WBYAGTHT, or ...

Well Boys, You Are Going To Hate This.

When I quoted an interview with an advocate of ending the abusive
practice of spanking mentioning that a high percentage of cases of
injury and death to children began as and escalated from "discipline"
using spanking, or corporal punishment, the chickens came running from
the hen house, cackling and carrying something fierce.

Providing further support for this contention resulted in.....waaaah?
NOTHING AT ALL BUT ARGUING ABOUT THE FIRST POST.

So, inspired as always by you hapless twits, liars, self deluded,
ignorant, stupid, but always self serving fools, I have decided to start
yet another collection...you know, like the Meth one, and the WDNNSCPS one?

This one to be labeled, WBYAGTHT.

Let't begin with yet ANOTHER CASE where a child is claimed to be
injured, BUT the actor claims 'discipline.'

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news...618574,00.html

PSL caregiver may face charges of child abuse on friend's daughter
Story Tools
Email this story | Print
By WILL GREENLEE

April 14, 2006
PORT ST. LUCIE — Prosecutors are reviewing a police investigation to
determine whether to file charges against the caregiver of a 12-year-old
girl who accused the woman of repeatedly beating her for not reading
well enough and "not accepting Jesus into her heart," according to law
enforcement officials.

Police on Saturday arrested the girl's father, Michael C. Bilodeau, 48,
of Coral Springs, on felony aggravated child abuse and neglect of a
child charges after he allegedly "admitted to hitting (his daughter)
because she constantly lies and she needs some discipline."

Advertisement
Police said Bilodeau admitted using a belt to strike his daughter and
they observed old and new bruises on the back of the girl's legs and
other areas. .. "

Then there's this interesting case:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime....3f74c6c4.html

CPS: Toddler was 'tortured for a long time'
08:42 PM CDT on Thursday, June 1, 2006
By Jason Whitely / 11 News
The of a mother of a 3-year-old boy who died a horrible death was
charged with injury to a child by omission Thursday. But police say
she's pointing the finger at her boyfriend. ....

Now WHY would someone torture a child other than to make him DO
something...that is discipline him.

Or was this the same kind of torture that a sex maniac might impose? If
so, why was the mother involved?

Did the perp mean to kill, or did the perp mean to control?

Does "discipline" escalate into death? Of course it does, you fools. You
should, as you've learned before, NEVER challenge me on my claims.

R R R R R

Try again, and get the same again.

0:-









--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

0:- wrote:
Well Boys, You Are Going To Hate This.

When I quoted an interview with an advocate of ending the abusive
practice of spanking mentioning that a high percentage of cases of
injury and death to children began as and escalated from "discipline"
using spanking, or corporal punishment, the chickens came running from
the hen house, cackling and carrying something fierce.

Providing further support for this contention resulted in.....waaaah?
NOTHING AT ALL BUT ARGUING ABOUT THE FIRST POST.

So, inspired as always by you hapless twits, liars, self deluded,
ignorant, stupid, but always self serving fools, I have decided to start
yet another collection...you know, like the Meth one, and the WDNNSCPS one?

This one to be labeled, WBYAGTHT.

Let't begin with yet ANOTHER CASE where a child is claimed to be
injured, BUT the actor claims 'discipline.'

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news...618574,00.html

PSL caregiver may face charges of child abuse on friend's daughter
Story Tools
Email this story | Print
By WILL GREENLEE

April 14, 2006
PORT ST. LUCIE — Prosecutors are reviewing a police investigation to
determine whether to file charges against the caregiver of a 12-year-old
girl who accused the woman of repeatedly beating her for not reading
well enough and "not accepting Jesus into her heart," according to law
enforcement officials.

Police on Saturday arrested the girl's father, Michael C. Bilodeau, 48,
of Coral Springs, on felony aggravated child abuse and neglect of a
child charges after he allegedly "admitted to hitting (his daughter)
because she constantly lies and she needs some discipline."

Advertisement
Police said Bilodeau admitted using a belt to strike his daughter and
they observed old and new bruises on the back of the girl's legs and
other areas. .. "

Then there's this interesting case:

http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime....3f74c6c4.html


CPS: Toddler was 'tortured for a long time'
08:42 PM CDT on Thursday, June 1, 2006
By Jason Whitely / 11 News
The of a mother of a 3-year-old boy who died a horrible death was
charged with injury to a child by omission Thursday. But police say
she's pointing the finger at her boyfriend. ....

Now WHY would someone torture a child other than to make him DO
something...that is discipline him.

Or was this the same kind of torture that a sex maniac might impose? If
so, why was the mother involved?

Did the perp mean to kill, or did the perp mean to control?

Does "discipline" escalate into death? Of course it does, you fools. You
should, as you've learned before, NEVER challenge me on my claims.

R R R R R

Try again, and get the same again.

0:-


Come on, boys. This wasn't a spanking and discipline case?

They just beat her to beat her? What's the most common reason
articulated in this land by parents that use CP when the belt comes out, eh?

http://www.ksat.com/sports/8882543/detail.html

"Ex-NFL Player, Wife Face Child Abuse Charges

POSTED: 10:54 am CDT April 21, 2006

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A former NFL offensive lineman and his wife face
child abuse and neglect charges for allegedly mistreating their adopted
daughter.

Florida officials said Rich Tylski and his wife hit the girl with a
belt, slammed her head on a table and broke bones in her hands and legs.

..."

Then there's those shaken babies. I guess the parents were just hot for
Cuban music and using them for maracas, eh boys?

It's ALWAYS a parent trying to discipline a child. Here's an interesting
remark that shows the authorities know MORE than you pimps for abusive
parents.

http://www.belleville.com/mld/bellev...s/14449331.htm
" ... Sheriff's investigators Desmond Williams and Daniel Stockett are
working on the case.

Pratt also had an outstanding Madison County warrant for failure to use
a child restraint.

Babies, toddlers and preschoolers are susceptible to shaken baby
syndrome, said Amy Wicks, a spokesman for the National Center on Shaken
Baby Syndrome in Ogden, Utah.

"Although it requires more strength, we have seen victims up to 5 years
old," Wicks said. "We see a spike in cases when the victims are around 2
years old, and we believe that is tied to frustration with toilet training."

Sibling victims are unusual, Wicks said.

"I've never heard of a case like this," Wicks said. "It's awful."

If convicted, Pratt could face up to 30 years in prison. ...

By the way, any of you boy wonders ever seen a living victim of shaken
baby syndrome?

Most are nearly immobilized and cannot, for the rest of their lives,
take care of themselves.

Some are merely among our large population of special needs children
that cost society so much in money and lost productivity.

The schools are now required to teach them, and most are so socially
inappropriate they should be in rehabilitation centers.

You people are sickening. Trying to fob off that a majority of child
abuse injury and deaths did NOT come by escalation of "discipline using
corporal punishment."

Dimwit THUGS, THE LOT OF YOU.

0:- But at least I keep you busy here, and hopefully with little time
to procreate more.






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

anyone who reads news of the bizarre, weird, and strange knows that an
abnormal knows that florida has more that its fair share of
contributions...............award winning columnist, author, and
florida native carl hiaasen puts it this way: "the sunshine state is a
paradise of scandals teeming with drifters, deadbeats, and misfits
drawn here by some dark primordial calling like demented
trout"..................

]:^ runs around her dog lot barking about more child abuse in
florida.....................

Let me get this straight:
Kane ignores the fact that Florida had a Child Protection
system so corrupt and so entrenched that when a
new leader with GREAT credentials was put in
charge specifically to clean it up he
just JOINED IN to the corruption.

The graft and corruption of the agencies there got
so bad that they finally basically DISSOLVED the
entire Florida Child Protection system and placed
the function under law enforcement.

There are many signs that things for families
there have actually gotten better!

Is that WHY Kane is intent on playing up
abuses by parents there as some sort of
freak show??

To show that Florida is worse off now that
the CPS agencies are dissolved?

In most states, despite spending BILLIONS
on Child Protection systems, has the actual
rate of child abuse related deaths gone down?
If you use the DEMAGOGUERY about those
child deaths to justify the laws and funding
for the agency, isn't it reasonable that the
lack of RESULTS in regard to progress
on that death rate should likewise be used
to club the AGENCY to death?

PLUS, when the agency uses the same sort
of demagoguery to justify THOUSANDS of
"preventive" child removals and yet there
is no improvement in the death rate, will the
thousands of ""preventive"" child removals
stop? Certainly if they don't achieve results
the harm done outweighs the non-result!
I personally think that harming THOUSANDS
of kids and families through these ""preventive""
removals is inexcusable regardless of the
two or so kids who die each year from
parental homicide. I consider the "shotgun approach"
to be more than a little reprehensible.

Greegor wrote:
Let me get this straight:
Kane ignores the fact that Florida had a Child Protection
system so corrupt and so entrenched that when a
new leader with GREAT credentials was put in
charge specifically to clean it up he
just JOINED IN to the corruption.

I also have not joined in the conspiracy theory about the Moon landings
videos being faked using a hanger at Area 59.

It doesn't mean I believe it. Or don't.

Would you LIKE my opinion? Then why not ask for it.

I have been, when I accuse you, kind enough, and fair enough to ask YOU
to update us on YOUR opinion...and you have, of course declined to
respond. I wonder why?

Please point out to the reader which of my postings you refer to where I
"ignore the fact" you allude to. Thanks.

The graft and corruption of the agencies there got
so bad that they finally basically DISSOLVED the
entire Florida Child Protection system and placed
the function under law enforcement.

I'd be interested in following those events. Can you provide a source I
could examine?

There are many signs that things for families
there have actually gotten better!

Actually there I DO have some interest, did NOT ignore, and did in fact
find otherwise.

But then you and I may differ on what is meant by "gotten better."

I would presume that less child abuse would be "gotten better," and
you'll find me consistent in that meaning. For years now.

Your "gotten better" seems to consist more of "the parents are getting
way with child abuse more easily," or am I incorrect?

Is that WHY Kane is intent on playing up
abuses by parents there as some sort of
freak show??

No, it's because they are reported to me by a news service that searches
on "child abuse" with NO mention of any state.

What pops up, I repost to you.

Do you dislike this?

How is it you seemed to love Fern's postings of CPS "malfeasance" (which
included not setting up day care for parents) without comment?

To show that Florida is worse off now that
the CPS agencies are dissolved?

What CPS agencies have been dissolved? Again, a citation please.

I report what I find. If Florida is in the news, blame the media. Or
Florida. I do.

In most states, despite spending BILLIONS
on Child Protection systems, has the actual
rate of child abuse related deaths gone down?

Not much. Seems that folks just keep killin' their kids. But YOU seem to
take the emphasis off that to concentrate on the "BILLIONS."

Bit numbers don't mean much any more, since we have a much bigger
population than when you were born. It's likely to continue that way for
awhile, so know that all projects and programs, from Space Exploration,
to buying a new truck for the Animal Control Services in your county,
are going to run into much bigger numbers. Don't let it distract you.

Think in "rates."

If you use the DEMAGOGUERY about those
child deaths to justify the laws and funding
for the agency,

What that I've posted fits any definition of "DEMAGOGUERY?"

"DEMAGOGUERY

n : impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace
[syn: demagogy]"

You seem not to notice Doug's similar postings.

Oh well, must be something to be said for loyalty to the one whose boots
you lick.

isn't it reasonable that the
lack of RESULTS in regard to progress
on that death rate should likewise be used
to club the AGENCY to death?

Of course. Why didn't we think of this elegant solution earlier. Close
down CPS. THAT will lower the death rate of children by abuse.

PLUS, when the agency uses the same sort
of demagoguery to justify THOUSANDS of
"preventive" child removals and yet there
is no improvement in the death rate, will the
thousands of ""preventive"" child removals
stop?

Well, we don't know yet what leaving them with their parents will result
in, now do we. According to "it won't be long now Doug" we are going to
find out though.

I wouldn't get to excited about winning yet, and seeing the death rate
by abuse drop much.

Certainly if they don't achieve results
the harm done outweighs the non-result!

One, more children are born every day. Logically if we put more money
into prevention (most DIRECT schemes of which we cannot enact because
they would be unconstitutional--as you boys are fond on pointing out and
I agree with) in proportion to each new birth, by golly maybe we could
catch up.

What I find, since I'm logical, absolutely amazing and thrilling is that
without that much more money...certainly not enough to keep up with the
new births...CPS manages to hold the line and the rate does not RISE.

That may be all that CPS can ever do in our system, and I prefer our
system to fascism disguised as socialism which itself is disguised as
democracy.

I personally think that harming THOUSANDS
of kids and families through these ""preventive""
removals is inexcusable regardless of the
two or so kids who die each year from
parental homicide.

Well, like Doug, but much more crudely as befits your intelligence
level, and education I'd presume, you have built an argument out of
straw that looks like a man, and we can all join you merrily in
agreement and kick it apart.

Isn't this fun?

If the conditions you claim actually existed, yes, your Strawman would
be wearing a Brooks Brothers, Suit and have a a starlet on each arm.

Sadly, because those conditions do NOT exist, it's a barely recognizable
human figure at all, and and a mere puff from me collapses it. Notice?

The two kids, by the way, will come back to your bedside upon your
death, and smilingly remind you you are about to come within their reach.

Unless, of course, you are like me a non-Theist.

I consider the "shotgun approach"
to be more than a little reprehensible.

Yes, it would be, but as far as I know, CPS does not, anywhere in this
land, drive buses around town rounding children up at playgrounds,
school yards, and residential streets, and haul them away to Evil CPS
Concentration Camps for Incarceration, as you folks, Doug especially,
like to claim.

They ONLY take calls. Then the go out on one allegation subject at a time.

It might be a great cost benefit to just have families hauled in on
schedule, say 50 at a time and process them all at once, but this is not
Nazi Germany, though you folks like to use that kind of language to
describe CPS.

Say, where IS old "Gestapo CPS" these days, anyway?

You, Greg, are representative of a pack of fools, liars, self deluded
fundamentalist thinkers, with nothing going for you but your emotions,
and your shoddy fallacious argument ploys.

All of which is easily seen through.

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
Based on YOUR assertions Kane, you say
that I am representative of PEOPLE,

I think you should ask the PEOPLE first, Greg. I think you'll find a
large contingent not in agreement with you.

whereas you are
representative of an AGENCY, an INDUSTRY, a corrupt
pack of bureaucrats with a LABOR UNION who by
your own assertions actually commit PERJURY
on the witness stand. You attempt to excuse it.

No, I am not representative because I define and explain what they are
doing.

I do hope you will answer the key question I asked you about how to
maintain confidentiality and preserve the case integrity while figuring
out how to answer people's questions. We'll see, now won't we?

In this sense you support their treason against
the people and the constitution.

Really? Point out where I do that, please.

You attempt to
justify the theft of constitutional rights through
lies, subterfuge and bullying.

No I don't. I simply explained why this particular poster, and why other
folks involved with CPS that are not THE central persons in the case,
but seeking custody or other connections are NOT told everything and
sometimes redirected, and even for they own good and the outcomes they
seek. I notice you are doing a "no poster's attributions" reply again.

That's always a signal you are lying and don't want the obvious to be
revealed too easily.

You display exactly the sort of thought
processes and "agency culture" that will
cost the agency so dearly in terms of
public relations and legal settlements.

No, in fact one of the reasons, and a less savory one, for their
unwillingness to be too revealing is that some things can be construed
into and used to bring suit. You sit there as a frustrated witness to
this fact. 0:-

PR is NOT a mandated duty of CPS, Greg. Their prime mandate is the
safety of the child. Should they reveal something that endangers a
child, even if YOU think they commit "perjury" by not so revealing, then
they are remiss and guilty of malpractice and malfeasance.

But you do stomp your feet and try to define me wonderfully creatively.

The workers I cross examined this last week
were horrible liars and very venemous.

Oh? You have them in court suing them, then?

I really like it when they think they are going
to drop a BOMB on you in court but they
lay a huge EGG.

What ever could YOU be doing in court, Greg?

One liar contradicted another and
the state tried to drop one honest
caseworker because she couldn't
go along with their malicious prosecution.

All in the eye of the biased beholder.

Are you neutral and without bias in this case you are acting as an
attorney in?

It's very interesting to watch a prosecutor
try to tear down her own caseworker
because the caseworker is on OUR SIDE!

Prosecutors are not CPS workers, supervisors, administrators, and do not
any employer power over workers.

It kinda smacks of malicious prosecution!

To you, of course.

Why would a prosecutor push a case
when the caseworker herself is against it?

Look dummy, I'll help EVEN YOU, if I suspect it would get Lisa's child
back to her. If you ARE involved in a case concerning Lisa's child you
are once again stupidly endangering Lisa's chances of prevailing.

You should NOT be discussing this case on a public forum.

How long will it be before the caseworker
will be yanked off the case for not being
evil enough to serve the agency agenda?

I don't know. How long will it be before you stop lying?

And once more, if what I think is happening is happening (a permanency
hearing), you endanger Lisa and her chance of getting her child back.

Stop and think, Greg.

I have claimed, and have some powerful reasons to know related to my
ability to pay for detective work, that someone on these ngs, in the
past, did in fact reveal to the worker of someone posting here that they
were indeed discussing the case here.

It cost the person posting here.

It was NOT one of us that revealed this to the worker. IT WAS ONE OF
YOU. I presume, once again, considering it a great ends justifies the
means attempt, to "prove" that CPS was Evil.

In other words, they were willing to sacrifice someone else's child to
the system, with all that entails, for their own selfish childish ends.

I don't play games, Greg, though it's fun encouraging you to think so.

When I see harm being done I WILL try to stop it.

Right now, certain people from YOUR side of the aisle, so to speak, are
watching what YOU say...and give not a **** for my posts.

They will weigh if it's profitable to their cause to feed Lisa, the
child and YOU to Iowa's child protection system.

And I'm warning them, I'll run them down again and this time I'll turn
my evidence over to the state they reside in, to a public prosecutor in
their area. Some laws were broken the last time. And they know that.
We've discussed it privately before.

Lisa deserves more of a chance than YOU are now giving her, you low life
creep.

You wouldn't last five more minutes as her acting attorney, which it
appears you are trying to do, from the point the judge discovers you are
openly discussing the case out of court.

Stop discussing her case, if that is what you are doing, in this open
forum.

If you win, and the child is returned (which for you I count as a loss
to the child and you) THEN is time enough to post your victory chant and
tell story on how you defeated the ugly demon of CPS.

We can hardly wait, but for Lisa's sake we will wait, unless you are
stupid, OR YOU ARE TRULY VICIOUS AND WANT LISA TO LOSE AGAIN...

....all so you can keep saying how evil those CPS caseworkers and the
state of Iowa are. Tsk, Greg. You have NO morals at all, do you?

0:-









--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane said:
I do hope you will answer the key question I asked you about how to
maintain confidentiality and preserve the case integrity while figuring

out how to answer people's questions. We'll see, now won't we?

Greg answers:
Where did you ask this "key question" before repeating it here?
Got citations?

You revealed that caseworkers do in fact LIE
and presented what you think justifies that.

Now are you trying to excuse PERJURY as the
result of some attempt to maintain confidentiality,
preserve case integrity and answer people's questions?

Do those drives override the oath taken on the
witness stand? Why would maintaining confidentiality
be an issue in court on the witness stand?

Greegor wrote:
Based on YOUR assertions Kane, you say
that I am representative of PEOPLE,

Kane wrote
I think you should ask the PEOPLE first, Greg.
I think you'll find a large contingent not in
agreement with you.

You are the one who said what I "represent".

Greg wrote
whereas you are
representative of an AGENCY, an INDUSTRY, a corrupt
pack of bureaucrats with a LABOR UNION who by
your own assertions actually commit PERJURY
on the witness stand. You attempt to excuse it.

Kane wrote
No, I am not representative because I define
and explain what they are doing.

Greg wrote
In this sense you support their treason against
the people and the constitution.

Kane wrote
Really? Point out where I do that, please.

Already answered, explained the sense referred to.
Maybe you should unsnip what you snipped?

Greg wrote
You attempt to
justify the theft of constitutional rights through
lies, subterfuge and bullying.

snip

Greg wrote
You display exactly the sort of thought
processes and "agency culture" that will
cost the agency so dearly in terms of
public relations and legal settlements.

Kane wrote
No, in fact one of the reasons, and a less savory one, for their
unwillingness to be too revealing is that some things can be construed
into and used to bring suit. You sit there as a frustrated witness to
this fact.

Under OATH on a witness stand?
Are you now saying they are doing damage
control and "spin" on the witness stand?

Kane wrote
PR is NOT a mandated duty of CPS, Greg. Their prime mandate is the
safety of the child. Should they reveal something that endangers a
child, even if YOU think they commit "perjury" by not so revealing, then
they are remiss and guilty of malpractice and malfeasance.

More sad attempts to justify caseworkers telling LIES under oath?
Even if you did actually believe this drivel, it would explain
lies of omission, but not lies of FABRICATION or DISTORTION.

How do you define any of that as not PERJURY?
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
doesn't mean anything in Kane land?

Apparently you are pretending that anything less
than perjury from a caseworker is malpractice and malfeasance?

Nice try.


Kane wrote
But you do stomp your feet and try to
define me wonderfully creatively.

I leave that to your own text.

Greg wrote
The workers I cross examined this last week
were horrible liars and very venemous.

Kane wrote
Oh? You have them in court suing them, then?

No comment.

Greg wrote
I really like it when they think they are going
to drop a BOMB on you in court but they
lay a huge EGG.

Kane wrote
What ever could YOU be doing in court, Greg?

Cross examining caseworkers called as hostile witnesses.

Greg wrote
One liar contradicted another and
the state tried to drop one honest
caseworker because she couldn't
go along with their malicious prosecution.

Kane wrote
All in the eye of the biased beholder.
Are you neutral and without bias in this case
you are acting as an attorney in?

Pro Se, certainly not neutral!

Greg wrote
It's very interesting to watch a prosecutor
try to tear down her own caseworker
because the caseworker is on OUR SIDE!

Kane wrote
Prosecutors are not CPS workers, supervisors,
administrators, and do not any employer
power over workers.

Don't you mean that they don't ALWAYS
have such power?

Greg wrote]
It kinda smacks of malicious prosecution!

Kane wrote
To you, of course.

Please continue to minimize this thought.
It serves my family well for you to delude yourself so.

Greg wrote
Why would a prosecutor push a case
when the caseworker herself is against it?

Kane wrote
Look dummy, I'll help EVEN YOU, if I suspect it
would get [REDACTED] child back to her. If you ARE
involved in a case concerning [REDACTED] child you
are once again stupidly endangering [REDACTED]
chances of prevailing.

You should NOT be discussing this case on a public forum.

You just recently posted my former SO's
NAME THREE TIMES which you and Dan pulled
from our letter to Congressional Ways and Means.

Then you try to demand privacy??

Greg wrote
How long will it be before the caseworker
will be yanked off the case for not being
evil enough to serve the agency agenda?

Kane wrote
I don't know. How long will it be before you stop lying?

Kane wrote
And once more, if what I think is happening is happening
(a permanency hearing), you endanger Lisa and her
chance of getting her child back.

Stop and think, Greg.

I have claimed, and have some powerful reasons
to know related to my ability to pay for detective
work, that someone on these ngs, in the past,
did in fact reveal to the worker of someone posting
here that they were indeed discussing the case here.

It cost the person posting here.

It was NOT one of us that revealed this to the
worker. IT WAS ONE OF YOU. I presume,
once again, considering it a great ends
justifies the means attempt, to "prove" that
CPS was Evil.

In other words, they were willing to sacrifice
someone else's child to the system, with all
that entails, for their own selfish childish ends.

I don't play games, Greg, though it's fun
encouraging you to think so.

When I see harm being done I WILL try to stop it.

Right now, certain people from YOUR side of
the aisle, so to speak, are watching what YOU
say...and give not a **** for my posts.

That's about how I classify your posts as well.

Kane wrote
They will weigh if it's profitable to their cause
to feed Lisa, the child and YOU to Iowa's child
protection system.

And I'm warning them, I'll run them down again
and this time I'll turn my evidence over to the
state they reside in, to a public prosecutor in
their area. Some laws were broken the last time.
And they know that.

What laws specifically?

Kane wrote
We've discussed it privately before.

Not you and I.

Kane wrote
Lisa deserves more of a chance than YOU
are now giving her, you low life creep.

Kane wrote
You wouldn't last five more minutes as her
acting attorney, which it appears you are
trying to do, from the point the judge
discovers you are openly discussing
the case out of court.
Stop discussing her case, if that is what
you are doing, in this open forum.

The small aspects described present absolutely
no violation of privacy for the child or family.

As such, my first amendment rights to expose
corruption in government would certainly
outweigh the hazards involved.

Kane wrote
If you win, and the child is returned (which
for you I count as a loss to the child and you)
THEN is time enough to post your victory
chant and tell story on how you defeated
the ugly demon of CPS.

We can hardly wait, but for [REDACTED]
sake we will wait, unless you are stupid,
OR YOU ARE TRULY VICIOUS AND WANT
[REDACTED] TO LOSE AGAIN...

...all so you can keep saying how evil those
CPS caseworkers and the state of Iowa are.
Tsk, Greg. You have NO morals at all, do you?

If it's a violation of privacy for me to tell
how I personally nailed the caseworkers
for telling lies, then I stand ready for charges.

I could have been much more specific
but I kept to much more general statements
for some of the reasons you cite.

Are you saying that my statements have
been precise and detailed enough to comprise
a violation of privacy laws and thus are
not protected under the first amendment?

Nice try.

Land of the FREE and Home of the BRAVE, remember?

Good luck with those explanations of how caseworkers
who tell lies on the witness stand are the good guys,
the lies are "noble" and for the good of the children..

Is this your idea of morality?
No wonder I don't fit!

Greegor wrote:
Kane said:
I do hope you will answer the key question I asked you about how to
maintain confidentiality and preserve the case integrity while figuring

out how to answer people's questions. We'll see, now won't we?

Greg answers:
Where did you ask this "key question" before repeating it here?
Got citations?

Nope. Too long back.

Does this mean that because I can't cite an instance you now have the
belief that you can, ethically, refuse to answer on those grounds?

How about answer NOW! I did up there, did I not?

You revealed that caseworkers do in fact LIE
and presented what you think justifies that.

I didn't "reveal" anything I haven't told you publicly before, Greg and
you had the same ranting bull**** response. "OH they LIED."

I told you they refuse to GIVE CERTAIN INFORMATION. That is NOT lying.
When pressed they will divert. That is not lying.

They have a responsibility to the court, to the child, and to their
supervisor and to the people of the state that pays their salary to NOT
screw up a case, or other peoples lives by giving away information they
must not.

Now are you trying to excuse PERJURY as the
result of some attempt to maintain confidentiality,
preserve case integrity and answer people's questions?

Please list the "perjury" you are referring to.

Do those drives override the oath taken on the
witness stand?

Nope. Once in court all should come out, but Greg if THIS is the perjury
you claim, WHO SAYS SO? Did the judge? Did the DA?

Could it be YOUR PERSONAL BIAS?

Why would maintaining confidentiality
be an issue in court on the witness stand?

It isn't and you cannot find a single place I have claimed that. IT'S
YOUR BULL**** CLAIM. And you are trying to claim that my explaining why
the avoid giving out information in ANOTHER CONTEXT, transfers to the
court.

I have said NOTHING up to this point about the court, and now agree with
you that they are bound to tell the truth.

The problem YOU have Greg, is convincing us that they lied.

Your 'word' is insufficient.

Greegor wrote:
Based on YOUR assertions Kane, you say
that I am representative of PEOPLE,

Kane wrote
I think you should ask the PEOPLE first, Greg.
I think you'll find a large contingent not in
agreement with you.

You are the one who said what I "represent".

Please post a citation. I do not recall making any such comment.

Greg wrote
whereas you are
representative of an AGENCY, an INDUSTRY, a corrupt
pack of bureaucrats with a LABOR UNION who by
your own assertions actually commit PERJURY
on the witness stand. You attempt to excuse it.

Kane wrote
No, I am not representative because I define
and explain what they are doing.

Greg wrote
In this sense you support their treason against
the people and the constitution.

Kane wrote
Really? Point out where I do that, please.

Already answered, explained the sense referred to.

No it isn't. You are lying. You may have claimed "treason against the
people and the constitution," but you did NOT see me respond to such a
statement from you. If so, post it.

Maybe you should unsnip what you snipped?

That would be extremely difficult, since I snipped nothing. You are the
snipper here.

Greg wrote
You attempt to
justify the theft of constitutional rights through
lies, subterfuge and bullying.

snip

See who the snipper really is?

Greg wrote
You display exactly the sort of thought
processes and "agency culture" that will
cost the agency so dearly in terms of
public relations and legal settlements.

Kane wrote
No, in fact one of the reasons, and a less savory one, for their
unwillingness to be too revealing is that some things can be construed
into and used to bring suit. You sit there as a frustrated witness to
this fact.

Under OATH on a witness stand?

You did NOT establish the connect from a prior post AND IT'S YOU THAT
ARE NOT FULLY ATTRIBUTING MY COMMENTS AND INSTEAD ARE CUTTING AND
PASTING OUT OF CONTEXT AND ANSWERING THINGS I DID NOT SAY IN CONTEXT.

Are you now saying they are doing damage
control and "spin" on the witness stand?

Oh? Make the connection. YOUR brought up court AFTER I made comments
about the poster and others workers deal with to whom they CANNOT GIVE
INFORMATION. I'd hardly say they cannot give information to the court.

Kane wrote
PR is NOT a mandated duty of CPS, Greg. Their prime mandate is the
safety of the child. Should they reveal something that endangers a
child, even if YOU think they commit "perjury" by not so revealing, then
they are remiss and guilty of malpractice and malfeasance.

More sad attempts to justify caseworkers telling LIES under oath?

At no point in your prior conversation did you say "under oath," as in
court. I did NOT say they should perjure themselves in court or that
there is an excuse for THAT.
;
Ever single statement I made refers to CASEWORK issues in contact with
various people NOT part of the court system. The poster I was responding
to that started your exchange and mine said that her personal
experience, and she is not an officer of the court, was such that she
didn't trust particular workers.

Even if you did actually believe this drivel, it would explain
lies of omission, but not lies of FABRICATION or DISTORTION.

You have, again, as you famously do, led the point AWAY from what was
actually said, constructed something you claim I said that I did not,
now you argue about that with me as though I in fact said it and meant
what YOU have fabricated my meaning to.

How do you define any of that as not PERJURY?

I don't. I never said a single thing about COURT testimony. YOU brought
that in, while I continued to discuss all OTHER INSTANCES.

"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
doesn't mean anything in Kane land?


"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
doesn't much to you, Greg if you are going to redesign my post to give
meanings I did not have there.

Apparently you are pretending that anything less
than perjury from a caseworker is malpractice and malfeasance?

No, That is not what I said, not what I "pretended" because there is no
need to pretend anything. That speaks to your engineering of my posted
commentary to change it to mean what YOU want it to mean.

I spoke only to the issues of how caseworkers answer those involved in
the case where they CANNOT give certain information.

That could not be the court, Greg.

Nice try.

Yours was a lousy try, Greg. You are so easily seen through.


Kane wrote
But you do stomp your feet and try to
define me wonderfully creatively.

I leave that to your own text.

You leave it to my text cut and pasted out of context with your remarks
to change the meaning of mine.

You are unethical.

Greg wrote
The workers I cross examined this last week
were horrible liars and very venemous.

Kane wrote
Oh? You have them in court suing them, then?

No comment.

You have already jeopardized the case. You know as well as I how
unsavory and immoral your 'friends' here are and the lengths they will
go to to claim CPS malfeasance.

They don't give a **** for you OR Lisa or her child.

Be thankful they are afraid of me. I have written them about this. Ask
them. Go ahead. If they don't tell you then you best reconsider your
course of action.

Greg wrote
I really like it when they think they are going
to drop a BOMB on you in court but they
lay a huge EGG.

Kane wrote
What ever could YOU be doing in court, Greg?

Notice that THIS WAS THE FIRST MENTION BY YOU OF COURT, GREG.

Hence your claims that I was, by discussing when caseworkers must NOT
reveal information, supporting perjury in court kind of falls flat, now
doesn't it, stupid.

Cross examining caseworkers called as hostile witnesses.

Greg wrote
One liar contradicted another and
the state tried to drop one honest
caseworker because she couldn't
go along with their malicious prosecution.

Kane wrote
All in the eye of the biased beholder.
Are you neutral and without bias in this case
you are acting as an attorney in?

Pro Se, certainly not neutral!

Why did you not respond to the question in full, as to the part asking
if you were biased?

Notice I did not excuse any perjury from the caseworker, yet?

Greg wrote
It's very interesting to watch a prosecutor
try to tear down her own caseworker
because the caseworker is on OUR SIDE!

Kane wrote
Prosecutors are not CPS workers, supervisors,
administrators, and do not any employer
power over workers.

Don't you mean that they don't ALWAYS
have such power?

Just a ****ing minute here. You are supposed to be proving that
supported and excused the worker committing perjury. What the **** is up
here, Greg?


No, I left out the word, "have." It should read, " ...and do not HAVE
any employer power over workers."

Greg wrote]
It kinda smacks of malicious prosecution!

Kane wrote
To you, of course.

Please continue to minimize this thought.

Please expand on your comment about malicious prosecution so that we can
see there is enough information to agree with your assessment. YOUR word
is not good enough, without some expansion.

It serves my family well for you to delude yourself so.

Non sequitur.

YOU do not serve "your family" by even commenting here as you do and
bringing up the case. Lisa has been identified. Others that post here
have at least some chance of anonymity protection from your cronies that
would report them to CPS.

Greg wrote
Why would a prosecutor push a case
when the caseworker herself is against it?

Kane wrote
Look dummy, I'll help EVEN YOU, if I suspect it
would get [REDACTED] child back to her. If you ARE
involved in a case concerning [REDACTED] child you
are once again stupidly endangering [REDACTED]
chances of prevailing.

Looks stupid, Lisa's name has been used in this newsgroup for three
years and more. YOU used it. You posted links to the HWAM committee
testimony with her identifying information in it.


You should NOT be discussing this case on a public forum.

You just recently posted my former SO's
NAME THREE TIMES

This then logically encourages you to begin discussing a case of hers
currently underway? Please explain the logic in this.

Look dummy, if YOU have already given such information in the past, and
her name is common in posts in this ng, WHY DOES THAT NOT EQUATE MORE
WITH YOU MAINTAINING HER CONFIDENTIALITY AND SHUTTING YOUR ****ING MOUTH
UP UNTIL THE CASE IS FINISHED?

which you and Dan pulled
from our letter to Congressional Ways and Means.

"Pulled?" Posted what you linked to? DID YOU NOT LINK TO THIS TESTIMONY
TO MAKE POINTS OF YOUR ARGUMENT?

Are readers so feeble minded they could not hit the link, read the
information there themselves.

THAT YOU DIRECTED THEM TO?

Then you try to demand privacy??

Yes, for Lisa. On the very grounds that she IS known here by name, and
more, from your own links and postings.

YOU should NOT be discussing here that a case is underway.

You are in no danger from most of US, but YOU ARE FROM YOUR BUDDIES. I
should say Lisa is, as YOU have nothing to lose.

Greg wrote
How long will it be before the caseworker
will be yanked off the case for not being
evil enough to serve the agency agenda?

Kane wrote
I don't know. How long will it be before you stop lying?

Kane wrote
And once more, if what I think is happening is happening
(a permanency hearing), you endanger Lisa and her
chance of getting her child back.

Stop and think, Greg.

I have claimed, and have some powerful reasons
to know related to my ability to pay for detective
work, that someone on these ngs, in the past,
did in fact reveal to the worker of someone posting
here that they were indeed discussing the case here.

It cost the person posting here.

It was NOT one of us that revealed this to the
worker. IT WAS ONE OF YOU. I presume,
once again, considering it a great ends
justifies the means attempt, to "prove" that
CPS was Evil.

In other words, they were willing to sacrifice
someone else's child to the system, with all
that entails, for their own selfish childish ends.

I don't play games, Greg, though it's fun
encouraging you to think so.

When I see harm being done I WILL try to stop it.

Right now, certain people from YOUR side of
the aisle, so to speak, are watching what YOU
say...and give not a **** for my posts.

That's about how I classify your posts as well.

Which shows how stupid you really are. Or vicious and hateful and want
Lisa to lose.

Others have tried to help you ... Lisa through you, and you have fought
tooth and nail against advice that has been successful over and over
against CPS.

Now you bring up a court case which could be nothing else but a case
concerning Lisa.

Have you told her you are discussing in this newsgroup your "cross
examination" of the worker?

Kane wrote
They will weigh if it's profitable to their cause
to feed Lisa, the child and YOU to Iowa's child
protection system.

And I'm warning them, I'll run them down again
and this time I'll turn my evidence over to the
state they reside in, to a public prosecutor in
their area. Some laws were broken the last time.
And they know that.

What laws specifically?

None of your business, Greg. That's between me and them.

You posting any information that indicates Lisa has a court case
underway can be used by them to claim that someone here called Iowa and
disclosed your discussion.

YOU'D believe that before you'd believe the truth.

Take the Christine's case. You KNOW that they were sabotaged by their
own "antiCPS" 'friends,' do you not?

Well, trust me, someone did something similar, pretending to befriend" a
poster her and later turned that person in to CPS, secretly...but not
secretly enough.

Kane wrote
We've discussed it privately before.

Not you and I.

I said "And they know that." "We've discussed it privately before."

In that order with no breaks. You cut it into separate pieces and
pretend I meant you.

You have to be scared ****less Lisa is going to find out what you just
did here.

There goes your plan and your comfortable berth if she finds out.

You better find a way to tell her so that it doesn't look so bad before
your "buddy" does, because that buddy is far smarter and more vicious
that YOU, asshole, and will use you without a moments conscience.

Kane wrote
Lisa deserves more of a chance than YOU
are now giving her, you low life creep.

Kane wrote
You wouldn't last five more minutes as her
acting attorney, which it appears you are
trying to do, from the point the judge
discovers you are openly discussing
the case out of court.
Stop discussing her case, if that is what
you are doing, in this open forum.

The small aspects described present absolutely
no violation of privacy for the child or family.

That you have called the caseworker a perjure publicly?

Dummy, if the prosecutor learns of this kiss Lisa's case goodbye.

YOU are proof, and YOU did it again, that there IS a danger to this
family, and it's YOU.

That's ALL the prosecutor has to do. Just reveal what you said here.

As such, my first amendment rights to expose
corruption in government would certainly
outweigh the hazards involved.

Three years I've watched an ego twisted narcissistic little prick
continually turn the pain of a child and her mother and their loss into
HIS issue.

And there it is again. Unless YOU are the child's parent, unless YOU are
married to Lisa and were at the time of the removal, YOU sir, were not,
and barely are NOW, part of the case and having YOUR first amendment
rights denied.

Unless this is a criminal case you are involved in, there is NO
CORRUPTION ISSUES INVOLVED.

If the worker lied, prove it. Don't just babble this "corruption"
bull****. Judges get bored to tears with this **** instead of good
pleadings based on facts.

It must bear on the case. It must be a deliberate lie, not a mistake. It
must be done for malicious reasons, or the judge will put it where it
belongs; in the dustbin.

For **** sake, YOU aren't acting as Lisa's attorney I hope. Oh god. Poor
Lisa.

Pull on a witness or the prosecutor what you have pulled on me in this
post today, Greg, and YOU could end up in jail for a few hours or days
to help you understand what PERJURY and contempt really are.

Kane wrote
If you win, and the child is returned (which
for you I count as a loss to the child and you)
THEN is time enough to post your victory
chant and tell story on how you defeated
the ugly demon of CPS.

We can hardly wait, but for [REDACTED]
sake we will wait, unless you are stupid,
OR YOU ARE TRULY VICIOUS AND WANT
[REDACTED] TO LOSE AGAIN...

...all so you can keep saying how evil those
CPS caseworkers and the state of Iowa are.
Tsk, Greg. You have NO morals at all, do you?

If it's a violation of privacy for me to tell
how I personally nailed the caseworkers
for telling lies, then I stand ready for charges.

You didn't "tell how" you did it, you simply claimed it.

And you'll not be so brave when you get thrown in with Bubbah if the
court finds out what you are doing in this ng and do a little contempt
time.

Tell us you were not advised by the court to NOT discuss this case out
of the courtroom.

I could have been much more specific
but I kept to much more general statements
for some of the reasons you cite.

But you called a witness a perjurer. You accused the prosecutor of
"malicious prosecution."

Just how stup....no wait, you've never answered that question before,
except by example, so what's the point of asking again. I'll get the
same answer as always: blatantly displayed stupidity.

Are you saying that my statements have
been precise and detailed enough to comprise
a violation of privacy laws and thus are
not protected under the first amendment?

Yes, exactly. You are yelling fire in a crowded theater and it's not
your theater, there IS not fire, and if there is one eventually it will
be one YOU SET.


Nice try.

No, no trying to it. It's all too easy with you. You are so unbelievably
stupid

I don't even KNOW Lisa personally, but I care more for her and her
child's reunion to not continue this conversation with you and encourage
you to shut the **** up about the case and your rights and your gallant
challenges, and your claims of perjury, and your innuendo and statements
about prosecutorial misconduct by malicious prosecution.

Have you ANY IDEA what you could be letting yourself in for, and the
complications arising because of the risks your own buddies will do you in?

Land of the FREE and Home of the BRAVE, remember?

Do I ever. Land of the Free to be as stupid as they wish, but NOT to pay
the price if it hurts others, and home of Bravely stupid who put OTHER'S
LIVES ON THE LINE SO THEY CAN LOOK heroic.

You are a ****ant, sir.

Good luck with those explanations of how caseworkers
who tell lies on the witness stand are the good guys,
the lies are "noble" and for the good of the children..

Good luck making that claim fly, dummy. I made all my comments on why
workers do not give out information freely and misdirect if pressed,
BEFORE YOU EVEN MENTIONED COURT.

After that point you cannot find me defending perjury, Greg, no matter
how hard you tried.

Is this your idea of morality?

If you create me in a model that I do not fit you may accuse me of
anything, but it does not make it true, nor does it support your
credibility by so doing.

No wonder I don't fit!

No, you don't fit because you lie, just as you did in trying to make out
that I support perjury under oath in court (the poster involved here was
not, apparently, in court....if I am wrong, then it's by not knowing all
the particulars).

You don't fit because you would risk AGAIN the mother and child bond and
yet another horrible loss for them.

You don't fit because you post comments that make it appear that
everything comes back to you...that YOU are the injured party...that YOU
have rights denied...that the issue is about YOU.

That's why you don't fit. You are not moral. Not ethical. You lie. And
you are manipulative and cruel.

Sadly, you may not even be aware of it. Maybe you should ask, unless
Lisa is a masochist.

Have you told her you are discussing this with us on this newsgroup?

Kane


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

You claim the snitches broke laws but when asked
which laws they broke you assert that is
none of my business??

You pretend you are the anti-snitch?

ROFL!

Greegor wrote:
You claim the snitches broke laws

Include my comments so that we can see if that is in fact what I did. I
recall no such claim by me.

but when asked
which laws they broke you assert that is
none of my business??

Again: Include my comments so that we can see if that is in fact what I
did. I recall no such claim by me.

You pretend you are the anti-snitch?

Your comment is pointless since it's impossible to judge if you are
addressing something I actually said, or making it up as you so lyingly
do, so much of the time.


ROFL!


Your laughter would be at yourself. You allow no continuity in the flow
of the exchanges, and it becomes obvious to any reader, myself included,
that you do this to avoid being called out for lies.

In fact if you fully attributed my comments you'd have nothing to accuse
me of.

You are simply harassing for the sake of it. Like any troll.

Do you remember my question to YOU? The one about the Christines and the
use of lethal force to take a child from state custody?

Do you recall how frequently I cited and quoted your comments that led
me to ask that question?

That's the difference between us, Greg. Ethics and honesty are mine. And
you have none.

You demonstrate it constantly.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)