 |
| http://embracingspirituality.com/2011/08/06/i-am-shockedand-appalled/ |
WARNING: this does NOT include foul language. However, it does INSINUATE it, utilizing Capitlized letters that lead off that language, and, in other cases, punctuation and the first letter of the foul language intended.
Well, I wasn't going to publish the results of our assessment appeal, exhonorating these appellants from all charges, and taking us off of the registry, since it came out in our favor, and out of respect for the Administrative Law Judge who decided it...BUT:
As we well knew, the "Other Side" has appealled that appeal...directly to the Director of something I've not heard of, of yet in our state, the "Division of Adult, Families and Children"'s Department, has again outdone themselves and put out a memorandum outlining why they believe this decision should be reversed by the director.
Little do they remember, who they are dealing with.
So now, for your amusement (and, of course, as a sounding board for me to get my ya-ya's out, along with every ounce of rage against these determined assholes who would like nothing more than to get us parents BACK ON the Child Abuse Registry for Neglect), we will, of course, be publishing EVERY CONFIDENTIAL COURT DOCUMENT FOR THIS APPEAL. I mean, why not? They evidently have no jurisdiction to enforce court (and judge) ordered subpoenas to find those who refused to show up to testify on our behalf in contempt of court for not showing up, I figure they also have no jurisdiction to enforce confidentiality either.
Here then, is the decision made by the ALJ and their RIDICULOUS appeal memorandum...of course, with my commentary and (lawful) response forthcoming.
Enjoy!
Now, as you remember, back in....saaaay...this post:
http://themightyswordamericas26deadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-assessment-appeal-results.html
That I told you what the results from the appeal were...but I never gave you the legal logic behind it. Well, now you have it. Again, in full respect of this judge, I didn't plan to publish this, and would have kept it as it was meant to be, due to it being in our favor...but since they've appealed it up to the man who will, more than likely, be responsible for my getting put back ON the registry, I say f*** 'em. Shoulda mebbe left this well enough alone.
Here then is the decision from the appeal, followed closely by the Appeal to the Appeal:
And now, as promised, the joke that followed. It occured to me ages ago, as I'm sure it's occured to you, that if these people had been your typical lawfirm, they woulda quit while they were behind. Remember though, that this is the state, and thanks to your tax dollars being ever at their disposal, they can just keep fighting over and over and over again, finding ways to keep it goin' against you, until you are either crazy or destitute...or both. They have nothing, of course, to lose...except their jobs, if they fail to keep fighting you, so, naturally, they do it anyway, screw the cost to the taxpayers. Mostly 'cause they have nothing better to do, surely...well, that, and they don't like to lose. Problem is, neither do I. So? Be prepared for the fight of your life, because I fully intend to have a long and prosperous existance...broke or not.
OK, starting right off, naturally, is this little beaut. In our illustrious state, it's called the Department of Human Services. Always has been, always will be. It's called something different in every state, for some stupid reason; but it does seem to only have one name per state, for sure...but here, we have a "Department" I HADN'T heard of, until now. The director is just that, the Director of the Department of Human Services...and yet, here's a NEW name for HIS department I had yet to hear; up to this point...The Department of Adult, Children, and Family Services. I truly wish these people'd make up their friggin minds, yannow?
Annnnnyway, after all their BS about wanting to have the decision reversed, they spend no delay in getting right to the meat and potatoes of the matter. Issue one:
1. The administrative law judge incorrectly concluded that the CINA Adjudication was not entitled to preclusive effect Under Iowa Code.
Bulls***. For one, the purpose of this appeal was for two stated purposes, and those purposes ONLY. To make sure the assessment was correct concerning us as parents, and whether the baby was properly assessed to be in need of being taken from us, and whether we belonged on the child abuse registry. The Judge states here that because the matters they were trying to bring into this; i.e. the CINA petition and the Adjudication orders, found HERE:
http://themightyswordamericas26deadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-away-we-go-part-a.html
for the CINA petition, and HERE:
http://themightyswordamericas26deadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-away-we-go-part-b-august.html
for the Adjudication order; were not determinative (relevant) to the decision of whether we were "neglectful" or not. and contained materials and evidence that would be tried and decided on a hearing that took place over a month later; i.e., in the Adjudication hearing, and were not addressed in the assessment of these parents at all. In other words, DHS says "Oh hell no. I say we try them using the same evidence AGAIN, in THIS appeal. Really guys? Isn't this a bit like double jeopardy? What the prosecution is basically saying here, is that we wanna punish them twice, because the crooked judge in the other case punished them there in THAT proceeding. Can you believe this crapola? And using things and events that occured AFTER the assessment had been put out already, and the founded/unfounded charges had already been decided upon; where the assessment was concerned. Moreover, the idiot defending the poor abused social worker in our case, EMILY THE BITCH NIEMAN, didn't even bring up preclusion UNTIL THE CLOSING ARGUMENT...AND THEN BITCHED ABOUT THE FACT; THAT WHEN I SENT IN A MOTION TO DISMISS AND EXPUNGE, WHAT I WAS DOING IN IT SOUNDED MORE LIKE A CLOSING INSTEAD OF A MOTION...get the f*** real, double-standardizing MF'S!!
Wha whaaaaa wha wha wha whaaaa...anyway...
Issue Dos:
2. The ALJ erred (god I loved how they pronounce it in the law..."rrred", instead of "aired", like the rest of us normal Americans...) when she disregarded the medical opinions of licenced physicians that there was child abuse without any evidence to the contrary.
OK...HELP ME OUT HERE AMERICA...I believe that what this is saying is this: First, that this judge is disregarding the medical opinions of LICENSED physicians stating that child abuse is being done...WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT WASN'T CHILD ABUSE.
This particular statement begs three things be asked...1., are doctors not HUMAN, 2. Are not doctors cabable of being or doing WRONG, and 3. Isn't the judge capable of determining whether what these licenced physicians are saying is right or wrong???? What this sounds like to me is, that they're calling the Judge a HACK!! Doesn't it???
Moreover, the doctors testified concerning the statement that they made...and the primary inspecting doctor, DIDN'T EVEN APPEAR AT THE HEARING BY PHONE, like the others did. Even more so than that, I disproved EVERYTHING that they said IN THEIR OPINIONS, and the judge, utilizing that disproval, decided that they were only ACCUSING us of child abuse, WITHOUT PROOF OF IT!!! I'm sorry, but isn't that the way it is in a trial? What the judge says USUALLY goes...unless it's appealed...so WTF??? Are these people so sure of the idiocy and the corruption of the director that they would believe that he would reverse the decision based on this, flying directly in the face of someone whose job it is to correctly determine whether the disproval was valid or no?...Moving on...(sounds like straw grasping to me...)
Legal Issue Tre:
3. That the ALJ erred when she disregarded the results of drug tests as being inaccurate without any contrary evidence.
OK, let's do it. First, the judge did nothing of the sort. She most certainly NEVER disregarded the results of drug tests as being innacurate...maybe she disregarded the results of drug tests as being accurate...LOL. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I think they goofled here. To me, this says that the judge disregarded the results of the drug tests as being wrong without any evidence proving that they were right...OMG...WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS...
Now, let's just say that Mr. Paaaalmer doesn't catch this MAJOR FOUL-UP, and sees it as its intended. There was very much contrary evidence. I made sure of that. As far as her disregarding it, it's clear, from the decision, that this judge took into account everything stated, or she wouldn't have decided as she did. I just KNOW these people DON'T WANT ME PUTTING INTO THE REPLY THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE, BY LAW, EVEN DONE A DRUG TEST PRE-ADJUDICATION...AND THEN USED IT IN DECIDING THE ADJUDICATION OF THE CHILD...but, it looks like I'm gonna have to. Another case of calling this judge a HACK again. Oh, and more straw grasping. Let alone INCORRECTLY STATED straw-grasping.
Finally, I fully intend to remind MEESTER PALMER of the letter he sent me, back in the day and the response I gave him in reply, along with the attached "recording" of the worker breaking the 6 or so FELONY LAWS she commited in removing HER FIRST CHILD FROM ANYONE, WITH A SELF-CONFESSED LACK OF NEWBORN EXPERIENCE. I believe this may jar the old man's noggin a bit...dontchoo?
You can find that letter, and my reply, here:
His letter shouldn't be tough to locate, it looks different than the other scans, and has a nice pretty blue DM city logo at the top...followed by a very thorough, derogatory, and disrespectful seven page reply from yours truly.
In conclusion, beating this appeal of the appeal should be a piece of pie. Not like the cake the other side expects to both be in possession of and be able to consume as well. If Palmer rules for reversal, I think there might just be a very large outcry of FOUL here, dontcha think?
But then, whaddya say we just wait out my LEGAL response to this nonsense, before we go further with the BS, EH? :D
