooo.....
I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.
I already know that.
I don't want stats either.
You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.
For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.
We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.
Even YOU knew the single wide was FILLED with too much stuff, Greg.
So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?
You "poked them in the eye" and then expected them to be nice to you.
Because they couldn't believe the "too much VOLUME of stuff" that you
expected a little girl to live with in her home.
Kids need room to enjoy themselves.
Danny that statement is WAYYYYY to ripe for comebacks.

Are you afraid to say something I can add to the list of quotable
quotes?

Let's just say we note your statement about children NEEDING to "enjoy
themselves" and leave it at that!

I said they need ROOM to enjoy themselves.

And they need to enjoy themselves, too.

That's what being a kid is all about.

How much could one of your kids have enjoyed themselves if they lived
in a single wide with, as Greg said, "boxes of household items,
electronic parts, tools, raw speakers, nuts, bolts, televisions, wires
and cables, spare phones, computer parts, books and magazines, etc.
not terribly disorganized, just too much VOLUME of stuff in the single
wide mobile home we got out of."

Greg also said "the standard for the child's room was higher than for
the rest of the house, but because it was a small room (maximized with
a loft I built) and an easy goal for the child to attain.
We had a disused back room that was a giant closet.
We pulled stuff out of it to make part of it a computer room.
It became like a workshop."

And Greg said of the little girl "We also took away TV in room until
room cleaned."

So Greg took the little girl's "small (bed) room" and built a loft in
it, ordered her to keep it cleaner than the rest of the single wide...
and when she didn't do what he said... he took away her TV.

As opposed to the rest of the place, including the "back room" that he
converted to a computer and workshop room for himself.

Where do you think he put all the "stuff" he pulled out of the back
room?

In the kitchen?

Living room?

It's no wonder CPS walked around the single wide stunned at what they
were seeing.

And THAT'S the truth,

BTW Greg and Lisa had thestonesto include in a Motion to the Family
Court a request that the Judge order CPS to pay an $80 monthly bill
for a storage locker for all of the unused crap in the single wide.

Also FYI Greg had a chance of getting visitation IF he took a psych
eval.

An eval at which time he could have presented to the evaluator all the
evidence he had that CPS lied about his past history, and fabricated
information and accusations in his current situation.

Greg chose to keep all that information to himself... IOW he didn't go
to the eval, and he never got visitation.

How fortunate for the little girl!!!!!

On Aug 9, 8:52 pm, Greegor wrote:
On Aug 9, 6:46 pm, Dan Sullivan wrote:



Posted 9-21-2001...

I wrote "The reason to be nice is to get them to drop their guard so
they will give you information to use in your goal of proving the
system to be out of control. It's nice to be nice!

Greg Hanson responded with "So you sweetly ask them how much they
screw up and they'll
be glad to hand over the stats? Riiiight....."

Back to my message,

"Noooooo.....

I wouldn't ask them how much they screw up.

I already know that.

I don't want stats either.

If the dialog starts with a poke in CPS' eye the conversation is going
to come to a stop real fast. (didn't that just happen to you Greg?)

I would like to see an ongoing discussion in every county in every
state with as many CPS people as can be found because you will learn
the flaws and holes in CPS' procedures and then you can use them to
your advantage!

For example, I was told by the state, by the metropolitan regional
office, and my local CPS that when there is something wrong in a
family and they don't know what it is they make a finding of
Inadequate Guardianship-IG for short. Each of their stories were
almost word for word identical, which leads me to believe that's what
they're taught, but that really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is
the fact that CPS is SUPPOSED to have credible evidence to support
their decision to found someone for a specific type of child abuse, so
HOW can they found someone for something if they don't know what the
it IS? I am willing to bet that almost all findings of IG can be
overturned. CPS will even document in the case record for you that
they don't know what the problem is!

I learned that the only way to prove an accusation of emotional
neglect is with an evaluation of the child by a qualified
professional. CPS rarely if ever has the evaluation done, but that
doesn't stop them from handing out EN findings like candy. A simple
statement in a request for review that points out that fact will get
the finding overturned on a dime!

As an example of what CPS thinks is credible evidence, when I was
"founded" for molesting my 3 year old daughter, besides sending to the
review CPS' own report that concluded there was no evidence that I had
done anything, I pointed out that in the case record the caseworker
wrote that she believed the proof that I molested my daughter came
from my little girl because she said to CPS and the detectives, "My
daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet." AND THEN in the
next sentence the caseworker wrote "We didn't know what she was trying
to say." My question was, how can this statement of my daughters be
credible evidence if no one knew what she was trying to say? I won.

As a side bar - I got a copy of my file from the DA's office to see
why I wasn't arrested. Their report stated that there was no evidence
anywhere that my little girl was even harmed. AND my daughter didn't
accuse me of anything. AND there was a letter in the file from the CW
to them stating that the forensic rape exam results were inconclusive!
In spite of the fact that CPS AND the detectives did their interviews
at the exact same time standing side by side their reports didn't
match in any way at all. In fact if I went to trial in family court I
would have called the detectives as MY witnesses. The petition to
family court from CPS even claimed that the detectives were present
when my daughter made her "credible evidence" statement. AND the CW
stated in the petition that the forensic examination concluded that
there WAS evidence of molestation! Can you say "fabrication?" You know
sometimes I wish I did go to trial, but like I always say, "Stay out
of court."

BTW the caseworker resigned from CPS on a Monday morning following the
Friday that I picked up my copy of the case record and started
alerting everyone from the state on down about how insane the
caseworker acted AND documented in the case record and petition! I was
petitioned to family court in September and the CW documented in the
CR that in March she did a vaginal exam on my daughter and attempted
on three different visits after that to program my daughter into
accusing me of molesting her, all documented in the case record! "As
the labia were gently separated the little girl said STOP IT HURTS."
Isn't that special! One supervisor from a local CPS told me that CPS
workers were trained to examine injuries. I told him that a sexual
abuse accusation had not even been made at the time and he got real
loud and said, "How do you know THAT?" I said I read it in the case
record. Then he said even louder, "How did you get a copy of the case
record?" I love it when they lose control. In NY CPS does NOT want to
give out copies of the case record to anyone, subjects of the reports
AND their attnys included. PLUS from March to September I had MORE
visitation than my visitation agreement specified and no one including
CPS tried to get the visitation even reduced. The CW worked in the
garment industry in Manhattan before she worked for CPS, do you think
that's where she got her medical training? She also went BACK there
after her stint at CPS! Two hours on the train in the morning and
another two at night, I can't tell you how bad I feel.

I requested the DA info because I thought it was a good idea to see
what was in THEIR file so I asked for it, my attny thought it was a
waste of time because I wasn't arrested. And he used to be an
assistant DA! Another freakin' expert!"

Anyhow back at the ranch, you don't want to ask what they do wrong,
you want to ask how things work, and be prepared to LISTEN AND LEARN!"

This all sounds good Dan, except I already documented
that the agency workers ran a complete BLOCKADE of communication.
You can't listen and learn when they stone wall everything and
won't answer even the smallest questions.

For example, "What are the standards for a home inspection?"
since their complaint was supposed to be household clutter.

We asked how could we meet the standards if they could
not tell us what the standards are.

On cross the caseworker's reason for not answering the
e-mail questions was they were "irrational".

Calling up the first e-mail document the other side had
introduced, I asked "What is irrational about this e-mail?".

The guy spent about 5 minutes silently reading ONE PAGE
then "speechified" without answering the question for about 5 minutes.

The Judge didn't stop him. Why do you suppose that was?
The Judge should have directed him to answer the question.

I just waited and asked the question again.

"What is irrational about this e-mail?"
He says "Nothing."

Called up second e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."
Called up third e-mail. Same question. "Nothing."

So, Dan, I want to ask you again, what kind of
"listening" were we supposed to have done since
these *******s were deliberately stone walling
every question, and refusing to answer anything?

How were we supposed to have gently learned
from these people when they were deliberately
refusing to communicate?

Face to face they did the same crap.
At one point they were walking around in our
"cluttered" house and gawking as if they were
some kind of retarded idiots.

Refused to answer anything about anything.

What good would sweet talk and "listening" do
when they are doing that?

How about the part where the worker OK'd
delivery of stuff to the girl at school and then
tried to get me charged for violating a no-contact
order that DIDN'T EXIST?

Or the Police Station interview where she tried
the "TV Cop" trick with the lie about washing privates?

I was listening and I was learning but there
was no chance of any sweet relationship.

You supposedly know that these caseworkers do
and assert the most rotten stuff, but what you fail
to acknowledge is that some are worse than others.

You write up some good stuff at times, but I have
concluded that you do it the way people used to
"salt" mines. In other words, you do it as a con.

WHY ELSE would you write as if you were
on the receiving end (TEN YEARS AGO!) and
then turn around and shout down somebody
for commenting on a story about a FOSTER
contractor who got sent hundreds of
young boys to butt rape?

Why is it that important and serious questions
about the Judith Leekin disaster yield the GFYS
answer from you? It looks like you are protecting
Public Relations for the agencies when you do that!

Certainly a man who has experienced what you
CLAIM YOU HAVE would not feel a bit of sympathy
as the Child Protection INDUSTRY collapses
from the weight of it's own EXCESS.

What father who experienced what you CLAIM TO
would push for "reform from within" even though
the Child Protection INDUSTRY has had over
THIRTY YEARS to right the wrongs and has not?



greg said
"except I already documented
that the agency workers ran a complete BLOCKADE of communication."

Where did you post this documentation greg? Just because you say it
does not mean it' s been documented.

Post this documentation please.