Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Looking for answers New Jersey

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Correction to a liar

    Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
    Oh, and I gave you the studies, complete with dates and authors, that prove that the vast overwhelming number of abuse cases are found to be valid.

    In other words, 9 times out of ten (or better), kids are being abused.

    That, to me, establishes a clear pattern that the courts, Thank God, take into account when such accusations are made.

    And, in your case, it was obviously true as well. After all, you did agree to the charge, right?
    1. Mommy of 4 made those quotes, not you and her response was answered line by line.
    The majority of my post have not been fully responded too.

    2 The statistics you are referring to are the conviction rates. Different statistics put the numbers from 86% to 93%.That is not the same as being valid. They are also talking about all child abuse. No other crime has rates anywhere close to being this high. Because of intimidation and the reality of the statistics many of these so called convictions are plea bargains. Would you take a chance in court if you knew the jury was over sensitive and prejudice? The pressure is enormous. Like everything else, you know nothing about this either.

    3. Currently there is a push to get the statistics in cases where only divorce was involved.

    4. Questions....
    (a) Do you believe our court system is perfect?
    (b) Do you believe there is no one in jail wrongly convicted? ( all crimes)
    (c) Do you not find these statistics odd? (probably not)
    (d) What do you think are the factors that has made the statistics
    concerning child abuse overwhelming lopsided in comparison to other
    crimes?

    Closing... I am not going to waste my time to educate you to all the different angles and complications involved where child abuse has been alleged during the time of divorce. (before or after) You would never read it anyway. So I'll let you drown in your own ignorance. How old are you? You act and think like a child.

    Comment


    • #47
      Read up

      Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
      And while you are researching, show me one study (other than from Gardner) that shows that a child's sexual abuse is equal to their trama from a custody battle.

      Yet another "fact" without any merit whatsoever.
      I'm not going to explain everything to you. Your education is your responsibility and your parents to get you back in school. But since you asked here it is just one. www.dsm5.org
      Last edited by saxxyman; 11-07-2007, 04:31 PM. Reason: wrong web address

      Comment


      • #48
        Mentaly handicaped

        Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
        You have made several statements demanding that I research PAS. I did so and found it to be a haven for pedophiles.

        You have made several statements demanding that I (and the courts) avoid "witch hunts" and "Christ killings" by assuming children lie and, therefore, that abusers are really victims. I then referenced studies that prove the prudent course of action is to always assume that the abused children are telling the truth.

        Agencies need to be absolutely certain that the abused children are protected before your precious rights. Anything less is completely unacceptable.

        I am still waiting on the law references and the study references that you so casually throw out as "facts".
        That is supposed pedophiles. Due to your lack of knowledge and experience you can never comprehend. Especially with you behaving like you have some sort of mental handicap.

        1 Question: What experience or professional status do you hold?

        Wow you got one right, but not all of it. No one said to ignore a child when an allegation is made. I have only made reference that it needs to be fully investigated and to not take it for the gospel truth. That is called being sure.

        2 Question: Are we to convict a person simply because a child said it happened, no questions asked or supporting evidence?

        In reference to your comment about abused children protected before my precious rights.....
        3 What qualifies children to claim the status of being abused, their say so? If not, then what? I believe like every other crime, there must be proof. Why the double standard? Your answer to this , I will post my response in advance below!

        QUOTE:
        THE STATE MUST DECLARE THE CHILD TO BE THE MOST PRECIOUS OF PEOPLE. AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT IS PERCEIVED AS WORKING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN, THE PEOPLE WILL HAPPILY ENDURE ALMOST ANY CURTAILMENT OF LIBERTY AND ALMOST ANY DEPRIVATION!
        ADOLPH HITLER

        4. Can you comprehend these big words? Better yet, what value do you put on your liberties and freedom?

        Comment


        • #49
          Resources

          Here is another site full or information with links. www.a-team.org

          Comment


          • #50
            That is supposed pedophiles. Due to your lack of knowledge and experience you can never comprehend. Especially with you behaving like you have some sort of mental handicap.
            If the above quotes leave any doubt in your mind, you are delusional. And sick.

            1 Question: What experience or professional status do you hold?
            Other than your single case, what do you?

            Wow you got one right, but not all of it. No one said to ignore a child when an allegation is made. I have only made reference that it needs to be fully investigated and to not take it for the gospel truth. That is called being sure.
            You did. Often. You said that children lie. That accusers should be believed first and the children second. The EVIDENCE I have presented states otherwise.

            2 Question: Are we to convict a person simply because a child said it happened, no questions asked or supporting evidence?
            Of course not. Another wonderful leap in logic. However, I do believe that ever single accusation should be investigated... not dismissed as a child's lie.

            In reference to your comment about abused children protected before my precious rights.....
            3 What qualifies children to claim the status of being abused, their say so?
            Yes. Read the above studies. I can provide the full works if you desire. What you are not understanding from the preponderance of EVIDENCE that I have provided you is that children DESERVE to be believed when they claim abuse because they OVERWHELMINGLY tell the truth in these cases.

            If not, then what? I believe like every other crime, there must be proof. Why the double standard? Your answer to this , I will post my response in advance below!
            What double standard? That children have a right to be heard, believed and their abusers punished? That we should not ignore the innocent because it is inconvenient?

            You're divorced? Really?

            QUOTE:
            THE STATE MUST DECLARE THE CHILD TO BE THE MOST PRECIOUS OF PEOPLE. AS LONG AS THE GOVERNMENT IS PERCEIVED AS WORKING FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN, THE PEOPLE WILL HAPPILY ENDURE ALMOST ANY CURTAILMENT OF LIBERTY AND ALMOST ANY DEPRIVATION!
            ADOLPH HITLER
            Doesn't surprise me a bit that you can quote Hitler. Did you get that from one of your "Abusive Pedophilic Dad" meetings?

            More importantly, are you saying that children are not the most precious of people? Are you honestly saying that your rights are more important than the rights of those that are too young to fight back... are too innocent to know that what is happening to them is wrong?

            Please tell me that part of your sentence was forced sterilization.

            4. Can you comprehend these big words? Better yet, what value do you put on your liberties and freedom?
            I put a great deal of value on my liberties and freedom. The difference between us is that I don't see how protecting children from pedophiles intrudes upon them.

            How about these little words for you. Still looking for any legal backup for your statements and for any proof of your studies. Looking for the proof that sexually abused children are equally tramatized as those children subject to custody battles.

            Why don't you stop spouting from the handbook and actually present the facts that you so willing spew from your diseased pie-hole.
            Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

            I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

            Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

            Comment


            • #51
              Nut Case

              Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
              What were the odds you would sneak in another nebulous "I read a study" where you don't back it up whatsoever.

              And you are STILL talking about how great PAS is? Let me spell out what, apparently, my 3 posts of data can't get through to you.

              PAS was created by a pedophile to help abusive pedophiliac dad's defend their behavior. It touts sleeping with children as healthy, normal and the only changes necessary to the system are ones where pedophiles aren't prosecuted.

              You, however, still stand by it as a valid argument. That says a great deal.

              So, what did you plead guilty to, anyway?

              Give me the names of cases where PAS, especially when testified by Gardner, was accepted as proven theory or as a medically sound diagnosis.

              Give me the studies you are so proud of discussing.

              Now who isn't answering questions?
              1 I'm not the expert, and never have claimed that status. My claim is experience.
              2 I am not responsible for your education, and obviously from your comments on this board, you do not read. I guess you make up as you go along to suit what ever you want. PAS in not the only issue here anyway, but on that point, no where have I read where Gardner himself was a pedophile. If so I would be curious of the circumstances. Your sensitivity, has you believing everyone accused is guilty. This is in no way possibly in any crime any where in the world.
              3 PAS accepted or not, is it your belief none of the scenario's he talks about in life are possible? I'm sure you think all his research, based on individual accounts are fraudulent. I can not prove every account no more than you can disprove. That is reality and a simple fact that can not be disputed with any creditability. What I do know is my own experience supports his findings, because I lived it. That means it happens. That is why I do not need anyones opinion to validate what is possible. I already know. While you are battling to debate to prove or disprove things, It makes no difference. When a person knows the truth and nothing to loose they will defend it till death.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by saxxyman View Post
                Here is another site full or information with links. www.a-team.org
                Wow. All that searching and the best you could come up with was a site advertising a legal firm that had a single win in 1999?

                You should hire them. Really. They could use the money.

                Did I mention that the case had nothing NOTHING to do with PAS.

                Still waiting for any shred of real evidence as to your statements.
                Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Did he actually quote Hitler?


                  Sassy, you keep on typing away. Every time you spout off, I will just refer the OP to this thread so that he or she can see your statements in a relatively decipherable form.
                  HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
                  How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
                  (unique up on him)
                  How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
                  (same way)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by saxxyman View Post
                    1 I'm not the expert, and never have claimed that status. My claim is experience.
                    2 I am not responsible for your education, and obviously from your comments on this board, you do not read. I guess you make up as you go along to suit what ever you want. PAS in not the only issue here anyway, but on that point, no where have I read where Gardner himself was a pedophile. If so I would be curious of the circumstances. Your sensitivity, has you believing everyone accused is guilty. This is in no way possibly in any crime any where in the world.
                    3 PAS accepted or not, is it your belief none of the scenario's he talks about in life are possible? I'm sure you think all his research, based on individual accounts are fraudulent. I can not prove every account no more than you can disprove. That is reality and a simple fact that can not be disputed with any creditability. What I do know is my own experience supports his findings, because I lived it. That means it happens. That is why I do not need anyones opinion to validate what is possible. I already know. While you are battling to debate to prove or disprove things, It makes no difference. When a person knows the truth and nothing to loose they will defend it till death.
                    I find it hard to believe anyone is this dense.

                    Let's go through this again.

                    You asked everyone on this board to research PAS. You said that I was an idiot because I didn't read up on PAS. You said PAS was the reason we should all give accused abusers a break.

                    PAS is a sham. Only a truly blind idiot would read what I posted and say, "This man isn't a pedophile that believes sex with children is okay". The founder of the theory of PAS had ZERO clinical experience on the topic, and committed suicide rather than be exposed. SAID is the "dressed up" version of PAS since PAS got such a bad name.

                    You know... kinda like how AMWAY calls itself something else now so that people won't run away.

                    You belittle me time and again because you have the "experience" of a single incident... and incident, by the way, you admitted GUILT in.

                    You have positioned yourself as the expert while providing no proof. NONE. Now, when I call you on it, you back off and say, "Um, I never said I was an expert." If you are gonna wiggle, at least try to be believable.

                    And as for the last, of course children lying is possible. However, statistically speaking (See above), the chances of a child lying about sexual abuse are roughly akin to you sitting next to Elvis at your next counseling session.

                    Yes, it is possible that the victim fell on the bullets. However, let's go ahead and make the leap that he was shot.
                    Last edited by cyjeff; 11-07-2007, 06:09 PM.
                    Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                    I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                    Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by mommyof4 View Post
                      Did he actually quote Hitler?


                      Sassy, you keep on typing away. Every time you spout off, I will just refer the OP to this thread so that he or she can see your statements in a relatively decipherable form.
                      Amazing, huh? Most wouldn't feel comfortable having a working knowledge of Hitler's work, but Sassy isn't the average bear.
                      Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                      I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                      Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Someday, karma will demand that you scream for help and everyone will just think it is the neighbor's TV.
                        Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                        I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                        Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Just to put a final nail in the PAS coffin -

                          Unscientific Garbage
                          University of Washington Professor
                          John Conte has described Gardner's "Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale" as

                          "probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I've seen in the field in all my time. To base social policy on something as flimsy as this is exceedingly dangerous."

                          According to "Violence In The Family," a 1996 report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence And the Family:

                          The task force found that court decisions awarding an allegedly abusive father custody of his children "... may improperly rely on inaccurate and unsupported theories such as The Parental Alienation Syndrome."

                          Margaret Hagen, a Boston University professor of psychology and author of *****s of the Court, says

                          "parental alienation is just another bogus psychological theory infecting the nation's legal system."

                          Carol S. Bruch, Professor of Law and Chair,
                          Doctoral Programme in Human Developement,
                          University of California, Davis

                          Parental Alienation Syndrome:
                          Junk Science in Child Custody Determinations

                          "Possibly as a consequence of these errors and his 'tail-of-the-elephant' view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.

                          Taken together, these assertions have the practical effect of impugning all abuse allegations, allegations that Gardner asserts are usually false in the divorce context.

                          Here, too, Gardner cites no evidence in support of his personal view, and the relevant literature reports the contrary, that such allegations are usually well-founded."

                          According to John E. B. Myers in his article,
                          "What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome
                          And Why Is It So Often Used Against Mothers?"

                          "Dr. Gardner's Parental Alienation Syndrome has not, to my knowledge, been subjected to empirical study, research, or testing. Nor to my knowledge has the syndrome been published in peer reviewed medical or scientific journals."

                          The American Prosecutors Research Institute in Virginia

                          "that Gardner's research, including PAS, has not been peer-reviewed or officially recognized by the AMA and the APA. Gardner has been able to get around the peer review process by publishing his own works. Creative Therapeutics, which published "Parental Alienation Syndrome", is Gardner's own publishing company


                          A comment about Dr. Richard Gardner's suicide released by the last man to cross examine him, attorney Richard Ducote:

                          June 1, 2003

                          "Parental Alienation Syndrome is a bogus, pro-pedophillic fraud concocted by Richard Gardner. I was the last attorney to cross examine Gardner. In Paterson, NJ, he admitted that he has not spoken to the Dean of Columbia's medical school for over 15 years, and has not had hospital admitting privileges for over 25 years.

                          He has not been court appointed to do anything for decades.

                          The only two appellate courts in the country who have considered the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test, i.e., whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, said it does not. As Dr. Paul Fink, former president of the American Psychiatric Association has stated, Dr. Gardner and PAS should be only a "pathetic footnote" in psychiatric history. Gardner and his bogus theory have done untold damage to sexually and physically abused children and their protective parents. PAS has been rejected by every reputable organization considering it.

                          In a Florida case in which I was recently involved, when the judge insisted on a Frye hearing, Gardner simply did not show up. Perhaps because he finally realized that the entire nation was on to his scam, he committed suicide on May 25. Let's pray that his ridiculous, dangerous PAS foolishness died with him."

                          Richard Ducote
                          attorney at law
                          New Orleans, LA
                          Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                          I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                          Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            One instant amoung countless

                            Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
                            I find it hard to believe anyone is this dense.

                            Let's go through this again.

                            You asked everyone on this board to research PAS. You said that I was an idiot because I didn't read up on PAS. You said PAS was the reason we should all give accused abusers a break.

                            PAS is a sham. Only a truly blind idiot would read what I posted and say, "This man isn't a pedophile that believes sex with children is okay". The founder of the theory of PAS had ZERO clinical experience on the topic, and committed suicide rather than be exposed. SAID is the "dressed up" version of PAS since PAS got such a bad name.

                            You know... kinda like how AMWAY calls itself something else now so that people won't run away.

                            You belittle me time and again because you have the "experience" of a single incident... and incident, by the way, you admitted GUILT in.

                            You have positioned yourself as the expert while providing no proof. NONE. Now, when I call you on it, you back off and say, "Um, I never said I was an expert." If you are gonna wiggle, at least try to be believable.

                            And as for the last, of course children lying is possible. However, statistically speaking (See above), the chances of a child lying about sexual abuse are roughly akin to you sitting next to Elvis at your next counseling session.

                            Yes, it is possible that the victim fell on the bullets. However, let's go ahead and make the leap that he was shot.
                            You have mis- quoted PAS was an example of why people should use caution. It was not the only determining factor. Again read the post. "Sounds like a little Parent Alienation Syndrome."
                            1 What is the "Definition of sounds like"? Could be, may be, most likely. no where should the implied meaning be "definitely". I have defended throughout this topic that any scenario is possible. That means an accused person can be innocent or guilty. It also means a child can and will lie or they may not. This is plain enough for a child to comprehend, but you are the one too dense to grasp it.

                            2 Your other information on PAS I was unaware of. As to Dr. Gardner's endorsement, it says a lot. It still doesn't explain all the work being done in this area. All syndromes take time to gather the documentation to prove their existence or dis-prove. What ever the professionals you have listed support, there are others doing work to get it recognized. I have given reference to a couple of sites doing research. I admit is is a lot to dig through. An individual doing research has a tremendous task and a lot of reading. No one individual can possibly know all the resources. Including me. I will continue to give my findings. What appears to some as being dense, is actual knowledge of events that took place. None of it was imagined and because the theory of PAS fits the events I've witnessed, I can personally give it creditability, it may be given a different name, but the behaviors do exist. Being on the outside anyone not experiencing such would just as you have dismiss it. I plan on submitting my story as a case study to the appropriate agencies to get it recognized. As to Dr Gardner, true enough he had issues, probably caused from the trauma of being falsely accused. What ever the case, in any crime including abuse, only the accused, the victim/alleged victim (which ever is the case) and eye wittiness, have the convenience of knowing the absolute truth.
                            *note* The court and society make claims of being right about judgments when one is convicted. They may be right or they may be wrong. Example: DNA evidence exonerating a criminal. Society refers to him as a criminal. How can this be if he has been exonerated? Same holds true for pedophiles and it does happen.
                            3 Once is all that is needed, you'll get an education you will never forget. Experience is better that none! You shouldn't even be in such a topic. What ever the name, it will eventually be proven. Perhaps not PAS ( excuse me My bad), but under another name SAID or something else. this would not be getting the attention or research if there was nothing to it. I validate it's finding and surly I am not alone. As far as admitting guilt, plea bargains by a person are made for one of two reasons. They are guilty and want a lesser sentence or they are innocent but feel it is to risky to fight. In my case, it was too risky. Had nothing to do with guilt. The court and society considers it the same. I hold my head up, because I know God does not.
                            4 Your ignorant justifications comparing falling on to a bullet to abuse is not in any way an accurate representation. It would be if there was DNA evidence or some other type of indisputable concrete evidence. *Hearsay is not concrete evidence* Hearsay is not the only proof needed to justly convict. I've stated that enough, if you assume or misinterpret or can't comprehend that is your problem. I admit when I am wrong or did not know something as particulars about Dr Gardner, but what ever the name besides PAS, it exist. We simply will have to agree to disagree. In doing so, I need to point out, experience and knowing vs no credentials in a draw situation supports me. But i don't need a judge, because again i already know that can not ever be changed. the truth will always be the truth and it happened to me, so obviously it happens. Do you think out of billions only once? The numbers are much much higher.
                            I finished debating you under this topic it is just a merry go round. I've got better things to do. I will continue to post my comments to any topic I feel fit.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              So, we get to add hearsay to the list of terms you really don't understand all that well (PAS and SAID are already there). Direct victim testimony is not hearsay. Many people have been convicted based upon direct victim testimony.... including you.

                              Having said that....

                              No. This isn't an agree to disagree situation.

                              I will not let you package junk science quackery designed as a defense against abused children's direct testimony (not hearsay) as a legal precedent.

                              You keep saying I have no experience. By now, you should have realized my passion about this subject MUST be underlined with experience. However, it was not from the side of a poor, misunderstood pedophile.

                              I will say this, however. Your ASSUMPTION that the damage done via sexual abuse of a child is directly proportional to the damage done in a custody battle is absolutely moronic and insulting to all of the victims of abuse. This statement borders on the galactically stupid and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this hideous myth - directly, by the way, from a pedophile that wants to believe that sex with children actually HELPS them.

                              You demand that we all look at evidence before making any decisions. You, however, provide none outside of the talking points you got from the PAS brochure.

                              You decline to provide facts because research is too hard. You decline to identify the researchers advancing this cause because it would require work. You decline to provide legal precedent because it doesn't exist. You decline to show a study that equates the trama suffered by sexual abuse to the trama suffered in a parental custody battle.

                              You don't even spend the time to research the very theory that you demand we accept as plausible. You have, obviously, not read any of Dr. Gardner's works, read any of his testimony or have done any reading on the subject past the point where it validated your belief that your ex, your children and the courts were all lying and out to get you.

                              You don't fool me for a single second. The experts and research you talk about don't exist except on NAMBLA websites. The studies you talk about are nonexistant.

                              You admitted to guilt and then think that we should accept that you, as an innocent man, would have agreed to this. Based upon the reams of posts you have submitted here, I find it hard to believe you would ever have stood before a judge and accepted a plea to ANYTHING you thought was wrong.

                              I just don't buy that. I have systematically debunked each and every claim you made, and you refuse to see the light.

                              The only positive in all this is that your own children were removed from you influence. Maybe we can stop your cycle.
                              Last edited by cyjeff; 11-08-2007, 09:16 AM.
                              Not everything that makes you mad, sad or uncomfortable is legally actionable.

                              I am not now nor ever was an attorney.

                              Any statements I make are based purely upon my personal experiences and research which may or may not be accurate in a court of law.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                "Sounds like a little Parent Alienation Syndrome."
                                Oh, Merlin on a skateboard!!!

                                It CAN'T sound a little like parental alienation syndrome because PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!! It's 100% pure crappola. Through years of effort to push PAS to be legitimized and recognized, it has been shot down over and over and over and over and over. It is not a syndrome. It will NOT become a syndrome as the loser that 'discoverd, recognized, and diagnosed' it MADE IT UP AND HE IS DEAD BECAUSE HE COMMITTED SUICIDE WHEN HE COULDN'T FACE UP TO THE INJUSTICE AND HELL HE UNLEASHED ON HELPLESS CHILDREN AND THE MOTHERS THAT WERE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THEM.

                                You can't seem to understand that you have no basis to your arguments, therefore your argument is as full of it as "dr" Gardner was.
                                HOOK 'EM HORNS!!!
                                How do you catch a very rare rabbit?
                                (unique up on him)
                                How do catch an ordinary rabbit?
                                (same way)

                                Comment

                                The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                                Working...
                                X