WBYAGTHT, or ...

Greegor wrote:
You claim the snitches broke laws

Kane wrote
Include my comments so that we can see if that is in fact what I did. I
recall no such claim by me.
(To see this claim by Kane, use your browser to search
for "None of your business" further down or just read on
to see the full context.)

On June 6th (two days ago) Kane wrote
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.

What the hell does your "ability to pay for detective work"
have to do with it? I could pay for that redeeming cans!

Wouldn't the issue be whether or not
you DID pay for such services?

OK, I get your veiled threat to be an informer
but why are you so desperate to try to
shift responsibility for that to somebody else?

How many readers do you really think can't
figure out that YOU are so neurotic and
snitchy that it's a PATHOLOGY?

You are the pathological snitch that teachers and
cops all recognize as more of a problem than what
the snitch reports.

Kane wrote
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.

Have you strangled yourself yet?

Kane wrote
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.

And of course you know what other people
are doing on their end of the internet because
of your Omnicient Megalomania right?

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.

You're the big "psy ops" and disinformation intrigue guy, so
of course you imagine that amount of double think
on the part of grassroots citizens activism? Or are you
practicing your special skills?

Don't you think you might just be a bit too
full of yourself and melodramatic for the real world?

Kane wrote
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.

Here's where you said that laws were broken
when somebody snitched, but you never
explained what laws you were talking about.
You said it was none of my business what
laws were broken when this snitching took place.

How could such broken laws not be my business?

I'll remind you this is the USA, not the old USSR.

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

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

Kane wrote
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.

Greg wrote
What laws specifically?

Kane wrote
None of your business, Greg. That's between me and them.
You posting any information that indicates [REDACTED]
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.

NOW who's part of the "black helicopter" crowd?
This is a conspiracy theory par excellence!

Greg wrote
You pretend you are the anti-snitch?

Kane wrote
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.

See above quote of your post posing as anti-snitch.

Greg wrote
ROFL!

Kane wrote
Your laughter would be at yourself.

You attempt to describe the nature of someone else's laughter?
No Megalomania there!

Kane wrote
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.

Right, I am an evil poster because I didn't requote your ad homs
and non sequiturs... and this isn't a whiny comment HOW exactly??

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

See above quote of you.
How has my ability to accuse you of being what you are diminished now?

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

Whereas you are a master troll right?

Kane wrote
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?

I already acknowledged that you are a master troll. (Master baiter?)

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

Self proclaiming your virtue and your opponents lack of same?
Gosh, that is a tactic nobody ever saw before (sic).

Kane wrote
You demonstrate it constantly.

But if I snipped this drivel you'd whine that I was dishonest??
Doesn't that imply that at some point I was not dishonest?

Your assertion of a totality, an absolute state, is the giveaway.
You just logically proved your OWN dishonesty!

Kane you really ARE your own worst enemy.

Greegor wrote:
Greegor wrote:
You claim the snitches broke laws

Kane wrote
Include my comments so that we can see if that is in fact what I did. I
recall no such claim by me.
(To see this claim by Kane, use your browser to search
for "None of your business" further down or just read on
to see the full context.)

'bout time. 0:-

On June 6th (two days ago) Kane wrote
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.

What the hell does your "ability to pay for detective work"
have to do with it? I could pay for that redeeming cans!

Ah, but you don't know what I pay with? Friends help friends.

Wouldn't the issue be whether or not
you DID pay for such services?

I suppose.

OK, I get your veiled threat to be an informer
but why are you so desperate to try to
shift responsibility for that to somebody else?

No, that's not what it was and you know. I had to do with clarifying for
the person or persons that you consider buddies, and putting them on
notice that pulling their snitch right on YOU and LISA isn't going to
happen.

How many readers do you really think can't
figure out that YOU are so neurotic and
snitchy that it's a PATHOLOGY?

You have done it again. I point out that snitches from YOUR crowd took
down another bio-parent in this ng, I point out the I contacted the
afterward and warned them there would be consequences should it happen
again.

YOU pop on the ngs spilling the beans about what took place in the
courtroom, and I let you know that was not smart and that despite my
lack of respect for you I did not feel that Lisa deserved you or the
****ants that snitched.

Where did you get that I was snitching? You have it backwards.

You are the pathological snitch that teachers and
cops all recognize as more of a problem than what
the snitch reports.

Then speak to your friends from these ngs stupid.

Kane wrote
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.

Have you strangled yourself yet?

I see you are ignoring that it was your crowd that pulled off a snitch.

You seem to forget the Christine's as well and how they were set up to
be the fall guys for the little pack of ****ants in Oregon that set them
up to be "victims" of CPS, doing ALL THE THING YOU AND OTHER ****ANTS
HERE have recommended. INCLUDING THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE.

You seem completely unable to follow the content of ascps and what
people say and mean.

Kane wrote
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.

And of course you know what other people
are doing on their end of the internet because
of your Omnicient Megalomania right?

No. I know the watch and that you know they watch. And that you contact
them, and they you, from time to time. I know also that you are fool
they will use and throw away like they did the Christines, as though
they were used toilet paper.

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.

You're the big "psy ops" and disinformation intrigue guy,

Nope. I spent a long time doing analytical work. That's all.

so
of course you imagine

Estimates aren't "imagination," though we used to joke that we were the
crystal ball unit.

that amount of double think
on the part of grassroots citizens activism?

Actually the trick is to see through the double TALK the self deluded
and often wrong spout.

Or are you
practicing your special skills?

You'll have to explain.

Don't you think you might just be a bit too
full of yourself and melodramatic for the real world?

Nope. The sanctity of the family is important to me. Whether Lisa buys
your **** or not I do not approve of family destruction and YOUR ****ant
friends have destroyed families that have come here.

Kane wrote
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.

Here's where you said that laws were broken
when somebody snitched, but you never
explained what laws you were talking about.

Nor will I.

You said it was none of my business what
laws were broken when this snitching took place.

That's right. Your own poor morals and worse ethical choices make it
important that YOU discover what they are for yourself. As long as you
refuse to believe me you are vulnerable. I can do nothing about that
beyond telling you the risk is there.

What YOU do with it is entirely up to you.

How could such broken laws not be my business?

Because they did not concern you. Why would you think they did?

I'll remind you this is the USA, not the old USSR.

I'll remind you that this is the USA where we have some privacy left. Yo
may NOT demand information from me like a commissar.

Well, you can, but you can't get it.

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

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

Kane wrote
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.

Greg wrote
What laws specifically?

Kane wrote
None of your business, Greg. That's between me and them.
You posting any information that indicates [REDACTED]
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.

NOW who's part of the "black helicopter" crowd?
This is a conspiracy theory par excellence!

You are closer to them than I am. You own moral limitations keep you
from seeing what they are. I can point it out. If you can't read their
posts and see it for yourself, then you are stump stupid by way of moral
lack.

You approve of them. When you stop it you'll be able to see it for what
it is.


Greg wrote
You pretend you are the anti-snitch?

Kane wrote
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.

See above quote of your post posing as anti-snitch.

What leads you to think I'm not anti-snitch. Your friends know, trust me.

Greg wrote
ROFL!

Kane wrote
Your laughter would be at yourself.

You attempt to describe the nature of someone else's laughter?
No Megalomania there!

Should I list all the ways you assign meaning to others posted comments
that do not in fact appear in those comments unless you take them out of
context and ask a rhetorical question to change their meaning?

Kane wrote
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.

Right, I am an evil poster because I didn't requote your ad homs
and non sequiturs... and this isn't a whiny comment HOW exactly??

Nope. You are a nasty little work that is a self serving self deluding
twit. Nothing more. The rest is your dressing.

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

See above quote of you.
How has my ability to accuse you of being what you are diminished now?

Well you have accused me of being things that in the same post you
commented in a manner about things that show I am not, and that I
pointed out others were.

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

Whereas you are a master troll right?

Nope. You post harassing questions by not posting the proof of your claims.

Kane wrote
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?

I already acknowledged that you are a master troll. (Master baiter?)

That does not answer my question. And shows you to be harassing, and
nothing more.

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

Self proclaiming your virtue and your opponents lack of same?

"Your opponents?" You are elevated to using the third person now?

Gosh, that is a tactic nobody ever saw before (sic).

Why would you post an editorial error mark where there is not error,
either in spelling or grammar?

You often through words and phrases around that are nonsensical, such as
using "non sequitur" illogically.

Kane wrote
You demonstrate it constantly.

But if I snipped this drivel you'd whine that I was dishonest??

Of course. What has that to do with what I said above?

I wasn't talking about my comments, just your demonstration of dishonesty.

Doesn't that imply that at some point I was not dishonest?

You are at some point honest. Not many, but you are bound to make a
'mistake' sooner or later. 0:-

Your assertion of a totality, an absolute state, is the giveaway.

The use of "constantly" was exaggeration by literary license. If you
wish I can withdraw it and substitute, "frequently."

You just logically proved your OWN dishonesty!

By using "constantly," what you call and "absolute?"

Greg, parse your own postings for these "absolutes." You'd be amazed.

Kane you really ARE your own worst enemy.

No, I am yours. Until you do what's right by Lisa and her daughter and
stop pretending the case was about you and YOUR rights.

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)

You've now said that for somebody to snitch on me
is a crime, but you won't say how.

Never mind that there is nothing substantially
confidential to be a problem..

Is this like that crap legal statement ""threatgram""
that you said your lawyer approved?

Greegor wrote:
You've now said that for somebody to snitch on me
is a crime, but you won't say how.

No, once again you twist the meaning of my comments. This time
blatantly. Or is it that you naturally embellish?

Never mind that there is nothing substantially
confidential to be a problem..

That's not the point I made. The point was that should someone reveal to
the court that you are maligning the Prosecutor and the witnesses
publicly during a trial that could defeat your case.

I'm not arguing "substantially confidential." I'm pointing out that one
does not discuss a case outside the courtroom normally.

Is this like that crap legal statement ""threatgram""
that you said your lawyer approved?

Letters of intent are not "threats." They are descriptions of intended
legal action given certain specified events occurring.

You are embellishing again, aren't you, Greg?


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:
Kane:
You're calling your "threatgram" a "Letter of Intent"?

You are calling it a "threatgram?"

Wouldn't a lawyer approved letter of intent specify
at the least WHO it is about, and wouldn't it
ideally state more precisely WHAT the complaint is?

Yep.

What legal use do you think that a "Letter of Intent"
would have that was not properly served and
never even named the party or parties it was
addressed to? Or even specified what the
supposed transgression was?

Very little to none.

What makes you think those were not included? Are you fantasizing again?

Where did you hire this attorney anyway?

At his office.

He's been our lawyer for about 20 years.

And a very good one at that, or we wouldn't keep him.

By they way, have you a citation for my statements about a letter of intent?

If so, return the courtesy I extend you and post them here.

Thanks, pal.

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)

When your attorney "reviewed" this, what exactly
was the purpose of that, since this is absolutely
and utterly useless in any court...

And.. As I asserted before, a lawyer who participates
in such a bogus legal threat is violating ethical code.

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 11:28 am

From 1977 to a recent year, I provided help and support, as well as
advocacy to clients and care providers involved with some state child
protections agencies.

These are things I've mentioned on these newsgroups many times over the

course of my posting here.

During that time I, as one might expect, found myself faced with
occasional adversaries from both sides. I'm not known for backing down.


I was instrumental, for instance in the firing of a some CPS employees.

I was both a major claimant and witness for the state in the
termination and permanent disbarment from state government employment
for life for a management level employee. We won, he lost. even CPS
employees were glad to see him go.

That particular one, because of his prior work with criminals as a
probation officer had access to those same people in asking them to act

criminally in his behalf...and did so to myself and others involved in
his case. Property damage, dead animals on the doorstep (that is a
death threat in criminal circles) and similar actions took place in his

behalf over the six months of the investigation, and from time to time
over the years afterward.

He threatened injury and death to myself and family members as well as
to others involved in his dismissal in private conversations with me.

His promise was that we would never be able to stop looking over our
shoulder no matter how many years had passed. I believe him.

From among clients whose relatives I helped gain custody of children
out of stranger foster care I also received threats. Usually people
criminally involved hence capable of escalating to follow through.
There was occasional harassment from that quarter.

When I began posting to this and other ngs my wife and children
requested I not post under my common given name known to those people
above, but use a pseudonym to protect her and others in my family. My
children had received harassing threats during the more serious of
state actions, the hearings resulting in his being denied any future
government employment, against the manager I mentioned before.

Hence I maintain my anonymity for myself and my family, some of whom
are public people and vulnerable, by the use of the nym, Pohaku Kane. A

name I'm known by on the other side of the Pacific Rim.

After posting here for some time I came into conflict, apparently, with

some posters, and interestingly references were made to me NOT by my
name here, but by my off line real world name, and by references to
circumstances that indicated I was being watched by posters, or
associates of theirs. And, a reconnect with some of those adversaries
from the past.

References to actual real world events, such as naming certain places I

was on certain dates for certain occasions strongly supported my
suspicions they were serious threats. And a link to the thug CPS
manager was established by one individual on a newsgroup.

As one might imagine, all such incidents and information on the people
involved were collected, and placed both with my attorney and state
police in respective states.

Where the individuals, (two of them) made direct threats to me by
e-mail against my self and family, those were reported to the
respective states of residence law enforcement. Those reports, which I
recently followed up to review the status of, are still on file and
active.

I am not going to be intimidated by nor curtail my activities here in
the face of such threats, so be warned if you the reader are one of
these that wish to play with either my, or my family member's identity
in the real world, you place yourself at considerable risk with law
enforcement. And that is regardless of how much or little you are
involved with the parties in these threats. If it can be used to
locate me or mine, it is a threat of harm.

I take such actions, as do law enforcement authorities I've talked with

in three states, as direct threats of harm. Very seriously.

And I consider you a thug associate, very possibly, of those that would

possibly follow through on threats. So does law enforcement.

If you wish to initiate harassment of this kind I'll be happy to have
my attorney contact you and advise you of the risks you are taking and
the civil and criminal charges that could ensue, with a cc to your
state authorities. Others that have tried it have had such
correspondance and are no longer posting. At least not under their
original names.

This correspondance has been reviewed by my attorney.

In anticipation of you using your best judgement, have a nice day.

Kane

Greegor wrote:
When your attorney "reviewed" this, what exactly
was the purpose of that, since this is absolutely
and utterly useless in any court...

Where did you get your law degree?

And.. As I asserted before, a lawyer who participates
in such a bogus legal threat is violating ethical code.

No they aren't. Lawyers read all kinds of things that pertain to
possibly cases as evidence.

From: 0:- - view profile
Date: Thurs, Mar 2 2006 11:28 am

From 1977 to a recent year, I provided help and support, as well as
advocacy to clients and care providers involved with some state child
protections agencies.

These are things I've mentioned on these newsgroups many times over the

course of my posting here.

During that time I, as one might expect, found myself faced with
occasional adversaries from both sides. I'm not known for backing down.


I was instrumental, for instance in the firing of a some CPS employees.

I was both a major claimant and witness for the state in the
termination and permanent disbarment from state government employment
for life for a management level employee. We won, he lost. even CPS
employees were glad to see him go.

That particular one, because of his prior work with criminals as a
probation officer had access to those same people in asking them to act

criminally in his behalf...and did so to myself and others involved in
his case. Property damage, dead animals on the doorstep (that is a
death threat in criminal circles) and similar actions took place in his

behalf over the six months of the investigation, and from time to time
over the years afterward.

He threatened injury and death to myself and family members as well as
to others involved in his dismissal in private conversations with me.

His promise was that we would never be able to stop looking over our
shoulder no matter how many years had passed. I believe him.

From among clients whose relatives I helped gain custody of children
out of stranger foster care I also received threats. Usually people
criminally involved hence capable of escalating to follow through.
There was occasional harassment from that quarter.

When I began posting to this and other ngs my wife and children
requested I not post under my common given name known to those people
above, but use a pseudonym to protect her and others in my family. My
children had received harassing threats during the more serious of
state actions, the hearings resulting in his being denied any future
government employment, against the manager I mentioned before.

Hence I maintain my anonymity for myself and my family, some of whom
are public people and vulnerable, by the use of the nym, Pohaku Kane. A

name I'm known by on the other side of the Pacific Rim.

After posting here for some time I came into conflict, apparently, with

some posters, and interestingly references were made to me NOT by my
name here, but by my off line real world name, and by references to
circumstances that indicated I was being watched by posters, or
associates of theirs. And, a reconnect with some of those adversaries
from the past.

References to actual real world events, such as naming certain places I

was on certain dates for certain occasions strongly supported my
suspicions they were serious threats. And a link to the thug CPS
manager was established by one individual on a newsgroup.

As one might imagine, all such incidents and information on the people
involved were collected, and placed both with my attorney and state
police in respective states.

Where the individuals, (two of them) made direct threats to me by
e-mail against my self and family, those were reported to the
respective states of residence law enforcement. Those reports, which I
recently followed up to review the status of, are still on file and
active.

I am not going to be intimidated by nor curtail my activities here in
the face of such threats, so be warned if you the reader are one of
these that wish to play with either my, or my family member's identity
in the real world, you place yourself at considerable risk with law
enforcement. And that is regardless of how much or little you are
involved with the parties in these threats. If it can be used to
locate me or mine, it is a threat of harm.

I take such actions, as do law enforcement authorities I've talked with

in three states, as direct threats of harm. Very seriously.

And I consider you a thug associate, very possibly, of those that would

possibly follow through on threats. So does law enforcement.

If you wish to initiate harassment of this kind I'll be happy to have
my attorney contact you and advise you of the risks you are taking and
the civil and criminal charges that could ensue, with a cc to your
state authorities. Others that have tried it have had such
correspondance and are no longer posting. At least not under their
original names.

This correspondance has been reviewed by my attorney.

In anticipation of you using your best judgement, have a nice day.

Kane

Yep. Just what I wrote.

Having a lawyer review one's public utterances and give advice on them
is NOT one of the things lawyers do?

What law school did you win your degree from, Greg?

In fact, I made a few changes of my original draft at his suggestion.

So explain for us, solicitor, the following:

And.. As I asserted before, a lawyer who participates
in such a bogus legal threat is violating ethical code.

What legal threat? How is my statement bogus?

If it were, how would YOU know? You in contact with people that are
denying to you my claims?

Interesting.

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)

If you can't even name the subject of the
legal action and you post it anonymously
to some anonymous ""defendant"" then
you clearly have not properly served anybody
about anything. QED it serves NO legal purpose.

If you HAD, there would be no reason to
post it in the newsgroup.

Greegor wrote:
If you can't even name the subject of the
legal action

What legal action?

and you post it anonymously
to some anonymous ""defendant""

They know who they are and who I am.

then
you clearly have not properly served anybody
about anything.

Nothing to "serve." Public notice is sufficient in such matters. You are
not familiar with publishing announcements of circumstantial intent?

QED it serves NO legal purpose.

Yes it does. Should said John Doe or Does, act in the manner I have
defined, and we end up in court, I can have my lawyer point out they
were in fact publicly notified in a medium they are known to frequent.

If you HAD, there would be no reason to
post it in the newsgroup.

Sure there would. This is a public medium. I can chose the ones most
likely to result in the person or persons reading my statement of
circumstantial intent.

And you've never seen the range of odd things taken into evidence, have
you now?

Take that petition to the court that someone ghosted for his girl
friend.....

Or the erroneous blathering rants the House Ways and Means Committee
accepts at public hearings.

A letter describing one's awareness of circumstances that later do take
place is MORE than good evidence. It's rock solid.

I have seen CPS administrators blanch upon receiving similar. You'd have
crowed.

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 wrote
I have seen CPS administrators blanch upon receiving similar.
You'd have crowed.

Yes, and of course they are known for being the
cream of the crop of intelligencia....