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

  • cbg
    replied
    Hey, folks, we are WAY off topic here. None of this has anything to do with the age at which two brothers can/should be sharing a bedroom. Let's keep to the topic, shall we? And take the tangental discussions off line.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Originally posted by panther10758 View Post
    Funny wasn't it saxxyman man who said we were reading things in his posts that were not there?
    Saxxy has been carrying a hate filled grudge against his wife and kids for 18 years.

    He must be a KICK at parties...

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Originally posted by saxxyman View Post
    WOW! how can you throw around numbers? you statistic has changed from 95% to 99%. I never knew our justice system or humans were any where near that reliable. Just how did you come by the extra 4%? Check my post to other threads. A hole has just been cut into your so called coffin. Are you a habitual liar? You should get help for that!
    The studies that I presented showed a margin of lying abused children to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 95-99%. It was a range because, unlike you, I used SEVERAL studies with slightly different results in my response to you.

    Heck, even your best bud and drinking buddy Gardner said that 95% of abused children were telling the truth.

    I have never been anything but truthful and forthright. You, however, seem to have a problem with the truth.

    You will not fess up to your crime. You will say you lied to a judge, however... because, if what you said is true, you committed perjury.

    So, are you a child molester or a liar? Why not go for the bonus pack and admit to both?

    Leave a comment:


  • panther10758
    replied
    Funny wasn't it saxxyman man who said we were reading things in his posts that were not there?

    Leave a comment:


  • MomofBoys
    replied
    I realize that 1. I shouldn't feed you and 2. Cyjeff needs no help from me, but..........

    I post stalked, and what he said was:

    Because, according to numerous studies, over 95% of children that claim abuse HAVE been abused.
    Then he said:
    I have shown you evidence that 95-99% of children claiming abuse were telling the truth.

    His statstic didn't change. You are arguing semantics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Nail out of coffin

    Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
    When it comes to pedophiles, I am absolutely biased and bigoted.... unlike you. Gardner testified that the mother should be forced under penalty of prison to send her children to see the father that abused them. Under that "Professional" insight, the judge did... and the boy killed himself rather than face his father.

    Now you are saying, "It's not Gardner's fault... sure, it was his theory, his testimony and his views that caused the result, but it wasn't his fault". Are you on crack?

    You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the man is a responsible vessel of theory but not have him responsible for the fallout that his theories produce. You can't trot out one article and then tell me that all articles are biased and wrong.

    My favorite part of your little diatribe?



    Well, except your case, right? You want to change the way the entire world looks at abused children because of YOUR CASE.

    I have shown you evidence that 95-99% of children claiming abuse were telling the truth. I have shown you evidence that PAS is a sham and a money making joke perpetrated at your expense.

    All you have admitted is that you plead guilty to a crime... by the way, not a civil matter but a CRIME... that you think that Dr. Gardner's pedophiliac wanderings are okay because you like the rest of his theory... and that you believe that one case shouldn't change the point... or the law.

    I couldn't agree more. Well, to that last part. The rest makes me want to vomit.
    WOW! how can you throw around numbers? you statistic has changed from 95% to 99%. I never knew our justice system or humans were any where near that reliable. Just how did you come by the extra 4%? Check my post to other threads. A hole has just been cut into your so called coffin. Are you a habitual liar? You should get help for that!

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Originally posted by saxxyman View Post
    Good point! Just one problem. Certain individuals enjoy taking post out of context and twisting it around from it's original meaning. I've had several of my own post mis quoted or interpreted by the perception of closed minded people that can no comprehend the possibilities other than what their mind tells them.
    They simply are brain washed bitter individuals. I do admit my own hostilities, because of my experiences, but I keep it in check. I allow and accept that every case is unique, but similarities can also be found. I don't expect the others have enough moral character to do the same.

    You want to admit to your own experiences? Then how about fessing up to your criminal past? What did you plead guilty to? Did it involve children? Did it involve your OWN children?

    I don't twist anything. You told me to research PAS and SAID. You said I was dense and stupid because I didn't know anything about them. So I researched them.... and found that they had been founded as a haven for pedophiles that wanted to make sex with children and incest legal.

    Then you said that you had a plethora of experience on this topic... even though you got divorced 18 years ago and, apparently, not only didn't get your children but also got a criminal record out of it. Nice.

    Then you wanted proof. So I provided it... in spades. I gave you a host of listings.

    You, when asked for proof, directed me to the Psychiatric Dictionary. Then you find an article (one article, by the way) published by a woman that makes her living perpetuating the business model established by the pedophile.

    You have mentioned over and over that there are studies that will prove this lie to be truth. You haven't provided a link or title to any.

    Finally, you said that the trama a child feels as part of a custody battle equals the trama a child feels when sexually abused. You haven't provided a link or title to any study that proves this.

    You keep spitting out sound bites. I demand proof, and you call me bigoted because I don't give you a pass.

    This is a legal website. Unless you can provide any proof (and you have had a week to do it), please do as the OP has asked and shut up.

    You will definately find a more appreciative audience at www.dontmakehermad.com. You should stay there.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Originally posted by saxxyman View Post
    Your certainly one to talk concerning your last statement.You self righteous bigot. You are blaming Dr Gardner as if he were the man's attorney in the above mentioned case. Gardner only testified only to his knowledge. If the slant or innuendos were misinterpreted in court, then that is the defenses problem isn't it? That is standard practice by both sides in a court room situation. How is it when it suits your and others views that is perfectly fine and when it doesn't then it is crap? Grow up what is good for the prosecution is good for the defense and vice versa. You can't change the point simply by one case. Everyone is different. Both of us can find a case to support or perspectives. One other thing, you should be ashamed to put much confidence in a news paper story. Everyone knows, I guess except you. They are full of politics and liberal slants. They are a far cry from any kind of acceptable research. Sure they are true to an extent. They often go no farther than the writers perspective of the person interviewed.
    When it comes to pedophiles, I am absolutely biased and bigoted.... unlike you. Gardner testified that the mother should be forced under penalty of prison to send her children to see the father that abused them. Under that "Professional" insight, the judge did... and the boy killed himself rather than face his father.

    Now you are saying, "It's not Gardner's fault... sure, it was his theory, his testimony and his views that caused the result, but it wasn't his fault". Are you on crack?

    You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the man is a responsible vessel of theory but not have him responsible for the fallout that his theories produce. You can't trot out one article and then tell me that all articles are biased and wrong.

    My favorite part of your little diatribe?

    You can't change the point simply by one case.
    Well, except your case, right? You want to change the way the entire world looks at abused children because of YOUR CASE.

    I have shown you evidence that 95-99% of children claiming abuse were telling the truth. I have shown you evidence that PAS is a sham and a money making joke perpetrated at your expense.

    All you have admitted is that you plead guilty to a crime... by the way, not a civil matter but a CRIME... that you think that Dr. Gardner's pedophiliac wanderings are okay because you like the rest of his theory... and that you believe that one case shouldn't change the point... or the law.

    I couldn't agree more. Well, to that last part. The rest makes me want to vomit.
    Last edited by cyjeff; 11-10-2007, 05:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    One problem

    Originally posted by mikswi View Post
    Good Lord Saxxyman, do you link the entire net when you post? You may receive a better response if you post smaller snippets. Most if not all, will not read through volumes in an attempt to get your point.
    Good point! Just one problem. Certain individuals enjoy taking post out of context and twisting it around from it's original meaning. I've had several of my own post mis quoted or interpreted by the perception of closed minded people that can no comprehend the possibilities other than what their mind tells them.
    They simply are brain washed bitter individuals. I do admit my own hostilities, because of my experiences, but I keep it in check. I allow and accept that every case is unique, but similarities can also be found. I don't expect the others have enough moral character to do the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikswi
    replied
    Good Lord Saxxyman, do you link the entire net when you post? You may receive a better response if you post smaller snippets. Most if not all, will not read through volumes in an attempt to get your point.

    Leave a comment:


  • mikswi
    replied
    Originally posted by Helping Hand View Post
    together they make 125,000 a year,while I only make 29,999.
    How is it that you make exactly 29,999? Does making a single penny more put you over some threshold or something?
    Last edited by mikswi; 11-10-2007, 02:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    The one to talk

    Originally posted by cyjeff View Post
    How is it innuendo that hospitals barred him from their premises for the last 25 years of his "research"? That is not my opinion. That is fact.

    How can you say that a man that states it is normal and healthy for fathers to sleep with their children is not a pedophile? How can you say that a man that states that fathers MUST look to their children as a source of sexual release is not a pedophile?

    Here you go again... asking ME if I understand what RSD is... something you didn't even know existed until it became an excuse for your hero's suicide.

    Speaking of suicide... how about the lives lost in your hero's wake?

    Did Richard Gardner Also Cause 16 year old Nathan Grieco's Suicide?

    The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, in performing their civic duty to inform and enlighten, ran a two part investigative story on a tragic custody war in their city in which Dr. Richard Gardner became personally involved as an expert witness.

    Dr. Gardner interviewed the allegedly abusive father but did not interview the mother nor the three boys at the center of the custody dispute. Nevertheless, Gardner diagnosed "a classical case of PAS" based upon his conversations with his paying client. He called the mother and her three sons "sadistic" and recommended that they be "coerced" (he actually used that word) into making the boys visit their father.

    Gardner recommended to the Pittsburgh judge something he called "Threat Therapy", in which the mother should be jailed if the boys did not visit their physically and mentally abusive father. In regard to accusing mothers, Gardner believed that therapists do well to "sober" them up. Otherwise, the children might think that a "heinous crime" has been committed.

    Despite its' questionable constitutionality, the Pittsburgh judge went along with Gardner's forced visit "threat therapy" recommendation and what's more, the mother was ordered to deliver the boys in a positive frame of mind or be held for sanctions. The oldest boy, 16 year old Nathan Grieco soon after suffered a nervous breakdown, was hospitalized and eventually committed suicide.

    Nathan's mother went public 2 weeks after his death, blaming Dr. Richard Gardner and Pittsburgh Judge John J. Driscoll. Her story created a national outcry.

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Casualties of a Custody War - What's best for the child? (Part One) http://www.post-gazette.com/custody/partone.asp

    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Casualties of a Custody War - The courtroom as battleground (Part two) http://www.post-gazette.com/custody/parttwo.asp


    In this case, Dr. Gardner thought that a man that was so physically abusive to his children that he had been arrested after putting Nathan in the hospital should have been given custody... full custody.

    Because the broken bones and stitches required were all PAS related... yup, Dr. Gardner, your hero, said that the medical reports were all in Mommy's imagination.

    The only thing you need to remember is that RSD is a profoundly disturbing neurological disorder... maybe that will keep Dr. Gardner out of Hell. I certainly hope not.
    Your certainly one to talk concerning your last statement.You self righteous bigot. You are blaming Dr Gardner as if he were the man's attorney in the above mentioned case. Gardner only testified only to his knowledge. If the slant or innuendos were misinterpreted in court, then that is the defenses problem isn't it? That is standard practice by both sides in a court room situation. How is it when it suits your and others views that is perfectly fine and when it doesn't then it is crap? Grow up what is good for the prosecution is good for the defense and vice versa. You can't change the point simply by one case. Everyone is different. Both of us can find a case to support or perspectives. One other thing, you should be ashamed to put much confidence in a news paper story. Everyone knows, I guess except you. They are full of politics and liberal slants. They are a far cry from any kind of acceptable research. Sure they are true to an extent. They often go no farther than the writers perspective of the person interviewed.

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    Originally posted by mommyof4 View Post
    Because the mean old court system wouldn't let him.

    I'm sure he tried to bring it up. If he had an atty and that atty was worth at least $2/hr, the atty would have slapped him upside the head before the judge got 'ahold of him.

    Okay, it's Sat. My beloved 'Horns are playing today. My husband's overrated Buckeyes are playing, USC is hopefully going to get their butts handed to them, and the SEC war continues.

    I'm going to go yell at the games.

    Have a great Saturday.

    HOOK EM HORNS!!!

    (still possible that they could grab the BCS at large bid. Pray that USC folds!)
    Um... Go DAWGS!!!!

    I am just so sick and tired of this person. Like all abusers, he never has once apologized for what he did or assumed ANY of the blame. Instead, he hitches his star to quackery because it gives him an excuse where it is all someone else's fault.

    The ex's fault he kept losing his temper. The ex's fault the kids are scared of him. The ex's fault he pled guilty while under oath in a court of law.

    Nothing is his fault. Sure, it means that he has to throw in with a diseased mind that thinks children seduce adults, a wife's lack of sexual drive forces a man to schtup his daughter, and that our current laws against incest and pedophilia equate to the salem witch trials... but what the heck. It is the only theory that allows him to say, "See, it is all HER fault".

    I have been less disgusted by stuff I have scraped off the bottom of my shoe.

    Leave a comment:


  • mommyof4
    replied
    Why didn't you use PAS as a defense in your case?
    Because the mean old court system wouldn't let him.

    I'm sure he tried to bring it up. If he had an atty and that atty was worth at least $2/hr, the atty would have slapped him upside the head before the judge got 'ahold of him.

    Okay, it's Sat. My beloved 'Horns are playing today. My husband's overrated Buckeyes are playing, USC is hopefully going to get their butts handed to them, and the SEC war continues.

    I'm going to go yell at the games.

    Have a great Saturday.

    HOOK EM HORNS!!!

    (still possible that they could grab the BCS at large bid. Pray that USC folds!)

    Leave a comment:


  • cyjeff
    replied
    You keep saying over and over that a custody battle is worse for a child than sexual abuse.

    How about when a child is abused and an "expert" tells them that it is all in their head?

    How much trama is THAT to a child? Congrats... you abuse them twice...

    Why didn't you use PAS as a defense in your case?

    Leave a 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