| Note to greegor preceeding bobb.....was.....| THE FIX IS IN!.....was..... Oppps....Correction

On Mon, 31 May 2004 01:19:05 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
I'll relieve the extreme anxiety you expressed some time back at my
posting protocols wherein I broke topic threads....though I fully
attrituted to avoid confusion.

I do this because of my extraordinary concern for a friend in
duress.

Here is why I have to do the occasional breakage:

A google posting error message (unrelated to my mail reader or
browser);

"Unable to retrieve message "

That means I get a blank form to fill, with no quoted message text,
no
subject, no addies. I fill them in by cut and paste, all to
maintain
as much thread integrety as possible.

See what I mean about your ignorance?

I hope this hopes to alleviate your anxiety and concern, Your
friend,
Kane

On Sat, 29 May 2004 08:22:49 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


"Doan" wrote in message
...

LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy. Thanks for
providing
the fun, Kane. I hope Doug is patient with you.

Doan

On 25 May 2004, Kane wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:05:10 -0400, "Doug"
wrote:

...fails again, on the following point:

"diligent" is a word one uses for casual descriptions. It is
imprecise
to the extreme. It has NO place in a legal document or
preceedings, as
the reviews of states are. It is inexact and would NOT be
tolerated as
a deciding factor for anything but a loose description in
academic
research. As usual, Duplicitious, you are busy with the
bull****.

You can see in later posts, Kane reversed himself on 'diligence'.

You are mistaken.

Diligence, in law, applies to more than just CPS..... and applies
to
all
officers of the court in both civil and criminal proceedings and
contract
law.

Could be.

Would you mind introducing some supporting evidence for your claim
that is related to the issue under consideration....the absense of
any
language in the law under discussion that uses the term "diligent
efforts?"

And then we can move on to showing that where actually used, it
either
has explicit tasks included in the content language, or is resolved
in
court, should that need arise, as it should in these cases.

An actual fact would be of such great help. Neither you or Doug has
shown where the claim that the LAW calls for "diligent efforts" has
been proven.

Here are are few excerpts frm case law but you can do your own
reseach to
explain diligence.....

Thank you. And why should I. I am not the one making the claim the
states failed because of their "diligent efforts" failure. Dug is.
Apparently you are carrying his water now. That's nice. It sure
doesn't increase my workload any, and in fact will provide comic
relief...I'm sure.

Not only is diligence not explained, it is NOT in the law under
question here as the state having broken according to reviewers.

The wording plainly allows for an extremely wide lattitude of
judgement call on the part of the state....and we still don't know,
outside of the cases where NOTHING was done (and how do we even know
the client admitted there were living relatives....or knew themselves
on the other side of her "family" the guy that plugged her for money,
or a couple of lines he gave her to get her in the mood), **** you
people are lowlives.

There could a handful of valid reasons the state could NOT do any
diligent effort. Well, I suppose they could run out side and shout and
advertise in the New York Times personal section, but I've a hunch a
number of folks would NOT come arunnin' since they never heard of the
mother before. This is a problem in support enforcement and folks like
you scream your head off when a man is fingered by the women and the
state won't go to the expense of do the DNA on him.

Doggett, 505 U.S. at 565. The
middle ground between diligent prosecution and bad-faith delay is
government
negligence in bringing an accused to trial. Id.

And the circumstances in all court cases are WEIGHED to come to such
conclusions.

Do you remember the thrust of my argument on this terminology....THAT
IT WOULD TAKE COURT CASES TO DETERMINE AND BY DAMN AS A TAX PAYER I'M
WRITING AND CALLING AND EMAILING MY REPRESENTATIVES DEMANDING IT IN MY
STATE.

Or, is it that you have decided you are my friend now, and offer these
to prove my very point and put Dug in his place down that weasel bolt
he maintains so well?

Whatever the minimum requirement of diligence, it cannot be a purely
private
evaluation of the availability of the testimony or the likelihood of
relief
from the court. Such a standard would seriously impair the important
goal of
finality that the diligence requirement serves. See United States v.
Ugalde,
861 F.2d 802, 808 (5th Cir. 1988)

So, counselor, give us your best shot at an analysis and how this
applies, ex parte the COURT, to explain the validity of the REVIEWER
using such language to fail a state.

United States v. Kobrosky, Defendants presented an affidavit
demonstrating
that they conducted a diligent search, but were unable to locate the
videotape. There was no evidence that the videotape was lost or
destroyed in
bad faith. In light of the defendants' diligent, but ultimately
unsuccessful
search, it was proper for the district court to consider the evidence
offered by the parties concerning the contents of the videotape,
viewed in
the light most favorable to Mr. Powell. See Fed. R. Evid. 1004.

Yet another use of term NOT in the law, but in the court. And exactly
where does it say what actions constituted a "diligent" search. And
had they found in a moment would they have been not so blessed by the
term. Or if they saw immediate evidence it was burned and made NO
efforts at all would they be judged remiss in NOT making diligent
efforts?

Get my drift here.

Dugs quote and constantly squawking "diligent efforts, diligent
efforts, diligent efforts, awk" is nothing but farting in church, if
anyone is here that can think, in this particular temple of Dug
worship.

F.2d 8, 11 (5th Cir. 1991). Anderson also argues that the authorities
failure to exercise due diligence implicates his rights under the Due
Process Clause of the United States

No finding. How useful.

You have proven my statement that this word does NOT belong in LAW but
in the courtroom only . Because with it will be arguments and a
finding, or a refusal to any finding, or a refusal to hear (ala the
Supremes) of the details of what the plaintiff did or didn't do
exactly....ONLY THEN CAN A JUDGE FIND FAILURE OF DILIGENCE,.

Not some, dare I say "jackleg" federal pencil twirler, using it do
deny the return of billions of tax dollars to my state for child
protection funding.

Reviewers are not sitting judges...just overblown clerks.

499 U.S. 467, 498 , 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1472, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991)
(recognizing "the principle that petitioner must conduct a reasonable
and
diligent investigation

No finding, no details of task involved, or energy expended. YOU are
building MY argument very nicely. I think I hear teeth nashing off in
the distance. This was MY VERY CLAIM...it will take the courts to
settle this problem of "failure of the states to diligently ...etc. "

2244(b)(2)(B), A review of Boshears' claim shows that all the
evidence he
would now offer to prove his innocence was readily available to him
when he
litigated his first habeas petition. In fact, in his initial federal
habeas
petition, he claimed that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel
based on his attorney's failure to undertake a pretrial investigation
that
would have uncovered this evidence which "was available and should
have been
and would have been discovered had [Boshears' defense] counsel simply
looked
or inquired." [7] He admits that this evidence could have been
discovered
through the exercise of due diligence. Thus, leave to file a second
habeas
motion based on this claim must be denied pursuant to §
2244(b)(2)(B)(i).

And noticed that he included "looked or inquired" but not how much and
were. This is empty of sufficient detail. On the other hand an
attorney does not, likely in this case, have to go far for the
information. Just to the files and records.

Do you know that one of the first things a PS worker does when they
have a new client? The do a quite records check in house for their
state. If the client is recent immigree to the state they ask for
courtesy from other state, but don't do it often or get results often.

So if there is no record that lists other people that can in turn be
contacted or checked upon for another level of records check, there
has been SOME EFFORT, and may in fact be diligent if no other evidence
of relatives is forthcoming from the client.

Id. See also Brown v. United States, 653 F.2d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1981)
(holding that, in a malicious prosecution action under Texas law,
malice may
be inferred from the lack
of probable cause or the conclusion that the government acted in
reckless
disregard of an individual's
rights). Further, the "requirement of diligent inquiry imposes an
affirmative duty on the potential plaintiff
to proceed with a reasonable investigation in response to an adverse
event."
Pacheco v. Rice, 966
F.2d 904, 907 (5th Cir. 1992).

And doubtless what is "diligent inquiry" for the actions mentioned may
in fact be available in law and policy for the agency involved. and
still. you have offeren NONE of the court transcript to see if the
what is used to make a finding.

Did this result in a finding of guilty or innocent. We don't know. And
if guilty on which of these points in the complaint.

As usual, you and those like you here make assertions based on
insufficient evidence, and assume convictions where there may have
been none, on grounds that are not clear.

It's the old "founded for clutter" bull**** you pull off, when in
fact, "clutter" was down at number fifteen in a tabulation of serious
serious offenses against the child...but the nice bpu ain't sharing
that with the nice anti CPS folks...as it would, as we said in the
60s, BUM THEIR ****ING TRIP...to hear the truth and the whole truth.

You left a lot out then demanded I PROVE by evidence (which I've
already shown missing with OTHER words in the place of "diligence" in
the law) what diligence means by doing a search.

I've done the search already you addled brained twit.

I put it here not more than a couple of days ago.

I posted the URL so YOU could go look. I demanded that Doug provide
evidence of his claim that due diligence is lawful for "review"
criteria, and he has come up empty, and your brain bucket under his
arm, it now appears.

What ARE you doing in this mess besides making it worse for him.

Go to the damded PDF file URL I provided, open the doc, read it from
head to tow and make your fight on the basis of the law itself.

Argue the maning of "reasonable" the actual wording. Let's discuss
what is reasonable and what is diligent with some descriptions of how
much and what kind of effort would constitute either.

Squawking "diligent,diligent,diligent,diligent,diligent, " over and
over again with crap like you just posted is making you and Dug look
pretty damned empty headed and of questionable credibility...to say
the least.

And since Dug has put the fear of suit for slander and libel in me of
course I cannot say he is unethical and immoral, now can I, even if he
were.

You are miserable wretchs caught again and again in your indefensible
attacks on an agency that is DENIED the right to fight back by law and
by resourse use controls.

You are cowards, and ****s, in my book. And will be until you wake up
to the truth of your own ****ty arguments, and focus on the few
instances where CPS DOES actually commit crimes and go after those
speciifically.

YOU have NEVER seen me defend a conviction of a CPS employee from any
level, nor excuse obvious provable lies or malfeasance.

The most I have done is explain when you and Dug lie and others lie
lie lie.

Your are a dog turd rotting in the sun, which I am happy to part the
clouds of ignorance for exposure and melting power.

Grow the **** up.

Kane






I have cited and posted the URL to view the law as it reads. I
trust
Doug at least is pouring over it trying to find a wandering
"diligent"
and running smack dab head on into "reasonable" efforts a few
times,
as I did.

But then neither "reasonable" or the ever alusive "diligent" has
any
definition, though case law might help. Me at any rate, probably
not
you, as either, when defined, are going to include task specific
definition that I have been asking for but not getting.

Or would you rather I just shut the **** up so this failure on both
your parts blows over more quickly and you twits can go on with
your
phony legal expertise and logically superior debating tactics with
more freedom to misled and misdirect?

bobb

Thank you for your thoughful objective contribution.

Kane


snbi to the end

Grow the [e.d.] up.

Rant and rave and show us how to be adult like you??

On 2 Jun 2004 09:29:59 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Grow the [e.d.] up.

Rant and rave and show us how to be adult like you??

I do not judge people by their use of foul language. In fact some of
the nicest and more responsible folks I've known use it.

What I DO judge them on is the appropriateness of their language.

The circumstances. The character or behavior of the person they are
directing it at.

Have you noticed that I am highly selective.

Your first assumption, of course, believing yourself a paragon of
ethics, morality, and responsibility...step parent and paramour wise,
is the I misdirect my foul language.

You may, in fact I urge you to, apply the intensity of my obscenities
to the level of filth I believe I am addressing.

Mostly it would be in direct relation to the damange I believe the
claimant is doing or attempting to do.

Never assume I just babble off the top of my head as you and the bobb
bobb seem so prone to do.

I consider bobb bobb, for instance, intelligent and essentially well
meaning. He does NOT, as Dug claimed (more lubricant, obviously)
present interesting issues in a thoughtful manner.

I find I am much harder on the intelligent than the vapid, useless,
obviously psychologically and socially impaired.

I thought at first you were up to my measure on that.....notice how
I've deescalated the use of obscenities when addressing you? R R R R R

You are a small nasty minded brute that abuses children and uses
women. Why don't you go buy some rope and take up orgiastic self
strangulation?

Mother and child would be so much better off without you.

Kane

On 2 Jun 2004 09:29:59 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Grow the [e.d.] up.

Rant and rave and show us how to be adult like you??

I do not judge people by their use of foul language. In fact some of
the nicest and more responsible folks I've known use it.

What I DO judge them on is the appropriateness of their language.

The circumstances. The character or behavior of the person they are
directing it at.

Have you noticed that I am highly selective.

Your first assumption, of course, believing yourself a paragon of
ethics, morality, and responsibility...step parent and paramour wise,
is the I misdirect my foul language.

You may, in fact I urge you to, apply the intensity of my obscenities
to the level of filth I believe I am addressing.

Mostly it would be in direct relation to the damange I believe the
claimant is doing or attempting to do.

Never assume I just babble off the top of my head as you and the bobb
bobb seem so prone to do.

I consider bobb bobb, for instance, intelligent and essentially well
meaning. He does NOT, as Dug claimed (more lubricant, obviously)
present interesting issues in a thought manner.

I find I am much harder on the intelligent than the vapid, useless,
obviously psychologically and socially impaired.

I thought at first you were up to my measure on that.....notice how
I've deescalated the use of obscenities when addressing you? R R R R R

You are a small nasty minded brute that abuses children and uses
women. Why don't you go buy some rope and take up orgiastic self
strangulation?

Mother and child would be so much better off without you.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On 2 Jun 2004 09:29:59 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote:

Grow the [e.d.] up.

Rant and rave and show us how to be adult like you??

I do not judge people by their use of foul language. In fact some of
the nicest and more responsible folks I've known use it.

What I DO judge them on is the appropriateness of their language.

The circumstances. The character or behavior of the person they are
directing it at.

Have you noticed that I am highly selective.

Your first assumption, of course, believing yourself a paragon of
ethics, morality, and responsibility...step parent and paramour wise,
is the I misdirect my foul language.

You may, in fact I urge you to, apply the intensity of my obscenities
to the level of filth I believe I am addressing.

Mostly it would be in direct relation to the damange I believe the
claimant is doing or attempting to do.

Never assume I just babble off the top of my head as you and the bobb
bobb seem so prone to do.

I consider bobb bobb, for instance, intelligent and essentially well
meaning. He does NOT, as Dug claimed (more lubricant, obviously)
present interesting issues in a thoughtful manner.

I find I am much harder on the intelligent than the vapid, useless,
obviously psychologically and socially impaired.

I thought at first you were up to my measure on that.....notice how
I've deescalated the use of obscenities when addressing you? R R R R R

You are a small nasty minded brute that abuses children and uses
women. Why don't you go buy some rope and take up orgiastic self
strangulation?

Mother and child would be so much better off without you.

Kane

The name calling and foul language detracts from anything you say, Kane.
It's also somewhat annoying to read through 'garbage' to see if you are
making a point.

You might not have noticed...but I do think most of us are bright enough to
respond to a point, either in support or opposition, in a much more direct
manner.. and most often the responses are more informative... not
personal.

I'm not suggesing anyone change their mannerisms... that would take all the
fun out of it.

bobb

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:36:55 -0500, "bobb"
wrote:


"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On 2 Jun 2004 09:29:59 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Grow the [e.d.] up.

Rant and rave and show us how to be adult like you??

I do not judge people by their use of foul language. In fact some
of
the nicest and more responsible folks I've known use it.

What I DO judge them on is the appropriateness of their language.

The circumstances. The character or behavior of the person they are
directing it at.

Have you noticed that I am highly selective.

Your first assumption, of course, believing yourself a paragon of
ethics, morality, and responsibility...step parent and paramour
wise,
is the I misdirect my foul language.

You may, in fact I urge you to, apply the intensity of my
obscenities
to the level of filth I believe I am addressing.

Mostly it would be in direct relation to the damange I believe the
claimant is doing or attempting to do.

Never assume I just babble off the top of my head as you and the
bobb
bobb seem so prone to do.

I consider bobb bobb, for instance, intelligent and essentially
well
meaning. He does NOT, as Dug claimed (more lubricant, obviously)
present interesting issues in a thoughtful manner.

I find I am much harder on the intelligent than the vapid, useless,
obviously psychologically and socially impaired.

I thought at first you were up to my measure on that.....notice how
I've deescalated the use of obscenities when addressing you? R R R
R R

You are a small nasty minded brute that abuses children and uses
women. Why don't you go buy some rope and take up orgiastic self
strangulation?

Mother and child would be so much better off without you.

Kane

The name calling and foul language detracts from anything you say,
Kane.
It's also somewhat annoying to read through 'garbage' to see if you
are
making a point.

So, are you saying that you will believe me more if I don't swear? How
is it that you consistently defy that when I do post without swearing?

You might not have noticed...but I do think most of us are bright
enough to
respond to a point, either in support or opposition, in a much more
direct
manner.. and most often the responses are more informative... not
personal.

R R R R....you ain't read The Plant and greegor much, now have you?

I'm not suggesing anyone change their mannerisms...

Then the purpose of your post escapes me. Care to tell me what it is
then?

that would take all the
fun out of it.

Ah, yah exposed me. Dernyah.

bobb bobb. If I had to take you feeble minded, thinking disabled,
moral and ethical cretins seriously ALL the time I'd go out of my
friggin' mind.

Take greegor for instance. Please rimshot.

R R R R R ,

bobb

Kane