What if CPS caseworker brings police along?

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. .

You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

You could also be open for civil suit should a homeowner refuse entry
and be hurt in the process. You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain public figure in the
entertainment industry's people know who and were you are. Probably
just rumor.

Be polite

Sure, yah ol' dingbat. Doug uses that ploy all the time. Me, I'm
anything but polite because I'm not a smarmy liar that needs to con
people to put out my public claims and rebuttals.

I want to make SURE no one buys what I say because I'm "nice."

I want them to THINK....of course I gave up on Yew long long ago.

Stick it, Pinenut. Polite enough for yah?

http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell.
Early
advocate for families against DHS, DSS.

Never ever seek advice from such sources as above until you have
thoroughly investigated them and their principals and, principles.

Legal advice should come from a legal source. The statutes, the prior
case law findings, and lawyers to interpret. NOT THESE yahoos. Not
even lawyers on staff or retainer with them if they are not in your
state....and I'd suggest you check out their record of wins, and
failures in any case, just because you can and you should. It's YOUR
family. YOU care about it far more than any of them could.

That said, on to the subject, Salvia vulgaris:

The homeowner better not stop the cop from entering and bringing the
social worker if the cop has even the slightest suspicion...like a
neighbor says they heard child screams... of a crime in progress.

It's called "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" and it's put
some folks behind bars that tried that nonsense of denying entry you
suggest, Sugatsuga enflorescence. EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CRIME IN
PROGESS and the cop was mistaken.

The cop is not required to be RIGHT, (that would be kind of stupid in
the crime stopping business) but only required to have reasonable
cause for suspicion...and they know exactly how to do that...and make
it stick.

He or she can even hurt you to gain entry, or shoot you dead dead dead
on reasonable grounds of believing him or herself or another at risk
of serious bodily harm of fatal injury. So if "not letting them in"
should escalate to the use of physical force by the homeowner..well,
you figure it out.

These terms I use vary from state to state...you need to look up yours
if you have a serious concern you might find a police officer at your
door requesting entry.

Addressing the correspondent of The Plant:

Walk softly if a cop shows up with the worker. Know your LEGAL rights,
not the garbage peddled by these nitwits.

Most cops are kindly disposed to parents, being parents themselves
most often...but they are NOT kindly disposed to abusers. Make sure
you don't look like or act like one.

And MY legal advice is......NOTHING AT ALL....just call your attorney
and ask someone authorized to give legal advice.

If you have a question like this one The Plant tries to mislead you
about, get you to your lawyers office NOW and ask what your options
are.

This ng (and the one I'll crosspost to that is the one this should
have been in) can be the best and the worst of places to seek
information and help.

We have pimps and shills for anti CPS crusader groups that will sell
your ass and your children for a drop of blood to lubricate the wheels
of their strange machines.

We have self admitted (but they deny it) child abusers and gigolos who
will encourage you to do the WORST possible things you could do in
protecting yourself and your kids from unwarranted CPS interventions
or retrieving your children from state custody should that be needed.

We have had people here, and there's no accounting for their return or
not, that have urged others to, and claimed they would, shoot, poison,
and or, inject illegal materials on computers, and even bomb CPS
buildings with clients - parents and children in the way of harm.

We call all these, nutcases, and you won't run short of them in these
ngs.

On the other hand, we also have a small contingent of people that have
learned the CPS system, know very well how to deal with issues with
CPS successfully. Actually I think the number is probably less than
three at this time, though some foster parents that come here can also
give pretty good info.

The former, the nutsos, have had NO successes in getting findings
reversed or children returned from state custody that they posted
here, while the latter have had, Dan Sullivan more than any, a
phenomenal success record in doing both, and in some instances we've
gotten to watch the progress of these cases right here in the ng.

And The Plant called Fern?

R R R R R....

Be warned. This is someone that so hates children that It excuses even
murder of children by parents, with beatings and torture supported and
even promoted as reasonable under the US Constitution and something It
calls, a Parent's Liberty Interest in Raising Their Children.

goggle It in the archives and see.

It lies in it's posting's subject lines. It makes claims that are
easily proven false, but will NOT back down from dangerous advice that
goes with such nonsense.

In fact, I consider it an enemy of families as well...as it frequently
in past years up to the present, has tried to send folks down exactly
the wrong path into the swamp. It shills endlessly for blood dancers
that, if you fail and lose your children, they have something to
crusade about, and somemore lubrication for their wheels.

Study the Christine case to learn how they work. It's a model in what
NOT to do.

Now It will, of course, stupidly attempt to deflect attention,
probably by claiming slander...when I have NO idea what IT's real name
is.

If you aren't in trouble and don't really need help, you might find
this place entertaining by way of studying the human condition and the
machinations of some of our more, shall we say, "troubled" citizens.

You asked a legal question. Get legal advice.

Best of luck to you.

Kane

On 15 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0700, Kane
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. .

You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

Eyy, eyy ninnyboy.




--
Just Say NO to Miss Information

On 15 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0700, Kane
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. .

You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't
forget.

Eyy, eyy ninnyboy.




--
Just Say NO to Miss Information

Fern wrote
Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later.

Kane wrote
You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

Is that your legal opinion, Kane? Legal in your state?

Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution
is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right?

All hail the priesthood of the law.
The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power.

Kane wrote
You could also be open for civil suit should
a homeowner refuse entry and be hurt in the
process.

A legal opinion from Kane saying
that somebody elses legal opinion
is illegal to disseminate? Ha!

By that same logic, a parent who
totally rolls over when caseworkers
come to their door could sue you! Naa!

You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain
public figure in the entertainment
industry's people know who and were
you are. Probably just rumor.

Or intestinal gas.
Have you found a way to bottle it and
save it on your shelf along with your
yellow jars and little brown balls you rolled?

On 17 Jul 2004 12:18:33 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Fern wrote
Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later.

Kane wrote
You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state.

Is that your legal opinion, Kane?

Nope, just an opinion. My own lawyer told me so.

Legal in your state?

To tell someone not to give legal advice....sure. Is it legal to give
legal advice in your state if you are not a lawyer? If not, don't do
it. It's not in The Plant's.

Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution
is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right?

Why would I say that? Can't imagine me doing anything so stupid, but
you, on the other hand, might just be stupid enough to encourage The
Plant to NOT actually site the constitution and just babble.

It did not say "here is the law" or "go find out what the law is in
your state." Instead it risked THE OTHER PERSON'S SAFETY AND CHILD AND
FAMILY. See why I am such a millstone around the collective neck of
you evil vicious thugs?

Now take a look at that sentence of It's.

It says:
"Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later."

The first sentence provides NO caveat...such as "unless...etc....."
And there one hell of a lot of "unless" and "etc." when a sworn law
enforcement officer presents him or herself at your door and requests
entry.

The correct, and NON-legal advice should be, "ask politely if the
officer has a warrant to serve to to see it." I think even the nutso
anti government anit cps crusader organizations know to do that.

Now look at the next sentence. "Grounds for lawsuit later."

The Brazil Nut doesn't have the slighest idea of what constitutes
grounds for a lawsuit. .... especially in that the homehomer cannot
know, while reading that piece of LEGAL ADVICE, if such a situation
will even present itself.

Do YOU know the kind of advice Ruth and Brian Christine got.....and
that their chidren are being raise by their parents now, and both are
in jail for many years because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE? And Brian
damn near murdered someone, because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE?

That is EXACTLY what nailed them.

All hail the priesthood of the law.

Sonny, you couldn't drive three blocks and not get killed without "the
priesthood of the law." The traffic laws require enforcment to work,
legislation to determine them, and a judicial to apply sanctions
against having broken them.

What system would YOU suggest to replace LAW?

Law are nothing more than the rules we make between us to stay alive,
less injured, and have much more fun...like being able to work for a
living and be responsible for oursel.....oppps! Sorry. I forgot about
you and your "situation."

The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power.

Please point out how my suggesting that The Plant NOT give legal
advice, and my personal advice to the inquirer that he or she DO seek
competent legal advice equates to that nonsense ...

Or could it just be we are all being treated sigh once again, to a
segue into YOUR particularly sordid mess that destroyed a loving
family by YOUR actions and that mother's stupid choice to take YOU
over her own daughter?

Kane

On 17 Jul 2004 12:35:27 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Kane wrote
You could also be open for civil suit should
a homeowner refuse entry and be hurt in the
process.

A legal opinion from Kane saying
that somebody elses legal opinion
is illegal to disseminate? Ha!

Excuse me, idiot boy, but can "bring suit" for absolutly any
cockamamee reason they want in this country.

THAT, was not legal "advice." I did not tell The Plant to DO anything,
but to STOP doing something.

By that same logic, a parent who
totally rolls over when caseworkers
come to their door could sue you! Naa!

Of course they could, but it NOT the "same logic" at all. To tell
someone to refuse entry to an LEO IS legal advice.

And you'll notice, R R R R R, idiot boy, that at NO point did I
suggest the homeowner "role over" to a caseworker....as in "go see
your lawyer."

Is THAT what you think rolling over is? What must the homeowner do for
it to NOT be a rollover.....assault the LEO?

You aren't hard to trace down should
someone wish to. I understand a certain
public figure in the entertainment
industry's people know who and were
you are. Probably just rumor.

Or intestinal gas.

It's estimated that on average everyone emits intestinal gas about 11
to 12 times a day. Even the beautiful people.

The difference between us and YOU, is that we get up and move away by
going to work and actually doing something with our lives, rather than
stalk single mothers wish children.

Have you found a way to bottle it and
save it on your shelf along with your
yellow jars and little brown balls you rolled?

I have no such obsessions. Is THAT what you are doing with all that
spare time you have?

May I suggest gardening? You have more than enough fertilizer for a
great start. And if you run out I recommend you contact Douggie and
The Plant. They've enough for a hundred gardens.

Then of course there is - R R R R R - bobb the Bigot and his raft of
****.

Greegor, as a Flamer, yer a Lamer.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
m...


It's estimated that on average everyone emits intestinal gas about 11
to 12 times a day. Even the beautiful people.

Class, now pay attention, obviously this Kane Asshole knows what it is
talking about.
Mrs. Grif.

On 18 Jul 2004 10:53:28 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

He just gave legal advice over the Internet.

Giving advice NOT to give Legal advice is Legal advice itself.

So sue me. R R R R R R

And remember, those that sue immediately open themselves up for
counter suit.

FIRST AMENDMENT, Rights PREVAIL..

Of course they do, as long as you don't yell "Fire" when there isn't
one.

You needed to tell that person to seek LEGAL advice, not take actions
blindly against LEOs showing up at their door.

YOU did that, Punkin' Head.

Let's put my advice to you not to give legal advice and my advice to
the poster you were responding to to seek legal advice, and even ask
for a warrant up against YOUR ADVICE TO REFUSE ENTRY TO A POLICE
OFFICER, and see which of us prevails.

I've already run it by my attorney. How about you?

I am not an attorney.

Then why did you tell someone, anonymously, to risk the very serious
consequences, both legally, to their person, to their family, and
physcially to their own personal safety?

Officers under authority to gain entry under two different methods
that are most common could concievably use physical force to gain
entry and arrest the person for any number of things.

I am telling him or her to damn well find out about the law in their
state BEFORE they take actions that could well be illegal THAT YOU
SUGGESTED.

At no point did I attempt to interpret the laws of his or her state,
only offering the same general information, speculatively, that the
person might be in violation of their own laws.

On the other hand, here is what YOU said:

From: (Fern5827)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
Message-ID:


http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Be polite.

http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell.
Early
advocate for families against DHS, DSS.
end message

The Question Subject field: " What if CPS caseworker brings police
along? '


Your response: "Do not admit to home."

Tell them to be "polite," by the way, does NOT abrogate your
responsibility for advising someone to do something that could be, if
the officer is acting legally, illegal in their state.

In addition you are urging the to sue, suggesting they are in a
position to do so, legally in any attempt for a police officer to act
in their official capacity.

You assholes take HUGE chances with other people's children, families,
and their LIVES.

See the difference, Fruitcake?


Neither are you. Checkmate.

And I was very careful to give only advice that was not "legal." Only
pointed them to search for legal advice....very fully.

"Do not admit to home," if flat out legal advice.

If the party wishes to take legal action against you, should they
follow your advice and be injured in any way, up to and including a
criminal complaint, I'll be happy to assist.

I think some of you assholes need slowing down very badly

I note the advice the Christines took, as per legal matters, and where
they are today...and how very close someone came to being killed. He
might have killed two people and gotten himself killed as well.

Brian had a very close call....anyone that uses a gun in a criminal
action where they point and threaten to shoot is considered, last I
heard, ARMED AND DANGEROUS, and police searching for them will of
course take precautions to ensure no one gets shot but the perp, if it
comes to that.

YOU are about as useful as those assholes that suggested Brian's
actions to him.

I have a raft of your posts that support your nitwittery, such as
supporting various illegal actions by others......including recently
the assualt on an elderly foster parent, kidnapping or whatever it's
called in that state.

This is just one more in a long continuous string of such vicious
things you have done.

Keep it up, and eventually you might have to pay for them.

This one was especially dangerous for others.

On 18 Jul 2004 10:53:28 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:

He just gave legal advice over the Internet.

Giving advice NOT to give Legal advice is Legal advice itself.

So sue me. R R R R R R

And remember, those that sue immediately open themselves up for
counter suit.

FIRST AMENDMENT, Rights PREVAIL..

Of course they do, as long as you don't yell "Fire" when there isn't
one.

You needed to tell that person to seek LEGAL advice, not take actions
blindly against LEOs showing up at their door.

YOU did that, Punkin' Head.

Let's put my advice to you not to give legal advice and my advice to
the poster you were responding to to seek legal advice, and even ask
for a warrant up against YOUR ADVICE TO REFUSE ENTRY TO A POLICE
OFFICER, and see which of us prevails.

I've already run it by my attorney. How about you?

I am not an attorney.

Then why did you tell someone, anonymously, to risk the very serious
consequences, both legally, to their person, to their family, and
physcially to their own personal safety?

Officers under authority to gain entry under two different methods
that are most common could concievably use physical force to gain
entry and arrest the person for any number of things.

I am telling him or her to damn well find out about the law in their
state BEFORE they take actions that could well be illegal THAT YOU
SUGGESTED.

At no point did I attempt to interpret the laws of his or her state,
only offering the same general information, speculatively, that the
person might be in violation of their own laws.

On the other hand, here is what YOU said:

From: (Fern5827)
Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking
Date: 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
Message-ID:


http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin

Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Be polite.

http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell.
Early
advocate for families against DHS, DSS.
end message

The Question Subject field: " What if CPS caseworker brings police
along? '


Your response: "Do not admit to home."

Telling them to "be polite," by the way, does NOT abrogate your
responsibility for advising someone to do something that could be, if
the officer is acting legally, illegal in their state.

In addition you are urging them to sue, suggesting they are in a
position to do so, legally, in any attempt for a police officer to act
in their official capacity. That IS legal advice.

You assholes take HUGE chances with other people's children, families,
and their LIVES.

See the difference, Fruitcake?

Neither are you.

And I was very careful to give only advice that was not "legal." Only
pointed them to search for legal advice....very fully.

"Do not admit to home," if flat out legal advice.

If the party wishes to take legal action against you, should they
follow your advice and be injured in any way, up to and including a
criminal complaint, I'll be happy to assist.

I think some of you assholes need slowing down very badly

I note the advice the Christines took, as per legal matters, and where
they are today...and how very close someone came to being killed. He
might have killed two people and gotten himself killed as well.

Brian had a very close call....anyone that uses a gun in a criminal
action where they point and threaten to shoot is considered, last I
heard, ARMED AND DANGEROUS, and police searching for them will of
course take precautions to ensure no one gets shot but the perp, if it
comes to that.

YOU are about as useful as those assholes that suggested Brian's
actions to him.

I have a raft of your posts that support your nitwittery, such as
supporting various illegal actions by others......including recently
the assualt on an elderly foster parent, kidnapping or whatever it's
called in that state.

This is just one more in a long continuous string of such vicious
things you have done.

Keep it up, and eventually you might well have to pay for them.

This one was especially dangerous for others.

Checkmate.

Sorry, you made an unallowed move...your checkmate is recinded.

And your King is forfeit....and dead, which is what Checkmate actually
means. .

You have never really been in the game at all, Muskmelon.

About all you've done for years is babble nonsense...some of it
questionable, and some of it potentially dangerous if it is followed
as advice.

Now tell me again I gave legal advice and prove it?

A person's attorney may well advise, "Do not admit to home," but YOU
sure as hell better not. And the attorney is very likely to say much
more about how to do this and be protected, like "wait for me to to
get there," "or ask politely for a warrant," etc.

As you said was, "Do not admit to home."

Kane

Kane,

I have read at least one high court opinion
very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense
legal advice without acting as an attorney.
The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders
doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some
of this has become caselaw.

It was either about Suzanne Shell or part of
the caselaw that Suzanne Shell used to defend herself.

Basically, anybody can do legal research, it
would be just plain unAmerican to tell people
that they could not research it or tell what
they had found. This is NOT the same as
pretending to be an attorney.

Somebody once posted that early Americans
actually prohibited Barristers (Lawyers) from
flooding into the new world.
Barristers/Lawyers were much hated even then.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln ever had
to go to law school or pass a BAR EXAM
before he practiced law?

I highly doubt that the US Constitution
was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to
understand our laws, now convoluted beyond
even the abilities of barristers.
Despite that old expression that "Ignorance
of the law is no excuse." now'days it
is sort of a nonsense comment. It takes a
giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all
of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc.

The Judge in the decision I refer to above
could not get around the value of such
research and advocacy.

Put even simpler, it seemed like the CPS
and their attorneys were being GIANT CRYBABIES
in trying to pretend that providing legal
research was in fact providing legal advice.
It was a desperate tactic used by
desperate prosecutors.

In another case CPS actually PROTESTED
in court that an advocate group had
helped a mother find a home and a job!
(As if it was somehow UNFAIR!)
The Judge was not happy with CPS that day.

Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics.