 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Spanking / July 2006Jordan's Tragedy
While her father described his daughter as a child who "lied and was a challenging child whom Meier (his girlfriend) "disciplined by spanking, putting soap in her mouth and making her do jumping jacks," her grandmother and mother describe her as "constantly challenging others with her curiosity." Very bright children are often challenging. Children with certain disabilities are often challenging. The bottom line...children are often challenging. When the parent doesn't appreciate the challenge or the individual child, tragic consequences can be the final outcome. Jordan's dead. Spankings didn't work. Soaping didn't work. Scalding did. She is no longer challenging. What a tragedy. She's dead because she was allowed to remain with a biological parent and girlfriend, who felt that violence and pain was a necessary part of parenting. I wonder what would Jordan's life would have been like had she been born into a country that has legally banned disciplinary spanking and other forms of corporal punishment. Perhaps she would be alive today, with a future of her own. But at least she wasn't placed in foster care. Better dead than foster care -- isn't that right, Greegor, MoJo, Doan, and maggiesmythian? You can read the story on the StarTribune website. Look for July 18 and 19. LaVonne LaVonne: My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY in order to make a case where there was none. He was under pressure because the child had been removed for 21 days for basically nothing, and with no court removal order. That is a violation of law, policy, common sense and human decency. Clearly large numbers of caseworkers are running around working on making cases where there is no actual reason. Meanwhile the agencies KNOW OF children in true imminent danger of serious violence, abuse or death and are leaving them in danger. The agencies screw up BOTH WAYS simultaneously. You are sick indeed if you think that any people standing against your socialistic anti-spanking crusade would be in favor of scalding a child as a substitute for spanking. It just shows how RABID you are, that you would attempt to polarize your many opponents like that, especially since you are in such a rare extremist minority. You pretend you are so very learned and have such expertise but now you use the tactics of a fanatic alienated from people at large. It's called "siege mentality". Are you really feeling so OPPRESSED or are you angry that you are trying to play the role of PIED PIPER and nobody is following you? Where WERE YOU when that mental case prosecutor ran the SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA WITCH HUNT? Do you know what she did and to how many? The real shame is she never did any prison time for it. Sure, citizens commit crimes, even murder. But to REALLY DO WRONG takes somebody in government, with unchecked power. You are one twisted ..person if you think that this scalding death is case of death by spanking. Personally, I do think you are that disturbed. > While her father described his daughter as a child who "lied and was a > challenging child whom Meier (his girlfriend) "disciplined by spanking, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > LaVonne > LaVonne: > My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY > in order to make a case where there was none. Your posts make it clear, if the workers knew what you shared with us, that indeed there WAS cause for concern and investigation. > He was under pressure because the child had been removed for > 21 days for basically nothing, Well, is that the 'nothing' her grandfather broke your face for? > and with no court removal order. You are telling us the worker did not appear in the required time period (usually 48 to 72 hours) in court and represent his or her findings and recommendations to the judge? > That is a violation of law, policy, common sense and human decency. > Clearly large numbers of caseworkers are running around > working on making cases where there is no actual reason. Why would YOUR case and a few others, repeated over and over and over again in anti CPS newsgroups and websites constitute "large numbers of caseworkers...?" > Meanwhile the agencies KNOW OF children in > true imminent danger of serious violence, abuse or death > and are leaving them in danger. Why would they do this, Greg? Just to watch them die? What is the CAUSE of this 'malpractice?' > The agencies screw up BOTH WAYS simultaneously. How is it they do this? Pure malevolence? Are these then evil people intent on killing babies? Destroying families for the sheer perverted sadistic pleasure? Can you prove such things? Or are there other causes you'd like to expose them for, NOW? > You are sick indeed if you think that any > people standing against your socialistic anti-spanking > crusade would be in favor of scalding a child as > a substitute for spanking. Where were YOU and Doan when Fern was excusing the use of a parents own drugs that killed a child by simply saying in the 1800's children were routinely given Laudanum (Opium) to quiet them? Where were you and Doan when I attacked Fern for not just excusing parents, but claiming CPS had NO business butting into the affairs of families that had their children hung up in church and whipped naked with objects? > It just shows how RABID you are, Rabid? YOU are rabid, you damn fool. YOU are campaigning for things that will injure children and even get the killed. It's well KNOWN that physical abuse and even child deaths are caused by "discipline" escalating. > that you > would attempt to polarize your many opponents > like that, especially since you are in such a > rare extremist minority. No, Greg, it's you and your cronies that are. The most recent studies barely gives you an edge any more. AS little as 50+% of people surveyed still approve of or accept spanking as a valid parenting method. > You pretend you are so very learned Unless she got her graduate degrees in a plain brown wrapper, my understand is that one has to become "learned" to win them. > and have > such expertise but now you use the tactics of > a fanatic alienated from people at large. We are, after all, here in one of HER primary areas of expertise, Greg. In fact, more than one. > It's called "siege mentality". Hyperbole, Greg. Stupidly. > Are you really feeling so OPPRESSED or are > you angry that you are trying to play the role > of PIED PIPER and nobody is following you? I see nothing in HER posts that suggests she feels either oppressed or angry. Your posts, on the other hand, are taking on a more and more frantic tone over time, and you are exposing yourself to more and more "agreeable" propaganda to prop up your failing biases. > Where WERE YOU when that mental case prosecutor > ran the SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA WITCH HUNT? > Do you know what she did and to how many? Gosh, given that this was NOT in this ng until now, that's kind of a weird question. But FERN WAS, with you, and Doan, and other spanking apologists that SAY you don't condone beating, but you damn well did NOT speak up when it was defended. > The real shame is she never did any prison time for it. What has that do to with the subject at hand? > Sure, citizens commit crimes, even murder. Even murder of children, and crimes of neglect and abuse of children. > But to REALLY DO WRONG takes somebody > in government, with unchecked power. I don't see LaVonne or anyone else here claiming government is perfect and error free. > You are one twisted ..person if you think that this > scalding death is case of death by spanking. Of course it was, stupid. And this is JUST how so much serious injury and deaths of children occur at the hands of caregivers, even foster parents, when they do it....an attempt to control a child by the use of physical punishment. It fails to work. The parent, gradually escalating, and gradually losing control more and more, goes over the line. > Personally, I do think you are that disturbed. You would, Greg. You would. So someone that is not only unwilling to risk injury to a child, and has raised two daughters with physical punishment is "disturbed," while you, and others like you wish to "PRETEND" to be all knowing about where the limits and risks of actual injury are, and want to spank are NOT "disturbed." Now here will come Doan reminding us that I once spanked my son very lightly through heavy blankets and quilts, and never did it again, and that I was 'disturbed' by this definition. I'll tell you flat out that I have confessed to being wrong, and 'disturbed' is a very good definition of what happened. And that was all it took for me to get the message. Neither of my children were ever spanked outside of the one episode that my son could not have even felt through all that padding. But you sick sh.ts will try to run from your OWN sickness and disturbance by lies, deceit and self delusion, won't you, Greg? This case was a classic of 'spanking' that got out of hand and went beyond. YOU'D have an argument if nothing else had been done, but the parent had simply scalded the child as the first act of control and punishment. But it STARTED WITH SPANKING, stupid. 0:-> >> While her father described his daughter as a child who "lied and was a >> challenging child whom Meier (his girlfriend) "disciplined by spanking, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> LaVonne  Signature"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) > LaVonne: > My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY > in order to make a case where there was none. I have no idea whether this caseworker committed perjury, but based on the content of your ng posts, I suspect there may have been a pretty good case, just one that you didn't recognize. > He was under pressure because the child had been removed for > 21 days for basically nothing, and with no court removal order. > That is a violation of law, policy, common sense and human decency. So what was "basically nothing?" And what laws were violated in your case? I've met few parents involved with CPS and who have had their childeren removed that don't believe the action was unfair, regardless of what they were doing to their children. > Clearly large numbers of caseworkers are running around > working on making cases where there is no actual reason. You have a problem with your particular situation. This does not generalize to "large numbers of caseworkers." > Meanwhile the agencies KNOW OF children in > true imminent danger of serious violence, abuse or death > and are leaving them in danger. Often in the name of family reunification and relative foster care, or in Jordan's case, a belief that a child is nearly always better with a biological parent. Beliefs that you support, regardless of the danger to the child. > The agencies screw up BOTH WAYS simultaneously. Sometimes this happens. Let's adequately fund foster care and get off the high horse about negative effects of family removal. Remember your post that illuminated your misunderstanding of attachment? > You are sick indeed if you think that any > people standing against your socialistic anti-spanking > crusade would be in favor of scalding a child as > a substitute for spanking. You obviously do not know the meaning of socialism. Try a dictionary, Greegor. Socialism = anti-spanking? Giggle and hoot sir -- not in my dictionary. Now that we have dealt with socialism (grin), let's address the rest of this paragraph. People who advocate spanking children don't realize that when one views children as citizens who do not deserve the legal protection all adult members of society enjoy, it's easy to cross the line. Jordan's father crossed the legal line. When one respects children and believes in parenting without violence and with nurturing, teaching, and love, there is no line to cross. And people who oppose banning spanking often advocate hot-saucing and soaping -- both dangerous practices that have caused severe scalding of the mouth, throat, etc., and that has resulted in death. > It just shows how RABID you are, that you > would attempt to polarize your many opponents > like that, especially since you are in such a > rare extremist minority. Still the minority, Greegor, but the gap decreases every day. Read the polls. And I'm not concerned about being in the minority. Slavery and rights for women did not require a popular vote to eventualy have laws outlawing slavery and protecting women. > You pretend you are so very learned and have > such expertise but now you use the tactics of > a fanatic alienated from people at large. And who is the "fanatic alienated from people at large?" People who disagree with you? > It's called "siege mentality". Really. > Are you really feeling so OPPRESSED or are > you angry that you are trying to play the role > of PIED PIPER and nobody is following you? It's interesting. I actually feel quite empowered. Year after year I see more individuals in this country care about children, and I see polls track the slow and gradual decline of spanking approval. And, I see more and more countries recognize the importance of decent and humane treatment of children, resulting in legal spanking bans. Things are actually moving far more quickly than I would have predicted 30 years ago. > Where WERE YOU when that mental case prosecutor > ran the SCOTT COUNTY MINNESOTA WITCH HUNT? > Do you know what she did and to how many? I was in the same place I am now. But, unlike you, I do not see an instance like this as a reason to throw away protection for children. > The real shame is she never did any prison time for it. I don't have the facts on this case, and neither do you. But you are entitled to your opinion. > Sure, citizens commit crimes, even murder. You think? > But to REALLY DO WRONG takes somebody > in government, with unchecked power. Well, you are living under the right administration to experience this, Greegor. > You are one twisted ..person if you think that this > scalding death is case of death by spanking. Here is what I said, cut from my post below, "Jordan's dead. Spankings didn't work. Soaping didn't work. Scalding did. She is no longer challenging." > Personally, I do think you are that disturbed. Personally, I couldn't care less about whether or not you think I'm disturbed. I would like you to learn to read accurately and respond in kind. Lies and distortion are what make me and others wonder about that CPS case where you were so innocent and the system was so blatantly illegal. You take care now, Greegor. LaVonne >>While her father described his daughter as a child who "lied and was a >>challenging child whom Meier (his girlfriend) "disciplined by spanking, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >>LaVonne Greegor wrote: > My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY > in order to make a case where there was none. LaVonne wrote > I have no idea whether this caseworker committed perjury, but based on > the content of your ng posts, I suspect there may have been a pretty > good case, just one that you didn't recognize. Socialist wishful thinking eh LaVonne? Wanna pretend it's a perceptual mistake eh? What you "suspect" doesn't amount to diddly squat you socialist stooge! What part of caseworker PERJURY don't you understand? I keep telling you to read Wallis v. Escondido. The stuff the FEDERAL JUDGE wrote. When will you read it? Such extreme stupidity on the part of caseworkers is a HUGE problem for socialists wouldn't you say? How would socialism punish workers who maliciously and deliberately harm other citizens by committing PERJURY? Is you socialistic dream for the PEOPLE or the GOVERNMENT? How would you protect PEOPLE from the abuses of monolithic and abusive government workers on a power trip? > Greegor wrote: >> My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Socialist wishful thinking eh LaVonne? She has neither an idea that your claim is true or false, AND, based on your posting here, so often filled with lies, just as this post was, she suspects there was good case against you. > Wanna pretend it's a perceptual mistake eh? Still with the "pretend." She's not pretending anything. Just voicing her difference of opinion with you. > What you "suspect" doesn't amount to diddly squat > you socialist stooge! Oh dear, a socialist speaks out against socialism. How quaint. You DO understand YOU represent some ideas that are the worst that come from socialism, Greg? I've pointed out to you before some of your extremist liberal leanings. You seem oblivious to them. > What part of caseworker PERJURY don't you understand? That you may be lying. Or too stupid to make the call on perjury. Has a judge ruled that it was perjury yet? If not you are puffing yourself up a bit, aren't you? > I keep telling you to read Wallis v. Escondido. > The stuff the FEDERAL JUDGE wrote. > When will you read it? I've read it. It does not address YOUR case. > Such extreme stupidity on the part of caseworkers > is a HUGE problem for socialists wouldn't you say? What possible connection is there? If a worker is stupid it is a huge problem for society. All of us. Now you must prove that was the case. 0:-> > How would socialism punish workers who > maliciously and deliberately harm other citizens > by committing PERJURY? Under our system of government, by legal sanctions. Fines, imprisonment, parole, those sorts of things. > Is you socialistic dream for the > PEOPLE or the GOVERNMENT? You presume socialist means lawless? > How would you protect PEOPLE from > the abuses of monolithic and abusive > government workers on a power trip? The same way that is being done now, not 'perfectly.' But then the sum of human affairs, historically, shows us that there has never BEEN a perfect system of government. Even ... or should I say ... fascism isn't...and simply fakes it. Yer really on a tear today, aren't yah, little boy? Signature"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: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What you "suspect" doesn't amount to diddly squat > you socialist stooge! You need to define socialism. Try a dictionary. You will not die if you learn a correct definition. Perhaps you also need to look up the terms "democracy" and "freedom of speech." Unlike you, I did not state my opinion as fact, and last I checked, I'm free to have opinions. And based on the content of the information you post on the ng, as well as your behavior, I do tend to suspect that there was a pretty good case against you, but one you neither accept nor recogtnize. > What part of caseworker PERJURY don't you understand? I understand that "PERJURY" is a legal term, and means lying under oath. Since the caseworker wasn't convicted of this charge (or at least, I don't recall you posting this), "caseworker PURJURY" is nothing more than your opinion. Opinions are fine, but you state this as a face. > I keep telling you to read Wallis v. Escondido. > The stuff the FEDERAL JUDGE wrote. > When will you read it? I have read it. > Such extreme stupidity on the part of caseworkers > is a HUGE problem for socialists wouldn't you say? I have no idea whether this would be a problem for socialists. I'm not a socialist. The burden of understanding socialism is on you, not me. I'm fighting for the humane treatment of little children. > How would socialism punish workers who > maliciously and deliberately harm other citizens > by committing PERJURY? I'm not a socialist and am not terribly concerned about how a socialist would answer your question. And, I have no evidence that "PURJURY" was committed. I have your opinion and personal reaction to your case. It appears that this was not supported in court. > Is you socialistic dream for the > PEOPLE or the GOVERNMENT? > How would you protect PEOPLE from > the abuses of monolithic and abusive > government workers on a power trip? I refuse to discuss politics with an individual who doesn't even know the meaning of socialism. But I will continue to fight for humane treatment of children. LaVonne > > Greegor wrote: > >>My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY > >>in order to make a case where there was none. > > LaVonne wrote > >>I have no idea whether this caseworker committed perjury, but based on > >>the content of your ng posts, I suspect there may have been a pretty > >>good case, just one that you didn't recognize. Greg wrote > > Socialist wishful thinking eh LaVonne? > > Wanna pretend it's a perceptual mistake eh? > > What you "suspect" doesn't amount to diddly squat > > you socialist stooge! LaVonne wrote > You need to define socialism. Try a dictionary. You will not die if > you learn a correct definition. Perhaps you also need to look up the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your behavior, I do tend to suspect that there was a pretty good case > against you, but one you neither accept nor recogtnize. Contrast that with your accusations awhile back that I hacked into your University of Minnesota computer account. What evidence did you have of that? My evidence of the caseworkers PERJURY is black and white, on paper and BLATANT. What was your evidence before you accused me of hacking your University of MN computer accounts? That's beyond a mere double standard. That's deliberately dishonest. The zealotry turned the logic centers of your brain to mush right? Greg wrote > > What part of caseworker PERJURY don't you understand? LaVonne wrote > I understand that "PERJURY" is a legal term, and means lying under oath. > Since the caseworker wasn't convicted of this charge (or at least, I > don't recall you posting this), "caseworker PURJURY" is nothing more > than your opinion. Opinions are fine, but you state this as a face. Are you saying that perjury isn't perjury until it's convicted? Will you also pretend that state prosecutors are eager to prosecute their own ALLIES, the CPS workers, for PERJURY? When proof is black and white, on paper and blatant, it's not just an OPINION. Greg wrote > > I keep telling you to read Wallis v. Escondido. > > The stuff the FEDERAL JUDGE wrote. > > When will you read it? LaVonne wrote > I have read it. Then why do you act so mentally retarded when somebody tells you of blatant abuse by a caseworker? Please give us your reflections on what the Judge said about the caseworkers actions. In addition to Spencer, easily 50 other people were involved and had to "sign off" on that case before the Federal Judge wrote their ruling. None of the other personnel spoke up to end the agency abuse of the family. In fact, they HAD to know early on that the case was completely BOGUS, but they intended to steamroller the family into submission. The agency people seem incapable of acknowledging they SCREWED UP and when they know they have, never do the right thing by bringing the case to a quick reunification. Greg wrote > > Such extreme stupidity on the part of caseworkers > > is a HUGE problem for socialists wouldn't you say? LaVonne wrote > I have no idea whether this would be a problem for socialists. I'm not > a socialist. The burden of understanding socialism is on you, not me. > I'm fighting for the humane treatment of little children. Yeah sure, you are a pure idealist. Isn't that a bit naive for somebody your age? Greg wrote > > How would socialism punish workers who > > maliciously and deliberately harm other citizens > > by committing PERJURY? LaVonne wrote > I'm not a socialist and am not terribly concerned about how a socialist > would answer your question. And, I have no evidence that "PURJURY" was > committed. I have your opinion and personal reaction to your case. Somehow, LaVonne, I doubt that if you did see the actual proof, that you would ever acknowledge that you saw it. Like proving things to a MOONIE.. > appears that this was not supported in court. Yet. Greg wrote > > Is you socialistic dream for the > > PEOPLE or the GOVERNMENT? > > How would you protect PEOPLE from > > the abuses of monolithic and abusive > > government workers on a power trip? LaVonne wrote > I refuse to discuss politics with an individual who doesn't even know > the meaning of socialism. But I will continue to fight for humane > treatment of children. Then you ADMIT you actually ARE a socialist then. Caught at your own reactions you "refuse to discuss"? Your reactions give you away. >>> Greegor wrote: >>>> My family was torn up by a caseworker who committed PERJURY [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I hacked into your University of Minnesota computer > account. What evidence did you have of that? You have the most interesting way of exceeding even Doug in spin. You extrapolate just what you want to see rather than what is really there. LaVonne didn't accuse you of any such thing. Someone forged her addy, posted a stupid post, and laughingly I pointed out in a post it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN YOU. Her response was she didn't know and couldn't let anyone "off the hook," because IT WAS OUT OF HER HANDS....and the university system admin was investigating. She referred to YOU because I referred to you. NO accusation was made. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_thread/thread/ba292 af7cb4cfffd/cc685e13d123e170?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#cc685e13d123e170 Read the thread, stupid. > My evidence of the caseworkers PERJURY is > black and white, on paper and BLATANT. We haven't seen that. You have such a propensity to lie, as I just showed you. You see what you wish to see, not what is actually there. > What was your evidence before you accused me of > hacking your University of MN computer accounts? She made NO such accusation, Gregg. I said to her YOU COULD NOT HAVE -- being too stupid and all. 0:-> > That's beyond a mere double standard. > That's deliberately dishonest. > The zealotry turned the logic centers of your brain to mush right? Oh dear. Your memory seems to be going. Interesting that you'd dredge up an old thread where LaVonne would complain, legitimately, that someone had forged her name to a post and I claimed it could not have been YOU, but she had NEVER ACCUSED YOU? If we apply this kind of thought processing (if one can generously refer to it by that title) and consider the possibility that your "case" has similar memory reconstructions going on I can see where LaVonne's argument is valid. On the other hand, anytime you wish to have your docs scanned into a webpage for us to read, feel free. Or when your "case" is over, refer the casenumber so we can look it up and we'll see for ourselves how your version of events works out. > Greg wrote >>> What part of caseworker PERJURY don't you understand? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Are you saying that perjury isn't perjury until it's convicted? Yes. Murder is not murder until convicted. YOU, stupid, have screamed that parents are being railroaded without a criminal conviction. Now you want to deny someone else the right to their day in court? Brilliant. > Will you also pretend that state prosecutors are > eager to prosecute their own ALLIES, the CPS workers, > for PERJURY? For sh.t sakes you are stupid. STATE PROSECUTORS do not deal in CPS cases unless they escalate to criminal court level and then CPS IS NOT AN ALLY AND CAN BE AN ADVERSARY. The nearest you can come to such a claim, and that's bogus, is that the DA (COUNTY, STUPID) in cases of parental termination of rights (and preliminary hearings) can order CPS to present evidence in the form the DA requires. So, if a cop goes bad, who do YOU want him prosecuted by? What judicial agency do YOU think cps workers should face in civil and criminal trials? > When proof is black and white, on paper and blatant, > it's not just an OPINION. It is when it comes from you. The evidence that LaVonne did NOT accuse you of hacking is in black and white at the thread I posted for you. And STILL YOU GOT IT WRONG. You isolate ONE thing she said, did NOT find the context for it, and wrong accused HER OF WRONGLY ACCUSING YOU. How stupid ARE you, Greg? http://groups.google.com/group/alt.parenting.spanking/browse_thread/thread/ba292 af7cb4cfffd/cc685e13d123e170?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#cc685e13d123e170 http://tinyurl.com/m64mv You conclusion jumped then and you are NOW claiming YOUR mistake then was accurate. Here is exactly what LaVonne said...and you even noted that I had said YOU HADN'T DONE IT MOST LIKELY. "> I stand corrected. My account is not hacked but > is forged. I used the word "hacked" because > that is what the University net administrators > told me. They are watching several people on > this ng. I have no idea if "Greegor" should be > left off the hook. I do not know who my net > administrators are watching. " And you, stupid, jumping to conclusions and making FALSE ACCUSATIONS BLATANTLY, REPLY: "LaVonne: You thought I was forging you? What an idiot. By the way, I HAVE looked at PUBLIC U of M web sites connected with you, but have never done anything criminal like you have implied." She implied NO SUCH THING. This is the kind of thinking that will KILL you in court, stupid. Your insinuations. Your jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You asked her a question YET DID NOT WAIT FOR A REPLY BUT DECIDED ON YOUR OWN SHE WAS ACCUSING YOU. She didn't even bring you UP. I DID. > Greg wrote >>> I keep telling you to read Wallis v. Escondido. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Then why do you act so mentally retarded > when somebody tells you of blatant abuse by a caseworker? I'll guess. The facts in one case do not transfer automatically to the facts in another. If so no more court cases would be required after one. > Please give us your reflections on what the Judge > said about the caseworkers actions. Go piss up a rope. We aren't talking about THAT CASE, but YOURS. > In addition to Spencer, easily 50 other people > were involved and had to "sign off" on that case > before the Federal Judge wrote their ruling. > None of the other personnel spoke up to end > the agency abuse of the family. Now why would agency personnel have to speak up? > In fact, they HAD to know early on that the case > was completely BOGUS, Why had they to know? In fact case record information is NOT bandied about an office and known to everyone. Usually the ONLY one privy is the caseworker and the supervisor. People are too damn busy to have their nose in other worker's cases, stupid. > but they intended > to steamroller the family into submission. Your opinion is NOT fact, nor has it ever been. It's opinion. > The agency people seem incapable of > acknowledging they SCREWED UP They are usually under orders of the state's attorney's general to NOT discuss the case in any other terms than required by the court and ONLY if asked. How would YOU like it if an attorney you retained encouraged you to babble and it cost you your case? > and when > they know they have, never do the right thing > by bringing the case to a quick reunification. Your definitions are in question, Greg. What is 'quick,' in the context you are using? > Greg wrote >>> Such extreme stupidity on the part of caseworkers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yeah sure, you are a pure idealist. Someone that wants children to be treated humanely is a "pure idealist?" Is that meant to be an insult? In what way? Your belief that children have no right to expect to be treated humanely, or that it's impossible to do so? > Isn't that a bit naive for somebody your age? Aren't you a bit inhumane toward children in your attitudes and behaviors? > Greg wrote >>> How would socialism punish workers who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the actual proof, that you would ever acknowledge > that you saw it. Like proving things to a MOONIE.. You have no proof of that. Which makes YOU more like a Moonie, Greg. You want people to go on your word as faith. Why should we believe you given your behavior in these ngs for many years? >> appears that this was not supported in court. > > Yet. Good luck. > Greg wrote >>> Is you socialistic dream for the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Then you ADMIT you actually ARE a socialist then. I refuse to discuss Christianity. Does that make me a Christian? I refuse to discuss my professional area of expertise with someone that has no knowledge in that area. I refuse to discuss conservatism with YOU, Greg, because YOU are devoid of knowledge. Are you going to accuse me of being a conservative? If you did, you'd be right, but I also would refuse to discuss Socialism with you BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORANT AND SELF DIRECTED STUPID FACT AVOIDER. Does that make me a socialist? I refuse to discuss cultivation of thornless blackberries with you Greg. Does that make me a nurseryman? This is the kind of accusation that, if you are not careful and don't avoid in court, will sink you dead in the water, little boy. > Caught at your own reactions you "refuse to discuss"? > Your reactions give you away. What would be illogical or giving herself away to refuse to discuss a subject the other person remains ignorant of? What's to discuss? Your ignorance? She's done that. Your turn now is to learn about socialism and see if you find things that LaVonne has posted that would support your claim she is a "socialist?" Which for YOU is nothing but an anti-government-loony buzzword you wish to use to threaten with and insult. Any idea how lame that makes YOU look? 0:-> Signature"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: LaVonne said something rediculously stupid and you try to write it off as forged headers? On an ongoing series of posts? Nice try. > Kane: > LaVonne said something rediculously stupid and you > try to write it off as forged headers? Just how stupid are you? The "forged headers" was a subject of a short thread where she had someone forge her addy. > On an ongoing series of posts? Her comment was to my dig at you...which you often deserve, for your stupidity, in that you were TOO stupid to forge headers. Her response was neutral. Saying neither you were or were not...but that she did not KNOW if you would be left off the hook. My thought would be, logically, that if her IP super was going to look for suspects he would look at EVERYONE IN THIS NG. > Nice try. Nice babbling nitwittery, Greg. But you just HAVE to be the victim, don't you? The center of it all. 0:-> Signature"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 > Her response was neutral. Saying neither you were or were not...but that > she did not KNOW if you would be left off the hook. Who the heck empowered this whacko to put anybody "on the hook" for anything? Accusing one or many with absolutely NO EVIDENCE was beyond idiotic. But, LaVonne IS beyond idiotic. I refused to happily accept being on LaVonne's Nazilike "hook". It was a crap accusation from a craphead professor of babysitting. What was the purpose in LaVonne's crap accusation? Why make any vague accusation without proof? Why blab it on the newsgroup if you've got proof for court? > My thought would be, logically, that if her IP super was going to look > for suspects he would look at EVERYONE IN THIS NG. Proof that even a RETARDED MONKEY knew better than LaVonne did! > > Nice try. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The center of it all. Quite, Commander McBrag! Our rights we prize, our liberties we protect! State motto of Iowa. > Kane wrote >> Her response was neutral. Saying neither you were or were not...but that >> she did not KNOW if you would be left off the hook. > > Who the heck empowered this whacko to put anybody "on the hook" > for anything? One, no one "empowered." Two, she's not a "whacko"[sic] Three, someone fraudulently posted under her name, and that puts her at risk unless she takes action to stop it. She did. The only people that could help her would be her system admins, the techies, that would seek to find out who posted those false posts attributed to her. They would be the one that "put" everyone that posts where LaVonne posts "on the hook." That's the nature of investigating Internet fraudulent behaviors. In fact, it's analogous to a CPS investigation where the perp is not known so everyone in the household or that could contact the child unobserved is investigated. You, of course, would be screaming your head off, as you have in the past, and forgetting the child, and the her protection and injuries. > Accusing one or many with absolutely NO EVIDENCE was beyond idiotic. > But, LaVonne IS beyond idiotic. Mmmm...where would the "evidence" come from? How does one get evidence, Greg? It would be idiotic to ask LaVonne to not "accuse" given that SOMEONE DID post fraudulently against her name. And she accused NO one, stupid. If a fraud post happened to you, would you NOT look at all possible persons that COULD do this? And would it not be likely that that would include everyone that posts to a newsgroup? I presume they even looked at me, examining my posts to see if there were commonalities to the fraudulent posts. That's the nature of investigation. And of course would tend to eliminate me as a suspect. Of course, those of us that are busy with being "victims" presume malice where there is none. How you doin', boy? > I refused to happily accept being on LaVonne's Nazilike "hook". > It was a crap accusation from a craphead professor of babysitting. She made no accusation. Post her words and show the accusation. She simply said YOU along with ALL OTHERS were at the mercy of an investigation SHE no longer has control of. She could hardly tell them, Leave out Greg, he's my buddy, now could she? They'd laugh at her if she said "LEAVE OUT KANE," stupid. > What was the purpose in LaVonne's crap accusation? I read the fraudulent posts. I'd say the purpose was to catch and or stop more of them. > Why make any vague accusation without proof? One can't get proof if one does not investigate. This seems to be a long standing blind spot you've become infected with from your swallowing the diatribes of the Douggie crowd....you must have proof before you investigate, forgetting or hiding the fact that EVIDENCE comes from INVESTIGATION. > Why blab it on the newsgroup if you've got proof for court? LaVonne didn't blab anything. She responded to my comment that the nature of the fraud left YOU out. You do know I consider you stupid, do you not? She merely corrected me pointing out that the techies would not leave you out on that account...and of course they would leave no one OUT. >> My thought would be, logically, that if her IP super was going to look >> for suspects he would look at EVERYONE IN THIS NG. > > Proof that even a RETARDED MONKEY knew better than LaVonne did! Mmmm...you are a retarded monkey if you think that is what her words meant. She was not saying you would be the one looked at. She simply said you would be included. >>> Nice try. >> Nice babbling nitwittery, Greg. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Our rights we prize, our liberties we protect! > State motto of Iowa. You have not right to be excused as a subject of an inquiry, Greg. Nor do I, or anyone else. This is not a class society. My status, or yours, high or low has no bearing on investigation. If you are present you are suspect. You are present in this newsgroup. As are all of us. Hence we are ALL on the list to be looked at to see if the fraud is one of us. Would you if you were in LaVonne's place suggest to your IP they help you stop the fraud posting but NOT look at anyone, or only some? You are so vastly stupid it's nearly beyond my comprehension. Unless I refer to my training and professional experience to find some connections. Do you have a driver's license? 0:-> Signature"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) |
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.