The Family Under Attack - Does the State Own YOUR Children?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
fx - 27 Apr 2008 06:24 GMT The Family Under Attack - Does the State Own YOUR Children?
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3580.html
Why the ongoing imprisonment of FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) children in Texas should serve as a warning to every family in America.by Carter Braxton (Libertarian) Saturday, April 26, 2008
"The children are in a position to no longer on a daily basis be influenced by adults who have encouraged a code of silence," said Darrell Azar, a spokesman for Child Protective Services. "Now that they are away from that influence they may become more comfortable, and we will have a better chance of learning the truth."
The first thing I'm going to say is that removal of children from the home is sometimes justified. Children are individuals too and as such have rights, including the right to be free from the unjustified use of force. No parent has the right to physically or sexually abuse their child.
The state is the arbiter of rights. It is the duty of the state to identify where rights have been violated and to take action to correct those wrongs. If evidence exists that a parent has exceeded (or perverted) their authority to teach and correct, it can properly be presented in the form of an indictment detailing the criminal acts alleged to have been committed.
But the state is not a parent. Absent specific evidence of a crime, of specific harm being done to a specific child by a specific adult (at a specific time and place, etc.) the state has no authority to intercede in the parent – child relationship.
At least it didn’t until now.
Formerly, the law considered parents to have sole legal right and responsibility for the upbringing of their children. They, and they alone, had the right to teach, correct and protect. That it was the right of the parent to make decisions related to the religious or philosophical upbringing of their child rested at the very heart of our system of liberties.
To replace the wisdom of the parents with the authority of the state is to upend that system. And the movement to do just that is gaining momentum.
The recent raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ( FLDS ) Yearning For Zion ( YFZ ) Ranch in Texas (and subsequent detainment of 416 children) is a particularly egregious example of this trend. Military tactics (machine guns and armored personnel carriers) were used to "extricate" 416 children. No evidence. No warrant. No charges. Just guns (and social workers, of course).
And it is now being argued in court, and apparently successfully (to judge by the continued detainment of the 416 children), that the beliefs of the parents, in and of themselves, were harmful enough to the children that they needed to be removed.
Let me repeat: none of the mothers or fathers were charged with any specific criminal acts. Lifestyle was their crime. Religion their offense.
The point is not whether you share their beliefs, but whether you feel they had the right to hold them, and to pass them on to their children.
The relationship between parent and child is unique. It is perhaps the only relationship before the law where inequality of rights is actually justified. Children have rights, but those rights cannot be over-expanded without doing detriment to the individual child, the family unit, and society as a whole.
Under the pretense of "youth rights", or "protecting the children", the state can engage in egregious acts of "reeducation" and social engineering. By molding the minds of the young, the state can mold the entire society. That is why parents must jealously guard their right to parent. Acquiescence to the state’s demands to number, immunize, psychotropically medicate, or educate your child a certain way may not be in your child’s best interest. You, the parent, not the state, are the one who should make these important decisions.
But education of children is especially the key to controlling any society. Every successful totalitarian regime has understood this. Independent families are a threat to the future of any totalitarian system because they can teach children that the state is not the benevolent master it pretends to be. That is exactly the kind of education the state detests (and the reason you’ll never find mention of it in any government school).
And perhaps, just perhaps, that’s the real reason behind some of the government’s "child protection" actions. Perhaps the state feels the need to "protect" children against teachings that conflict with the interests of the state.
An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and the Child Protection "INDUSTRY"
Child Protective Services Does not protect children... It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of CPS.
every parent should read the free handbook from connecticut dcf watch...
http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com
Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN) Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS
Perpetrators of Maltreatment
Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, biological Parents 59 Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, biological Parents 13 Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, biological Parents 241 Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14 biological Parents 12 Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, biological Parents 1.5
Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children. CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States. If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers.
THIS IS AMERICA'S HIDDEN HOLOCAUST
Currently Child Protective Services violates more constitutionally guaranteed liberties & civil rights on a daily basis then all other agencies combined, Including the National Security agency/Central intelligence agency wiretaping programs…
THE CORRUPT BUSINESS OF CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BY: Nancy Schaefer Senator, 50th District of Georgia
http://www.senatornancyschaefer.com/articles.php?filter=6
This is Child Protection? By Gregory A. Hession, J.D.
http://www.jbs.org/node/4632
Mercenary Motherhood: "Memoirs of a Babystealer."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-callahan16oct16,0,5019944.story?coll=l a-opinion-rightrail
FOSTER CARE IS A 80 PERCENT FAILURE:. A Brief Analysis of the Casey Family Programs. Northwest Foster Care Alumni Study. By Richard Wexler
http://www.nccpr.org/reports/cfpanalysis.doc
HOW THE WAR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE BECAME A WAR AGAINST CHILDREN
http://www.nccpr.org/issues/1.html
Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families By Nev Moore Massachusetts News
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/5_May/mayds4.htm
A recent study has found that 12-18 months after leaving foster care:
30% of the nation’s homeless are former foster children. 27% of the males and 10% of the females had been incarcerated 33% were receiving public assistance 37% had not finished high school 2% receive a college degree 50% were unemployed
Children in foster care are three to six times more likely than children not in care to have emotional, behavioral and developmental problems, including conduct disorders, depression, difficulties in school and impaired social relationships. Some experts estimate that about 30% of the children in care have marked or severe emotional problems. Various studies have indicated that children and young people in foster care tend to have limited education and job skills, perform poorly in school compared to children who are not in foster care, lag behind in their education by at least one year, and have lower educational attainment than the general population. *Casey Family Programs National Center for Resource Family Support
80 percent of prison inmates have been through the foster care system.
The highest ranking federal official in charge of foster care, Wade Horn of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a former child psychologist who says the foster care system is a giant mess and should just be blown up.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2017991
Four rigorous studies have found that at least 30 percent of America’s foster children could be home right now if their parents had decent housing.
This study found thousands of children already in foster care who would have done better had child protection agencies not taken them away in the first place.
Front-page story in USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-02-foster-study_N.htm?csp=34#Close
The full study is available here.
http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf
The bottom line? - Child Protective Services and the Foster Care system for the most part turns out young adults that are nothing more than walking wreckage...
CURRENTLY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES VIOLATES MORE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED LIBERTIES & CIVIL RIGHTS ON A DAILY BASIS THEN ALL OTHER AGENCIES COMBINED INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WIRETAPPING PROGRAMS....
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, HAPPILY DESTROYING THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES YEARLY NATIONWIDE AND COMING TO YOU'RE HOME SOON...
BE SURE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOUR CANDIDATES STANDS ON THE ISSUE OF REFORMING OR ABOLISHING CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES ("MAKE YOUR CANDIDATES TAKE A STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION...
dragonsgirl - 01 May 2008 15:04 GMT > The Family Under Attack - Does the State Own YOUR Children? > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > to "protect" children against teachings that conflict with the interests > of the state. I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
> An Inconvenient Truth about Child Protective Services, Foster care, and > the Child Protection "INDUSTRY" [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > STAND ON THIS ISSUE.") THEN REMEMBER TO VOTE ACCORDINGLY IF THEY ARE > "FAMILY UNFRIENDLY" IN THE NEXT ELECTION... Chaz - 03 May 2008 21:55 GMT > > The Family Under Attack - Does the State Own YOUR Children? > [quoted text clipped - 212 lines] > > read more » http://linkboxes.blogspot.com/
"Baskerville has exposed a major abuse of power that is not only responsible for destroying families and for the social disorder that ensues from that. It also rationalizes massive government spending and violations of our constitutional freedoms by courts, bureaucracies, and other arms of the state. Today's social crisis is not the product of impersonal social forces to which we must resign ourselves. It is the logical culmination of the modern state's perpetual drive to create problems for itself to solve. This book powerfully reveals the interconnected threats to the family, accountable government, and freedom."
--Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
Greegor - 04 May 2008 02:43 GMT BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict BW > with the interests of the state'. I would call it abuse.
Betty, Before you get too worked up about child brides, how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as recently as 100 years ago?
The founding fathers and the Quaker Oats guy commonly married child brides.
Life expectancy wasn't very old either.
I'm not in favor of the child bride thing but to go from something being a "cultural norm" to that same behavior being the focus of hysteria within 100 years is amazing.
The mainstream Mormons only gave up polygamy so Utah could obtain statehood.
So WHY didn't they just go after these FLDS people for their polygamy?
Why did all of this have to wait until 2008?
Why didn't this happen 30 or 40 years ago?
AND why did it have to be based on a malicious fake child abuse report by that prank call lady?
Why, after all of these YEARS, is that the best excuse they could come up with to raise hell with these people?
dragonsgirl - 04 May 2008 06:39 GMT > BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige > BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as > recently as 100 years ago? First of all, Greg, I don't think that writing a two sentence reply qualifies as getting 'all worked up'. The 'cultural norm' 100 years ago also included children that didn't get educations, picking cotton in the blazing sun from dusk to dawn as young as five, and much more. Can you, in your infinite wisdom, see the difference between 100 years ago and today? I mean, surely you can't be THAT blind, can you?
> The founding fathers and the Quaker Oats guy > commonly married child brides. That was well over 200 years ago.
> Life expectancy wasn't very old either. And?
> I'm not in favor of the child bride thing but > to go from something being a "cultural norm" > to that same behavior being the focus > of hysteria within 100 years is amazing. For someone who isn't 'in favor' you sure do try to make a good case for it. You fail miserably, but you give it a shot never the less.
> The mainstream Mormons only gave up > polygamy so Utah could obtain statehood. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > best excuse they could come up with > to raise hell with these people? The best excuse? Wow. I don't even know how to respond to that.
Greegor - 05 May 2008 07:07 GMT Betty, I'm not in favor of polygamy or child brides. I'm just saying that your level of RAGING and CONDEMNING of them is kind of a crock of poo because "societal norms" were JUST FINE with those things in fairly recent history.
I don't know sociologically when or how exactly we got from there to here. If you do, please share!
So WHY would I be so full of piss and vinegar and condemn them so harshly when they were considered the NORM less than 100 years ago?
Even without looking into the past I have brought up problems like a young Mexican married couple whe moved to Iowa legally but then all hell broke loose because she was under legal age HERE.
Only a few years ago there have even been news stories about a couple who got married in some Southern state (with parents permission) and moved to some Northern state where all hell broke loose.
I don't promote polygamy or child brides.
I just don't see the FIRE AND BRIMSTONE CONDEMNATION of them as being very rational.
I'm sure there are many different versions of the story about how our societal norms shifted from child brides and polygamy being OK to this societal norm which so strongly condemns what was OK so receently.
How is it that morality in the US and morality in England started out the same and diverged so severely that consorship there abhors shootings but sex is AOK on TV? And it the opposite in the US?
Ya wanna throw a RAGE about that, Betty?
dragonsgirl - 05 May 2008 09:02 GMT > Betty, I'm not in favor of polygamy or child brides. > I'm just saying that your level of RAGING and > CONDEMNING of them is kind of a crock of poo > because "societal norms" were JUST FINE with > those things in fairly recent history. Again, Mr I-Blow-Shit-Way-Out-Of-Porportion, I did not rage. Further, you mentioned founding fathers, 200 years ago was not 'fairly recent history'.
> I don't know sociologically when or how exactly > we got from there to here. If you do, please share! My guess would be that it all started with the constitution. You know what that is, right? The piece of paper that was instrumental in the founding of this independant country? You know...how it says all men are created equal? I don't think that phrase was written to literally mean 'adult men, and men only'. So, I'm guessing it all began when a document was signed that declared all men equal. How did you get this far in life?
> So WHY would I be so full of piss and vinegar > and condemn them so harshly when they > were considered the NORM less than 100 > years ago? Huh? You mean you believe that child brides were common 'less than 100 years ago'? Oh dear. I think you should take another look-see at that history book.
> Even without looking into the past I have > brought up problems like a young Mexican > married couple whe moved to Iowa legally > but then all hell broke loose because she > was under legal age HERE. When in Rome.
> Only a few years ago there have even been > news stories about a couple who got married > in some Southern state (with parents permission) > and moved to some Northern state where all > hell broke loose. Laws normally attach some qualifier to them such as 'legal so long as it does not violate state or local laws'. A bad example would be to point out that fireworks are legal in this country. They are also legal, for example, in this state. But you better not let the cops catch you blowing them off in this town or your a.s is certain grass. Again, when in Rome.
> I don't promote polygamy or child brides. But you make an argument in support of them?
> I just don't see the FIRE AND BRIMSTONE > CONDEMNATION of them as being very rational. Now who was giving the 'fire and brimstone' condemnation, or, are you just exaggerating again?
> I'm sure there are many different versions > of the story about how our societal norms > shifted from child brides and polygamy being > OK to this societal norm which so strongly > condemns what was OK so receently. Factually speaking, and this may give you a teeny tiny bit of a clue as to why it's not ok now, but it was ok then, is this: Children grew up and matured rather quickly over 100 years ago. They often did not attend school, and they began very hard work at young ages. They were often given, and took, a great deal of responsibility, as life was much harder over 100 years ago, and the very survival of families was dependant upon the ability of each family member to contribute to the productivity of the family. Are you still with me here Greg? It was not uncommon for parents to have several children to work the fields. The more hands the more productive a family unit was. Children grew up hard and were mentally and emotionally adults at much younger ages. This is in no way a drawback, as children often grew up to be successful themselves because of the rearings that they had. However, the cons of childhood 100+ years ago included early death from illness and accidental death, lack of education, malnutrition, and so on. As this country began to move in to the 'modern' age, more foods were available without the labor that was once needed to feed a family. More children attended school, and were responsible for less at home due to their school day. As time went on, and life got easier people no longer needed to press harsh work on their children. In turn, children no longer needed to mature as they did 100+ years ago, and the life expectancy went up. There was no rush to get married at 13 and have kids because you would only live to 34. Today children can expect to live to retirement age...roughly 30 years longer than children of 100+ years ago, or better. Their youth is no longer spent caring for ailing relatives, younger siblings, livestock, homes, etc. Children are not required to become adults with the full responsibilities of adulthood as they were then. And because they aren't required to, they don't. 100+ years ago a 13 year old girl was mentally in her twenties. Today a 13 year old girl is mentally a 13 year old girl. And that is my take on why what was acceptable and the norm 100+ years ago is not now.
> How is it that morality in the US and morality > in England started out the same and > diverged so severely that consorship there > abhors shootings but sex is AOK on TV? > And it the opposite in the US? I've never really thought about it, nor do I care to. I know very little about the relationship between US television and Britty Telly.
> Ya wanna throw a RAGE about that, Betty? Now, Greg, calm down. Did I 'rage', as you imply, or did I simply point out that you were wrong?
Dan Sullivan - 05 May 2008 12:20 GMT > BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige > BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how do you explain that it was a "cultural norm" as > recently as 100 years ago? Explain history?
Explain that things change?
GFYS, greg.
krp - 05 May 2008 22:05 GMT >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Explain history? Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording of events in the world? OR are you stupid enough, AGAIN, to TRY to deny that into the start of the 20th century marriage of girls age 12 and 13 were quite common in the world? And DANNY BOY, there are STILL places where it isn't uncommon. Much of the Muslim world, Africa, and parts of South America. Oh and before I forget - INDIA and the Asian subcontinent. You are so giddily full of sh.t in your SANCTIMONY Mr. Sullivan that you are something of a joke! Rage on and give us your pretended GREAT KNOWLEDGE.
Dan Sullivan - 05 May 2008 22:25 GMT > >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige > >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Golly Sullivan, you don't know what "history" is the documented recording of > events in the world? Of course I do.
GFYS, porndaddy.
And leave your pornstar daughter ALONE!
She's busy making MoooooooVies.
krp - 06 May 2008 22:24 GMT THE SUPERINTELLIGENT ...
>> >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige >> >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > GFYS, porndaddy. See WHAT INTELLECTUALISM!! WOW!
Dan Sullivan - 06 May 2008 23:52 GMT > THE SUPERINTELLIGENT > ... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > See WHAT INTELLECTUALISM!! > WOW! Deal with it, piggy.
krp - 07 May 2008 15:00 GMT >>>> >> BW > I wouldn't call giving your child away in marraige >>>> >> BW > at the age of 13 to be 'teaching that conflict [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Deal with it, piggy. Oh Danny I already have written you off as just a loud street bully from new York. A punk who only has power in his PACK. Yours has evaporated Danny. You're all alone. Kane's gone. Ron is WAY too smart to defend you any more. All ya got is the COMPUTER HATCHER!
Dan Sullivan - 07 May 2008 15:05 GMT zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Greegor - 08 May 2008 02:39 GMT Can I get a GFYS, Dan!
Dan Sullivan - 08 May 2008 03:28 GMT zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Greegor - 08 May 2008 17:00 GMT For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in ascps.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thre ad/thread/1365b3e126709507
Johnny - 09 May 2008 01:24 GMT > For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in > ascps. > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_thre ad/thread/1365b3e126709507 Screw you!
Dan Sullivan - 09 May 2008 01:31 GMT > > For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in > > ascps. > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/... > > Screw you! Well said!
Johnny - 09 May 2008 06:10 GMT >> > For those of you in alt.adoption, Please check out this thread in >> > ascps. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Well said! Thanks, I thought so too!
Greegor - 10 May 2008 07:07 GMT > >> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks, I thought so too! Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
Dan Sullivan - 10 May 2008 12:11 GMT > > "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan! That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
Greegor - 10 May 2008 23:40 GMT G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker said for years also. And you extended his lie, as well. Then he got firmly ID'd.
You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
Dan Sullivan - 11 May 2008 00:00 GMT > G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker > said for years also. I'm not Donald Fisher.
And he never was a CPS case worker.
> And you extended his lie, as well. It was and is the truth.
> Then he got firmly ID'd. As what?
> You and Don posted online references for each other for years. He's helped me in dozens of cases.
And we won almost all of them.
How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
Greegor - 11 May 2008 07:46 GMT G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
G > Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
G > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker G > said for years also.
DS > I'm not Donald Fisher.
Got proof?
DS > And he never was a CPS case worker.
He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought it might matter, stroking his ego.
G > And you extended his lie, as well.
DS > It was and is the truth.
His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan!
G > Then he got firmly ID'd.
DS > As what?
Retired Oregon CPS caseworker Donald L. Fisher. The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster".. ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO.
G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases. DS > And we won almost all of them.
Got proof? You ran your own mutual admiration society, each vouching for the other in a circular fashion.
And your positions regarding the Child Protection INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives.
Way back, Kane even tried to argue against calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
My EGO does not need inflating. Why does yours, Dan?
Dan Sullivan - 11 May 2008 13:36 GMT > G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan! > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought > it might matter, stroking his ego. Post the proof.
> G > And you extended his lie, as well. > > DS > It was and is the truth. > > His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan! As what, exactly?
> G > Then he got firmly ID'd. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster".. > ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO. So many claims, accompanied by no evidence at all.
Typical gutless greg hanson.
> G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years. > > DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases. > DS > And we won almost all of them. > > Got proof? Jennifer, Chuck, etc... etc...
Most in the google archives.
And you were reading and posting your crap to these people as their situation progressed... and eventually resolved to their favor.
> You ran your own mutual admiration society, > each vouching for the other in a circular fashion. > > And your positions regarding the Child Protection > INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives. Post any of my quotes you need to, greg.
> Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL! So?
Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
> DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg? > > My EGO does not need inflating. So, that would be "none," right, greg?
Greegor - 12 May 2008 07:45 GMT G > Tell him you're a caseworker Dan!
DS > That wouldn't be accurate or true, greg.
G > Got proof?
DS > I have never worked for the CPS system in any way.
G > That's what Donald L. Fisher, former Oregon caseworker G > said for years also.
DS > I'm not Donald Fisher.
G > Got proof?
DS > And he never was a CPS case worker.
G > He outed himself, Dan, years before he thought G > it might matter, stroking his ego.
DS > Post the proof.
G > And you extended his lie, as well.
DS > It was and is the truth.
G > His OWN really old posts gave him away Dan!
DS > As what, exactly?
G > Then he got firmly ID'd.
DS > As what?
G > Retired Oregon CPS caseworker Donald L. Fisher. G > The former Oregon Child Protection "webmaster".. G > ID'd by his own old messages and his EGO.
DS > So many claims, accompanied by no evidence at all.
Oliver Sutton?
DS > Typical gutless greg hanson.
G > You and Don posted online references for each other for years.
DS > He's helped me in dozens of cases. DS > And we won almost all of them.
G > Got proof?
DS > Jennifer, Chuck, etc... etc... DS > Most in the google archives.
Oliver Sutton?
DS > And you were reading and posting DS > your crap to these people as their DS > situation progressed... and eventually DS > resolved to their favor.
Oliver Sutton?
G > You ran your own mutual admiration society, G > each vouching for the other in a circular fashion.
G > And your positions regarding the Child Protection G > INDUSTRY are immortalized in the archives.
DS > Post any of my quotes you need to, greg.
G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > So? DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
When a person who poses as a Family Rights Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS a.s, it kinda gives away the con game.
Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
G > My EGO does not need inflating.
DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
Definately some. Not in it for the glory. Not keeping a scorecard. Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
Dan Sullivan - 12 May 2008 14:35 GMT > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS a.s, > it kinda gives away the con game. I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' a.s.
And I never did it myself.
> Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than > an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Definately some. What was your winning advice?
> Not in it for the glory. OBVIOUSLY!!!
> Not keeping a scorecard. Because you can't even keep your own lies straight.
> Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch. How long did it take Lisa Watkins to win her CPS case with your advice, strategy and tactics, greg?
LK - 12 May 2008 15:47 GMT > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' a.s. For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the archives and that does seem to be your position.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0b2bfe1 7fed5c50b
> And I never did it myself. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > How long did it take Lisa Watkins to win her CPS case with your > advice, strategy and tactics, greg? Dan Sullivan - 12 May 2008 15:51 GMT > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/... Please be specific.
I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
LK - 12 May 2008 19:56 GMT > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Please be specific. By telling them to give CPS what they want. Warning them not to piss off the worker. Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a breath mint. You know, a.s kissing.
> I have helped get many, many children back to their parents. How many exactly?
How did you do it?
What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people said, "Oh thank you Dan, I couldn't have done it without you."
And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases?
Dan Sullivan - 12 May 2008 21:50 GMT > > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > By telling them to give CPS what they want. My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate.
> Warning them not to piss off the worker. Is that a bad suggestion?
> Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a > breath mint. I don't know what you're referring to.
> You know, a.s kissing. Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "a.s kissing."
> > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents. > > How many exactly? More than 40.
> How did you do it? By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
> What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all > in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people > said, "Oh thank you Dan, I couldn't have done it without you." Here's a quote from Doug Quirmbach the Public Relations Director of CPS Watch to a father who just got his baby back from CPS
"It appears you needed help in expediting the disclosure of the truth so you could get your baby back home. CPS, as you learned, are experts at delay. In its adversary role, the agency is not interested in the truth. Dean would have helped speed things up, possibly. But his posture is diametrically opposed to the approach you ended up taking.
It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's expert help in developing and following through with the approach you successfully implemented. Dan's is an approach that begins by assuming a posture that CPS mistakenly reads as submissive and then using the agency's own procedures against them. He is like a bulldog. He never lets go. He begins with the very accurate assumption that the caseworker goofed up and goes into the closet to find the administrative policy or directives that define the malpractice. He is brilliant with the tools of this approach."
And here's what was posted from the father who got his daughter back the night before her first birthday...
"Our daughters first B-day was yesterday! Everything went great and our daughter is doing so well with adjusting.
I spoke with my attorney the same night, he called to say happy b-day and check in on us.
He reminded me that a while back my friend, Dan, had pushed me to ask him to emergency petition the court. The attorney was saying if it was not done when we had the opportunity then, we might not be sitting around having cake celebrating. We owed this guy a world of thanks.
Dan told me to call him and push at him to file the darn motion. I made the call and the attoreny said "its what I was thinking but how did you have the same idea"?
I said I just spoke with my friend Dan and the attorney politely cut me short. He said "In what area does your friend Dan practice law"? I said he doesnt. He said "are you sure"? , "only an attorney thinks like this".
At the end of our convo he said I am not sure what to really bill you. I think I just showed up in court and your buddy gave you everything you needed to prevail. So I said how about you charge me nothing? ;-p
Well its not quite nothing but no where near what it would be had I not had Dan fighting hard along side me.
He did the real work. He knew we were a mess, we weren't sleeping, eating. When my voice cracked on the phone his did too. He said it was alright to cry, he let me get it out.
Once I was so angry I wanted to smash everything!!! He told me to go punch the trees outside. He told me a joke, he made me laugh.
I would sit and stare blankly at the computer and an email box would pop up. It was Dan, he just found a new piece of info about OI and had to share it. When I was down he picked me up. He gave me the strength to fight. He spent more time on the phone with me than my own father.
When I had a question at, 10pm, 11pm, 12pm.......Dan had the answer.
My wife's mom died during this ordeal to cancer. While we grieved her loss Dan took this tragedy and worked it into our case to use against cps.
I honestly forgot about parts of our case that happened in court. The guy shocked me by reminding me exactly what transpired. It ws like he was there in court with us taping the whole thing. He is just a great listener and nothing gets passed him. My problem was his problem.
When it comes to family, this guy is as serious as a heart attack!
He told me we won months before we even walked into court. He was right.
Dan, Thank You! The smile on my wife's face!!! You have no idea!!!
In every snapshot, my daughter is all smiles! My wife couldn't stop crying.
I thought I was going to have to cover her with a shock blanket! She still cant believe its over.
I also went to NY to pick up my 8 year old daughter today. She has not seen her sister once since cps intervened on us. They said she would also be fair game to take if she were at my home and they came calling.
They are together for the first time in 7 months! My life is complete again, my world is whole.
Dan, we all (not kids) lifted a glass of champagne last night and we toasted to YOU! Not only have you made us the happiest people in the world, but you made my parents the happiest grandparents in the world!
I needed to say this publicly here. People need to know from where the help came, from who was willing, night or day, to listen and to guide us.
Many Thanks,
Chuck, Margie and baby Angie aka Loyal Fan
P.S. My wife is insisting on her confirmation name being Danielle. You better have no plans cause your now her sponsor! "
> And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases? 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to Oregon.
Dan Sullivan - 13 May 2008 01:46 GMT > > > > > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > > > > > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as > > > > > G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
> > > > > DS > So? > > > > > DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
> > > > > When a person who poses as a Family Rights > > > > > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS a.s, > > > > > it kinda gives away the con game.
> > > > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' a.s.
> > > For what it's worth Dan, I have been reading through some of the > > > archives and that does seem to be your position.
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
> > Please be specific.
> By telling them to give CPS what they want. My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate.
> Warning them not to piss off the worker. Is that a bad suggestion?
> Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a > breath mint. I don't know what you're referring to.
> You know, a.s kissing. Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "a.s kissing."
> > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents.
> How many exactly? More than 40.
> How did you do it? By knowing the system better than the people in the system.
> What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all > in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people > said, "Oh thank you Dan, I couldn't have done it without you." Here's a quote from Doug Quirmbach the Public Relations Director of CPS Watch to a father who just got his baby back from CPS
"It appears you needed help in expediting the disclosure of the truth so you could get your baby back home. CPS, as you learned, are experts at delay. In its adversary role, the agency is not interested in the truth. Dean would have helped speed things up, possibly. But his posture is diametrically opposed to the approach you ended up taking.
It is my understanding that you are rightfully grateful for Dan's expert help in developing and following through with the approach you successfully implemented. Dan's is an approach that begins by assuming a posture that CPS mistakenly reads as submissive and then using the agency's own procedures against them. He is like a bulldog. He never lets go. He begins with the very accurate assumption that the caseworker goofed up and goes into the closet to find the administrative policy or directives that define the malpractice. He is brilliant with the tools of this approach."
And here's what was posted from the father who got his daughter back the night before her first birthday...
"Our daughters first B-day was yesterday! Everything went great and our daughter is doing so well with adjusting.
I spoke with my attorney the same night, he called to say happy b-day and check in on us.
He reminded me that a while back my friend, Dan, had pushed me to ask him to emergency petition the court. The attorney was saying if it was not done when we had the opportunity then, we might not be sitting around having cake celebrating. We owed this guy a world of thanks.
Dan told me to call him and push at him to file the darn motion. I made the call and the attoreny said "its what I was thinking but how did you have the same idea"?
I said I just spoke with my friend Dan and the attorney politely cut me short. He said "In what area does your friend Dan practice law"? I said he doesnt. He said "are you sure"? , "only an attorney thinks like this".
At the end of our convo he said I am not sure what to really bill you. I think I just showed up in court and your buddy gave you everything you needed to prevail. So I said how about you charge me nothing? ;-p
Well its not quite nothing but no where near what it would be had I not had Dan fighting hard along side me.
He did the real work. He knew we were a mess, we weren't sleeping, eating. When my voice cracked on the phone his did too. He said it was alright to cry, he let me get it out.
Once I was so angry I wanted to smash everything!!! He told me to go punch the trees outside. He told me a joke, he made me laugh.
I would sit and stare blankly at the computer and an email box would pop up. It was Dan, he just found a new piece of info about OI and had to share it. When I was down he picked me up. He gave me the strength to fight. He spent more time on the phone with me than my own father.
When I had a question at, 10pm, 11pm, 12pm.......Dan had the answer.
My wife's mom died during this ordeal to cancer. While we grieved her loss Dan took this tragedy and worked it into our case to use against cps.
I honestly forgot about parts of our case that happened in court. The guy shocked me by reminding me exactly what transpired. It ws like he was there in court with us taping the whole thing. He is just a great listener and nothing gets passed him. My problem was his problem.
When it comes to family, this guy is as serious as a heart attack!
He told me we won months before we even walked into court. He was right.
Dan, Thank You! The smile on my wife's face!!! You have no idea!!!
In every snapshot, my daughter is all smiles! My wife couldn't stop crying.
I thought I was going to have to cover her with a shock blanket! She still cant believe its over.
I also went to NY to pick up my 8 year old daughter today. She has not seen her sister once since cps intervened on us. They said she would also be fair game to take if she were at my home and they came calling.
They are together for the first time in 7 months! My life is complete again, my world is whole.
Dan, we all (not kids) lifted a glass of champagne last night and we toasted to YOU! Not only have you made us the happiest people in the world, but you made my parents the happiest grandparents in the world!
I needed to say this publicly here. People need to know from where the help came, from who was willing, night or day, to listen and to guide us.
Many Thanks,
Chuck, Margie and baby Angie aka Loyal Fan
P.S. My wife is insisting on her confirmation name being Danielle. You better have no plans cause your now her sponsor!"
> And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases? 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to Oregon.
Greegor - 13 May 2008 04:58 GMT G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as G > if it's a PROFESSION! LOL!
DS > So? DS > Is everyone supposed to have the same opinions you have, greg?
G > When a person who poses as a Family Rights G > Advocate takes a position of kissing CPS a.s, G > it kinda gives away the con game.
DS > I never advised anyone to kiss CPS' a.s.
DS > And I never did it myself.
G > Like seeing CPS as a PROFESSION rather than G > an INDUSTRY! Not compatible with Family Rights.
DS > How many CPS cases have you helped win, greg?
G > My EGO does not need inflating.
DS > So, that would be "none," right, greg?
G > Definately some.
DS > What was your winning advice?
In which case?
G > Not in it for the glory.
DS > OBVIOUSLY!!!
G > Not keeping a scorecard.
DS > Because you can't even keep your own lies straight.
Your lips are moving but no proof is forthcoming.
G > Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch.
DS > How long did it take Lisa Watkins DS > to win her CPS case with your DS > advice, strategy and tactics, greg?
As opposed to what, Dan?
gposter - 13 May 2008 10:37 GMT > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > As opposed to what, Dan? Dan Sullivan - 13 May 2008 12:42 GMT > G > Way back, Kane even tried to argue against > G > calling it the Child Protection INDUSTRY, as [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > In which case? The last five.
And be sure to post the outcome for the family.
Reunification, etc, etc...
And how many children were involved.
> G > Not in it for the glory. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Your lips are moving but no proof is forthcoming. Your own words, greg.
"FORCED" and then "threatened."
> G > Not seeking glowing public ""sales"" pitch. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > As opposed to what, Dan? Did she win but without your advice, strategy and tactics?
Greegor - 13 May 2008 20:16 GMT DS > Your own words, greg. DS > "FORCED" and then "threatened."
Dan, It's funny how a DICTIONARY makes mention of convincing, coercion, influencing and more all under the definition of "force".
Didn't you know this, Dan, Mister Comma Cop?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force
force (fôrs, frs) n. c. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation. -------------------------- b. A person or group capable of influential action: a retired senator who is still a force in national politics. -------------------------- 1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job. 2. a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession. b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe. c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group. ------------------------------- 8. Games To cause an opponent to play (a particular card). Idioms: force (someone's) hand ------------------------------------ forcea·ble adj. forcer n. Synonyms: force, compel, coerce, constrain, oblige, obligate These verbs mean to cause a person or thing to follow a prescribed or dictated course. Force, the most general, usually implies the exertion of physical power or the operation of circumstances that permit no options: Tear gas forced the fugitives out of their hiding place. ----------------------------------- Coerce invariably implies the use of strength or harsh measures in securing compliance: "The man of genius rules . . . by persuading an efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent majority"
Dan, Have you explained how you coerced your bipolar ex-wife to take her psych meds?
You didn't allow her to endanger your kids, did you?
LK - 13 May 2008 02:26 GMT On May 12, 4:50 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On May 12, 2:56 pm, LK <Patis...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > My advice is to agree to what is necessary and appropriate. For example, anything the worker decides to put in a case plan? Wouldn't your own case tell you that not much of what they do is necessary and appropriate? What would you consider unnecessary and inappropriate? Besides false accusations and findings against people like you of course.
> > Warning them not to piss off the worker. > > Is that a bad suggestion? And that's not going to happen simply by fighting against them or underminding them with somebody who "Knows the system better then they do?"
> > Making them paranoid over a minor incident such as a > > breath mint. > > I don't know what you're referring to. Just something I read in the archives. Nothing major. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/8c91054 f57035cf5
> > You know, a.s kissing. > > Post some of the advice of mine you would consider "a.s kissing." Same link.
Post links to some of your advice that wasn't a.s kissing. You know, where you told somebody how to outsmart the worker by knowing the system better then they do.
> > > I have helped get many, many children back to their parents. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > By knowing the system better than the people in the system. For example?
> > What proof do you have of this? If you're going to tell me it's all > > in the archives, then provide the links to where all of these people [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > closet to find the administrative policy or directives that define the > malpractice. He is brilliant with the tools of this approach." Do you have a link for this?
> And here's what was posted from the father who got his daughter back > the night before her first birthday... [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > P.S. My wife is insisting on her confirmation name being Danielle. You > better have no plans cause your now her sponsor! " Link?
> > And what are your qualifications for getting involved in these cases? > > 21 years of prevailing over CPS from NY to California, Florida to > Oregon. What qualified you for the first one?
|
|
|