 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / December 2006Another buttfuckin fostie bites the dust
Sheesh - another buttfucker zero's in on 'troubled teens'. Like robbers go to banks for money, buttfuckers go to CPS for boys. lol =================== http://durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&articl e_path=/news/06/news061107_3.htm Foster parent pleads guilty to sex assault Man sentenced to 10 years to life November 7, 2006 Herald Staff Report Kenneth Charles "Ken!" Puhler, a Durango resident who trained adults who worked with troubled teens and took in at least 130 foster children, has pleaded guilty to sexual assault on a child in a position of trust. Puhler, 50, formerly sheriff of Dolores County, pleaded guilty to one of 10 counts and was sentenced Nov. 1 to 10 years to life in prison, according to court documents. If he is released, he will be placed on parole for 20 years to life. As part of the plea agreement, District Attorney Craig Westberg dropped the other nine counts, which alleged abuse of children younger than 15 as far back as 1993. In return, Puhler stipulated that he sexually abused a 14-year-old boy who was in his care as a foster child in February 2004, and that "there were various times, both previous and subsequent to this event, when the defendant had sexual contact" with the boy. The stipulation also stated, "(T)he defendant was a foster parent and responsible for (the boy's) general supervision and welfare; the defendant was aware (the boy) had been removed from his former home by virtue of previous sexual abuse." Puhler must also pay $6,526 in restitution and other charges and must register as a sex offender. Puhler, who spelled his first name with an exclamation mark, worked as a "prevention specialist" with the San Juan Basin Health Department, a position in which he did not work directly with teens. He was a frequent speaker on issues of teen suicide and sexuality. His work was featured in an April 2003 Durango Herald story on teen depression. A June 21 story in the Delta County Independent, published before Puhler's arrest, said he and his wife had been foster parents to more than 130 children in the last 12 years. > the defendant was aware (the boy) had been removed from > his former home by virtue of previous sexual abuse." WHO do you s'pose told him that Ron? They didn't make it clear of that home where he was molested was a previous foster home or a bio parent home. > > the defendant was aware (the boy) had been removed from > > his former home by virtue of previous sexual abuse." > > WHO do you s'pose told him that Ron? I don't see Ron's post to the thread. This makes the above appear to be something Ron said and you are quoting. It's not. It's just a like from the news article. Now that we have the context a bit more in hand (R R R R ...what a stupid desperate pissant you are, Greg) let's move on to your brilliant presumptions. > They didn't make it clear of that home where he > was molested was a previous foster home or > a bio parent home. "They" being CPS that placed the boy, or the media reporter relating the story? You don't know if they said one way or the other if the boy had been in a previous foster home or bio parent home. Now for the final assininity of your post.....what possible difference does that make to the victimization of this child, or to the fact CPS likely is the one that caught this creep, eh? It proves that workers are as available to, no MORESO, to children in foster care than the general population. This supports both my contention that sexual abuse is underreported, and that foster parents, as opposed to bio parents, are far more easily caught at abuse and thus more countable in data. Having a nice morning are we, Greg? You've got your little weasel running shoes on and going for all you are worth today. You immediately attack newcomers here, and you complain that we old timers expose you to them for the little thuggish vampire you really are. R R R R R R R Tough luck, sap. We PROVE what you are with your own posts. YOU, on the other hand accuse and speculate without putting up any proof at all when challenged to. Why is that Greg? Could it be you are a liar, AND a little pissant thug? Kane Could you stick to the subject Kane? Another BUFU fostie bites the dust > Could you stick to the subject Kane? Another BUFU fostie bites the dust Here's my post just prior to your comment above. Please explain what is not on the subject, Greg. ....................... >> > > the defendant was aware (the boy) had been removed from >> > > his former home by virtue of previous sexual abuse." > > > > WHO do you s'pose told him that Ron? I don't see Ron's post to the thread. This makes the above appear to be something Ron said and you are quoting. It's not. It's just a like from the news article. Now that we have the context a bit more in hand (R R R R ...what a stupid desperate pissant you are, Greg) let's move on to your brilliant presumptions. > > They didn't make it clear of that home where he > > was molested was a previous foster home or > > a bio parent home. "They" being CPS that placed the boy, or the media reporter relating the story? You don't know if they said one way or the other if the boy had been in a previous foster home or bio parent home. Now for the final assininity of your post.....what possible difference does that make to the victimization of this child, or to the fact CPS likely is the one that caught this creep, eh? It proves that workers are as available to, no MORESO, to children in foster care than the general population. This supports both my contention that sexual abuse is underreported, and that foster parents, as opposed to bio parents, are far more easily caught at abuse and thus more countable in data. Having a nice morning are we, Greg? You've got your little weasel running shoes on and going for all you are worth today. You immediately attack newcomers here, and you complain that we old timers expose you to them for the little thuggish vampire you really are. R R R R R R R Tough luck, sap. We PROVE what you are with your own posts. YOU, on the other hand accuse and speculate without putting up any proof at all when challenged to. Why is that Greg? Could it be you are a liar, AND a little pissant thug? Kane ...................... What's the usual prison time for people who BUFU kids? Are Fosters who get caught at this stuff getting lighter than average sentences? If they BUFU one kid thousands of times can they get life with no parole? Do these pederasts stop when they are 80 years old? Do molesters in general stop when they get elderly? > What's the usual prison time for people who BUFU kids? Just pack an extra pair of socks, Greg. And white underwear. No stripes. > Are Fosters who get caught at this stuff getting lighter than average > sentences? You gonna claim you were a foster parent? > If they BUFU one kid thousands of times can they get life with no > parole? Spent a lot of time thinking about that, Greg? > Do these pederasts stop when they are 80 years old? You won't live that long, Greg. > Do molesters in general stop when they get elderly? Are you looking for a specific age so you can ask to be released then? > What's the usual prison time for people who BUFU kids? Go find out. > Are Fosters who get caught at this stuff getting lighter than average > sentences? Do you think so? If so prove it. > If they BUFU one kid thousands of times can they get life with no > parole? Who knows. Go find out. > Do these pederasts stop when they are 80 years old? Go find out. > Do molesters in general stop when they get elderly? Go find out. Stop asking rhetorical questions to no purpose but to evade, Greg. In a thread titled Another BUFU fostie bites the dust Greg wrote > Do these pederasts stop when they are 80 years old? > Do molesters in general stop when they get elderly? Kane wrote > Go find out. > Stop asking rhetorical questions to no purpose but to evade, Greg. See thread title. Not rhetorical questions. No attempt to evade the BUFU Fostie issue. > In a thread titled Another BUFU fostie bites the dust > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > See thread title. How does that negate asking you to go find out yourself?. > Not rhetorical questions. You are wrong. You are avoiding the definition of a rhetorical question. "adj 1: of or relating to rhetoric; "accepted two or three verbal and rhetorical changes I suggested"- W.A.White; "the rhetorical sin of the meaningless variation"- Lewis Mumford 2: concerned with effect or style of writing and speaking; "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply" You are attempting to pontificate by questioning in the form you ask the question, as the assumption is plain that you are making. What is the point of asking: "Do these pederasts stop when they are 80 years old? Do molesters in general stop when they get elderly?" other than to suggest the answer you want, that they don't. This is typical of you evasive and "answer in the question" rhetorical questions, Greg. Nothing wrong with doing so, but there is in denying you are doing so. Rhetorical questions used properly have valid and acceptable uses in debate. > No attempt to evade the BUFU Fostie issue. Didn't say you were, Greg, and you know it. The "BUFU Fostie" by your joining in on it, while running from other subject threads is the issue. It's time you answered for your accusations and your dangrous advice. Do so now, or live with the consequences. NO other subject is acceptable for you to engage in here until you respond on your lies, evasions, and flat out bullshit. Not to me, at any rate. And I'll continue to make that plain. Prove Dan committed a felony as you claim. PROVE IT WITH LEGAL STATUTE, the only way it can be proved. Defend your position on someone revealing to the court they have committed a crime (stop defending the crime...that won't work as evasion or in any other way...we aren't debating it rightness or wrongness morally, we are debating the danger to the women) to challenge the law while in the middle of another case, where she could lose her children. Do the program, Greg. Stop making these kind so outlandish, stupid, irrational and lying statements and figuring you can simply then walk away from them as those your challengers don't exist. Don't post here if you don't want to be challenged. YOU AND I both have free speech. Your to spout bullshit all you wish, and ours to challenge your bullshit all we wish. Got that? Good. There are two easy ways out for you. Admit your error and apologize and withdraw your claims on both issues.....and do so directly to the people involved. Easy eh? A man could do it instantly. Even Doug has done it on small errors. 0:-> OFF TOPIC drivel by Kane moved to a thread called Dan's credibility concerning his computer FELONY alt.support.child-protective-services, alt.parenting.spanking, alt.support.foster-parents Kane wrote > NO other subject [Dan's computer break in] is acceptable > for you to engage in here until you respond Another BUFU fostie bites the dust is the subject in this message thread. > OFF TOPIC drivel by Kane moved to a thread called > Dan's credibility concerning his computer FELONY [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Another BUFU fostie bites the dust is the subject in this message > thread. You were the first to go off topic in this thread, Greg. You just don't like OTHERS to do it when you are the subject. YOU, for instance, went off topic when Dan posted your commentary on using an illegal act to tryin and fight a CPS case. Instead of dealing with the issue, you quickly switched to the process...how he might have gotten your bullshit commentary and dangerous advice. Notice YOUR changes of topic, Greg. That's what gives us license to keep dragging you back by the scruff of your scruffy little neck to the subjects YOU bring up in the first place. This isn't about BUFU. It's about you trying to use every possible dodge to avoid answering for what you told that women to do. Keep dodging. It's wonderfully entertaining. But not successful. We SEE what you are. No one can miss it. And those that use you LOVE that you do such things because it indicates you are still dishonest and available for their dishonesty peddling. You are their 'venue,' stupid. You told someone to reveal their crime in court in the middle of a child protection case that could likely result in her arrest, and the loss of her case. Admit to it. Correct it, and get on with life. Nothing less will suffice here, unless of course you can show us how this action you suggest had a chance in hell of getting her her children back. Go for it. Truth and dare. I DARE you to correct your mistake, Greg. 0:-] >> OFF TOPIC drivel by Kane moved to a thread called >> Dan's credibility concerning his computer FELONY [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > I DARE you to correct your mistake, Greg. My God man - take a pill!! You're gonna blow a gasket Butch. > 0:-] Kane posted OFF TOPIC, nothing about Another BUFU fostie bites the dust Answer moved to the thread about Dan where it belongs. > Kane posted OFF TOPIC, nothing about Another BUFU fostie bites the > dust > Answer moved to the thread about Dan where it belongs. Cite your answer. You are lying. You did not answer in that thread. 0:-> You are just avoiding. On the application form do they ask em if they do BUFU? > On the application form do they ask em if they do BUFU? Not that I recall. But then you'd have to ask one of the families I helped to get their relatives into foster care with them, or adopt them. >From what they told me, gay or straight, they were subjected to long long interviews by a CPS worker, and their sexual orientation and sexual practices were in fact discussed. Next question. 0:-> > > On the application form do they ask em if they do BUFU? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > long interviews by a CPS worker, and their sexual orientation and > sexual practices were in fact discussed. And you don't know WHY, right?? <grin> > Next question. > > 0:-> > > > On the application form do they ask em if they do BUFU? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And you don't know WHY, right?? <grin> Sure I do. It's standard for all applicants, gay or straight. Now wipe that silly grin off your face and join us in the real world. Your delusions will get you in trouble one day. 0:-] > > Next question. > > > > 0:-> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.