From: LK on
On Jul 20, 2:12 pm, joe <j...(a)home.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:57:35 -0400, Dan Sullivan <dsull...(a)optonline.net>  
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> >> > Notice how this caseworker really has
> >> > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> >> > would be removed because of the
> >> > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> >> > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> >> We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> > I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> > But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an  
> > anonymous
> > report.
>
> It's strange -- some CPS give little weight to anonymous reports, while  
> others roll out the armoured vehicles and steroid abusers with M-16's to  
> take every kid in sight. Go figure.
>
> To legally remove a child without a court order requires a reasonable  
> belief that the child is in imminent danger of harm. IMHO, an anonymous  
> report doesn't rise to the level of a reasonable belief.

They don't even need reasonable belief.

Just an accusation and a worker.

>
> > And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> > Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> > The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:http://www.opera.com/mail/
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: LK on
On Jul 20, 12:19 pm, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
> "LK" <Patis...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76a06f89-d4c7-4e3a-b851-d122db39deb6(a)26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 20, 10:57 am, "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:34 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 20, 1:07 am, Greegor <Greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > We'll see if he did things right if DFS shows back up with a warrant.
>
> > I don't know where the vid was made.
>
> > But I believe in some states a child can't be removed by CPS on an
> > anonymous
> > report.
>
> > And the CW mentioned the District Attny's office.
>
> > Was he bypassing Family Court with an anonymous CAN report?
>
> > The CW appeared to use all the coercive "hot words" he was taught.
>
> Did the father do the right thing or not?
>
> From what I saw.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So if he is guilty of CAN this is how he gets away with it?
From: Greegor on
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc

G > Notice how this caseworker really has
G > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
G > would be removed because of the
G > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
G >
G > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?

Roberta Firemonkey wrote
FM > The man in this video did exactly as Dan
FM > has suggested people do when in this
FM > situation. He remained calm, explained
FM > to the worker he would need a warrant.

I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
insist on a signed warrant. Just the opposite,
I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
that it would make the caseworker suspicious.

FM > From the video it was clear that the
FM > worker had seen the baby and the
FM > inside of the apartment and saw no harm.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
on a warrant?

What was it about the video that gave you
the impression he had let the worker see
the baby and the apartment?

If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
then why was he threatening the Dad with
a child removal order?

FM > Get a life gag.

Dan, One of your biggest supporters
has implied that this man's response
WAS to your specifications, but also
states that the man let the worker
look at the child and apartment.

Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.

1.
Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?

2.
Would you have advised this Dad to let the
caseworker look at the apartment and the child?

3.
Did you notice where the caseworker is
threatening to do a child removal? Or why?

4.
Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
From: Greegor on
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc

> > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you?  Why don't you just
> > answer it?

DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
DS > people do when CPS is at their
DS > door more times than I care to count.

DS > And grag knows this.

DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.

joe did.
I have asked for confirmation from you.
Isn't that a fair request, Dan?
From: Dan Sullivan on
On Jul 20, 11:27 pm, Greegor <Greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1YqMxvPgnzc
>
> > > > > Notice how this caseworker really has
> > > > > NOTHING yet is asserting that the child
> > > > > would be removed because of the
> > > > > Dad's refusal to submit without a warrant.
>
> > > > > Dan Sullivan, Did this Dad do it right?
>
> > > > Post your opinion, grag.
>
> > > Come on Dan. Is that a difficult question for you? Why don't you just
> > > answer it?
>
> DS > Because I've posted what I recommed
> DS > people do when CPS is at their
> DS > door more times than I care to count.
>
> DS > And grag knows this.
>
> DS > He can copy and paste what I've already said.
>
> joe did.

No, he didn't.