Christine case...It's rolling! LMFAO

G Kane griped about "Make it a Constitutional issue".

K Yep. If it's not needed.

Isn't that an issue between the family, their attorney and the JURY?

G Something either IS or isn't a Constitutional issue.

K Gee, can I quote you?

G The only question is whether a person raises the issue.

K There is rarely a time what something is "only a question of."

G Dan suggested raising these issues on appeal.

K Yep, if it's appropriate.

G This is not ALLOWED if the issues were never raised
in the lower court.

K "never raised?"

New issues can NOT be raised on appeal
in any court of any state of the USA.

K That's not what you said earlier on this issue, nor what Bob the
Creative Constitutionalist suggests. What makes you think you have to
'file' anything with the court?

Everything that transpires in a court case is appealable. One need only
read the court transcript to pick and choose.

Nope. Can't raise a new issue on appeal. Must be timely also.

PLUS you seem to forget that many Family Law hearings are not
transcribed.
This is another example of the lawless Family Courts.
Family can't easily appeal from a transcript that doesn't exist.
CPS and the Judge KNOW that.

K Show us the statutes that says that one must file anything at all to
later appeal on a subject that came up in court.

And the circumstances where one would appeal something but not have
already brought it up in court?

G Attorneys commonly fail to
take action to "preserve appealable issues".

K What "action?"

Some kind of black scribbling on very thin pieces of flattened ground
up trees.

Kane wrote
flaunt the law to challenge the law.

flount?

Greegor wrote:
G Kane griped about "Make it a Constitutional issue".
K Yep. If it's not needed.

Isn't that an issue between the family, their attorney and the JURY?

Yep, that's why I wouldn't want to follow Bob's advice.

Of course, unless I miss my guess, Bob was referring to child custody
cases. Are there a lot of juries in those?

G Something either IS or isn't a Constitutional issue.
K Gee, can I quote you?
G The only question is whether a person raises the issue.
K There is rarely a time what something is "only a question of."
G Dan suggested raising these issues on appeal.
K Yep, if it's appropriate.
G This is not ALLOWED if the issues were never raised
in the lower court.
K "never raised?"

New issues can NOT be raised on appeal
in any court of any state of the USA.

You seem to forget, one does not have to go to the trouble, or risk,
that Bob suggests to "raise" on appeal later. Everything in the trial
can be appealed by any mention of it.

You can use the constitution on appeal without it's ever being mentioned
before. It's the content of the CASE that is the basis for the appeal
process, not a "constitutional challenge in lower court."

K That's not what you said earlier on this issue, nor what Bob the
Creative Constitutionalist suggests. What makes you think you have to
'file' anything with the court?

Everything that transpires in a court case is appealable. One need only
read the court transcript to pick and choose.

Nope. Can't raise a new issue on appeal. Must be timely also.

What don't you understand about the statement, "Everything that
transpires in a court case is appealable?"

Does it look to you like I'm claiming what you seem to think I'm claiming?

Nothing IN and from the lower court case would be "new," stupid.

All the attorney has to do is mention ANY aspect of the case, and it's
automatically available for later appeal. It does NOT have to formatted
or presented as a "constitutional issue."

Presumably nothing is exempt from that status if it can be shown to BE a
constitutional issue later.

It's the issue that is appealable, not whether or not it's constitutional.

Man, Fundy thinkers are weird.

PLUS you seem to forget that many Family Law hearings are not
transcribed.

Wrong.

This is another example of the lawless Family Courts.

Wrong.

Family can't easily appeal from a transcript that doesn't exist.
CPS and the Judge KNOW that.

And they cold appeal from a Constitutional issue brought up, by name, in
that court, where there still is no record of it by transcript?

Please explain this strange anomaly, where one kind of issue is not
recorded, because NOTHING is recorded, and yet another kind of issue IS,
though it too is not recorded, because nothing is recorded.

Did you forget your smart pills with breakfast this morning?

K Show us the statutes that says that one must file anything at all to
later appeal on a subject that came up in court.

And the circumstances where one would appeal something but not have
already brought it up in court?

G Attorneys commonly fail to
take action to "preserve appealable issues".
K What "action?"

Some kind of black scribbling on very thin pieces of flattened ground
up trees.

Yes? And this is recorded in a civil trail you claim no recorded
transcript is made how? In flaming letters on the marble walls?


Kane wrote
flaunt the law to challenge the law.

flount?

Hey, you DID take a smart pill this morning. Thanks for the correction.

On the other hand, "Flaunt" works for me.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
flaunt  /flɔnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[flawnt]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object)
1. to parade or display oneself conspicuously, defiantly, or boldly.
2. to wave conspicuously in the air.
–verb (used with object)
3. to parade or display ostentatiously: to flaunt one's wealth.
*** 4. to ignore or treat with disdain: He was expelled for flaunting
military regulations.

I draw your attention to number ***4. above.

That was my meaning, exactly.

If you are going to correct someone else's choice of terms or words, be
sure theirs don't mean what they obviously were meant to mean.

Now, can you help me with that other matter.

How bringing up a constitutional violation in court, where you claim no
records are kept, will produce evidence it was brought up later when one
wishes to go to appeal.

And for that matter, how about proving the transcripts of civil family
court trials are not made.

Are you referring to a "hearing" of some kind? A preliminary hearing to
determine if there is going to be a courtroom "trial" or "hearing for
determination of outcomes," kind of hearing?

IN the first kind, those aren't appealable.

Deciding to have a trial isn't an appealable issue.

The trial itself, of course, IS.

We've had this conversation before, and I confess I must have failed to
get through to you. You are not the most apt pupil I've ever had.

Please try to remember this time.

Some stages of a case in child welfare don't constitute a "trail" in the
sense it has appealable factors in it.

You could be thinking of those.

They might not have recorded narrative, because all the factors are in
written form already and presented to the judge.

And in fact, there is no litigation going on, just a decision whether or
not their will be.

Got that? Good. Don't forget it.

As for the TPR trial, which is the place for constitutional issues, you
don't have to say, for it to be appealable, "My child is held in slavery
by the foster care system and I invoke the 13th amendment as being
violated in his and my case."

All you have to say, to appeal it later is something on the order of,
the state placed my child wrongfully in foster care.

If the court finds against you and terminates your rights, and you can
convince the higher court, the appellate, you don't need to have
mentioned the 13th amendment earlier to bring it up when you again claim
your child was wrongfully taken.

If fact, if you insist you must have, then what you are expressly
claiming is that all trial issues would have been covered earlier...that
is no appeal process would include NEW ARGUMENT.

Now that would be kind of silly to claim.

But go ahead.

Here's how you seem to be stating it:

If you claim wrongful taking and holding of your child, but do NOT
mentioned the 13th amendment in the earlier trial, YOUR attorney at
appeal may not mention the 13th amendment (never mind he'd be insane to
do so as a logical argument) in building his case.

Am I correct in your meaning?

Please explain how the BOR is barred from use as argument and support of
argument in appeal if it has not been mentioned before in prior trial.
Get Bob the Creative Constitutionalist to assist.

This IS going to be good.

Fundy thinkers are a laugh riot.

But dangerous as hell running rampant in the population.

R R R R R R R

And in a court room? Much bigger yuks.

Though I've seen a judge or two run out of his or her sense of humor
eventually.

You need flushing, you fundies. Hop right in. I'll get the handle.

0:-

If Michael showed up in your neighborhood and
still calls you Don, that would indicate you are Don.

In newsgroups
alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
Subject: Does anyone remember this?

Kane wrote
My whole neighborhood, mostly retired military, many from my own field
of the profession, and many retired law enforcement, and my
brother-in-law, a retired U.S. Marshall, are watching all this with
great interest. My little sister, his wife, kind of dotes on me, so she
keeps him interested, if he weren't already.

1. This could of course just be some hogwash
you spew out of some sort of fear.

2. I wonder what all of these ""connected"" people would think
if they looked at how you posted public obscenity for
over a year (and bragged about it), called an elderly woman
a (c-word) over and over again, harassed people at length, etc.
You lead a sort of "Walter Mitty" life of posting abuse and
hiding behind anonymity and "moral and ethical" lies.
You voluntarily created your own threat.

3. They probably would look at you as their pet - mental case.
If you had a friend or family member with Tourettes Coprolalia
who yells the n-word in a crowd of black people, just how
long would you keep defending this person from the
inevitable result of their instigation?

Greegor wrote:
If Michael showed up in your neighborhood and
still calls you Don, that would indicate you are Don.

You'd have to provide a bit more logical argument to support that
claim.

Your name is not "Butthead," actually, is it Greg?

Despite all indications here to that presumption.

If I showed up in your neighbor hood and still called you "Butthead"
would that mean you are not Greg?

So if Michael shows up in my neighborhood and calls me "Greg" does that
make me Greg?

Just how stupid are you, Doug...oh wait, .... that's not logical at
all, no matter what I use for a name for you how does that change you
actual name, stupid?

I'm Kane, here, there, and everywhere.

Have you ever stopped to figure out what it would mean if I were Don
Fisher?

The risk he would take by posting here and giving good information
about CPS?

The risk to his job he'd be taking?

Think about it.

If I were he, I'd be doing a great service AND risking my job. Is that
not likely, stupid?

0:-

Greegor wrote:
In newsgroups
alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.parenting.spanking,alt.support.foster-parents
Subject: Does anyone remember this?

Kane wrote
My whole neighborhood, mostly retired military, many from my own field
of the profession, and many retired law enforcement, and my
brother-in-law, a retired U.S. Marshall, are watching all this with
great interest. My little sister, his wife, kind of dotes on me, so she
keeps him interested, if he weren't already.

1. This could of course just be some hogwash
you spew out of some sort of fear.

Anything is possible, Greg. Like you claiming to do child care.

2. I wonder what all of these ""connected"" people would think
if they looked at how you posted public obscenity for
over a year (and bragged about it), called an elderly woman
a (c-word) over and over again, harassed people at length, etc.

Considering they also saw her post claiming the state had not right to
intervene in the parents business when the parents had their children
hung up in church and beat naked with various objects, they though I was
far too kind.

You lead a sort of "Walter Mitty" life of posting abuse and
hiding behind anonymity and "moral and ethical" lies.
You voluntarily created your own threat.

You seem totally unconcerned with the anonymous posting of others, Greg.
Others that make lying accusations about posters here.

No, I didn't create any threat Greg. That's impossible.

3. They probably would look at you as their pet - mental case.

They haven't told me.

If you had a friend or family member with Tourettes Coprolalia
who yells the n-word in a crowd of black people, just how
long would you keep defending this person from the
inevitable result of their instigation?

For ever. Naturally. They cannot control their outbursts reliably.

No Tourettes victim instigates anything at all. Their disease does.

Now you go after Tourette's victims too?

Where will it end, Greg.

In our country words are not sufficient motive to injure or kill someone
unless those words are accompanied by actions.

My own tactics are to make sure the words aren't lost just in case the
actions take place.

It will make the result much easier for me to defend. Should I prevail.

As I'm likely to.

0:-

Two messages answered

Kane wrote
Considering they also saw her post claiming the state had not right to
intervene in the parents business when the parents had their children
hung up in church and beat naked with various objects, they though I was
far too kind.

You know, I've seen you yapping about that over and over again
like some kind of mental case for a LONG time now.

Please post a link to where she said as you described.
You wouldn't have embellished that now would you?

Greg wrote
You lead a sort of "Walter Mitty" life of posting abuse and
hiding behind anonymity and "moral and ethical" lies.
You voluntarily created your own threat.

Kane wrote
You seem totally unconcerned with the anonymous posting of others, Greg.
Others that make lying accusations about posters here.

Did they shill for the state?
Did they work for CPS?
Do they make excuses for CPS?

Do you have a problem coping with angry citizens?

Kane wrote
No, I didn't create any threat Greg. That's impossible.

Yell fire in a crowded theatre and call it free speech.
Stand in the middle of a crowd of black people and yell the n-word.
You cultivated your own threat throught great effort and
over a period of YEARS.

Greg wrote
3. They probably would look at you as their pet - mental case.

Kane wrote
They haven't told me.

Is that so amazing?

Greg wrote
If you had a friend or family member with Tourettes Coprolalia
who yells the n-word in a crowd of black people, just how
long would you keep defending this person from the
inevitable result of their instigation?

Kane wrote
For ever. Naturally. They cannot control their outbursts reliably.
No Tourettes victim instigates anything at all. Their disease does.
Now you go after Tourette's victims too?

And out of your utmost respect for black citizens
you would put them in the middle of just such a crowd?

Or you'd feign amazement they end up suffering violence?

Kane wrote
Where will it end, Greg.
In our country words are not sufficient motive to injure or kill
someone unless those words are accompanied by actions.

This is like the idiot who steps in front of a semi truck
because he has the right of way.

Kane wrote
My own tactics are to make sure the words aren't
lost just in case the actions take place.

Why ANNOUNCE IT then? More pre-emptive intimidation?
Is it like your BS "lawyer approved" legal "threatgram"?
That was a good one!

Almost as good as remotely ""diagnosing"" some
opponent as if you or ""your friend"" with qualifications
would be ethical in doing so?
For the purpose of winning an argument?

Kane wrote
It will make the result much easier for me to defend. Should I prevail.

Why would you have to defend it if you prevail?

Kane wrote As I'm likely to.

How nice for you.

Greegor wrote:
If Michael showed up in your neighborhood and
still calls you Don, that would indicate you are Don.

Kane wrote
You'd have to provide a bit more logical
argument to support that claim.

In order for Michael to show up in YOUR
neighborhood, as YOU have alleged, he would
have had to know who you really are, and he
has called you Donald since then.

How could he possibly show up in your
neighborhood if he has your name wrong?

Kane wrote
Have you ever stopped to figure out what it would mean if I were Don
Fisher?

The risk he would take by posting here and giving good information
about CPS?

What good information? You're a complete SUCKUP! And a nut case!

Kane wrote The risk to his job he'd be taking?

You're retired.

Kane wrote Think about it.

..0001 seconds of CPU time expended.

Kane wrote If I were he, I'd be doing a great service

Delusions.

Kane wrote AND risking my job.

Retired.
And a delusional nut case.

snip!

On Nov 17, 10:47 pm, "Greegor" wrote:
Two messages answered

Kane wrote

Considering they also saw her post claiming the state had not right to
intervene in the parents business when the parents had their children
hung up in church and beat naked with various objects, they though
I was
far too kind.You know, I've seen you yapping about that over and
over again
like some kind of mental case for a LONG time now.

And every time, twice that I can quickly and easily document, liar, I've
answered your question fully with both quotes and links to source posts.

You are lying again.

If you really aren't remembering my replies before to this same
question, Greg, and aren't just using a sad and hapless debating "ploy"
by asking again, then don't you think that maybe you have a little problem?

If you really don't remember, then Greg, you need some help. It sounds
organic to me. Brain deterioration. Ever work in an environment with a
lot of volatile chemicals?

Please post a link to where she said as you described.

It's been done before, more than once.

You wouldn't have embellished that now would you?

In fact I toned it down.

And Greg, the fact is, in aps, I not only answered this question fully
but it was YOU I replied to. TWICE at a minimum.

So you are a liar, and I have proof again that you simply ask such
questions to muddy and fog the issue. Or you are in serious need of help
for some brain damage or something similar.

Do that in court and some judge is going to give you a little time in
jail to think about what a lowlife scumsucker you really are.

Here's the post where I already answered your -Fern in support of
parents beating children in church question- you lying, or memory
impaired, little git:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...d1ba56e?hl=en&

And again, I answered this SAME question, but in more detail, with
direct quotes from Fern's own posted defense of the church and claiming
CPS was violating the constitution to intervene.

How many more times are you going to lie about this, Greg?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...157b082?hl=en&

She supported the beating of children, naked, in church, by church
members. Simple as that.

And it goes along with other nutso family hating bull**** from her and
support by you and other lowlifes just like you.


Greg wrote

You lead a sort of "Walter Mitty" life of posting abuse and
hiding behind anonymity and "moral and ethical" lies.
You voluntarily created your own threat.Kane wrote

You seem totally unconcerned with the anonymous posting of others,
Greg.
Others that make lying accusations about posters here.Did they
shill for the state?
Did they work for CPS?

Michael? Could be. I've always suspected it.

Dennis? Not as far as I know.

The various Bobs? I couldn't say since I don't know.

Do they make excuses for CPS?

Dodging again?


Do you have a problem coping with angry citizens?

Do I appear to have a problem coping with you and Michael, and the many
that came before?

Kane wrote

No, I didn't create any threat Greg. That's impossible.Yell fire in
a crowded theatre and call it free speech.
Stand in the middle of a crowd of black people and yell the n-word.
You cultivated your own threat throught great effort and
over a period of YEARS.

Well, I've not done your "crowd of black people" yell here. All I've
done is expose liars, child abusers, and sick little creeps like you.

Greg wrote

3. They probably would look at you as their pet - mental case.Kane
wrote

They haven't told me.Is that so amazing?

Greg wrote

If you had a friend or family member with Tourettes Coprolalia
who yells the n-word in a crowd of black people, just how
long would you keep defending this person from the
inevitable result of their instigation?Kane wrote

For ever. Naturally. They cannot control their outbursts reliably.
No Tourettes victim instigates anything at all. Their disease does.
Now you go after Tourette's victims too?

[[[ I note a peculiar character handling glitch in the new google reply
format. Occasionally not only does it drop an attribution mark, but it
also loses the "break" or what we used to call a carraige return, and
the sentence in question gets joined with the prior posters comment,
paragraphically. The sentence below was in fact tacked onto the end of
my paragraph above. I have corrected it. Watch for these if you use
google to reply. ]]]

And out of your utmost respect for black citizens
you would put them in the middle of just such a crowd?

I? YOU created the black crowd scenario. In fact I'd avoid black people
when that child was with me. Sad, but true. ON the other hand, I'd make
clear to black aquaintences of mine that the boy was afflicted with
Tourettes. Do you think black people in general are so ignorant that
they could not cope with the reality of the disease, Greg?

Or you'd feign amazement they end up suffering violence?

That's not the question you asked, nor is it in my answer.

You are deluding again.

Have you any idea how sick this makes you appear, Greg?


Kane wrote

Where will it end, Greg.
In our country words are not sufficient motive to injure or kill
someone unless those words are accompanied by actions.

This is like the idiot who steps in front of a semi truck
because he has the right of way.

You have just defended the right of violent people to injure or kill
others because they victim used WORDS.

You are one sick puppy.


Kane wrote

My own tactics are to make sure the words aren't
lost just in case the actions take place.

Why ANNOUNCE IT then? More pre-emptive intimidation?

Nope. More collection of information that both discourages violence from
others, as they have to think now of the consequences of their reply or
commentary if viewed later after they commit a violent act, should they
chose to do so.

Is it like your BS "lawyer approved" legal "threatgram"?
That was a good one!

A notice of intent from an attorney is a very serious matter, Greg. One
should not laugh. In fact a notice of intent from a person carries very
similar weight, if used later as evidence.

Almost as good as remotely ""diagnosing"" some
opponent as if you or ""your friend"" with qualifications
would be ethical in doing so?
For the purpose of winning an argument?

Well, if one is asked, then one responds.

If you don't agree that's your right to disagree.

Kane wrote

It will make the result much easier for me to defend. Should I prevail.

Why would you have to defend it if you prevail?

Non sequitur.


Kane wrote As I'm likely to.

How nice for you.

So far, so good.


Greegor wrote:
If Michael showed up in your neighborhood and
still calls you Don, that would indicate you are Don.Kane wrote

You'd have to provide a bit more logical
argument to support that claim.

In order for Michael to show up in YOUR
neighborhood, as YOU have alleged, he would
have had to know who you really are, and he
has called you Donald since then.

What he calls me is irrelevant. I have a neighborhood.

How could he possibly show up in your
neighborhood if he has your name wrong?

Yes, interesting question isn't it. That suggests he doesn't have my
name, Kane, "wrong" at all.


Kane wrote

Have you ever stopped to figure out what it would mean if I were Don
Fisher?

The risk he would take by posting here and giving good information
about CPS?

What good information? You're a complete SUCKUP! And a nut case!

That's your claim. I doubt others would agree if they were familiar with
my posts related to CPS information.

I've cited, for instance, long passages of state statutes, and policy
manual items in response to questions of how to fight CPS.

I've even answered YOUR questions in this regard, Greg.

You are lying and delusional.

I just proved that with the "fern defending churchgoing child beaters."
You can't even remember your own questions and my replies, my detailed
and source provided links to my answer to your question.

So when you make a claim as you did above that I have not provided
information, Good information, and claim I'm a suckup to CPS, you would
be most likely lying yet again, Greg.

Kane wrote The risk to his job he'd be taking?

You're retired.

No, I'm not retired.


Kane wrote Think about it.

.0001 seconds of CPU time expended.

More than you deserve.

Kane wrote If I were he, I'd be doing a great service

Delusions.

Nope. Dan seems to think I've been a great help to his families using
the information I supplied. Dan has asked me some tactical as well as
specific policy and statute questions over the years. He claims my
answers helped.



Kane wrote AND risking my job.

Retired.

I'm not retired.

And a delusional nut case.

I don't pretend questions I've asked have not been repeatedly answered,
as you have done over the years, apparently as a ploy in argument...or
because you in fact are the delusional nutcase.

Go read the --fern as apologist for church going child beaters-- Greg,
where YOU pretend I've not answered that question fully more than
once...and DIRECTLY TO YOU.

snip!

Of course. You've run out of lies for the moment.

0:-

Kane wrote
Considering they also saw her post claiming the state had not right to
intervene in the parents business when the parents had their children
hung up in church and beat naked with various objects, they though
I was far too kind.

You claimed you showed this post by Fern to your keepers.

Why is it so hard to produce a link to Fern's post that says what you
claim?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Considering they also saw her post claiming the state had not right to
intervene in the parents business when the parents had their children
hung up in church and beat naked with various objects, they though
I was far too kind.

You claimed you showed this post by Fern to your keepers.

No I didn't. You are fantasizing again.

Why is it so hard to produce a link to Fern's post that says what you
claim?

Why is it so hard for you to produce a link to that accusation you made
above?

Well, could it be because you are a liar?

As for my producing a link, are you suggesting that my quote of Fern is
a lie?

Tiny URL has somehow slipped a cog and their link no longer goes to
Fern's post. At the time it did and those that clicked it read what I
quoted. Can it be produced again. heheh...well let's see shall we. Read on.

Are you trying to pretend to claim to bull**** us that she did not post
that quoted comment?

Let's start with that lovely legal jargon that applies here, and in my
recent discussion about 'threats.'

It's called, "goes to state of mind."

http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...m3_Q8fISn4esWT

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...0270d47a15c354

Read those and try to convince us Fern is not defending churches who
beat the children of their congregation. Go ahead. I want to see this.

Then move on to these:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...057f5c3cb664a7

And of course, Fern's own post citing a news article where the language
of "suspend" and beat is clearly stated as the charges against the
church members.

Do you think she was posting that to defend the state's action against
the church members, village idiot?

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/... a7d926a0c8d0

"Hard," Greg?

Does it look hard to find and re-post Fern's posts?

I guess that would look hard to you.

Now rather than deal with the issue that she supported churches beating
children, find some small detail to argue about.

Do the Doananation Dance for us.

0:-