firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?

On Sep 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
Subject: firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?
Greg and Ken put a beating on you and all
you can do is spam the group with [s] about
looking at their shortcomings!

[ Dan Sullivan removed the below two sentences. ]
You two have enough skeletons in your closets!
Your little game of trying to divert attention
from you cps lovers isn't working.

DS Greg, the wife abusing convict,

Yes, 11 year old misdemeanors.

DS and ken pangborn, the world renowned
DS bull**** artist, didn't put a "beating" on
DS me or anyone else.
DS Ken must have been laughed out of every
DS courtroom he ever opened his mouth in.

Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT
open their mouth in court?

What is it you think TRIAL CONSULTANTS do Dan?

DS And Greg Hanson is a registered child abuser in Iowa

Dan, did you know that a bunch of states have actually
stopped even HAVING the child abuse registry because
the process is so horribly unconstitutional?

I'd think you would understnd how the registry lacks
"due process" since you were placed on your states
registry FIVE TIMES according to you.

with multiple convictions for beating his mentally ill wife.

You mentioned that before and you mentioned that before.
Did I mention that you mentioned that before?

The two have NOTHING BUT shortcomings.

Dan keeps trying to kill the messenger(s) because
he is not capable of arguing about the issue itself.

Basically EVERY attorney going into a Juvenile Court
Family Court or dependency court that removes
or may at a later date consider removing children
should be filing the Santosky v Kramer caselaw and
demanding the Clear and Convincing (80%) standard
rather than the Preponderance (51%) standard for the
burden of proof that their state mandates.

Almost all attorneys in "preponderance" states
fail to do this and have failed their client.
This 29% difference in the burden of proof is a big deal!
The lower (unconstitutional) standard makes the
job of removing children, controlling families and putting
them through the Child Protection INDUSTRY meat grinder
29% easier! Caseworkers can run the show because
the improper standard makes it 29% easier for them to
meet the "burden of proof".

Except for the two or three states that already
specify Clear and Convincing as the burden of proof
the caseworkers have to meet, the courts are
by default substandard and unconstitutional.

All Dan can do is talk about the registry which
is a different process, one that is also shoddy
but violates DUE PROCESS so badly that
several states have been forced to throw them out.

"Greegor" wrote in message
ups.com...

On Sep 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
Subject: firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?
Greg and Ken put a beating on you and all
you can do is spam the group with [s] about
looking at their shortcomings!

[ Dan Sullivan removed the below two sentences. ]
You two have enough skeletons in your closets!
Your little game of trying to divert attention
from you cps lovers isn't working.

DS Greg, the wife abusing convict,

Yes, 11 year old misdemeanors.

DS and ken pangborn, the world renowned
DS bull**** artist, didn't put a "beating" on
DS me or anyone else.
DS Ken must have been laughed out of every
DS courtroom he ever opened his mouth in.

Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?

Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge. I await Dan's PROOF that I have EVER been
"laughed out" of ANY court room much less EVERY one.




What is it you think TRIAL CONSULTANTS do Dan?

DS And Greg Hanson is a registered child abuser in Iowa

Dan, did you know that a bunch of states have actually
stopped even HAVING the child abuse registry because
the process is so horribly unconstitutional?

I'd think you would understnd how the registry lacks
"due process" since you were placed on your states
registry FIVE TIMES according to you.

with multiple convictions for beating his mentally ill wife.

You mentioned that before and you mentioned that before.
Did I mention that you mentioned that before?

The two have NOTHING BUT shortcomings.

Dan keeps trying to kill the messenger(s) because
he is not capable of arguing about the issue itself.

Basically EVERY attorney going into a Juvenile Court
Family Court or dependency court that removes
or may at a later date consider removing children
should be filing the Santosky v Kramer caselaw and
demanding the Clear and Convincing (80%) standard
rather than the Preponderance (51%) standard for the
burden of proof that their state mandates.

Almost all attorneys in "preponderance" states
fail to do this and have failed their client.
This 29% difference in the burden of proof is a big deal!
The lower (unconstitutional) standard makes the
job of removing children, controlling families and putting
them through the Child Protection INDUSTRY meat grinder
29% easier! Caseworkers can run the show because
the improper standard makes it 29% easier for them to
meet the "burden of proof".

Except for the two or three states that already
specify Clear and Convincing as the burden of proof
the caseworkers have to meet, the courts are
by default substandard and unconstitutional.

All Dan can do is talk about the registry which
is a different process, one that is also shoddy
but violates DUE PROCESS so badly that
several states have been forced to throw them out.

On Sep 4, 2:29 am, " krp" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
Subject: firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?
Greg and Ken put a beating on you and all
you can do is spam the group with [s] about
looking at their shortcomings!
[ Dan Sullivan removed the below two sentences. ]
You two have enough skeletons in your closets!
Your little game of trying to divert attention
from you cps lovers isn't working.

DS Greg, the wife abusing convict,

Yes, 11 year old misdemeanors.

DS and ken pangborn, the world renowned
DS bull**** artist, didn't put a "beating" on
DS me or anyone else.
DS Ken must have been laughed out of every
DS courtroom he ever opened his mouth in.
Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?

Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge. I await Dan's PROOF that I have EVER been
"laughed out" of ANY court room much less EVERY one.

What is it you think TRIAL CONSULTANTS do Dan?

DS And Greg Hanson is a registered child abuser in Iowa

Dan, did you know that a bunch of states have actually
stopped even HAVING the child abuse registry because
the process is so horribly unconstitutional?

I'd think you would understnd how the registry lacks
"due process" since you were placed on your states
registry FIVE TIMES according to you.

with multiple convictions for beating his mentally ill wife.

You mentioned that before and you mentioned that before.
Did I mention that you mentioned that before?

The two have NOTHING BUT shortcomings.

Dan keeps trying to kill the messenger(s) because
he is not capable of arguing about the issue itself.

Basically EVERY attorney going into a Juvenile Court
Family Court or dependency court that removes
or may at a later date consider removing children
should be filing the Santosky v Kramer caselaw and
demanding the Clear and Convincing (80%) standard
rather than the Preponderance (51%) standard for the
burden of proof that their state mandates.

Almost all attorneys in "preponderance" states
fail to do this and have failed their client.
This 29% difference in the burden of proof is a big deal!
The lower (unconstitutional) standard makes the
job of removing children, controlling families and putting
them through the Child Protection INDUSTRY meat grinder
29% easier! Caseworkers can run the show because
the improper standard makes it 29% easier for them to
meet the "burden of proof".

Except for the two or three states that already
specify Clear and Convincing as the burden of proof
the caseworkers have to meet, the courts are
by default substandard and unconstitutional.

All Dan can do is talk about the registry which
is a different process, one that is also shoddy
but violates DUE PROCESS so badly that
several states have been forced to throw them out.

On Sep 4, 7:24 am, firemonkey wrote:
On Sep 4, 2:29 am, " krp" wrote:

"Greegor" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Sep 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
Subject: firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?
Greg and Ken put a beating on you and all
you can do is spam the group with [s] about
looking at their shortcomings!
[ Dan Sullivan removed the below two sentences. ]
You two have enough skeletons in your closets!
Your little game of trying to divert attention
from you cps lovers isn't working.

DS Greg, the wife abusing convict,

Yes, 11 year old misdemeanors.

DS and ken pangborn, the world renowned
DS bull**** artist, didn't put a "beating" on
DS me or anyone else.
DS Ken must have been laughed out of every
DS courtroom he ever opened his mouth in.
Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?

Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge. I await Dan's PROOF that I have EVER been
"laughed out" of ANY court room much less EVERY one.

What is it you think TRIAL CONSULTANTS do Dan?

DS And Greg Hanson is a registered child abuser in Iowa

Dan, did you know that a bunch of states have actually
stopped even HAVING the child abuse registry because
the process is so horribly unconstitutional?

I'd think you would understnd how the registry lacks
"due process" since you were placed on your states
registry FIVE TIMES according to you.

with multiple convictions for beating his mentally ill wife.

You mentioned that before and you mentioned that before.
Did I mention that you mentioned that before?

The two have NOTHING BUT shortcomings.

Dan keeps trying to kill the messenger(s) because
he is not capable of arguing about the issue itself.

Basically EVERY attorney going into a Juvenile Court
Family Court or dependency court that removes
or may at a later date consider removing children
should be filing the Santosky v Kramer caselaw and
demanding the Clear and Convincing (80%) standard
rather than the Preponderance (51%) standard for the
burden of proof that their state mandates.

Almost all attorneys in "preponderance" states
fail to do this and have failed their client.
This 29% difference in the burden of proof is a big deal!
The lower (unconstitutional) standard makes the
job of removing children, controlling families and putting
them through the Child Protection INDUSTRY meat grinder
29% easier! Caseworkers can run the show because
the improper standard makes it 29% easier for them to
meet the "burden of proof".

Except for the two or three states that already
specify Clear and Convincing as the burden of proof
the caseworkers have to meet, the courts are
by default substandard and unconstitutional.

All Dan can do is talk about the registry which
is a different process, one that is also shoddy
but violates DUE PROCESS so badly that
several states have been forced to throw them out.

On Sep 4, 3:29 am, " krp" wrote:
"Greegor" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Sep 3, 8:31 pm, wrote:
Subject: firemonkey and dan are you two whacked or what?
Greg and Ken put a beating on you and all
you can do is spam the group with [s] about
looking at their shortcomings!
[ Dan Sullivan removed the below two sentences. ]
You two have enough skeletons in your closets!
Your little game of trying to divert attention
from you cps lovers isn't working.

DS Greg, the wife abusing convict,

Yes, 11 year old misdemeanors.

DS and ken pangborn, the world renowned
DS bull**** artist, didn't put a "beating" on
DS me or anyone else.
DS Ken must have been laughed out of every
DS courtroom he ever opened his mouth in.
Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?

Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge.

What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Nothing at all.

This is just another example of you failing to follow a conversation,
kenny boy.

Tell me this only happens on this NG... and NOT when you're dealing
with Courts and CPS.

I await Dan's PROOF that I have EVER been
"laughed out" of ANY court room much less EVERY one.

Do you have any idea how many people are laughing at you because of
the third-rate bull**** you post here, kenny boy?

Moore than you think!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

What is it you think TRIAL CONSULTANTS do Dan?

DS And Greg Hanson is a registered child abuser in Iowa

Dan, did you know that a bunch of states have actually
stopped even HAVING the child abuse registry because
the process is so horribly unconstitutional?

I'd think you would understnd how the registry lacks
"due process" since you were placed on your states
registry FIVE TIMES according to you.

with multiple convictions for beating his mentally ill wife.

You mentioned that before and you mentioned that before.
Did I mention that you mentioned that before?

The two have NOTHING BUT shortcomings.

Dan keeps trying to kill the messenger(s) because
he is not capable of arguing about the issue itself.

Basically EVERY attorney going into a Juvenile Court
Family Court or dependency court that removes
or may at a later date consider removing children
should be filing the Santosky v Kramer caselaw and
demanding the Clear and Convincing (80%) standard
rather than the Preponderance (51%) standard for the
burden of proof that their state mandates.

Almost all attorneys in "preponderance" states
fail to do this and have failed their client.
This 29% difference in the burden of proof is a big deal!
The lower (unconstitutional) standard makes the
job of removing children, controlling families and putting
them through the Child Protection INDUSTRY meat grinder
29% easier! Caseworkers can run the show because
the improper standard makes it 29% easier for them to
meet the "burden of proof".

Except for the two or three states that already
specify Clear and Convincing as the burden of proof
the caseworkers have to meet, the courts are
by default substandard and unconstitutional.

All Dan can do is talk about the registry which
is a different process, one that is also shoddy
but violates DUE PROCESS so badly that
several states have been forced to throw them out.

"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 4, 3:29 am, " krp" wrote:

Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?

Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge.

What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Danny yesterday I challenged you to prove that I have been "laughed
out" of even ONE courtroom. So let's see it. PROOF of just ONE there Mister
Sullivan. Your credibility is riding on it. Obviously you think you have
some PROOF of it. NAME ONE... We both know you can't. I just want to see
how far your lying will go. Tap dance around it and everyone will take it
as an admission you are LYING! Of course both you and I - KNOW you are!

On Sep 5, 6:33 am, " krp" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Sep 4, 3:29 am, " krp" wrote:
Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?
Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe" in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a very
angry admonishment from the judge.
What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Danny yesterday I challenged you to prove that I have been "laughed
out" of even ONE courtroom. So let's see it. PROOF of just ONE there Mister
Sullivan. Your credibility is riding on it. Obviously you think you have
some PROOF of it. NAME ONE... We both know you can't. I just want to see
how far your lying will go. Tap dance around it and everyone will take it
as an admission you are LYING! Of course both you and I - KNOW you are!

I say you "must have been laughed out of every courtroom you opened
your mouth in" based on the third-rate bull**** you post on this NG.

SUCH AS you claiming a prosecutor trying to use Moore's website
against you was proof that you weren't laughed out of court for
opening your mouth!!!

Can you NOT see the stupidity in that?

It makes no sense at all.

It was the PROSECUTOR who opened his mouth.

NOT you.

And he didn't get laughed out of Court.

He was admonished by the Judge.

It's no wonder people are so extremely unhappy with your "services."

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

Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?
Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian
Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe"
in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a
midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a
very
angry admonishment from the judge.
What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Danny yesterday I challenged you to prove that I have been "laughed
out" of even ONE courtroom. So let's see it. PROOF of just ONE there
Mister
Sullivan. Your credibility is riding on it. Obviously you think you have
some PROOF of it. NAME ONE... We both know you can't. I just want to see
how far your lying will go. Tap dance around it and everyone will take
it
as an admission you are LYING! Of course both you and I - KNOW you are!

I say you "must have been laughed out of every courtroom you opened
your mouth in" based on the third-rate bull**** you post on this NG.

No you state it as a FACT! YOUR PROOF!!!! NAME ONE!



Show us you are NOT full of **** Danny! PROVE even ONE courtroom I have
been laughed out of.. A REAL one of course.

On Sep 5, 2:22 pm, " krp" wrote:
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message

ps.com...



Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?
Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as Guardian
Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means "maybe"
in
every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a
midwestern
city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound up with a
very
angry admonishment from the judge.
What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Danny yesterday I challenged you to prove that I have been "laughed
out" of even ONE courtroom. So let's see it. PROOF of just ONE there
Mister
Sullivan. Your credibility is riding on it. Obviously you think you have
some PROOF of it. NAME ONE... We both know you can't. I just want to see
how far your lying will go. Tap dance around it and everyone will take
it
as an admission you are LYING! Of course both you and I - KNOW you are!
I say you "must have been laughed out of every courtroom you opened
your mouth in" based on the third-rate bull**** you post on this NG.

No you state it as a FACT!

You can interpret what I said any way you choose to, kenny boy.

It is simply my opinion.

I said you"must have."

I didn't say "you were."

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

Since WHEN does a TRIAL CONSULTANT open their mouth in court?
Well Dan obviously refers to my appointments BY courts as
Guardian Ad
Litem for children. Dan softened his claim from"EVERY TIME" I open
my
mouth, a delcarative sentence, to now "must have" which means
"maybe"
in every courtroom. Of course neither is true. A prosecutor in a
midwestern city TRIED to use the Moore website against me and wound
up with a
very angry admonishment from the judge.

What does Moore's website have to do with you getting laughed out of
every courtroom you opened your mouth in?

Danny yesterday I challenged you to prove that I have been
"laughed
out" of even ONE courtroom. So let's see it. PROOF of just ONE there
Mister
Sullivan. Your credibility is riding on it. Obviously you think you
have
some PROOF of it. NAME ONE... We both know you can't. I just want to
see
how far your lying will go. Tap dance around it and everyone will
take it
as an admission you are LYING! Of course both you and I - KNOW you
are!
I say you "must have been laughed out of every courtroom you opened
your mouth in" based on the third-rate bull**** you post on this NG.

No you state it as a FACT!

You can interpret what I said any way you choose to, kenny boy.

no you SAID it that way Danny boy AND you were lying your ass off!

It is simply my opinion.

You stated it as FACT and you were LYING!