An actual Motion - seriously

General chat area for anything that doesn't fit in elsewhere.

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

An actual Motion - seriously

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:37 am

The names have been changed....


IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY JUVENILE DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY

MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES

COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate and inquisitive services.

The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the trunk of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.

On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION of the Service Plan." This is a Federal regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.

Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.


Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years that Greg has been with us. Domestic Violence counselor pushed for disclosure of some dark truth that simply doesn't exist. After Judas's telephonic INPUT, the counselor, Linda Vance, badgered me saying "You know that Greg pushed Child's head under water." (Actually it was head under SHOWER SPRAY! twisted by DHS.) It was clear after only a few minutes on the phone that she intended to assume the role f Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition) to elicit information about nonexistant domestic abuse.

Psychological Evaluation
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry list of 4 points.
The list was:
needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues

It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months, and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents, including misstatements, perjury and parroted comments like "it is reported" presented as de-facto evidence. We STILL have not gotten the huge number of factual, typographical, non-sequitir and other incorrect statements stricken from the records. The time will come for this. The "laundry list" four points were not all present in the STACK of input, and new, more attitudinal and subjective concerns were added. There are definate problems of EPISTEMOLOGY with this.

Greg called up Dr.DHSISGOODFORME and asked about the ethics of using such a large amount of INPUT and the potential for it to TAINT the impartiality of a Psychological Evaluation. Dr. DHSISGOODFORME could not explain how this INPUT would not creep into the subjective parts of the Psychological Evaluation. Greg asked about how the hypotheticals about behavior in a family setting posed in the INPUT could be evaluated outside of the family setting. Not many answers were forthcoming, and Greg clearly felt like he was being "railroaded" by the stacked" Psychological Evaluation. Several large issues in The Bill of Rights jelled at this point. ( 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14)

Sex Abuse Exam Done based only on DHS Perjury
Child had already undergone a sex abuse physical and a video tape interview at the CPC, despite the fact that NOBODY, not even the hostile accuser had alleged any sexual abuse. The only justification for the sex abuse physical was PERJURY by Judas of DHS about Greg's past. This same PERJURY was used at the top of Judas and Maggie's Affidavit to justify the court removal order after two weeks of extortive "Family Preservation" used purely as witch hunt.

My first idiot attorney supposedly filed a motion for a HEARING about the CPC exam, because justification was based on false and even perjurous information. The motion was denied by a Juvenile Court Judge with no explanation.

The CPC physical reported the grandmothers concerns, and reported an internal bump that had gone away, IF it ever really existed. The bump was reported as being from a swing set accident. We never owned a swing set, and this injury was apparently concealed from us IF it really ever existed. We have concerns that Child may have been brainwashed into not reporting an accident that took place on the grandparents' swing set. The grandmother was never authorized to intrude into Child's medical care in any way, yet her words are written down there in the physical report, and they are non-sequiturs. This woman has been on Prozac for 8 (EIGHT) years and does not take her Prozac reliably, which is particularly risky. Great and reliable witness eh? A mental case? (Has Wallis vs. Escondido or Spencer written all over it!)

The video tape interview was done by Jennifer Torquemada (Now Jennifer Blah) at the CPC, even though she apparently had NO CERTIFICATION for her job as an Evidenciary Interviewer. If she did, she would know more about how suggestable a 7 year old is, and how unreliable their testimony is. This is where "head pushed under water" began rather than "head pushed under shower spray".

Jennifer also directed me to cooperate with DHS, and said that I "would have to make some tough choices" implying that I needed to get rid of Greg to satisfy DHS.

She reported a lot of information that SHE did not gather. Hyperbole like "It is reported that" (blah blah) is used several times in her report. This is clearly an artifact of her interaction with the other members of the "Child Protection Team", specifically the DHS Child Protective caseworkers. This contaminates the neutrality, and adds a bogus aire of legitimacy to fictitious and factitious garbage.

Maggie Wickedwitch even fed Jennifer questions to ask from the other side of the one way glass.

I (Suzy Q. Mother) was denied my right to have legal counsel present at questioning that took place there. My first idiot attorney said he would not be allowed, which I know was not true. I went there specifically to hold my 7 year old daughters' hand through the invasive sex abuse physical. Instead I was fending off an "ambush interview" by a hostile group during that time.

Employment
The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment. There has been no explanation or justification of this. We consider this to be up to us jointly, as a family, and object to being micromanaged by busybodies at DHS who have no RIGHT to direct, order or extort such a thing. Maggie, Judas, et alia seem to have a bias against stay at home men. Mercy Hospital recently taught a class for stay at home Parents, MALE or FEMALE. It is gradually becoming main stream. Greg studied Computer Science and Electronics Technology and worked quite ambitiously before becoming a "Soccer Dad". Greg brought more EARNED SAVINGS into our family when he moved in, than Rob paid in child support in the year 2000. Greg owes no CHILD SUPPORT. Clearly DHS targeted the WRONG MAN. Shouldn't they have ordered the deadbeat bio-dad to WORK?? Do these idiots at DHS ever READ the Bill of Rights?

Vocational Rehab
Some version of the Services Plan or Case Plan has this as one of the services required of Greg. Greg doesn't qualify for Department of Vocational Rehab. Not disabled. Great one DHS!

Parenting Classes
The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes. Greg has had NO HEARING about his guilt or innocence and the courts seem to afford him NO RIGHTS, while imposing OBLIGATIONS extorted through threat of TPR. Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20 cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do anything. Are these parenting classes for purposes of teaching practicality or to teach anti-spanking propaganda and fulfill the "rescue fantasy" of the fanatical UNLICENSED caseworkers? Greg would be glad to TEACH a community ed parenting class, if you would accept this. Even childless caseworkers could learn something.

DHS has ordered that the mother(Suzy Q. Mother) and future stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by the Department of Human Services (DHS). The parents have looked for a parenting program that does not push the non-spanking political agenda. Iowa law DOES allow spanking, yet caseworkers attempt to push for absolutely NO spanking whatsoever. This seems to violate our beliefs as protected by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, among several others. The contracted Visit Supervisor (licensed) Social Worker, Deb Heitland said that Suzy Q. Mother did NOT need Parent Education classes based on many supervised visits. Later she used Parent Education as retaliation for a complaint about a rash and hygienic neglect of Child in kinship care. A doctor confirmed for Deb that the rash was from urea not washed off Child's skin. The sick way that Parent Education was used as retaliation for a LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT still needs to be addressed. I never got any paperwork regarding any investigation of this NEGLECT, even though medical treatment was involved. Isn't Deb a mandatory reporter?

All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. Yet DHS regularly contracts with "Lutheran Social Services" and the DHS regularly steamrollers over any "rights of concience" that parents have.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.

Furthermore, DHS has failed to obtain the parent's and the child's active involvement with the FORMATION of the services plan as required by US DHHS and Federal regulations and (therefore) Iowa regulations.

It is the understanding of the parents that DHS is attempting to make the parents compromise their beliefs pertaining to the upbringing of children or risk losing parental rights to the child. The parents vehemently object to this invasive and illegal requirement they are being burdened with.

PLEASE CLARIFY
1A. Do you order imposed parent education?

1B. Is it legally acceptable to order parents into parent education
classes that preach NO SPANKING rather than teaching how to use
spanking effectively and within IOWA LAW?

1C. Must the large number of parents who do believe in judicious
spanking surrender their beliefs and submit to an anti-spanking
political agenda?

1D. For these parents, wouldn't it be better to to teach parents
how to spank properly and within IOWA LAW?

1E. Do you know of any parent education that is pro-spanking?

1F. Will the court find that the unavailability of said parenting
classes cannot be held against the parents without violating their
protected right to raise a child according to their consciences and
will, therefore, not be used to support any action to withhold custody of the child from the parents?

2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?

2B. Do you consider such an examination to be appropriate for parents who know their families constitutional rights are being trampled and are thus rightiously indignant?

2C. Would you consider that every constitutionalist needs a
Psychological Evaluation?

2D. Would the members of the Boston Tea Party not have seemed surly and indignant?

2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
psychological evaluation would not bias the results?

2F. Don't you think that this INPUT should be carefully scrutinized by the intended victim and any objections brought to the court?

2G. How would a legal non-party do that?

2H. Can Suzy Q. Mother forfeit Greg's constitutional rights?

2I. Is DHS bound by US Constitution amendments 4,5,6,9 and 14?

2J. Does anything in this case rise to a level to justify violating
those Constitutional amendments?

2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
provision of the service plan?

3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
access to any materials used against them in court?

3B. Does the alleged privacy right alleged in regard to Social History reports, Video Tape interviews with the child (where no sex abuse found), and Caseworker Narratives, outweigh the LIBERTY INTEREST presented by a Child Protection case?

3C. Does this court consider the US Constitution to be something that caseworkers should know and fully understand? Or a mere
technicality, to be worked around?

3D. Does this court consider the Federally mandated right to ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN to be an insignifigance?

3E. Is Iowa DHS under any Federal or State consent decree regarding ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN?

4A. Does this court intend to allow DHS to repeatedly hint that they
wish to drive Greg and Suzy Q. Mother apart?

4B. Will the court continue to allow DHS to play legalistic games
using Greg's non-party status, at the expense of our family
bond?

4C. Is the letter of the law more important than the spirit of the
law?

The parents have attempted to cooperate with the caseworker in
facilitating the success of a services plan, even though we have known since very early on that we were deprived of our right to ACTIVE PARTICIPATION in the FORMATION of the services plan. The caseworkers have not been helpful.

There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three years, but DHS chooses to believe a mislead comment from a 7 year old. Even worse, DHS has chosen to MINIMIZE the only actual family violence, a violent attempted kidnapping by the obsessive grandparents.

No injuries to the child were alleged. Child did not require any medical treatment; nothing, not so much as an analgesic to relieve any alleged pain. Not a scratch. The same cannot be said for this last year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.

The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents. The first, best interests of the child is to be with her family and is
supported by US DHHS policy: 6-001.01. "Family preservation will
be the first consideration."

The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.

The parents have attempted to comply with the treatment plan despite the deliberate and obstructionist actions of the caseworkers. Reasonable efforts were not made to reunify the family as required by the law in the absence of any evidence that the child was in danger from the parents. Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not disbursed.

The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism or delay.

REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN

1. DHS will pay for three months of storage locker rental, at a cost
of roughly $80 per month. $240 can be sent to A-1 Rental of
Hiawatha. These funds were available under the "Family Preservation" service that we participated in within the first few weeks, but this assistance was withheld. How many TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars has DHS wasted on this case overall?

2. DHS will present written LEGAL standards for inspection of our
home. These standards will have NO subjective "attitude" and will conform to US DHHS standards regarding "respect for individuality". We have asked for standards on "clutter" from the beginning. Our requests have been repeatedly ignored. If there are NO LEGAL STANDARDS, then we ask for this requirement to be voided.

3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.

4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.

5. Counseling for Suzy Q. Mother, Greg, Child, Ralph and Shirley will
be arranged to address
-Attempted kidnapping by grandparents involving assault on Greg
-Undermining of parental authority by grandparents that has taken
place.
-Effects of incipient Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia on delusional second guessing
-Violence upon Greg, a father figure, in front of Child
-Ongoing fears of another attempted kidnapping by emotionally ill
grandmother

6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and more.

7. Greg will volunteer to TEACH a Pro-Spanking parenting class in the community.

8. Shirley Obsessor will get evaluated for Vascular Dementia and
Alzheimers by a Cardio Vascular Specialist and a Psychiatrist, with an eye toward medication upgrade and monitoring.

9.DHS will put an END to the grandmothers intrusion into the child's
school affairs. The grandparents will cease unauthorized intrusions and will return ALL school papers that have been intercepted and commandeered, as well as all of the school photographs, similarly commandeered in violation of the mothers guardianship rights even in this Kinship Caretaker situation. Grandparents will stop signing school permission slips and medical or medicaid paperwork. The grandmother apparently sees Parent-Teacher conferences as some sort of pageant, rather than a responsibility related to working on the child's education.

10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye toward unsupervised visits and reunification.

11.All services are to be paid for by Judas Swartzendruber of DHS,
personally. Judas went out of his way to direct that Greg would pay for his services earlier. Thus, this would be appropriate and just..

254; People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Lister v. Boker, 6 Blackf. 439.
COUNSELMAN v. HITCHCOCK, 142 U.S. 547 This court has ordered the parents to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and participate in
counseling - and to provide the department with all information
obtained during those evaluations and sessions by ordering them to sign all releases. The court, has, in effect, compelled the parents to disclose personal thoughts and feelings to a therapist, possibly not of their choosing, to be evaluated subjectively, which evaluation has no guarantee of accuracy since psychology is an art, not a science, and to have all of these subjective, personal and private disclosures presented as evidence against her in the upcoming adjudication hearing violating not only their right against self-incrimination, but their right to privacy, and their right to the confidentiality of the patient-therapist relationship. The state cannot at this time demonstrate an overriding interest that would permit their and their children's rights to be so trampled in order to facilitate the state's fishing expedition against them as a parent. The Court has held repeatedly that the Fifth Amendment is limited to prohibiting the use of "physical or moral compulsion" exerted on the person asserting the privilege, Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458 (1913); Couch v. United States, supra, at 328, 336. See also Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245, 252-253 (1910); United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 476 (1921); California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 (1974). In Miranda v. Arizona, ante, at 460, the Court said of the interests protected by the privilege: "All these policies point to one overriding thought: the constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a government - state or federal - must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require the government `to shoulder the entire load' . . . to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system of criminal justice demands that the government seeking to punish an individual produce the evidence against him by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth." . . Moreover, since it enables the State to rely on evidence forced from the accused, the compulsion violates at least one meaning of the requirement that the State procure the evidence
against an accused "by its own independent labors." If such
compulsion is used to obtain their cooperation with the therapist,
then any evidence discovered during those evaluations and therapeutic sessions must be excluded for the purposes of adjudication, or for any other aspect of this case. "It is extortion of information from the accused himself that offends our sense of justice." Couch v. United States, supra, at 328. We adhere to the view that the Fifth Amendment protects against "compelled self-incrimination, not [the disclosure of] private information." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 233 n. 7 (1975). Expressions are legion in opinions of this Court that the protection of personal privacy is a central purpose of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. "It is the invasion of [a person's] indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property" "that constitutes the essence of the offence" that violates the privilege. Boyd v. United States, supra, at 630. The privilege reflects "our respect for the inviolability of the human personality and of the right of each individual 'to a private enclave where he may lead a private life.'" Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1964). "It respects a private inner sanctum of individual
feeling and thought and proscribes state intrusion to extract
self-condemnation." Couch v. United States, supra, at 327. See also Tehan v. United States ex rel. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 416 (1966); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 460, (1966). "The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). See also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 n. 5 (1967).

The law also recognizes that some relationships are the opposite of adversarial, instead constituting relationships of trust. These
relationships depend for their very existence and efficacy on the
assurance that information so communicated will NEVER be used against either of the parties to the communication. Foremost among these privileges is that between attorney and client. Similar recognition is given to the relationship of priest-penitent, husband-wife (in Utah), doctor-patient, and therapist-patient. Privileged interpersonal communications are an essential aspect of the privilege against self-incrimination. Without the existence of these privileges, marriage, medicine, counseling, and indeed, the legal profession itself would be crippled virtually out of existence. No meaningful communication could be given out of fear that something, anything, one says might be used against him or her in a court of law. One cannot simultaneously hold a position of trust and privilege with an accused and at the same time be a prosecution witness. The right against self-incrimination, including the protection of privileged communications, is a right personal to all accused persons. In contrast, the state does not possess rights. It possesses only delegated powers. Thus, whereas the protection of privacy must be assumed for individuals as a matter of right, governmental functions must be assumed to be public as a matter of obligation. Indeed, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764 (1966), held: "Some tests seemingly directed to btain 'physical evidence,' for example, lie detector tests measuring changes in body function during interrogation, may actually be directed to eliciting responses which are essentially testimonial. To compel a person to submit to testing in which an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle that the protection of the privilege 'is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard.'..." "And any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government. It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes of
despotic power; but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S., at 631-632.

It is an ancient principle of the law of evidence that a witness shall
not be compelled, in any proceeding, to make disclosures or to give
testimony which will tend to criminate him or [142 U.S. 547, 564]
subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures. Rex v. Slaney, 5 Car.
& P. 213; Cates v. Hardacre, 3 Taunt. 424: Maloney v. Bartley, 3 Camp. 210; 1 Starkie, Ev. 71, 191; Case of Sir John Friend, 13 How. St. Tr. 16; Case of Earl of Macclesfield, 16 How. St. Tr. 767; 1 Greenl. Ev. 451; 1 Burr's Tr. 244; Whart. Crim. Ev. (9th Ed.) 463; Southard v. Rexford, 6 Cow.
________________________
Suzy Q. Mother
1234 Our Home Road
Hiawatha, IA 52233

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause, to each of the
attorneys of record herein, at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleadings on April 9th, 2002.
By:
_X_ U.S. Mail
Signature:____________________­_____________

Copy to:
DHSISGOOD FORME, Bio Dad's PD
222 SE 222 Avenue
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Jamie Trpkosh, Caseworker
Iowa Department of Inhumane Services
411 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

What Child, GAL
PO Box 12345
Cedar Rapids, IA 52407

Prosecute On Gossip
Assistant County Attorney, Juvenile Division
Basement of Linn County Courthouse
Third Avenue Bridge
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:39 am

This is excellent stuff Dan, do you have a link to what you posted? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Bob

User avatar
Frustrated
Posts: 3916
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:15 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby Frustrated » Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:46 am

WOW, that statement sounds strikingly similar to you, Dan. Same tone, same voice. :lol:

website address, please with links.

Thanks.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:20 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:This is excellent stuff Dan, do you have a link to what you posted? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Bob


http://fightcps.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2119
Last edited by Dan Sullivan on Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:20 am

Frustrated wrote:WOW, that statement sounds strikingly similar to you, Dan. Same tone, same voice. :lol:

website address, please with links.

Thanks.


http://fightcps.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2119

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:36 am

Why are you posting the link to your post? Are you saying you're the author or are you being facetious?

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

My response to the Motion

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:37 am

This was from 2002.

The little girl has still not been reunited with her mother.
-------------

Hey Greg,

Before I actually read your motion I recommended that you have an attny read it and cut it down to the meat (it was obviously far too long).

Well now I've read the whole thing and you asked for criticism and
suggestions, so...

I've already lopped off what I believe are the non-significant parts.

You decide on the rest.
______________________________________



> COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
> and inquisitive services.

Of course it's inquisitive. It's an investigation.

Lose "inquisitive."

> The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has (attempted to) IMPOSE a
> Service Plan onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the
> FORMATION of the Service Plan.

> Domestic Violence Victim Counseling

There has never been a domestic violence problem in our home. There is no credible evidence of DV. DV counseling is not approp or necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------

> Employment
> The Service Plan directs Greg to find employment.

Get a job Greg.

That's what CPS wants you to do before they give the child back?

Do it!

> Vocational Rehab

If you can't find employment in your present field, find something
new.

Get a job Greg, any job. Get the little girl back to her mother.

Lose this part.

----------------------------------------------------------

> Parenting Classes
> The Service Plan directs Greg to attend Parenting Classes.

Greg will attend parenting classes if the child will be returned to
the family at the completion of the course.

Get this in writing, signed by CPS, and the contract reviewed by an
attny.

Reunification date specified!

> DHS has ordered that the mother (Suzy Q. Mother) and future
> stepfather(Greg) participate in a parenting program, as directed by
> the Department of Human Services (DHS).

> The Department of Human Services (DHS) has not removed their Parent
> Education requirement for Suzy Q. Mother, despite their own paid
> contractor writing that Suzy Q. Mother DOES NOT need such classes.

She should do it anyway, WITH you, to get her daughter back.

Again, get a signed agreement with what you have to do and with the reunification date in writing.

--------------------------------------------------

> PLEASE CLARIFY
> 1A. Do you order imposed parent education?

Sure they do.

And drop all the pro-spanking sh-t. You sound like a lunatic.

> 2A. Do you order imposed Psychological Evaluations?

This is a stupid question. You know they do.

> 2E. Do you think that a one inch thick stack of input INTO a
> psychological evaluation would not bias the results?

Good question. Water under the bridge at this point.

Drop it.

> 2K. What legitimate reason exists to support DHS's claim that that
> amount of INPUT is necessary to the successful completion of this
> provision of the service plan?

DHS wants it to come out their way. That's why.

And of course it's biased.

Get an independant evaluation done.

Lose this part.

----------------------------------------------------

> 3A. Is it Constitutionally acceptable to deny a defendant family
> access to any materials used against them in court?

Subpoena ALL the records!

List everything you want.

Inform the judge that ALL the records you need and have a right to
have NOT been given to you. Cite the approp Iowa law.

> There is no history of domestic violence between Greg and I over three
> years, but DHS chooses to believe a (single) mislead (mistaken,
> misinterpretted ) comment from a 7 year old.

> No injuries to the child were (ever) alleged (by anyone).

-----------------------------------------------

> The same cannot be said for this last
> year in DHS kinship care. The child had a medical office visit as a
> result of DHS and kinship caretaker neglect. In fact, it was a kind
> of neglect we had protested about in one or more of our unanswered
> letters or e-mails to Judas of DHS, many months prior to the problem.

ONE medical visit?

If it's an insignificant ailment don't even mention it.

Did you send registered letters? Forget e-mls.

Lose this part.

-------------------------------------------------------

> The child has expressed a sincere desire to return to her parents.

When and where? and where is this documented?

Keep in mind even horribly abused children want to go home.

> The parents are not a danger to this child, and the child desires to
> return home. DHS cannot demonstrate that the parents are a danger to
> this child, nor can they demonstrate that we ever were enough of a
> danger to this child that would require her removal from the home.

---------------------------------------------------------

> Funds that WERE AVAILABLE through the Family
> Preservation program for help with a storage locker were not
> disbursed.

Are you nuts?

How would the taxpayers paying for the storage of crap that you
obviously aren't using otherwise you wouldn't be putting it into
storage be any part of family preservation?

Have a freakin yard sale like everybody else.

Or ask CPS if they have any space in their building they're not using, maybe they'll let you store your stuff there for free.

Lose this part.

------------------------------------------------------------

> The parents request the court to begin immediate reunification
> efforts. The parents have prepared a reunification plan for the
> court's consideration. Because we did not get required ACTIVE
> PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMATION OF THE SERVICES PLAN, and because of
> the odious contamination of services, please RELIEVE us from the old
> contaminated services plan, and please ORDER acceptance of this
> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN, without any contamination, obstructionism
> or delay.

> REUNIFICATION SERVICES PLAN

> 3. Suzy Q. Mother and Greg will find a third party NOT connected in
> any way to DHS to inspect our home to those standards only.

> 4. DHS will accept that inspection at face value.


You probably won't get away with this.

Take pictures of everything, before and WHILE the house is being
inspected.

-------------------------------------------------------

> 6. DHS will help this family retrieve the $9,000.00+ owed Suzy Q.
> Mother in back child Support, which would pay for a storage locker and
> more.

Are you out of your mind?

The little girl's child support will be used to pay for storing your
sh-t?

Do you really want to tell the court her money's gonna be spent on
YOU?

Get a job and spend your own money on a storage locker.

Or sell it at a yard sale, but get a job anyway.

Lose this part.

---------------------------------------------------------

> 10. Supervised visitation with Greg to begin immediately, with an eye
> toward unsupervised visits and reunification.

Has any professional stated that you (Greg) should not have
visitation?

----------------------------------------------------------

Greg, someone makes a report (it doesn't matter who) about the mother and her little girl, and what does CPS find?

A guy who moved in with them who doesn't work. Who filled the house with what? Tons of old computer sh-t? Other crap? So much you have the stones to ask that DSS PAY to store it for you? You gotta be sh-ttin me.

Even if there's nothing abusive or neglectful in that, CPS is gonna
invent something because they look at you as an anchor around the mother's neck.

They believe YOU are keeping HER and her little girl from making a
better life for themselves.

YOU and the mother have to demonstrate to the court that you're both working on making a better life for the child.

Clean the house so it's as BEYOND CLEAN AND ORDERLY!

(read the book, "It's Here... Somewhere," by Alice Fulton and Pauline Hatch)

Get a job.

Take whatever classes/courses are appropriate.

Stop talking about spanking!!! THIS makes you sound like a raving
maniac.

What would you EVER want to spank a 7 year old little girl for
ANYWAY?????

You want the child back? and you have to take a psych exam? tell em what they want to hear.

You're sorry for what happened, you're getting your life together,
you're gonna do what's best for the mother and little girl.

You're gonna be a major POSITIVE influence on the family, NOT a
negative influence (like the ex-husband).

You know Greg, that's what you should be thinking anyway. Forget
telling them what they want to hear. Change your mindset. Turn over a new leaf. Get on with your life, stop stagnating in it.

Look at what happened, look at what's going on. It's time to shake off whatever's got you stuck where you are and get on with getting that little girl back to her mother (where she belongs). If you can't or won't pull yer head out of your ass, freakin LEAVE!!! Whatever it is that you do for the mother can't even come close to what the mother needs to do for that little girl, and what the little girl needs from her mother.

You want to be a Constitutionalist?

Fine.

A defender of the Bill of Rights?

Good.

Do it after the mother gets her little girl home.

If this mother gets TPR'd, one day when she comes to her senses she's gonna look around at all the sh-t that you brought into her house, look at her little girl's empty bedroom (that you probably started to fill up with more of your crap), and decide to do a Loreena Bobbit on you as you sleep.

And don't think the mother hasn't got it in her. Right now she may
not, and she probably doesn't because if she did she would've thrown you out already. But have that mother lose her child over you and the pain inside her is gonna grow until it takes over completely. And then Greg, either she's gonna have a nervous breakdown, OR it's maxipad time for you.

Posting that Motion was the first time I got an eyeful of what the
situation was all about.

It's all about you.

The little girl's been gone a year and CPS has what? 15 or 18 months to return the child to the mother or TPR?

The clock is startin to tick REAL LOUD Greg, or can't you hear it?

You've got some set of stones.

Call CPS now, tell them you'll do whatever it takes to get the girl
back, OR get the f-ck OUT!


It's not your child, it's not your wife, and it's not even your
family.

I like the part where you wrote that you brought more "earned savings" into the house when you moved in than the father paid in child support in all of 2000.

You figured no one would realize that if the father didn't pay any
child support that year and you moved in with anything you could make that statement.

And even if he paid $2000 in child support and you came with $5000 it still doesn't give you the right to sit around at their house forever unemployed.

Forget about losing the little girl, how much ass-sittin do you think
the money you came with buys you?

I'll make it easy on you. Time's up!

Now ask yourself what you give to the mother that could ever make up for losing her little girl (besides the big indentation where you sit on the couch).

Here's that answer. NOTHING.

And don't come back with all the "I've got this Constitutional right
and that Constitutional right.."

It's not about YOU!

It's about what's best for the little girl, and it's pretty obvious
from what you wrote in the Motion, YOU don't make the list.

Do the right thing Greg, and do it BEFORE it's too late.

There's no way this little girl's going back to the mother because you did a half-assed smoke and mirror show on the Judge.

He's seen it all before.

BTW YOUR name came up 28 times in your motion and you referred to the little girl about half that.

Sorta puts it in perspective.

Don't ya think?

All the best for the little girl and her mother,

Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:43 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:Why are you posting the link to your post? Are you saying you're the author or are you being facetious?


No, I'm not the author.

Doesn't the link work?

;-)))))

Dan

User avatar
Greegor
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa

Postby Greegor » Wed May 10, 2006 5:44 pm

Linda, Good Dad, etcetera:

Imagine my surprise when I discover this when digging
through some of the oldest messages on FightCPS!

Dan Came into this site/blog to attack me
the better part of a YEAR before I was even
in this site/blog.

I find it PARTICULARLY amusing that Dan
posted this and was actually hoping that
others would join into his attack and
in all that time, nobody on here did.

User avatar
good dad
Site Admin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby good dad » Wed May 10, 2006 6:46 pm

By your post you handled it better then I would have to find my case posted at a site a year before I joined it..

What do you want to do with it?
*********************
My advice is my opinion and not legal advice
*********************
A bad lawyer is worse then no lawyer and bad advice is worse then no advice....

mushiesmom
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:31 am
Location: NEPA

Postby mushiesmom » Thu May 11, 2006 2:22 am

How would anyone have know who this was about? It states very clearly the names have been changed.


Dan Came into this site/blog to attack me
the better part of a YEAR before I was even
in this site/blog.

Greegor, what would Dan gain by posting/"attacking" you on a forum you claim you did not know about? And I do recall in previous posts you asked Dan to clarify what he thought about what you had proposed. If people can not take constructive criticism they should not ask for it. You may or may not agree with Dan but its his opinion. If you don't want the answer don't ask the question. Perhaps if you calmly sat and read what Dan has to say, you may gain something. Sometimes others see things people closely involved don't. Hence the term "second opinion"

Has this situation been resolved? Is the child back home? Just wondering

User avatar
good dad
Site Admin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby good dad » Thu May 11, 2006 7:45 am

How would anyone have know who this was about? It states very clearly the names have been changed.


It may state that, but I see Greg's name mentioned numerous times through out it and if his GF's name is Sue, her name is there also..

And I do recall in previous posts you asked Dan to clarify what he thought about what you had proposed.


Clarify what he thought and finding your entire Motion posted in a forum you don't even belong to at the time are very different things, in case you don't know mushie..
*********************

My advice is my opinion and not legal advice

*********************

A bad lawyer is worse then no lawyer and bad advice is worse then no advice....

User avatar
Greegor
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa

Postby Greegor » Thu May 11, 2006 8:16 am

If you look at Dan's ""Criticisms"" it becomes
clear they are not constructive.
That is the point.

Our entire case was based on a caseworker's
written PERJURY asserting that I had a
""sexual abuse history"". Even after we
provided 1994 documents proving it was false
the agency and court have NOT removed,
corrected, amended or acknowledged the LIE.

The entire Services Plan was IMPOSED
rather than being formed with the FEDERALLY
required "Family Active Participation in the
FORMATION of the Service Plan".

I am not asking for any text to be removed,
I am asking for permission to cross examine
Dan as a hostile witness!

In 6 days I get to cross examine the first
wave, about a dozen from the agency,
here in real life.

Needless to say I won't be as diplomatic
as they would wish.

Nor would I with Dan.

"Permission to treat this witness as hostile?"

gideonmacleish
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:50 am
Contact:

Postby gideonmacleish » Thu May 11, 2006 9:11 am

Dan,

I can't support this. I can't even PRETEND to support this, for the purposes of group cohesion. While I don't think the motion was professionally worded, it raises several valid points.

You mock people for defending the right of a parent to spank their child within the confines of the law, and you say you're not a CPS colluder? You belittle the strategy of defending one's Constitutional rights and you claim the same? While I am quite sure you're good at what you do, Dan, the fact is, compliance with CPS only increases their exercise of unConstitutional authority. You CAN cooperate with them without yielding your Constitutional rights.

You've made a lot of posts publicizing your war with two posters on this site in particular. While I don't disagree with all of the points you make, I believe PM's and emails are by far the more appropriate forum for these kinds of discussions.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 17, 2006 4:24 pm

Greegor wrote: Linda, Good Dad, etcetera:

Imagine my surprise when I discover this when digging
through some of the oldest messages on FightCPS!


Why is that?

It was originally posted by you over four years ago on a Google newsgroup, April 9th 2002.

I'll bet it's been reposted quite often all over the internet.

And back then you did write "I was really hoping for some criticism and suggestions."


Greegor wrote: Dan Came into this site/blog to attack me
the better part of a YEAR before I was even
in this site/blog.


I didn't come into this site to attack you, Greegor.

I made over 370 posts over a four month period before I reposted your 3+ year old message.

On the other hand when YOU joined the FightCPS forums on April 15th in less than three days YOU mentioned me in 8 in out of your 11 first posts and actually asked me on April 16th to post what you claim you're so surprised about.

Here's a sampling of your first posts in order of you mentioning me, Greegor.

Note #2,


----

1- Dan, Why do you keep thinking that the agencies follow
their own rules and laws, or that attorneys work
such miracles for families? You know better.

2- Dan, Maybe you should post my family's letter
to the U.S. Congress and court pleading along
with your mockery and harassment?

That would really convince these families
under siege from CPS just how great an
advocate for Parents Rights you are!

I see your little charade hasn't held up
well even before I came along in here!

3- Can anybody confirm that tonymoo is not a fake persona?
What advice, exactly, is tonymoo thanking Dan for?

4- The whole issue of threats of violence
is a thread on a newsgroup where Dan's
rabid system player buddy has harassed
people for years from a duckblind of internet anonymity.

5- Dan and his cohorts complain that Parents Rights
groups help people who had their kids removed
for legitimate reasons. They ridicule this.

6- Hey Dan! Ya wanna post my family's letter from the
U.S. Congressional register and ridicule it here
like you did in the newsgroup several times?

7- Dan's tactic here about ignoring the comments
sounds good, but he says you can't do
anything about it, which is not true.

8- In answer to some of Dan Sullivan's old comments:

9- Come on Dan, why do you "sell out" parents
by encouraging them to cooperate even if
they are totally innocent?

Who else but a system suck would do that?

----------------------




BTW "before I was even in this site/blog???"

You were never on FightCPS till April 15th of 2006?


Greegor wrote: I find it PARTICULARLY amusing that Dan
posted this and was actually hoping that
others would join into his attack and
in all that time, nobody on here did.


I didn't say I was hoping for anything.

The only comment I made was "No, I'm not the author."

And I reposted both your original message containing the Motion and my response to your message in their entirety with no additional comment.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 17, 2006 5:16 pm

good dad wrote:By your post you handled it better then I would have to find my case posted at a site a year before I joined it..


That isn't Greg's case.

Greg wasn't a principle in that Court case nor was he related to the petitioner Suzy Q. Mother.

Besides, who in their right mind would believe someone would write a Motion in which they asked the Judge to take a 25 question quiz.

OR would actually put in a Motion "Greg was the oldest of four children and had about 20 cousins visit, so served as apprentice parent at a young age. Greg trained his cat Nosey to do "dog tricks" on command. Cats do not respond well to negative reinforcement. You can't force a cat to do anything."

There has never been any proof one way or the other if the Motion was real or simply a joke.

User avatar
good dad
Site Admin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:11 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby good dad » Wed May 17, 2006 6:31 pm

That isn't Greg's case.

Greg wasn't a principle in that Court case nor was he related to the petitioner Suzy Q. Mother


I made over 370 posts over a four month period before I reposted your 3+ year old message.



Image
*********************

My advice is my opinion and not legal advice

*********************

A bad lawyer is worse then no lawyer and bad advice is worse then no advice....

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

The Motion was a joke.

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 17, 2006 7:16 pm

How would anyone have know who this was about? It states very clearly the names have been changed.


good dad wrote:It may state that, but I see Greg's name mentioned numerous times through out it and if his GF's name is Sue, her name is there also..


Greg's girlfriend's name isn't Sue, Suzy, Suzy Q. or Suzy Q. Mother.

Her name is Lisa.


And I do recall in previous posts you asked Dan to clarify what he thought about what you had proposed.


good dad wrote: Clarify what he thought and finding your entire Motion posted in a forum you don't even belong to at the time are very different things, in case you don't know mushie..


Greegor didn't say "in a forum he didn't belong to" he said "before I was even in this site/blog."

That's simply not true.

He's been to fightcps.com before.

Besides Greegor actually asked me to post everything that I posted,

http://fightcps.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... ght=#21600

"Dan, Maybe you should post my family's letter to the U.S. Congress and court pleading along with your mockery and harassment?

That would really convince these families under siege from CPS just how great an advocate for Parents Rights you are!"

One last thing, it wasn't Greg's Motion.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 17, 2006 8:26 pm

gideonmacleish wrote: Dan,

I can't support this. I can't even PRETEND to support this, for the purposes of group cohesion.


?

gideonmacleish wrote: While I don't think the motion was professionally worded, it raises several valid points.


Such as?

gideonmacleish wrote: You mock people for defending the right of a parent to spank their child within the confines of the law,


Greg is not a parent nor stepparent of the little girl.

gideonmacleish wrote: and you say you're not a CPS colluder?

Have I not said that enough?

gideonmacleish wrote: You belittle the strategy of defending one's Constitutional rights and you claim the same?


I believe an appeal is the proper forum to question the constitutionality of a Judge's determinations or CPS' course of actions.

gideonmacleish wrote: While I am quite sure you're good at what you do, Dan, the fact is, compliance with CPS only increases their exercise of unConstitutional authority. You CAN cooperate with them without yielding your Constitutional rights.


What do you think Greg's girlfriend should do?

gideonmacleish wrote: You've made a lot of posts publicizing your war with two posters on this site in particular.


It's not my war it's their war against me.

I help get kids home.

The opposition believes defending constitutional right is more important.

Look how successful it's been for Greg's girlfriend.


gideonmacleish wrote: While I don't disagree with all of the points you make, I believe PM's and emails are by far the more appropriate forum for these kinds of discussions.


So that's why you posted this on the forum.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 17, 2006 9:29 pm

Greegor wrote: If you look at Dan's ""Criticisms"" it becomes
clear they are not constructive.
That is the point.


That's not true.

For domestic violence counseling I wrote the mother should respond with, "There has never been a domestic violence problem in our home. There is no credible evidence of DV. DV counseling is not approp or necessary."

For Greg taking parenting classes I wrote " Greg will attend parenting classes if the child will be returned to the family at the completion of the course. Get this in writing, signed by CPS, and the contract reviewed by an attny. Reunification date specified!"

For the mother taking parenting classes I wrote that the mother should "get a signed agreement with what you have to do and with the reunification date in writing."

For a psych eval for Greg I wrote that they should "Get an independant evaluation done."

For access to the records used against the mother in court I wrote, "Subpoena ALL the records! List everything you want. Inform the judge that ALL the records you need and have a right to have NOT been given to you. Cite the approp Iowa law."

For a court ordered home inspection I wrote " Take pictures of everything, before and WHILE the house is being inspected."

Greg wrote
"Clearly there was nothing constructive about it, and Dan was just doing the very same sort of JUDAS ACT that has endeared him to several others, advising me to just submit to DHS on point after point, without question."

Did you think I wasn't going to list what I posted, Greegor?

Nowhere in my list did I tell you to "submit to DHS on point after point, without question."

You make disproving your claims so easy, Greegor.


Greegor wrote: Our entire case was based on a caseworker's
written PERJURY asserting that I had a ""sexual abuse history"".


First, you were never a principle in the case... so "our entire case" isn't an accurate or true statement.

And the little girl wasn't removed because of your sexual abuse history.


Greegor wrote:I am not asking for any text to be removed, I am asking for permission to cross examine Dan as a hostile witness!

<<<snip>>>

"Permission to treat this witness as hostile?"


Be careful what you wish for, Greegor.

Dan Sullivan
Posts: 1538
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:42 am
Location: Long Island, New York

The Motion was nothing more than a joke.

Postby Dan Sullivan » Thu May 18, 2006 4:19 am

That isn't Greg's case.

Greg wasn't a principle in that Court case nor was he related to the petitioner Suzy Q. Mother

I made over 370 posts over a four month period before I reposted your 3+ year old message.


A message that Greg posted on an internet newsgroup!

A message containing a Motion that WASN'T Greg's!

Messages that Greegor ASKED ME TO POST!!!!!

A Motion where Greg wasn't a principle, nor was he related to the petitioner.

PLUS I believe the Motion was nothing more than a joke.

And I posted the questionable Motion and my response to show how to negotiate with CPS to fix a service plan.

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Thu May 18, 2006 5:34 am

gideonmacleish wrote: You belittle the strategy of defending one's Constitutional rights and you claim the same?


Dan Sullivan wrote:I believe an appeal is the proper forum to question the constitutionality of a Judge's determinations or CPS' course of actions.


He doesn't dispute the fact that he belittles the strategy of defending one's Constitutional rights.

And while the Appeals Court is the proper venue to challenge (not question) the constitutionality of a lower court decision, as well as any other statutory question, if you're appealing a lower court decision, you're appealing because you have already lost your case in the lower court. And you may have lost your case possibly because you didn't assert your constitutional rights in the lower court in the first place and you may have already lost your children to the state as a result. And by not asserting your constitutional rights in the lower court, you have waived those rights and it's now up to the Appeals judges to determine violations of those rights that you may have already waived.

The Constitution is the ultimate and highest law in America. Any dispute or conflict with any other law is trumped by the Constitution. You must assert your Constitutional rights at all times to all revelant parties or waive them by not doing so. You especially assert those rights from the first second when confronted by CPS because they are notorious for violating those rights. You assert your rights to police and all government officials if and when those rights are threatened and in a hearing in any and every court. If you don't know your rights, you have none.

Anyone who tells you to avoid constitutional strategy is giving you dangerous advice, that includes attorneys.

All the above is just my opinion and not legal advice.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

User avatar
Greegor
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:20 am
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa

Postby Greegor » Thu May 25, 2006 2:14 pm

gideonmacleish wrote:
You belittle the strategy of defending one's Constitutional rights and you claim the same?

Dan wrote Thu May 18, 2006 10:26 am
I believe an appeal is the proper forum to question the constitutionality
of a Judge's determinations or CPS' course of actions.

Greg answers
Dan says the place for constitutional issues is on appeal.

Did you know that if you do not raise them
during a case you CANNOT raise them on appeal?

Why does Dan give this advice? Who is he helping with this advice?
It's not just BAD for families, it is DISASTROUS!

If you don't raise constitutional issues during the actual case
you have failed to preserve the issues for appeal
and you cannot use them on appeal.

Bob got that right!

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Thu May 25, 2006 2:36 pm

Dan keeps saying the lower court is not the proper forum to raise constitutional issues.

The questions one has to ask:

Why on earth would anyone with allegedly 18 years of experience spew that kind of dangerous advice?

Why would you not raise constitutional issues in the lower court, how on earth would that work against you?

How would one appeal a question of law not raised in the lower court?

Why would Dan give advice in complete opposition of virtually every anti-CPS advocacy site on the internet?
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow

Bob_Lynn
Posts: 1276
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:56 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Postby Bob_Lynn » Wed May 31, 2006 7:30 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:I believe an appeal is the proper forum to question the constitutionality of a Judge's determinations or CPS' course of actions


OK, I can prove with 100% certainty, by fact, that this statement is outright false and extremely dangerous advice. While what I'm saying is true for Pennsylvania, it's likely true for every state and federal court as well.

This is taken directly from the Rules of Appellate Procedure in Pa.

Rule 302. Requisites for Reviewable Issue.

(a) General rule. Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

So if one does not question the constitutionality of any action in the lower court, it cannot be questionned on appeal, period! That means, the lower court is the ONLY proper place to question the constitutionality of any action and the appeals court is the proper place to APPEAL (not first question) any unfavorable ruling with regard to a constitutional question first raised in the lower court.
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. Edward R. Murrow


Return to “Round Table”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests