On May 30, 2:51 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> G > Dan, The courts blessed and condone the sloppy operation
> G > you describe by their complicity, consent, orders and inaction.
>
> DS > Piggy claims a court just ordered all
> DS > the children returned to their parents.
>
> Was it a claim or a NEWS STORY?
I don't recall.
> Please post quotes of any descrepancies.
Of what?
> G > WHY is it you keep presenting the Judges and dependency
> G > courts as some paragon of virtue, some knight on a white
> G > horse coming to the rescue of families?
>
> DS > I never presented Judges as a paragon of virtue.
>
> G > You pretend that evidence matters.
>
> DS > It does when I'm involved.
>
> Why would your big ass matter so much?
I don't have a big ass.
But I know what I'm doing.
> Your EGO is astounding!
What's astounding is how many times I win!
> [...]
>
> G > I've seen a Judges signed search warrant that
> G > was illegal for lack of specifics and hidden
> G > behind a bogus title "Court Order for home inspection".
>
> DS > Did you prove the inspection to be illegal?
>
> To the judicial qualifications panel
> or the Supreme Court you mean?
I didn't specify.
> Where a search warrant lacks specifics
> like requested STANDARDS for a home
> inspection, it IS an illegal search warrant,
> per the 4th amendment and caselaw
> about search warrants.
>
> DS > Was it really a "search warrant?"
>
> Dan, a Signed Court Order for Home Inspection
> IS a search warrant in disguise.
So it was a search warrant BUT in disguise!
> How could it be anything else, Dan? Please explain.
Please explain how it's in disguise?
You should do that, greg.
> G > The court's swift protection of the BOR and Constitutional
> G > Rights of my family? "That's for another court."
>
> DS > And was the Judge correct or incorrect in that?
>
> Incorrect.
And you proved that in which forum?
> The US Constitution has NOT been suspended.
> The Constitution should reign in Juvenile court.
> Juvenile courts do a lot of ILLEGAL stuff, as is
> evident in the TX polygamy case.
And the TX case is relevant in an Iowa Family Court case?
Is Lisa Watkins' case still going on?
If it's over what does it matter what happens in TX?
> The Juvenile Court in TX had to be ***** slapped
> by a HIGH COURT and forced to do what they
> are supposed to do by law.
>
> This proves a huge descrepancy between
> what the Juvenile Court is SUPPOSED to
> do and what they actually DID to about 250 kids.
>
> Hell, they even illegally incarcerated a bunch
> of adults! That sure as HELL is unconstitutional!
Are you going to TX to lend you expertise to the situation?
> G > And ABOVE you acknowledge the massive slop
> G > in the system, but failed yet again to acknowledge
> G > the court's complicity in this sloppy operation.
>
> DS > All I know, greg, is when I'm involved... I get
> DS > a favorable ruling from the Family Court Judge,
> DS > from an Ad Review, from a Judge at a Fair
> DS > Hearing, from CPS themselves
> DS > and from a DA's office.
>
> Yes, Dan, You are special. Like Unicorns!
>
> G > You described changes you expect in the
> G > system's behavior but with absolutely no
> G > change in laws, rules or regulation.
>
> DS > The laws are fine.
>
> DS > It's the people in the system that suck.
>
> Why don't the CHECKS AND BALANCES work, Dan?
> How could some (exception?) bad people
> run the system their way, and unchecked?
>
> G > Changes made to suit political winds
> G > (and PR) at the moment.
>
> G > You acknowledge that the whole system is lawless.
> G > Not in so many words, but nonetheless you did.
>
> DS > I didn't actually say something, but I did?
>
> DS > No wonder the Judge stopped your bull**** in court.
>
> Yer making up FAIRY TALES again Dan.
Just read what you wrote.
> DS > greg you're the prime reason CPS is necessary.
> DS > And you're also the prime example of why people lose against CPS.
>
> Global warming. You forgot to blame me for that too.
>
> But you FAILED once again to reconcile the
> meaning of the high court rulings in the
> TX polygamy case.
As it relates to Lisa Watkins' case?
> Your OWN RECENT COMMENTS point up that the
> agencies DO NOT follow the laws and the
> dependency courts blatantly FAIL to force them to.
>
> Dependency courts basically worse than "kangaroo courts",
> "star chamber", or "drumhead courts" that are
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL in the USA.
>
> They are worse because they are truly
> rubber stamps for whatever the agency wants,
> and ignore the US Constitution and (even you said)
> ignore the laws, rules, regulations and policies.
>
> Why is it that your raft of cronies (maybe you too)
> have recently been throwing out the reasoning that
> "If you love your kids you won't fight CPS"?
I don't know who you're talking about.
> Why wasn't that in this cross posted thread, Dan?
>
> Yes, Dan, I RECOGNIZE that sick logic.
>
> I've seen CPS caseworkers utter it in the courthouse hallway!
>
> You didn't want to discuss that in a thread where
> some outsiders are learning just how treasonous
> the operations of CPS agencies really are...
>
> The "If you love your kids you won't Fight CPS"
> canard translates to (If you love them you'll submit)
> or as I've termed YOUR advice, Dan,
> "Winning through surrender".
You can call what I suggest anything you want, greg.
The fact is it's EXTREMELY successful!
> The agencies use this kind of EXTORTION
> to urge submission and compliance.
>
> LIke the 'Borg in a popular Sci Fi TV show.
>
> CPS agencies are actually EXTORTIVE.
>
> Why is it that when somebody is kidnapped,
> the authorities have a policy AGAINST
> paying the ransom, Dan?
You tell me.
> WHY is it that when CPS kidnaps a child
> parents are supposed to SUBMIT?
>
> How is this EXTORTIVE situation so different
> from other organized kidnappings?
>
> Why are people from the "Land of the Free
> and the Home of the Brave" supposed to
> submit to EXTORTIONISTS who extort
> people's RIGHTS instead of mere MONEY?
|
