Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

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

Moderators: family_man, LindaJM

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

Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby gideonmacleish » Tue May 23, 2006 9:09 am

NOTE: This is not meant to be argumentative, but a counterpoint to Dan's article explaining why he never wants to see a family in an appeals situation. I respect Dan and what he does, but we operate from two entirely different philosophical bases, and ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide which course is appropriate for them. Please also note that this is not legal advice, and that I am not a lawyer.

There is much debate about whether a family should set the basis for appeal in their encounters with CPS and family court. While an appeal can be lengthy and can effect a family emotionally, and thus should never be undertaken lightly, it is absolutely crucial for us to press our rights continually to prevent our government from abusing its powers.

If you read this board regularly, you will note that Constitutional law violations of agents of CPS, and, in fact, often of their own policies and procedures are both routine and egregious. They must be held accountable to the law, just as you and I are accountable to the law.

In his book "Good to be King", 2004 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badarik rightly points out that the Constitution does not give us any rights as individuals. These rights were believed by our founding fathers to be inalienable and bestowed upon us by our Creator, a concept they clearly expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and chose to enumerate in the first ten amendments we know as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution was written to spell out the powers of the government, and their limitations, and that is why the Bill of Rights are worded in such a way as to forbid the government from infringing upon them.

These rights are so crucial, so essential, that a revolution was fought to defend them, and the blood of patriots was spilled on numerous battlefields throughout what were then the American colonies. Our founding fathers felt them so dear, so precious, that they were willing to risk their lives to provide them for all Americans.

Where would we be if American citizens did not appeal their rights to higher courts? Slaves would still be on the plantations, and the African Americans who were free would still be subject to Jim Crow laws and eating at separate lunch counters, drinking from separate fountaints, and swimming in separate pools. Women would still be forbidden the right to vote or to hold public office. The theory of evolution would still be banned in public schools across America. The slaves who rose up against their captors on the Amistad would have been returned to chains and summarily executed to provide an example to all those who would choose to rebel.

We are a nation of laws, and even our lawgivers are themselves subject to those laws. While we have the police, the highway patrol, and other law enforcement agencies to ensure our compliance with the laws, our government and its agents have only the citizens to ensure their compliance. And if we never exercise our rights to hold our government accountable, our government will increasingly violate the laws it created, meaning that none of our rights are secure. We cannot and must not let that happen.

In third world countries, revolutions are bloody and occur on the streets, and in the ghettoes. In the United States of America, we are blessed with the rights to fight our revolutions within the courts and the halls of our various legislatures. But if noone is there to fight, we can be sure that the right will never prevail.

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

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 11:25 am

gideonmacleish wrote:NOTE: This is not meant to be argumentative, but a counterpoint to Dan's article explaining why he never wants to see a family in an appeals situation. I respect Dan and what he does, but we operate from two entirely different philosophical bases, and ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide which course is appropriate for them. Please also note that this is not legal advice, and that I am not a lawyer.

There is much debate about whether a family should set the basis for appeal in their encounters with CPS and family court. While an appeal can be lengthy and can effect a family emotionally, and thus should never be undertaken lightly, it is absolutely crucial for us to press our rights continually to prevent our government from abusing its powers.

If you read this board regularly, you will note that Constitutional law violations of agents of CPS, and, in fact, often of their own policies and procedures are both routine and egregious. They must be held accountable to the law, just as you and I are accountable to the law.


By all means a family should assert their civil and Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court.

But an appeal means the family has suffered an unfavorable decision from a Judge.

And children tend to stay where they are.

And the longer children are in CPS' custody, the harder it is to get them out.

I know how devastating it is to lose a child.

And I've spoken with children who've been returned to their families.

The best possible outcome for children and their family is to be reunited with all possible speed.

And at that point let whatever appeals begin.

BTW it's when the family holds CPS accountable for the violations of their own policies and procedures to the Judge in Family Court that we usually get the children returned.

I guess that could be considered killing two birds with one stone... CPS gets their credibility destroyed in court, and the children get to go home.

And as florida999 put it so well, she wanted her children home before they graduated high school.

Best, Dan

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

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 11:38 am

In my opinion, there is absolutely no conflict of interest in asserting one's rights in family court and pursuing any other avenue that will help get the children back as soon as possible. One does not counter the other. More crucially, besides that I agree with Gideon 100%, I will re-iterate, when you don't assert your rights, you not only waive them but create a very dangerous situation where if you lose in the family court, and you may even lose because you didn't assert your rights, you may not have a reasonable standing in an appeal.
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:

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 1:26 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:By all means a family should assert their civil and Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court.


So Dan, now that you've completely reversed your position on this issue, will you be advising your clients to assert their Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court?

If so, you can print out a copy of what I posted and give it to them so they know and understand the issues and I'm sure if they have any questions, once you've studied it yourself, you'll be able to answer them confidently.

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=4210
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

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

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 1:51 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote:By all means a family should assert their civil and Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court.


So Dan, now that you've completely reversed your position on this issue, will you be advising your clients to assert their Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court?


Bob's latest strawman.

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

Postby good dad » Tue May 23, 2006 2:03 pm

But an appeal means the family has suffered an unfavorable decision from a Judge.


There are many cases that go totally wrong and the only hope people have is in an appeal.

If the "seeds" are planted in objections and statements in family court records, even if your judge does ignore your rights and you have to appeal, a higher court is forced to look at the violations..


Call it a back up plan or "your ace in the hole"

I think the most important time you need to stand up for your rights is from contact with cps to the adjudication hearing...

Not that you shouldn't all the way through, but this is the point where a lot of people allow themselves to be violated, because they don't know any better and these initial violations are how cases start...

We only see a few who have stood up to them on their rights at this stage, most have already either "let them in" and talked to them or signed a caseplan, once you sign it, still stand up for your rights, but you must do everything you agreed to do or be able to show the judge it is not needed in order to get the children home the fastest or if you kept your kids, out of your life the fastest..

Even if you appeal a ruling, continue to do the caseplan as quickly as possible, don't put all your hope in an appeal..

Once you research and learn your rights EXCERCISE THEM..
Research your states policies, procedures, manuels to learn what CPS can and can't do..

I didn't know my rights, CPS policies and procedures or the laws till 15 months into my fight, within 2 months I had her back, dismissed case..No thanks to the 2 lawyers I fired, according to them "I didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell"

CPS snowball's the court with so many different reports and documents and findings that you must use every tool that you can to build your case and disprove theirs..

Your rights come first, they are "given to us by our creator", if you give them up or don't excercise them, you have only what they allow you have..

CPS cases are like chess games, you may have a lawyer, but it doesn't mean he knows how to play..He may just move his guys around till he gets beat and collects the check.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no conflict of interest in asserting one's rights in family court and pursuing any other avenue that will help get the children back as soon as possible.


Right on!! Use everything available, CPS will against you, even if they have to make it up..

Gideon....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....

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

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 2:35 pm

Dan Sullivan wrote:Bob's latest strawman.


No Dan it was a question, remember you said a question is just a question?

cha-cha-cha
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

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

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 3:13 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:you can print out a copy of what I posted and give it to them so they know and understand the issues and I'm sure if they have any questions, once you've studied it yourself, you'll be able to answer them confidently.

http://forum.fightcps.com/viewtopic.php?t=4210


You mean information from you, Bob, such as,


Violation of the First Amendment - Just try to organize a demonstration to get your children back and see what happens.

Violation of the Fifth Amendment - Deprived of Liberty - This is self-explanatory, once CPS invades your family, all of the family is deprived of liberty, especially the children who are incarcerated in foster "care".

Violation of the Sixth Amendment - In most states if not all, there are laws on the books that make it a crime to reveal the name of the person who reported the family to CPS.

Violation of the Seventh Amendment - Family court judges and some states, deny a trial by jury. Some would argue that there is no value over $20 in a child custody case, I would ask, how much is a child worth? Or a family's sanctity?

Violation of the Eighth Amendment - Although the Supreme Court ruled that this Amendment only applies to a criminal case, in my opinion, that's totally bogus because there's nothing in the 8th Amendment that even hints at that and they've managed to convolute the entire Amendment. (that would be the Supreme Court who convoluted the entire amendment)

Violation of the Thirteenth Amendment - The minute the children are placed in foster "care", they are placed in a slave-like environment. The children are also subject to "adoption", which means that they are sold, much like slaves. Children are often put to work in foster "care", without compensation.

I think that's enough of your "information," Bob.

I don't think I'll be printing it out anytime soon.

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

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 3:29 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:
Dan Sullivan wrote:By all means a family should assert their civil and Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court.


So Dan, now that you've completely reversed your position on this issue, will you be advising your clients to assert their Constitutional rights during their encounter with CPS and Family Court?


I haven't reversed my position on the issue, Bob.

Many times I've told people not allow CPS into their homes.

That would be asserting their rights.

And many times I've told people that they shouldn't discuss the allegations with CPS until they've received a copy of all the information and have discussed it with their attorney.

That would be asserting their rights.

And many times I've told people not to sign agreements with CPS unless it contained appropriate and necessary services.

That would be asserting their rights.

And I've been making those recommendations since the early nineties, Bob.

So if you have some credible evidence that I've "completely reversed" my position, please post the links.

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

Postby mushiesmom » Tue May 23, 2006 3:33 pm

So why not, instead of all this nonsense bickering WORK TOGETHER to get the information out to people. Fighting back and forth is counter productive. Trying to change laws is great except that still doesn't gaurantee they will be followed.

Yes we all have civil rights but unfortunately when CPS gets involved in your life, your main concern is keeping your children in your home OR doing whatever is asked of you to get them home. I know from personal experience that the fact that I had rights was not the first thing I thought about. I just wanted my son back in my home and I would have agreed to cut off my own arms for that to happen. Hence the need for advocates!! Seems to me that while you and Dan both see the issues and problems with CPS as a whole, you are definately approaching the problem from different angles. Which could be very productive if you both could see past "I'm right your wrong" There's no cut and dry solution. Its not anywhere close to being black or white. CPS contains many gray areas. There is no blanket solution.

In a perfect world all laws will be followed and everyone would really be treated equal. But the reality is the world is not perfect and never will be. I realize the value of the Consistution, I have ancestors that fought and died for the rights we have today, in fact have family and friends continuing to fight so you and yours can sleep at peace at night. My husband is a Native American (Blackfoot/Sioux) and no one group of people understand better what it means to be screwed (for lack of a better way to put it) but the fact still remains that society as a whole has allowed this to happen and until you can get everyone (or a large majority) to band together, nothing will change. And the odds of that happening are not looking real good. Compared to the entire country, this group is small and there is fighting. So if people here can't see eye to eye and are supposed to be working toward the same goal how is any progress going to be made? Wouldn't it just make more sense to just appreciate each others position?

when you get diagnosed with an illness a good doctor tells you to get additional opinions, he doesn't resent the fact that you do. Hell, my team of doctors confer with one another on a regular basis, because they each have their area of expertise. And what one might miss, because no human is right all the time, the others pick up on.
Last edited by mushiesmom on Tue May 23, 2006 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 4:05 pm

So Dan, let me ask you another question if I may. I asked for anything you and anyone else might have to offer in terms of modifying what I wrote. Instead of making suggestions, you just criticize. Please tell me what parts you would change in that document that I created for all of us to change and get it right.

Krista is 100% right about working together instead of bickering.

cha-cha-cha-cha?
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 » Tue May 23, 2006 4:10 pm

mushiesmom wrote:Trying to change laws is great except that still doesn't gaurantee they will be followed.


That's right Krista but not changing the laws does guarantee they will not be followed. So conversely, you make laws to make them follow laws, see the Family Advocate Act if you haven't read it yet.

http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page317.htm

To summarize, it's proposed legislation designed to enforce all civil rights laws, it's proposed legislation designed to investigate, audit, report, modify, arbitrate, etc.
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

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

Postby Dan Sullivan » Tue May 23, 2006 5:01 pm

Bob_Lynn wrote:
mushiesmom wrote:Trying to change laws is great except that still doesn't gaurantee they will be followed.


That's right Krista but not changing the laws does guarantee they will not be followed.


Not ENFORCING laws guarantees they will not be followed.

Bob_Lynn wrote: So conversely, you make laws to make them follow laws, see the Family Advocate Act if you haven't read it yet.


If the original law isn't being followed what guarantee is there that the second law will be followed?

Does someone then propose a third law?


http://www.life-vs-cps.com/index_files/Page317.htm

Bob_Lynn wrote:To summarize, it's proposed legislation designed to enforce all civil rights laws, it's proposed legislation designed to investigate, audit, report, modify, arbitrate, etc.


And the Family Advocate Act will also require MORE money so CPS' funding will have to be increased.

And how could that be a bad thing???

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

Postby mushiesmom » Tue May 23, 2006 5:06 pm

I do see what you are proposing but who will enforce the new laws? If the laws already in place are not followed, what will make new laws different? its not the laws that are the problem but the people in the positions to enforce them. While I will agree some laws are old and outdated and were put into place when people had respect and the population was not as large, simply changing or adding new ones will not fix the problems in any area of the law.

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

Postby Bob_Lynn » Tue May 23, 2006 6:08 pm

Once again Krista, you can't operate under the premise of not changing the laws because then you're guaranteed that nothing will ever change. So you have to operate under the premise that you must change the laws and you must change them intelligently so the laws are enforced. Even to just make the laws be enforced requires new legislation, anything less is just window dressing from politicians. Correct me if I'm wrong but this I believe this is Heads (Bruce's) mentality (no new laws).

First, the Family Preservation Act of 2006 takes away all immunity protections from government workers acting under color of law (among many other things).

Second, the Family Advocate Act creates an office that oversees enforcement of laws on government officials through the state's enforcement powers, including the Attorney General. It also audits, investigates and reports, it does the same for the family courts.
Through investigation, research and analysis of the current Children and Youth system in the Commonwealth, it reports and recommends changes and programs to improve the system. This office is created with powers second to the Governor. This office polices government agencies and government agents, it works directly for the citizens, not for CPS. You would see that if you read and understand this proposed legislation.

And Dan, I don't mind if you ask questions, I'll be glad to answer them, but if that's all you have to offer is criticism, since that would not be constructive, there's no point in a reply.

I already answered your first question and answered it again here in the first paragraph.

To answer your other question, yes this requires more money, but not so CPS' funding will have to be increased, to reduce it. The amount of money reduced will more than pay for this office because the corruption will end or at least be greatly reduced if it works and that means many thousands of less cases and hundreds or thousands of children at home instead of in foster care (= less money required for the system). If it doesn't work, we'll have the same thing we have now. Do you gamble on improvement with a chance of failure or do you not gamble and keep things the way they are? Is that what you want, to do nothing? Figure it out.

BTW, thanks for recommending changes to the document in the form of criticism. I will make some changes that I agree with you on regardless. Of course, if you have something better, please, by all means, spit it out. Prove that you really believe one must assert their Constitutional rights in the family court. Can you do that or just criticize? I thought you have all this experience, I guess not.
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

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

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 24, 2006 12:02 am

Bob_Lynn wrote:In my opinion, there is absolutely no conflict of interest in asserting one's rights in family court and pursuing any other avenue that will help get the children back as soon as possible.


Did someone say that's a "conflict of interest?"

Not that I saw.

But I'll tell you where there is a conflict, Bob, you say "there is absolutely no conflict of interest in asserting one's rights in family court and pursuing any other avenue that will help get the children back as soon as possible," which would lead one to believe that you recognize the fact that asserting one's rights isn't the best method for getting children back, yet you've also written "the minute anyone walks into any courtroom, whatever the charges, criminal or civil, the primary defense is Constitutional law."

THAT'S where the conflict is.

A family can not use Constitutional law as their "primary defense" in Family Court in attempting to get their children back from CPS.

It's simply not the proper forum.

In court a family can assert their rights, they can cite Constitutional rights, but the place to lodge a challenge based on Constitutional law is in an appeal AFTER the Judge has made the decision.

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

Postby mushiesmom » Wed May 24, 2006 3:44 am

Hey Bob lets set a few things straight. Yes that is a philosophy of HEADS. Most people don't belong to a group/club/organization if they don't agree atleast most of the time with the ideas/ideals of said group/club/organization. Apparently plenty of members agree also unless they just come to meetings for the fun of it. Apparently the large sponsors we have now agree with premise HHH is based on or they would not sponsor us. Now, that all being said, try to understand that I, along with every other member have the ability, and we use it, to think for ourselves. Just in case you think I did not get what you were implying. So before you go off on the "Bruce Bashing" posting please save your energy. Unless of course it makes you feel better to act childish by calling names and verbally assaulting a person that does not even post here. You, in previous posts, have blatantly used Bruces name in an attempt to bolster your own ego and damage the headway already made. I have heard it said that usually when you attack something in someone its because you are jealous of the fact that you lack that quality.

And you still have not answered my question. Who will enforce these new laws you propose?

Hmmm. taking away all immunity from government? I'm sure they would definately vote for that. You have said your self, the government works for the govenrment (althought maybe not in those exact words) so why would they agree to something that negatively effects them?

As far as the family advocate, how will you be sure that the person in that position(s) will not be corrupt?

Its a money game and you know it. Money talks B*lls**t walks.

In your Federal Suit that you claim you have, are you asking for monetary compensation? Or are you doing it to set a precedent? Because I was wondering how one puts a dollar amount on their children? If the damages you are asking for just recoup the amount you put out (legal expenses etc.) while you children were gone that would make sense, but if you were say using the money to purchase a new house or furniture or something along those lines, how would one justify that? And before you even go there, YES THE BAYERS HAVE A LEGITIMATE FEDERAL SUIT. And we have already been told what will be done with the money. And for those wondering it will go to the organization.

Why is it so important to you Bob, to be right? you have asked for opinions on your proposed legislation but you obviously do not deal well with an opinion that differs from yours. So why bother? Just do whatever it is that you do and shut up. Let Dan and Bruce and the rest of the people whos primary concern is getting children home the fastest way possible, (which btw didn't you comply to get your children home?) do what they do best, which is reunite families. You work on your propsed legislation and be content with that, apparently its one of the things you do best.

dasuberding
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:26 pm

Postby dasuberding » Wed May 24, 2006 5:31 am

Sullivan, just thought that you should know that we got are son back AFTER we threatened to take the goons to FEDERAL COURT for violations of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Returned to us in 24 hours with no strings attached. No "probationary" period (which is illegal), no nothing, just "go pick him up" and we haven't seen them since except when they started issuing threats again after they were served with federal lawsuit paperwork. We didn't agree to anything and completely became a pain in their asses. It got to the point that they were asking us not to "rock the boat".

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

Postby Dan Sullivan » Wed May 24, 2006 5:46 am

dasuberding wrote: Sullivan, just thought that you should know that we got are son back AFTER we threatened to take the goons to FEDERAL COURT for violations of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!


Which rights did you claim were violated?


dasuberding wrote:Returned to us in 24 hours with no strings attached. No "probationary" period (which is illegal), no nothing, just "go pick him up" and we haven't seen them since except when they started issuing threats again after they were served with federal lawsuit paperwork. We didn't agree to anything and completely became a pain in their asses. It got to the point that they were asking us not to "rock the boat".


And how long was the boy in CPS' physical and then legal custody?

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

Postby Bob_Lynn » Wed May 24, 2006 6:11 am

mushiesmom wrote:before you go off on the "Bruce Bashing" posting please save your energy.


It seems to me you just wasted your energy. If anyone goes off on bashing, read your boss's recent post, you know the one right after he posted "We will maintain a positive and proactive position and refuse to get involved in whining and just arguing with people on different sights." then in the very next post, he spends practically the entire post bashing. That's called "Families Helping Families"? What a joke!

mushiesmom wrote:Unless of course it makes you feel better to act childish by calling names


You mean like the "wallflower advocate" that your boss used? Are you going to tell him the same thing thing you're ranting about to me? Please show me anything of a bashing nature I posted publicly about Bruce recently.

mushiesmom wrote:You, in previous posts, have blatantly used Bruces name in an attempt to bolster your own ego and damage the headway already made.


You mean like when Bruce sabotaged the Hearings because of his ego? Let's talk about real damage, then again, let's not, I'm no longer interested.

mushiesmom wrote:And you still have not answered my question. Who will enforce these new laws you propose?


Of course I did, twice, maybe you need to take a course in reading comprehension.

mushiesmom wrote:taking away all immunity from government? I'm sure they would definately vote for that.


In fact, they don't need to vote on it, it's already fact. No government employee has immunity when they don't act in good faith, the proposed legislation merely reinforces that fact.

mushiesmom wrote:You have said your self, the government works for the govenrment (althought maybe not in those exact words) so why would they agree to something that negatively effects them?


So you propose to do nothing because you make an ASSumption on what legislators will do?

mushiesmom wrote:As far as the family advocate, how will you be sure that the person in that position(s) will not be corrupt?


How do you know he will? Again, you propose to do nothing because you make an ASSumption?

I'll skip the federal suit issue, it's not up for discussion.

mushiesmom wrote:you have asked for opinions on your proposed legislation but you obviously do not deal well with an opinion that differs from yours.


I've made many modifications as a direct result of input from many different sources, INCLUDING BRUCE. The proposed legislation was a collaborative effort. Sorry, I don't see your argument here.

mushiesmom wrote:Let Dan and Bruce and the rest of the people whos primary concern is getting children home the fastest way possible


Am I stopping them?

mushiesmom wrote:You work on your propsed legislation and be content with that, apparently its one of the things you do best.


Thanks for your permission, I didn't know I needed it. Do I also need your permission to work on other things? And thanks for the compliment but working on proposed legislation is not what I do best, the problem is, I don't see anyone else working on decent proposed legislation to protect the rights of children and families in Pennsylvania, so I'm trying my amateur best.

PS - It's good to see Heads, a family advocate group gone commercial, maybe they'll set a precedent for other advocacy groups to follow? I can understand why these 3 sponsors agree with Heads philosophy, that's a no-brainer. Why does Heads still need fund raisers? You have 3 sponsors with very deep pockets, no? Or are these 3 sponsors using Heads for free advertising purposes?

PPS - I strongly suggest that you teach Bruce how to spell the names of the Heads sponsors, as well as the word "sponsor". That has to be embarrassing.
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:

Re: Why I WANT to See a Family in an Appeals Situation

Postby Bob_Lynn » Wed May 24, 2006 6:29 am

Dan Sullivan wrote:You mean information from you, Bob, such as, etc.


Hi Dan, I made some changes to the "Constitutional Violations" document based on your (ahem) "suggestions" that I agreed with. I suggest you read "Children as Chattel" before you "suggest" changes to the 13th Amendment notation I made.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/ ... n-chattel/

I see you changed you mind once again. No problem, you have a right to your opinion, no matter how ludicrous it is. There's no need for me to discuss again why I believe you're 100% wrong, I'd just be repeating myself, something you keep doing.

Strawman Bob.
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
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Wed May 24, 2006 6:39 am

Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I believe in "miracles". Something tells me there is going to be a dramatic change with cps, but only short lived.

Will Bob be part of that change I do not know, but he could be on the right track and my bets are on him. Maybe it is because I want to desperately see something happen, but I do not think he is far off the mark.

You may call people like Bob a dreamer, but many famous people down through the years had their doubters too. No one could see how Einstein could pull off what he did.

When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."
Albert Einstein


· Abraham Lincoln had 12 major failures before he was elected president of the United States.

· Isaac Newton did poorly in grade school.

· Beethoven's music teacher once said of him "as a composer he is hopeless."

· When Thomas Edison was a boy his teacher told him he was too stupid to learn anything. He tried more than 2,000 experiments before he created the first successful light bulb.

· F.W. Woolworth got a job in a dry good store when he was 21, but his employer would not let him wait on customers because he "didn't have enough sense."

· Winston Churchill failed the 6th grade.

· Steven Spielberg dropped out of high school in his sophomore year. He was persuaded to come back and placed in a learning disabled class. He lasted a month and dropped out of school forever.

· Einstein's parents thought he was mentally retarded. His grades in school were so poor that a teacher asked him to quit, saying, 'Einstein, you will never amount to anything.'"

"Often the difference between a successful person and a failure is not one has better abilities or ideas, but the courage that one has to bet on one's ideas, to take a calculated risk - and to act."

"Through perseverance many people win success out of what seemed destined to be certain failure."


I am for dreamers like Bob.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1

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

Postby Bob_Lynn » Wed May 24, 2006 7:44 am

Thanks Ruth but I'm not a dreamer. I'm under no illusion that things will change because of me. What I want to do is bring attention to the cause in any way I know how. I want to try to educate as many people as I can to what's going on and what is needed to correct the problem or at least alleviate the problem to the best extent possible.

I tried an experiment about a week ago. There's a new Yahoo feature called "Yahoo Answers" that was advertised in all Yahoo Group Forums. I checked it out and came up with the idea that I could post a question each day about CPS and perhaps get many people to post a question each day and thereby get the word out to many people who frequent that Yahoo facility. I put out the word in 2 other forums, ended up posting 2 questions and no one else that I know of did the same. I actually caught one fish in the process. Here's what I mean:

This was my question:

"Do you know Child Protective Services kidnaps children from innocent families every day in America?"

And this was one answer I got:

"oh my, i didnt know, id destroy anyone who takes my child from me, he is my whole life, without him my whole life is not worth living"

Here's the link:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006051124246

This was the other question:

"Do you know you need to protect your family from Child Protective Services?"

And that link:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=1006051205008

(note I also described my point in each case with a link to the LIFE site asking people to check it out for themselves)

Anyway, the point is, the most important issue is to get the word out, any which way we can. I believe that's the only way we can get things to change, through education. In the first case, I actually got one person to learn about what's going on before (and if there was a chance) her family was victimized.
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

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

Postby gideonmacleish » Wed May 24, 2006 8:08 am

mushiesmom wrote:So why not, instead of all this nonsense bickering WORK TOGETHER to get the information out to people. Fighting back and forth is counter productive. Trying to change laws is great except that still doesn't gaurantee they will be followed.

Yes we all have civil rights but unfortunately when CPS gets involved in your life, your main concern is keeping your children in your home OR doing whatever is asked of you to get them home. I know from personal experience that the fact that I had rights was not the first thing I thought about. I just wanted my son back in my home and I would have agreed to cut off my own arms for that to happen. Hence the need for advocates!! Seems to me that while you and Dan both see the issues and problems with CPS as a whole, you are definately approaching the problem from different angles. Which could be very productive if you both could see past "I'm right your wrong" There's no cut and dry solution. Its not anywhere close to being black or white. CPS contains many gray areas. There is no blanket solution.



Mushiesmom,

You won't see me post a number of "blast Dan" articles, because, while I disagree with Dan often, the thing is, I recognize that his tactics, while different than mine, can be effective in certain circumstances. That is why I posted the disclaimer; to point out this article was merely a counterpoint to Dan's article.

Believe me, I'm working pretty hard to get the word out right now. But it is an uphill battle and slow going at times. And it happens through posts like this and responses to other posts on this forum. This particular forum is appropriate for these debates, and I don't like to allow an opposing view to go unchallenged; debate ceases to be debate when one side is presented.

I have never asserted that I am right, Dan is wrong. Nor, in fact does he usually make the same statement about me. I believe we have a mutual respect despite our differences, because we know that ultimately what is important is ending the nightmare that is CPS. There ARE certain cases that I would not hesitate to refer to Dan; he's good at what he does, which is distinctly different than what I do.

The only thing I MUST stand up against is any suggestion that I am a fringe radical for the defense of my Constitutional rights. While never directly stated, it is something one could easily assume when reading one side of the debate without the other. Addressing the violations of the rights enumerated in the Constitution is not only my right as a citizen; it is my DUTY as a patriot. What good will it do our soldiers to defend our country abroad if, when they return home, the Constitution they swore to defend is effectively nullified by a tyrannical government?

User avatar
Dazeemay
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby Dazeemay » Wed May 24, 2006 8:12 am

I know you are not a dreamer Bob or are under any illusions of grandeur. As you know your opponents think otherwise.

Thanks for the idea on Yahoo. As usual my computer keeps shutting down whenever I use Yahoo or any of them like Yahoo.

My computer is suppose to go in for an overhaul sometime in the next couple of weeks I hope.

My daughter is contacting a geek that is suppose to be good, so I hope it ends up running like new again.
**********************************
This is not legal advice;hopefully wisdom

To put it in simple terms…when the authorities ARE the perpetrators and the perpetrators ARE the authorities, there is no earthly justice or recourse, at the end of the day (unless the American people wake up).

Therefore, those who have achieved the highest levels of power seek to ‘enjoy’ the most grievous and extreme injustices. For many of those in the highest circles of power, the greatest statement of power is to perpetrate the greatest possible injustice…the savage, brutal traumatization and abuse of an innocent child.
http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/ MattTwoFour

"Ultimately, the law is only as good as the judge" --- D.X. Yue, 2005, in "law, reason and judicial fraud"
http://www.parentalrightsandjustice.com/index.cgi?ctype=Page;site_id=1;objid=45;curloc=Site:1


Return to “Round Table”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests