| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...
Dennis H wrote
What if parents don't want or need his help?

If a parent is willing to just play guilty, no reason.

If however a parent or advocate wishes to fight
the insanity of CPS workers, something like the
"Lot's Daughters" gambit is very illustrative
of caseworker lies, deviousness and fairy tales.

In fact this story was circulated among people in
the closed groups and of the many people there
never did any one of them say that they did not
want to see it. If anything, it became another
example to galvanize people against LIES CPS USES.

To think that a caseworker would DARE to write up
such an insane accusation and use it on a family
informs anti-CPS people of how corrupt CPS really is.

If a parent ignores cases and situations that
don't apply to them at the time, they may discover
that later on the same tactic might actually
be tried on their family.

Just because CPS has not falsely accused my family of
Munchhausens by proxy, does not mean that I should
stay ignorant of the agency abuses and how they
MISUSE and ABUSE that angle to hurt families.
Much like the standard CPS Modus Operandi about
Spiral fractures (always Child abuse? Lie.) the
CPS Modus Operandi for supposed Munchhausens
repeats over and over. It's money on the CPS table.

Perhaps Dennis, you are not aware that Dan has
been an enigma when it comes to correcting CPS.

You can attempt to explain that, Greg.

He claims to be for parents, but it seems more like
in a Benedict Arnold way.

Explain this statement of yours, too, Greg.

That's why I was asking him to REVEAL what he knows.

I have years (since 1987) of knowledge on how to beat CPS.

I'm not gonna write my autobiography.

He is in a bind if he wants to continue to support
Child Protection Services while pretending to support
parents against them.

Where and when did I support CPS, Greg?

I have prevailed over CPS dozens of times... in my cases and other peoples.

And I've helped get more than a few children out of FC.

From Cathy, last night's email,

------

Dan,

Life couldn't be better right now. I wouldn't have made it without you and I
am so very grateful. Thank you for all the positive you have given me.

-------

Drop dead, Greg.

The world will be a better place.

Post more info about the CPS deception to get a
psych eval and a child removal using the crud
about Lot's Daughters to slam a religious family.

I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

After all, if you really want to HELP families, that
little gambit should be listed in the Tricks of The Trade,
so people can see the Modus Operandi of Child Protection.

"Greg Hanson" wrote in message
om...

Post more info about the CPS deception to get a
psych eval and a child removal using the crud
about Lot's Daughters to slam a religious family.

Who are ya talking to, Greg?

I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

".... said obvious spew..."

Is that a legal term, Greg?

After all, if you really want to HELP families, that
little gambit should be listed in the Tricks of The Trade,
so people can see the Modus Operandi of Child Protection.

Who are ya talking to, Greg?

Michael S. Morris wrote
If this is true, then every CPS caseworker having removed a single
one of these 103,144 children should be doing life in prison
for violation of Section 241 or 242 of the United States Code.

No child should ever be removed from any home without conviction
of the parents in a jury trial for abuse or neglect of that
child, and prior prescription by law of removal of that child from
the home as part of the punishment. Short of that, the CPS worker
is committing kidnap to take a child away from a parent.

You mentioned 18 USC 241 Conspiracy Against Rights
and 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Don't forget 42 USC 14141 Pattern and Practice

Plus Child Protection caseworkers commonly retaliate if people file in
court (1st Amendment right to seek peaceful redress of grievances)

14th Amendment right to Family Association (need extreme justification
to abrogate this, not just "at risk of maybe someday?"

4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure
(Therapy which is not therapy but more witch hunting)

4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure
(If they refuse to give standards for home inspections)
(Home inspection is a search warrant lacking required specifics.)
(AKA "Fishing Expedition")

6th ("Walking 6th" Public Pretenders doing stipulation Judas thing.)

6th Various failures to provide process that it due.
(Many many items in Welfare Code, Reasonable Efforts etc.)

14th right to have
unpopular views re spanking, caseworkers or social workers

And the part you mentioned about a JURY is only done
in certain circumstances in one or two states.

They get around that by saying that you are not charged
with a crime, therefore you don't get the protections.
(Even though Child Removal is an issue that treads on
LIBERTY INTEREST, the main REASON for jury trials on
the criminal side. People need to raise more heck
about the fact this is not a PETTY affair, but a
LIBERTY INTEREST issue and so should be afforded full
constitutional protections.)

So, why not skip over this "go-to-a sequence-of-hearings-to-plead
-with-them-to-get-my-kids-back" stuff and simply file criminal
charges? Prosecute the hell out of any CPS caseworker removing
children from homes where the parents have not been convicted
by a jury of criminal abuse or neglect. Put those CPS caseworkers
in prison, where they belong. Cut them precisely zero slack.

Possible, but there is a lot of resistance from Judges
in Federal Courts who don't want to overrule state courts.

Another barrier is the States cloak their Child Protection
caseworkers in qualified immunity and for some things they
have absolute immunity. (States rights issue vs. Citizens Rights?)
But it is also said that an agency has no Civil Rights.

The best chances seem to be using Ch (42?) USC 1983 and 1985
to sue for civil rights violations.

Citizens who know their legal rights in general,
are in for a major shock if they tangle with
Juvenile Court. Standard of evidence is gossip,
innuendo, and "preponderance of evidence" which says
that because they slung a pile of mud, and most of
pile of mud is against you, you lose. They barely
if ever sling mud in your favor. This is said to be
a violation of 6th Amendment right to due process
because of "abuse of preponderance standard".

I am NOT an attorney, and proud of not to be.
There are others who know vastly more than me,
both inside and outside of the priesthood of law.
Use this information at your own peril.

Please consult CPSWATCH or Profane-Justice websites.

I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

".... said obvious spew..."

For example: Caseworker said that I stood around outside
their building "in an intimidating manner" for hours.
Supposedly caseworkers spent HOURS watching some guy
standing around outside of their building.
They say it was me.

1. Not true.
2. No witness provided
3. It's a large public building.
4. I did visit a congressman's office in that building.
I was never near that building for hours.
5. Even if it WERE true, it's a LEGAL and Constitutionally
protected activity. 1st Amendment no less.
6. When I DO stand around outside their building I
will be carrying a picket sign which they
will no doubt find to be "intimidating".
7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
their 3rd floor offices.
8. The complaint is more interesting because
it makes apparent their interest in violating
people's constitutional rights.
9. Which caseworker had HOURS to waste on watching
somebody on the sidewalk below their windows?


But why didn't the JUDGE throw this out of court
based on number 5?

Why should a person prove or disprove something
that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

The Judge should have thrown it out based
on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

On 19 Nov 2003 16:54:16 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

I think people should KNOW the kind of garbage
that caseworkers spew onto reports, and that judges
don't throw said obvious spew out of court.

".... said obvious spew..."

For example: Caseworker said that I stood around outside
their building "in an intimidating manner" for hours.
Supposedly caseworkers spent HOURS watching some guy
standing around outside of their building.
They say it was me.

1. Not true.

Oh, we believe you good buddy.

2. No witness provided

They weren't charging you, were they? What would witnesses be used
for?

3. It's a large public building.

Yep.

4. I did visit a congressman's office in that building.

Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long ago about habitual neurotic
liars, they seem to, so they can believe it themselves and get that oh
so convincing look on their faces, always make part of the lie
factual. It helps them in their disgusting practices.

I was never near that building for hours.

MmmmmHmmmmmm. Of course not. Technically.

5. Even if it WERE true, it's a LEGAL and Constitutionally
protected activity. 1st Amendment no less.

Why yes it is. Were you asked to leave or in anyway hindered or
hampered from being there?

And believe it or not state employees are covered and protected by the
same amendment....they get to remark that they saw you standing around
outside the building. Or do you think only non-state employees have or
should have any rights?

6. When I DO stand around outside their building I
will be carrying a picket sign which they
will no doubt find to be "intimidating".

No doubt. And as long as you do it in a legal manner under local
statutes your 1st amendments rights will be protected. You may even,
if there is no local law, pull your pants down and exhibit, by your
bent over stance, where you store your brains ( * )

7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
their 3rd floor offices.

Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to their offices all
day long without a break. With those heavy caseloads I'm not
surprized.

8. The complaint is more interesting because
it makes apparent their interest in violating
people's constitutional rights.

And in their complaint did they specify they wanted some authority to
come and take you away or force you away?

9. Which caseworker had HOURS to waste on watching
somebody on the sidewalk below their windows?

Well, it would be kind of hard to speculate that on those few
occasions they looked and found you there that you just happened to be
there throughout the hours. But then you are a remarkably strange
character that is in places he shouldn't be so very often, towelboying
and shampoogirling and all.

But why didn't the JUDGE throw this out of court
based on number 5?

How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do? You weren't there. If
it's in a document, like a legal finding you will find somewhere to
publish it so we can see the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
stand around in a public place for hours, won't you?

Why should a person prove or disprove something
that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

Were you asked to prove it or disprove it? Did you go to jail for it?

The Judge should have thrown it out based
on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

There is no obvious conflict unless you were in any way subject to
confinement or ejection. Were you?

Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl? Was it one of the
factors? Was it even a sneeze?

It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

Actually no it isn't. It's part of their job to make a judicial
judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous asshole and they might
look at all kinds of perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
make the judgement from.

It's perfectly legal to stand around outside a school ground and watch
the girls soccer team practice too. If you do it for hours and hours
and you also are going to court for molesting children it might well
be brought up.

Is that an abrigement of your 1st amendment?

You are only 13 years old aren't you? Well, developmentally.

Kane

1. Not true.
Oh, we believe you good buddy.
Who is "we" Kane? You and your socks?

2. No witness provided
They weren't charging you, were they?
What would witnesses be used for?
TPR hearing.

Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long
ago about habitual neurotic liars, they
seem to, so they can believe it themselves
and get that oh so convincing look on their
faces, always make part of the lie factual.
It helps them in their disgusting practices.

This does explain a LOT about you, Commander McBrag.

7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
their 3rd floor offices.

Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to
their offices all day long without a break. With
those heavy caseloads I'm not surprized.

Umm. They're Unionized. What makes you think they
"are confined to their offices all day long without a break"?

And what the HECK does that have to do with the
window ledges and visibility?


How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do?
You weren't there.
I was in attendance at the TPR.

If it's in a document, like a legal finding you
will find somewhere to publish it so we can see
the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
stand around in a public place for hours,
won't you?

Are they going to make such records public?

Why should a person prove or disprove something
that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

Were you asked to prove it or disprove it?
Did you go to jail for it?

No, It was just used to villify me in a TPR hearing.
Because LIBERTY INTEREST involved, comparable to jail.

The Judge should have thrown it out based
on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

There is no obvious conflict unless you were
in any way subject to confinement or ejection.
Were you?

It is unconstitutional for them to seek revenge
for somebody exercising their Constitutional rights.

Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl?

Brought up in TPR hearing.
Was it one of the factors? Was it even a sneeze?

It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

Actually no it isn't.

Judges take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.
One of their duties in Juvenile Court as in ANY court
is to safeguard people's rights. It's their job.
I know, you thought they were only supposd to be
a rubber stamp for CPS, which they often are, but
they are SUPPOSED to have a duty to protect people's
constitutional rights.

It's part of their job to make a judicial
judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous
[e.d.] and they might look at all kinds of
perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
make the judgement from.

Well, The Judge ruled there is no danger in our home.
That includes me.

It's perfectly legal to stand around outside
a school ground and watch the girls soccer
team practice too. If you do it for hours and
hours and you also are going to court for
molesting children it might well be brought up.

I have absolutely no such history.
Their implication that I do is a major issue of course.

Even for some real pervert, if it does not violate
a court order, parole or probation requirements,
it might even be a constitutional violation in their
case. Constitutioanl freedoms don't exist only
when the media public see fit. The real test is
in situations that make people uncomfortable.

On 19 Nov 2003 23:51:18 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

1. Not true.
Oh, we believe you good buddy.
Who is "we" Kane? You and your socks?

I just happen to have no socks on this morning. Why do you ask?
You have a thing about socks I noticed. Rather fond of them, and them
of you.

2. No witness provided
They weren't charging you, were they?
What would witnesses be used for?
TPR hearing.

Then there is no constitutional issue. YOU are not a party to the
case, but just evidence. Interesting you'd see yourself, with no legal
status whatsoever regarding the child or the mother ("fiance's" and
gigolos aren't, you know) as having YOUR constitutional rights
abridged. Rights to What, the right to spank and shower a little girl
not related to you by blood or marriage or adoption?

Oh, did you now? One thing I learned long
ago about habitual neurotic liars, they
seem to, so they can believe it themselves
and get that oh so convincing look on their
faces, always make part of the lie factual.
It helps them in their disgusting practices.

This does explain a LOT about you, Commander McBrag.

Gosh, what a withering comeback. I'm just devastated. R R R R

7. Logical problem. They have window ledges that would
obstruct such observation of the sidewalk below from
their 3rd floor offices.

Gosh, the employees of that section are confined to
their offices all day long without a break. With
those heavy caseloads I'm not surprized.

Umm. They're Unionized. What makes you think they
"are confined to their offices all day long without a break"?

That WAS my point, scummy dummy. They aren't chained to their desks so
they would have ample opportunity to go out for coffee, or leave the
building on state business, like monitoring placements in foster care,
or visiting families receiving in-home services, or doing protective
service abuse allegation investigations.

Since they often carry cell phones I can just imagine, after they have
gotten to their state or county or their own car, that call back to
the office: "He's baaaaaaaaaack." "Oh, nothing, just standing there
staring at our office with one hand in his pocket jiggling and the
other making faucet turning motions, weird huh?" and then laughing her
or his ass off as they leave to go about their WORK, something you
never have had to do for the past 2.5 years.

And what the HECK does that have to do with the
window ledges and visibility?

You brought that up. If you are referring to your view of them, then
yes, you really ARE a weirdo. If you are referring to their view of
you...then see above.

How do YOU know what the judge did or didn't do?
You weren't there.

I was in attendance at the TPR.

I suspect the court was dying to see the author of the Motion, that
they knew the mother couldn't have written herself. They let you in
did they? How nice of them...R R R R R

I can imagine they all now suffer from high blood pressure from the
effects of holding in their laughter when they final got to see the
cretin that showers and shampoos and dries little girls they aren't
related to, and that writes the idiocy in that Motion.

Just to refresh your memory why don't you go back and read it now. I
mean even you must have grown up a little in the past 2 years or so
and can see the outlandish humor, and the underlying viciousness of
the scummy person that would write such a thing ensuring the loss of a
child by her mother.

If it's in a document, like a legal finding you
will find somewhere to publish it so we can see
the indignity of forcing a US citizen not to
stand around in a public place for hours,
won't you?

Are they going to make such records public?

Yah got me. I understand from what Dan's posted here that the results
of a TPR are usually given to the defendant in printed form.

Ask your "fiance" for her copy and then see if you can find a 12 year
old to show you how to use a scanner...then take the graphic and put
it up on a website somewhere...the 12 year old will steer yah right on
that too.

Why should a person prove or disprove something
that from all descriptions is 100% LEGAL?

Were you asked to prove it or disprove it?
Did you go to jail for it?

No, It was just used to villify me in a TPR hearing.

Like we villify you here? R R R R

You mean they discussed issues just like we do here...like what WERE
you doing in that bathroom, towel in one hand...and who knows what you
were doing with the other?

Like why can't a 6 year old proportedly bright little girl get the
shampoo out of her own hair? Or find a towel for herself? Or have it
given to her BEFORE she goes to shower? Or why the bathroom doesn't
have a supply of towels like most households?

You give away sooooo much when you post, Greegor....so much.

Like why would a grown male who spanks a little girl not understand
the terror and confusion that could result in her wetting herself?

Like why did the events conveniently lead to the shower, then to the
removal, then the Motion that most definately screwed the mom out of
any chance of getting her child back with that vicious little *******
squatting in her home?

Because LIBERTY INTEREST involved, comparable to jail.

What liberty interest was that? The right to shower little girls? The
right to threaten the child? (Just being there was a threat). The
right to use her space, and alienate her mother from her? Those
liberty interests?

And would you mind, when you answer, explaining how they are
comparable to jail, and how you would know what is or isn't comparable
to jail?

Apparently the judge thought something was amiss in that household
that put the child at risk. I wonder what it could have been, really?

The Judge should have thrown it out based
on obvious conflict with 1st Amendment.

There is no obvious conflict unless you were
in any way subject to confinement or ejection.
Were you?

It is unconstitutional for them to seek revenge
for somebody exercising their Constitutional rights.

And they have caused you harm how again? In their vicious revenge
against a simple assed child abuser that admits his mean behavior
toward the child right her in these ngs?

Greegor the Whore, you couldn't have arranged your soft berth any
better than if you had planned it.....hmmmm, wait, it DOES look like
you might have.

Tell us, Geegor, how many times have you done this before?

Was it a factor in the taking of the little girl?

Brought up in TPR hearing.

The YOUR rights aren't the question, now are they? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY
PARENTAL RIGHT'S ASSHOLE AND YOU HAVE AVOIDED EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF
WANTING THEM NOT MARRYING THE MOTHER RIGHT ****IN' NOW, haven't you?

The mother's rights might just be, but we can be sure the rights of
the child were considered pretty carefully. I'll bet she sighed a sigh
of relief when she learned she was NOT going to have to return to the
tender mercies of the spanking, shower pushing in, pervert that had
invaded her home and taken her needy and probably stupid mother away
from her.

Was it one of the factors? Was it even a sneeze?

It's supposed to be part of their job to do that.

Actually no it isn't.

Judges take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

That's correct. You haven't shown us ANY proof that the judge in the
mother's case didn't uphold it. Zip. Zero. Nada.

We are waiting.

YOU being inconvenienced, YOU being used as an example of the mother's
inability to protect her child, YOU being used as evidence of
monumental parental stupidity isn't an abrogation of YOUR rights,
dummy, nor of the mother's. Just evidence. No charges are being made
against you or her, other than having a pedophile as a houseguest,
right? Or maybe I'm wrong, but we'll never really know because Greegor
the Whore will diddle the truth as surely as he idly diddles the
keyboard.

One of their duties in Juvenile Court as in ANY court
is to safeguard people's rights.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you?

It's their job.

Yep. The child is safe, isn't she? At least from you?

I know, you thought they were only supposd to be
a rubber stamp for CPS, which they often are, but
they are SUPPOSED to have a duty to protect people's
constitutional rights.

The rubber stamp bull**** is just that. In the course of caseworkers
doing exactly what they are supposed to do they very often do it
exactly right, hence the judge has no recourse to do anything but
agree. Have you sat through case after case in family court, as I
have, and seen what happens when a caseworker screws the pooch on a
case?

It ain't purdy man. The judge just doesn't rubber stamp those botched
cases...they might stamp the head of the worker but not the case...and
when they have really screwed up good and there WAS NO ****ING CASE
bad things happen to caseworkers. Ask Dan, the rascal has been the
cause of a couple of those reamings and removals I hear.

It's part of their job to make a judicial
judgement of whether or not you are a dangerous
[e.d.] and they might look at all kinds of
perfectly legal behaviors to build a picture to
make the judgement from.

Well, The Judge ruled there is no danger in our home.
That includes me.

Well then, what are you bitchin' about? Everyone's rights were
protected, eh?

So tell us. If there was a ruling of NO danger in "our" home (my you
are presumptuous...I hope your "fiance" doesn't read this) then pray
tell why did the judge not order the child home?

Just what were the grounds for removal? Have you ever shared that with
us, Greegor?

And what WAS the outcome of the TPR? Have you shared that, Greegor?

And if the family (the mother, not you, you aren't family) was
assigned services, that is a plan, how's it going?

Why isn't that child back home, Greegor?

You couldn't even contain your deep need to be the child and be taken
care of by "mommy" when you were in the classroom taking a parenting
training class could you? Couldn't keep your stupid mouth shut and let
the mother have a win against CPS, could you?

You are sooooooooo obvious.

"I have my rights no matter what it costs my "fiance" I will."

Asshole.

It's perfectly legal to stand around outside
a school ground and watch the girls soccer
team practice too. If you do it for hours and
hours and you also are going to court for
molesting children it might well be brought up.

I have absolutely no such history.

We are most pleased to hear that. Playing softball then?
R R R R R

Their implication that I do is a major issue of course.

Oh! What an interesting revelation. Can you explain how their
implication plays into their decision that "our" home is a safe, "no
danger" home then?

You must see how we might be confused at the inconsistency and
rambling nature of your disclosures, that seem to come spread waaaaay
out over two years or so, a bit here, then a bit there, a disclosure
now and then, then silence, then another disclosure, or claim or
whatever.

It makes it seem as though you are dreaming things up as you go along.
Tsk. You wouldn't do that would you?

Even for some real pervert,

As apposed to to an unreal one?

if it does not violate
a court order, parole or probation requirements,
it might even be a constitutional violation in their
case.

How would you know? You a law student on sabbatical?

Constitutioanl freedoms don't exist only
when the media public see fit. The real test is
in situations that make people uncomfortable.

I defy you to find anywhere in the US Constitution where comfort or
discomfort of anyone is an issue. YOU make ME uncomfortable when I see
what you write about what you did to that girl and her mother, but
that in no way makes YOU a violator of MY constitutional rights....nor
vice versa you little ****.

No, Gigolo Boy. Pointing out someones actions that involve behaviors
that relate to offenses CAN be used in court as evidence on those
offenses. You can't be prosecuted for standing around outside a girls
school soccer game (unless local loitering laws are being broken) but
it can be considered as one piece of evidence when you are convicted
of a sexual molestation charge.

Your weaseling to the contrary is very sick and sad.

If what you say is true NO investigation would be legal, by cops or
CPS. A cop couldn't walk up to you and ask what you are doing there
watching the soccer game and jiggling your hand in your pocket.

Now if the cop beats you about the head and shoulders vigorously,
besides it demonstrating his utter contemp and disgust of you, it HAS
violated your civil rights, unless you got mouthy and tried to either
run or attack.

Say, are you a member of NAMBLA by any chance? In the investigations
I've read about that IS the way they talk: "my constitutional rights
have been abridged."

Did I just violate your constitutional rights by asking?

Kane

Kane: NAMBLA, hands on in bathroom, etc.
I'll use Dan's expert refutational advice.

No!

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
Kane: NAMBLA, hands on in bathroom, etc.
I'll use Dan's expert refutational advice.

No!

You've no idea how relieved I am to hear that. On the other hand, as I
think I mentioned, your protestations and attitude, especially toward
being in the bathroom with the child sounds so very like what I've
seen in transcripts of NAMBLA member testimony. You can't blame me for
asking.

On the other hand, speanking of hands, and we should give you a hand,
how did you manage to push the little girl's head under the shower
stream to "rinse out the shampoo" you claim she missed and couldn't
manage to go back and rinse on her own, use your foot?

Kane