Dan Sullivan saboteur burrowed into Family Rights groups

I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.

I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.

And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.

The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.

All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.

Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!
Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.

Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.

As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?

Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?



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

Kane wrote
In fact, they usually are so heavyweight that most lawyers don't even
bother to try....that's the claim in this newsgroup, at any rate.

krp wrote
Most lawyers don't know how and don't give a rat's ass.

Kane wrote
And if you can beat them before it goes to court, as Dan so often does?

krp wrote
Beat them how? But agreeing to their performance plans and
submitting to
their jurisdiction over your life forever????? THAT is a WIN in your
book?

ROFL!

Kane wrote
The claim that you are more likely to win with an all out aggressive
lawyer trying to pull the wings off CPS is stupid, and makes CPS look
like
the victim.

krp wrote
Awwwww the POOR babies! Awwwwwwww!

Here we see Kane trying to talk families OUT of finding
an attorney who provides the VIGOROUS DEFENSE
the family is entitled to!

Kane wrote
Though most everyone that's ****ed at CPS can climb aboard that 'pull
off
their wings' bandwagon, it doesn't win cases often. In fact, most
rarely.

Note that Kane didn't even mention lawyers or attornies as Greg claimed..

krp wrote
Worked for us for over 30 years.

Here Kane urges surrender as the optimal approach.

NO surrender, Greg.

A win before Court by producing the real facts of the case.

I have teased Dan for ages about the "Winning through Surrender"
approach.

Teased me about something I never said.

Kane wrote
The trick is simply to convince the judge CPS is wrong -- note the
following carefully --- IN THIS CASE. In fact I've seen you do it by
simply pointing out to CPS they don't have the credible evidence BEFORE
they even got to court.

krp wrote
Yeah that works! heavy sarcasm

Kane wrote
YOu just show them they aren't going to win there. If they are stupid
enough to ignore you, then guess what, they get to experience losing in
court...because the judge decides.

krp wrote
Ooooo I bet they skarrit of you!!

Here they view CPS as an extension of Juvenile Court itself.
Losing in court for them is like when your right hand loses to your
left.

Kane wrote
That's really all it takes in the vast majority of cases.

krp wrote
Bull****.

Exactly.

Wrong, because it's worked in almost every case I've helped with.

You know - I know lots of "activists" who make the same claim. Too bad
it is almost never true when you look closely at the claims. Bull**** does
NOT win cases, EVIDENCE does, PROOF does and a vigorous lawyer compelling
the judge to hear it.

But what do you expect from Donald L. Fisher the former Oregon
caseworker?
Notice how upset he is that somebody might sue the crap out
of the agency for their gross CORRUPTION, Constitutional violations and
conspiracy to do same?

Where do you see that in Kane's post, Greg?

He never blames the perps in the agency, just the evil plaintiffs. who
sue the agency.

He's retired and LOBBIES for the agencies now.

Kane's retired and tends to his garden.

Kane wrote
Judges, like anyone else, tend not to be too taken in
by grandstanding. Entertained, yes. Fooled? Nope.

krp wrote
Who said "grandstanding?" I said "EVIDENCE!"

In the tiny few cases that actually go to "Adjudication"
in Juvenile Court, they are NOT supposed to "err on the side of safety"
but they often do despite all of the caselaw against that.

They're not supposed to "err on the side of safety?"

Dan the object should be to NOT ERR AT ALL!!!

Unlike criminal court, Juvenile courts are often referred to
as "rubber stamp courts", "drumheads" or "kangaroo court".

So?

So people get their families destroyed by these "helpers" who operate on
hidden agendas and folk myth bull****.

The "preponderance" ( 50% ) standard is routinely ABUSED
by the caseworkers by simply reporting only NEGATIVES.

The preponderance standard is for the Family Court Judge's decision.

And dependency courts. It's a bitch to deal with - with an INCESTOUS
legal system where everyone is againt the family. Where EVERYONE draws a
paycheck from the same source and are all part of the same sorority.

It's not a standard that binds the caseworkers on the evidence they
present.

You mean "BULL****" that they present!

It's how the Judge views the evidence presented by the caseworkers.

It is the accused's job to make sure the Judge hears that what the
caseworkers presented was BULL****!

This ONE SIDED REPORTING is a means to subvert the
preponderance standard and "abuse of the preponderance standard"
is considered to be a 6th amendment "due process" violation.

Someone may consider you a genius, Greg. It doesn't mean they're right.

Same for you Dan.

The Judges are generally fairly biased in favor of CPS,
and the lax standards give them more leeway to be so.

Often CPS holds ex-parte meetings with the Judge,
referred to as a "star chamber". These are never
transcribed. Sometimes the whole direction
of the case is decided there before any actual hearing.
Many hearings are also not transcribed.

Citations for the "many hearings are not transcribed" claim.

Well - he's right in cases where the person isn't represented by an
attorney and where nobody has asked for one. CPS almost NEVER requests one,
only in the most eggregious cases.

So the Judge is never presented with a "record they can't live with" and
the family has a tough time appealing with no transcript.

What???

You claim to be this "GREAT EXPERT" and you didn't understand that? It
is almost impossible to appeal a case where there is no transcript of the
proceedings, but I thought with all your VAST legal knowledge, you'd know
that? In every state I am aware of a judge is granted broad discretion by
appeals courts, to get a reversal you must show error. You can't do that
easily if there is no record to prove the judge was wrong.






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

Hey Dennis!

What do you think would've happened if Greg said,

That being involved with that little girl taking a shower was a
mistake and it was never gonna happen again?

And he found a job.

And he took some parenting classes.

And he cleaned up the house.

And disposed of his excess belongings.

And got an independent psych eval to demonstrate that he was a
responsible person, concerned for the best interests and well
being
of
that little girl.

There's a very good chance that the little girl would've been
returned
LAST year.


Dan - one can't have successful "negotiations" with Satan. You can
never
male a 'deal" with Satan.


Satan will NEVER keep its word!

So your alternative is???

You asked me that before and when I answered you accused me of
trying
to "DRUM UP BUSINESS!"

That was someone else. I ddidn't accuse you of drumming up business.

The answer is you go after CPS with all the forces you
can muster to discredit them. A very aggressive lawyer who knows the
ropes,
experts, investigators and you pull the wings off the CPS flies.

I wish everyone had the funds to finance that, but most don't.

Most folks can raise it when they stop feeling sorry for themselves.
I
see people all the time facing criminal charges, worrying about their
credit
rating. I ask them "after you get convicted, WHERE do you think you'll be
using that Platinum Amex Card?" Tell me Dan, when you are convicted of a
felony, what do you think your credit rating is???????? Think you score
an
800?

Most people I help are in Family Court, not Criminal.

It's not real hard for somebody not using a lwyer to quickly find
themselves in criminal court, and it isn't infrequent.

I'm sorry - it's the fact of life You do what it takes to fight.

I believe you do what is necessary and appropriate to win your children
bacck..

What is necessary is not giving CPS dominion in any way over your
family, and making sure that once it is over they never come back.

The ideas I have seen here to "negotiate" are plain stupid suggestions.

But that tact has worked in a great deal of cases.

And it has proven to fail in the vast majority of cases.

You can't negotiate with those folks.

Not at all?

Mostly no. Most of the CPS folks have agendas all their own. CAPTA makes
sure they do.

You stand a 100 times BETTER chance of
negotiating yourself out of the big pot in the starving cannibal village.
Making people think they can trust CPS workers is not helping people.

I don't make people do anything.

Ok - leading them to believe they can trust CPS workers is NOT helping
people.



krp wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
news:maKdnYYFKdo4qATYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@scnresearch. com...

You counsel "Win, no matter the cost", right? What do you tell those
who
HAVE abused or neglected their children? The same thing? After all,
the
vast majority of the kids in the system are victims. What do you say to
those that actually need the services being offered? Do you know the
difference?

The majority of kids in the system are not victims.

False. And those that aren't are there for a valid reason.

Yeah CAPTA! But Greg is right. With almost 70% unfounded the "VAST
majority" are NOT victims.

The majority were put in the system under the "AT RISK OF" clause.

Putting someone at risk is abusive in itself.

Oh really? Then EVERY child in America should be taken from their homes
without exception. And because the care within the system is equally at
risk, what are you going to do? Send them to another planet?

Greegor wrote:
I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.

Change the subject like you just did, Greg?

Did you think no one would notice?

I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.

Not true.

Citations, please.

And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.

Kane is an entirely different person than me.

And what you say about him isn't true either.

The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.

Kane has helped me on every case I've helped with.

All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.

Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!

I never saw that.

Post the citations, Greg, if there are any.

Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.

Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.

I don't know what you're talking about, Greg.

You have citations for that statement?

As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?

What charade?

Exposing morons with terrible advice.

Morons like you who tell people to get themselves arrested in Court.

Morons like you who tell people there's a "bight side" to a TPR
Hearing.

Morons who tell people agreeing to a service plan is admitting guilt.

Morons who tell people to ask for a jury trial in Family Court.

Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?

What is the proper cover for a pile of Greg Hanson's horse ****?

Will a tarp be sufficient?

Greegor wrote:
I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.

I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.

And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.

The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.

All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.

Dan and Don Fishers connection is much deeper. Here's Dan's
knock...knock post where he insinuates d'geezer is a LEO at his[Dan's]
command ready to 'fill out the 'paperwork' on folks who dare to expose
them as agents.

He challenges ASCPS to figure out who d'geezer is and why he is doing
his[Dan's] 'job'.

Well we know d'geezer Don Fisher Kane - scumbag CPS worker who made
internet history by being so ****ing disgusting as to spam Oregon's most
vulnerable children (complete w/photos and bio's] to usenet. 'Come fill
out a form and take home a kiddie' he bubbled on alt.adoption. I think
it's Danno's daddy.

So - how 'bout it Danno - what is your 'job' here??


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello People,

Here's a Grand Slam from d'geezer,

BTW, while your at it, figure out who d'geezer is and why he was
"doing my job" as he engaged and studied the posts on this NG, (hint)
take note of the posts he quoted and the commonality of those posts.
He may be gone?, but he should NOT be forgotten, unless someone
doesn't care about a government sponsored LENGTHY vacation because
d'geezer can reappear at the drop of a bluster and threat.

Or maybe he's just too busy filling out the paperwork for the next
step.

Didn't someone discover d'geezer was posting from a government
computer?

Please note the following quotes,
1) "Isn't it odd that you didn't spend
any time in police custody.......hmmmmmmmmm?"

2) "Your posts were full of other justification and rationale
for murder and your last comment above would be a "Tom Metzger"
for sure in a court of law."

3) "The state has very large men with guns, handcuffs,
clubs, pepperspray, and iron bars, to take care of those that
bluster and threaten when they are wrong."


Someone should keep his underwear clean and a new toothbrush handy.

Maybe pick up some stationery and stamps.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Dan, Since you are one of only 200 Dan Sullivans on Long Island,
why can't you tell us more about your employment and education?

You do ask other people about such things right?

Greegor wrote:
Dan, Since you are one of only 200 Dan Sullivans on Long Island,
why can't you tell us more about your employment and education?

You do ask other people about such things right?

Nope.

Greegor wrote:
I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.

I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.

An old never proven claim of your's, Greg.

What else is new...

And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.

Lobbies from his backyard?

The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association". These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.

Kane has helped me and the people I've helped considerably.

All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.

This is the internet, Greg.

Anyone can answer anyone's question or comment on anything they want.

For ex, I think you're one of the wost excuses for a human being I've
ever had the misfortune to become acquainted with.

Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!

Citat... oh, never mind.

Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.

Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.

Old unproven BS of your's, Greg.

As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?

By who?

good dad and Dazeemay?

FightCPS is down the tubes these days... just the usual bad advice.

All they really need is Bob Jarovits to start posting again.

Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?

Cover up your constant imbecilic posts?

Unfortunately, no.

BTW Greg why haven't you used all the good advice from all the good
activists to get Lisa Watkins' daughter home yet?

IS SIX FREAKIN YEARS NOT ENOUGH TIME?????

Dan Sullivan wrote:
Greegor wrote:
I can hardly wait for the "Cult of Dan" to respond to this,
with Kane (Donald L. Fisher) posting a long series of
filibusters hoping to change the subject.

Kiddo, my "filibusters" consist almost entirely of requests to you to
stay on the topic and not go off on one of your segues into "gee, poor
me, they are all out to get me."

In other words, dragging you by the scruff of your mangy neck back TOO
the subject YOU changed.


I love the part where Dan tells people not to bring up Constitutional
issues until appeal, when you CAN NOT bring up new issues.

R R R R R...show your proof, dummy. If the "subject" is covered, that is
the issue is brought up in trial it can be brought up in appeal and
constitutional issues concerning argued.

Just how stupid are you, Greg? You believe any of the bull**** fed to
you by your ranting criminal cronies, don't you?


An old never proven claim of your's, Greg.

What else is new...

And Kane (Donald L. Fisher) the former Oregon caseworker
openly lobbies for more money for the agencies at the same
time he still pretends to be a Family Rights advocate.

Lobbies from his backyard?

Let me see now. You attack families, Greg, and I offer them thoughtful
conservative advice. Which of us is more likely to be seen by them as a
Family Rights Advocate?

You still refuse to answer my question explaining to us why you attack
the victors who fought CPS and won. And why you attack newcomer families
here that don't immediately jump on your loser anti CPS bandwagon.

No response...as usual?

The connection between Dan and Don is not mere
"guilt by association".

Guilty of what? Not attacking families that come here as you and your
cronies do?

Wouldn't you say that you and Michael and the various socks now present
have a "guilt by association" connection? Imagine, not ONLY supporting a
lying family and child hater such as you, but telling someone to "not
let the door hit you in the ass on the way out," when they came here
with requests for help.

These two have mutually
posted "references" for each other at great length for YEARS.

What, you want me to lie about Dan and say he, like you, has never won a
case?

I KNOW the people he's helped. And they are more than a little pleased
to have escaped CPS with his help.

So, who have you, and the ****ants you hang with, helped escape CPS with
your advice?

Name one.

Kane has helped me and the people I've helped considerably.

He's too modest. I don't have nearly the tactical expertise Dan has. I'm
a system guy. I study and understand systems. Know where to look for the
closets, and the skeletons therein.

I might be of some use to Dan and the families he's helped by sorting
out CPS operations, milieu politics, and day to day casework practice.
I've studied them all since 1976.

All you have to do is look through the archive in ascps
and you can see that Dan and Kane answer for each
other constantly, like they're attached at the hip.

Greg, you and others from your cabal have constantly supported each
other and especially so when lying.


This is the internet, Greg.

Anyone can answer anyone's question or comment on anything they want.

For ex, I think you're one of the wost excuses for a human being I've
ever had the misfortune to become acquainted with.

It is sad. Greg, how do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

Kane's advice AGAINST having an agressive
"vigorous defense" was hilarious!

The key word here is 'agressive'[sic].

Do you know the difference between aggressive and assertive?

Aggression will get you slaughtered. Assertiveness more often results in
respect and success.

Anyone can be aggressive. It takes a bit more to be assertive.

Lose, win. Aggression, assertiveness.

Dan is the epitome of assertive. You, of aggression.

Which of you has succeeded in beating CPS?

What's Dan been doing, you've been doing for the past six years?

He's been bringing kids home.

You have been not only NOT bringing ONE child home, but giving out
advice that would insure loss of children if anyone was dumb enough to
follow your advice....and Greg, you have routinely and consistently
attacked posters here that have won against CPS.

Can you explain why you are attacking winners, and supporting losers?

Citat... oh, never mind.

Almost as funny as watching his upset when news stories
damning or embarassing to CPS agencies are posted.

"Upset?" You have an example or two?

If that were true then I'd have to portray YOU as being upset when the
cases don't go your way, Greg.

Dan's urging of Faustian bargains with the CPS devil is funny.

Old unproven BS of your's, Greg.

And regardless of the agreements family after family have escaped the
clutches of CPS and even had their allegations reversed by following
your advice, Dan.

As a "Boll Weevil" burrowing into Family Rights groups,
how long did Dan expect his charade to go unnoticed?

By who?

good dad and Dazeemay?

FightCPS is down the tubes these days... just the usual bad advice.

All they really need is Bob Jarovits to start posting again.

Will the stooges and sock puppets from the "Cult of Dan"
be enough to cover this up?

Cover up your constant imbecilic posts?

Unfortunately, no.

BTW Greg why haven't you used all the good advice from all the good
activists to get Lisa Watkins' daughter home yet?

IS SIX FREAKIN YEARS NOT ENOUGH TIME?????


The longer the wait, the more courage he'll work up to ask and even
bigger settlement.

If Lisa gets it, he'll either grab it and run, or she'll wake up and
boot him.

0:-