What if CPS caseworker brings police along?

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

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

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

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

You could also be open for civil suit should a homeowner refuse entry
and be hurt in the process. You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain public figure in the
entertainment industry's people know who and were you are. Probably
just rumor.

Be polite

Sure, yah ol' dingbat. Doug uses that ploy all the time. Me, I'm
anything but polite because I'm not a smarmy liar that needs to con
people to put out my public claims and rebuttals.

I want to make SURE no one buys what I say because I'm "nice."

I want them to THINK....of course I gave up on Yew long long ago.

Stick it, Pinenut. Polite enough for yah?

http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell.
Early
advocate for families against DHS, DSS.

Never ever seek advice from such sources as above until you have
thoroughly investigated them and their principals and, principles.

Legal advice should come from a legal source. The statutes, the prior
case law findings, and lawyers to interpret. NOT THESE yahoos. Not
even lawyers on staff or retainer with them if they are not in your
state....and I'd suggest you check out their record of wins, and
failures in any case, just because you can and you should. It's YOUR
family. YOU care about it far more than any of them could.

That said, on to the subject, Salvia vulgaris:

The homeowner better not stop the cop from entering and bringing the
social worker if the cop has even the slightest suspicion...like a
neighbor says they heard child screams... of a crime in progress.

It's called "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" and it's put
some folks behind bars that tried that nonsense of denying entry you
suggest, Sugatsuga enflorescence. EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CRIME IN
PROGESS and the cop was mistaken.

The cop is not required to be RIGHT, (that would be kind of stupid in
the crime stopping business) but only required to have reasonable
cause for suspicion...and they know exactly how to do that...and make
it stick.

He or she can even hurt you to gain entry, or shoot you dead dead dead
on reasonable grounds of believing him or herself or another at risk
of serious bodily harm of fatal injury. So if "not letting them in"
should escalate to the use of physical force by the homeowner..well,
you figure it out.

These terms I use vary from state to state...you need to look up yours
if you have a serious concern you might find a police officer at your
door requesting entry.

Addressing the correspondent of The Plant:

Walk softly if a cop shows up with the worker. Know your LEGAL rights,
not the garbage peddled by these nitwits.

Most cops are kindly disposed to parents, being parents themselves
most often...but they are NOT kindly disposed to abusers. Make sure
you don't look like or act like one.

And MY legal advice is......NOTHING AT ALL....just call your attorney
and ask someone authorized to give legal advice.

If you have a question like this one The Plant tries to mislead you
about, get you to your lawyers office NOW and ask what your options
are.

This ng (and the one I'll crosspost to that is the one this should
have been in) can be the best and the worst of places to seek
information and help.

We have pimps and shills for anti CPS crusader groups that will sell
your ass and your children for a drop of blood to lubricate the wheels
of their strange machines.

We have self admitted (but they deny it) child abusers and gigolos who
will encourage you to do the WORST possible things you could do in
protecting yourself and your kids from unwarranted CPS interventions
or retrieving your children from state custody should that be needed.

We have had people here, and there's no accounting for their return or
not, that have urged others to, and claimed they would, shoot, poison,
and or, inject illegal materials on computers, and even bomb CPS
buildings with clients - parents and children in the way of harm.

We call all these, nutcases, and you won't run short of them in these
ngs.

On the other hand, we also have a small contingent of people that have
learned the CPS system, know very well how to deal with issues with
CPS successfully. Actually I think the number is probably less than
three at this time, though some foster parents that come here can also
give pretty good info.

The former, the nutsos, have had NO successes in getting findings
reversed or children returned from state custody that they posted
here, while the latter have had, Dan Sullivan more than any, a
phenomenal success record in doing both, and in some instances we've
gotten to watch the progress of these cases right here in the ng.

And The Plant called Fern?

R R R R R....

Be warned. This is someone that so hates children that It excuses even
murder of children by parents, with beatings and torture supported and
even promoted as reasonable under the US Constitution and something It
calls, a Parent's Liberty Interest in Raising Their Children.

goggle It in the archives and see.

It lies in it's posting's subject lines. It makes claims that are
easily proven false, but will NOT back down from dangerous advice that
goes with such nonsense.

In fact, I consider it an enemy of families as well...as it frequently
in past years up to the present, has tried to send folks down exactly
the wrong path into the swamp. It shills endlessly for blood dancers
that, if you fail and lose your children, they have something to
crusade about, and somemore lubrication for their wheels.

Study the Christine case to learn how they work. It's a model in what
NOT to do.

Now It will, of course, stupidly attempt to deflect attention,
probably by claiming slander...when I have NO idea what IT's real name
is.

If you aren't in trouble and don't really need help, you might find
this place entertaining by way of studying the human condition and the
machinations of some of our more, shall we say, "troubled" citizens.

You asked a legal question. Get legal advice.

Best of luck to you.

Kane

On 15 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0700, Kane
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

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

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

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

Eyy, eyy ninnyboy.




--
Just Say NO to Miss Information

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? Legal in your state?

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

All hail the priesthood of the law.
The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power.

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

Kane,

I have read at least one high court opinion
very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense
legal advice without acting as an attorney.
The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders
doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some
of this has become caselaw.

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

Basically, anybody can do legal research, 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.

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

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

I highly doubt that the US Constitution
was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to
understand our laws, now convoluted beyond
even the abilities of barristers.
Despite that old expression that "Ignorance
of the law is no excuse." now'days it
is sort of a nonsense comment. It takes a
giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all
of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc.

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

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.
It was a desperate tactic used by
desperate prosecutors.

In another case CPS actually PROTESTED
in court that an advocate group had
helped a mother find a home and a job!
(As if it was somehow UNFAIR!)
The Judge was not happy with CPS that day.

Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics.

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

On 15 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0700, Kane
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

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

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

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

Eyy, eyy ninnyboy.




--
Just Say NO to Miss Information

Kane wrote
You could also be open for civil suit should
a homeowner refuse entry and be hurt in the
process.

A legal opinion from Kane saying
that somebody elses legal opinion
is illegal to disseminate? Ha!

By that same logic, a parent who
totally rolls over when caseworkers
come to their door could sue you! Naa!

You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain
public figure in the entertainment
industry's people know who and were
you are. Probably just rumor.

Or intestinal gas.
Have you found a way to bottle it and
save it on your shelf along with your
yellow jars and little brown balls you rolled?

On 17 Jul 2004 12:35:27 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane wrote
You could also be open for civil suit should
a homeowner refuse entry and be hurt in the
process.

A legal opinion from Kane saying
that somebody elses legal opinion
is illegal to disseminate? Ha!

Excuse me, idiot boy, but can "bring suit" for absolutly any
cockamamee reason they want in this country.

THAT, was not legal "advice." I did not tell The Plant to DO anything,
but to STOP doing something.

By that same logic, a parent who
totally rolls over when caseworkers
come to their door could sue you! Naa!

Of course they could, but it NOT the "same logic" at all. To tell
someone to refuse entry to an LEO IS legal advice.

And you'll notice, R R R R R, idiot boy, that at NO point did I
suggest the homeowner "role over" to a caseworker....as in "go see
your lawyer."

Is THAT what you think rolling over is? What must the homeowner do for
it to NOT be a rollover.....assault the LEO?

You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain
public figure in the entertainment
industry's people know who and were
you are. Probably just rumor.

Or intestinal gas.

It's estimated that on average everyone emits intestinal gas about 11
to 12 times a day. Even the beautiful people.

The difference between us and YOU, is that we get up and move away by
going to work and actually doing something with our lives, rather than
stalk single mothers wish children.

Have you found a way to bottle it and
save it on your shelf along with your
yellow jars and little brown balls you rolled?

I have no such obsessions. Is THAT what you are doing with all that
spare time you have?

May I suggest gardening? You have more than enough fertilizer for a
great start. And if you run out I recommend you contact Douggie and
The Plant. They've enough for a hundred gardens.

Then of course there is - R R R R R - bobb the Bigot and his raft of
****.

Greegor, as a Flamer, yer a Lamer.

Kane