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.

DS > Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of
"you do
DS > what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."

DS > I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.

G > I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
G > insist on a signed warrant.

DS > Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned
warrant?

Got a link to where you advised parents to insist on a warrant?

G > Just the opposite,
G > I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
G > that it would make the caseworker suspicious.

DS > I don't recall saying or implying that.

Failing to recall means what exactly?
In your Larry Loophole world, that
doesn't mean diddly squat does it?

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.

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

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

DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
DS > the father let the worker see the baby
DS > and the apartment?

You paraphrased my question.

DS > The father said the worker saw the
DS > baby and the apartment, but the
DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.

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

DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
DS > Typical.

You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.

FM > Get a life gag.

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

DS > FM didn't say that.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/3d47edb660acbf79

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.


G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.

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

DS > When?

Is that advice you have issued?

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

DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
DS > I'd advise him to show the
DS > baby to the case worker.

Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.

DS > And opening the door to an apartment
DS > exposes the living room and
DS > probably the kitchen.

Forfeits 4th amendment protections.

DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
DS > or dangerous living condition,
DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.

Which joe paraphrased as:
*It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
if
you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*

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

DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.

Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?

I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
several times, saying that if the parent
doesn't let him look at the child, he has
no option but to do a child removal.

G > 4.
G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?

DS > Read my earlier comments.

You complain a lot about technicalities
in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
so WHY are you so shy about taking
these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?
From: Dan Sullivan on
On Jul 21, 1:23 pm, Greegor <Greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> DS > Actually I believe the father said something to the effect of
> "you do
> DS > what you have to do, and I'll do what I have to do."
>
> DS > I don't recall the father saying he needed a warrant.
>
> G > I have never seen Dan advise anybody to
> G > insist on a signed warrant.
>
> DS > Are you implying I advise people to insist on an unsigned
> warrant?
>
> Got a link to where you advised parents to insist on a warrant?
>
> G > Just the opposite,
> G > I have seen Dan ridicule that tactic, implying
> G > that it would make the caseworker suspicious.
>
> DS > I don't recall saying or implying that.
>
> Failing to recall means what exactly?

I don't remember.

What was the question?

> In your Larry Loophole world, that
> doesn't mean diddly squat does it?
>
> 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.
>
> G > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of insisting
> G > on a warrant?
>
> G > What was it about the video that gave you
> G > the impression he had let the worker see
> G > the baby and the apartment?
>
> DS > What from the vid gives you the impression
> DS > the father let the worker see the baby
> DS > and the apartment?
>
> You paraphrased my question.
>
> DS > The father said the worker saw the
> DS > baby and the apartment, but the
> DS > father didn't say he was the one who let the worker.
>
> G > If the worker had seen the baby and apartment,
> G > then why was he threatening the Dad with
> G > a child removal order?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
> DS > Typical.
>
> You didn't answer the question, Dan. Typical.

If you watched the vid you'd already know the answer, grag.

> FM > Get a life gag.
>
> G > Dan, One of your biggest supporters
> G > has implied that this man's response
> G > WAS to your specifications, but also
> G > states that the man let the worker
> G > look at the child and apartment.
>
> DS > FM didn't say that.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...

See.

I was right!

> 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.
>
> G > Please resolve the logical conflicts Firemonkey presented.
>
> G > 1.
> G > Do you advise parents to insist on a warrant signed by a Judge?
>
> DS > When?
>
> Is that advice you have issued?

When?

And under what circumstance?

> G > 2.
> G > Would you have advised this Dad to let the
> G > caseworker look at the apartment and the child?
>
> DS > If the allegation was injury to the baby,
> DS > I'd advise him to show the
> DS > baby to the case worker.
>
> Which forfeits 4th amendment protections.

Protections of what?

Did you not see the police in the vid?

If the worker didn't see the baby and the allegation was an injury,
you don't think the police would have stepped in and taken over?

Maybe take the baby into custody?

Or to a hospital?

Or arrest the father?

> DS > And opening the door to an apartment
> DS > exposes the living room and
> DS > probably the kitchen.
>
> Forfeits 4th amendment protections.

If the living room and kitchen were visible from the open front door?

> DS > So if the allegation was a cluttered
> DS > or dangerous living condition,
> DS > the worker already saw the home was safe.
>
> Which joe paraphrased as:
> *It will be best if you cooperate. You know you're a good parent and
> if
> you just show them they'll apologize and go away.*

I never said that.

> G > 3.
> G > Did you notice where the caseworker is
> G > threatening to do a child removal? Or why?
>
> DS > You didn't watch the video, grag.
>
> Yes I did. Is there some detail you missed?

Not at all.

> I heard the caseworker repeat this threat
> several times, saying that if the parent
> doesn't let him look at the child, he has
> no option but to do a child removal.

That's not true.

You didn't watch the vid.

> G > 4.
> G > Did the caseworker say anything you think is incorrect?
>
> DS > Read my earlier comments.
>
> You complain a lot about technicalities
> in how you are quoted or paraphrased,
> so WHY are you so shy about taking
> these opportunities to clarify your position, Dan?

My position was clarified previously.

Check it out.
From: krp on

"Dan Sullivan" <dsulldan(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b097e797-7e6c-43b7-ba3e-ff74f3d33fe3(a)l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 4:52 am, " krp" <krp24...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0b7e979b-951b-4b5a-b8bd-264fa5d7098a(a)25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 11:39 pm, Greegor <Greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 20, 9:34 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.
>>
>> >> The question was not that simple, Betty.
>>
>> >> It was about whether the response conforms
>> >> to Dan's purported advice.
>>
>> > My advice is to tell the case worker "Please put whatever information
>> > you have for me in writing so I can discuss it with my attorney. And
>> > after I speak with my attorney, I'll get back to you."
>>
>> That's your best "LEGAL ADVICE" to your clients, right ATTORNEY Sullivan?
>
> That was the advice of a Suffolk County ADA.

So NOW you are a Suffolk County ADA and NOT just an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
AMAZING!