From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: The Caller Manifesto
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:12:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: eskimo.1992Sep15.201242.575
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <m9g5qB3w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:
>kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
[kurt's stuff (>>) deleted]
>Bob Kirkpatrick is a Guardian ad Litem. When the Government steps in to
>take a child for reasons of abuse or neglect, the feds mandate that we
>represent the child in court. Anybody willing to take the training can
>be a guardian. Contact your local CASA Office -likely you can get a
>pointer to it through your local Juvenile Court. The vast majority of
>guardians are volunteers.
>
>It is our job to make sure that the allegations (usually made by Child
>Protective Service [but not always]) are valid, and if not then make
>sure the court knows the charge is bogus. If the charges aren't bogus,
>then it is our task to find services and training for the 'perpetrators'
>and get their children back to them as quickly as circumstances allow.
>
>Sometimes, the parents are accused wrongly --as a matter of fact, 65%
>of the reports of child-abuse made to CPS aren't followed up because
>they're bogus on their face. Because unnecessary separation is a trauma
>kids can live without, the government wants to make sure they don't
>don't do unnecessary separations. It would not be unfair to say that
>the government also doesn't want it's butt sued off for false removal.

Typically one can't sue the government.  It has something called
"sovereign immunity", an outgrowth of the (common law?) doctrine that
"the king can do no wrong".  I don't recall hearing any news stories
about how Los Angeles County is exactly losing their collective ass because
of any damages awarded after the abortive McMartin case, on which $12 million
was spent, all because of zeal and enthusiasm, not to mention excessive
credulity and naivete and downright corruption.  I haven't heard that it
damaged Ira Reiner's career (he's the prosecutor for LA County) any, anymore
than the Rodney King thing will.  He'll just move on, another managerial-class
honky.

I have heard it said that
the only thing learned from that case was that interviewers have learned to
avoid videotape like the plague, because it showed the coaching activity
that lead to discrediting the case.  I haven't heard any chorus of mea culpas
emanating from those who position themselves as children's advocates, in
re such incidents as the McMartin case.  I *have* heard instances (no, I
can't supply an affidavit on this, so don't bother asking) where the sentiment
was expressed that the price of grinding up a few innocent adults was simply
the "price" society "paid" to rid itself of child abusers.  Talk about the
end justifying the means?!

>When it gets touchy, like when time constraints require quick action,
>we have to get hold of witnesses as fast as we can. There are laws
>that govern our contacts, and we have to work with them. Considering
>that it's our task to ombudsman the (ZOG) government, it seems to me
>that the Weaver's of the world would laud our activity.

The problem is you're *part of* it.  You're not trusted for the same
reason a lot of people don't trust the internal investigation units
of police departments.  People suspect that such groups go thru the
*motions* of getting to the roots of problems with mixed motivations,
unwillingly at best, because of collegial and/or fraternal ties to
others in their occupation, and other kinds of life/career investments,
that carry far greater weight in the internal society than the
allegations of a civilian, really an outsider or interloper.  For one
thing, admitting that one screwed up, or bucking authority, is not good
for one's career.  Despite the propaganda to the contrary, there aren't
that many people who lay their asses on the line that way; sainthood just
isn't all that common, and anybody who says differently is selling snake
oil.  BTW, these are all arguments against such things like cop, judge, child
advocate, or similar occupations, becoming careers.  Such occupations would
do society *a* *lot* more good if they were the kinds of things that
*everybody* took a turn at, rather than becoming the professional province
of a relative few, regarding themselves as disjoint from society, a la
"the thin blue line"..
Occasionally, advocates (or, I guess, "ombudspeople") have to *really*
produce when the problem dropped in their lap can't
be dealt with any other way.  Now I don't know you, and am not accusing
you of any of these motivations.  I'm just trying to show you why Weaver
(and lots of other people, *not* all neoNazis) may not trust you.

>All of this thread got started when Crispin said he wouldn't answer
>the phone if it showed a number he didn't recognize, and he also said
>he refused to use answering machines. I pointed out that my opposition
>to caller-id stemmed from the fact that those with his bent who might
>become involved in an abuse case could end up with a cop at their door
>to bring them down for an interview --failing response to a phone call.

Well, it *does* seem pretty draconian.  Why is the interview so
important that it must happen right now and not later, at a
suitable time for everybody?  Is this a response *in* *extremis* or
just the first thing that happens when the phone isn't answered?

>Mr. Crispin took it upon himself to defend the American Way by showing
>that by God, nobody trying to help a kid was going to get past HIS
>security. frump, frump, frump. If you're looking for a Weaver, check
>out the bandwagon you've jumped on.

..."bandwagon" I've jumped on?? Just *what* do you mean by *that*, sir???
Are you accusing me of sharing Weaver's beliefs???  Just which ones, pray
tell???  I hope you aren't accusing me of being a bigot.
I probably share Weaver's distaste for the so-called "ZOG", but if you
think the reasons are the same, then I have failed miserably in my attempt
to make my thoughts clear.  I doubt that the latter is the case.
I doubt if he was an anti-authoritarian in *any* *remote* sense of the word,
indeed, he couldn't have been further from that pole.  Me, I'd rather have
"Zig-Zag" than "ZOG" [ :) :) ] (not that the implications of a "ZOG" are
any kind of laughing matter).  Take away the "Z" (something I think we can
all safely agree on -- the Z's have nothing to do with this) and you have
"Occupational Government", not too far from the truth.  And I wasn't "looking"
for a Weaver.  I wouldn't know what to do with it, except maybe make cloth.

>Now_____
>
>You asked about the Weaver case. Since it's basically Spokane's back
>yard where it all happened (Naples, ID) perhaps some light can be
>shed. After all, it's true that Washington is like two states --the
>Eastern and Western. Our news doesn't rate much time on the West side
>so I'm told.
>
>Weaver was arrested for shortening and selling a shotgun. He sold it
>to an undercover DEA agent. He was busted for trafficing in illegal
>weapons, and ordered to appear. He didn't. The DEA contacted him and
>asked him to spy on the Aryan Nations in return for a reduction or a
>dropping of charges. Bear in mind, the book time for the offense has 
>a maximum of two years. He refused. 18 months or so later, we have the 
>standoff in Naples.

So he stood on principle and refused to fink on his buddies?
Jeez, thanks a lot, Feds.  You've just given your enemies a martyr.
Pretty smart there.  With clever long-term planning like that, is it any
wonder this country's in trouble?  Never mind the fact that we are all
being encouraged to fink on each other right and left, all the time.

>Those of us here question why all the fuss was necessary, given that
>the DEA had been talking to him, and trying to make a deal. IMO, if
>they wanted him, they could have had him pretty easily. 

Well, I'm glad it's being questioned.

>All of this comes from the local chatter up here, in addition to news
>and newspaper reports by local stations and the Spokesman Review.
>
>> Does anybody remember MOVE in Philly, where they burned a whole neighborhood
>> to get rid of an "obnoxious" black commune?  Ring any bells?  Come on, all
>> you state-lovers, make the case for why the state absolutely cannot tolerate
>> defiance in any form -- why it must *always* win -- the end that justifies
>> *whatever* means used to attain it.  Are the "benefits" we all "get" from
>> the state worth grinding/chewing up a few political oddballs?  Remember,
>> Weaver committed no real crime; he ran afoul of a "pretext" law, one of those
>> like jaywalking, used not to attain a social good but as a tool of selective
>> control and repression of "undesirable" elements.
>
>I lived in Philly when that happened --down in Fishtowm. Chief Rizzo's
>cops were some of the worst in the world. Their leather jackets and k-9s
>on the beat only made matters worse. They were at least as violent as 
>the people they 'protected' the city from, and probably more. A regular
>psycho convention.
>
>Weaver did commit a crime, but the response to it was ludicrous, given the
>circumstances.
>
>I do get the reference though.
>
>"I get it. Pig, Bacon, Police Officer. heh, I used to call the cops the same 
>things when I was a kid."  (Wayne's World)
>
>> I'm not interesting in discussing newnazis, white pseudosupremacy or
>> other such distractions.  Being a bigot has nothing to do with the issue at
>> hand, contrary to some people's beliefs.  I suspect that at this point, I
>> probably disagree with UFAF (the United Front Against Fascism, a local group
>> that monitors and confronts hate groups).
>
>I see.

Here, I don't quite get it.  The undercurrent here, so I perceive, is
sort of a "uh-huh" tone, said in a sardonic manner, as if you think I'm
somehow backing off from a hot potato, or as though I covertly hold these
beliefs and don't want to discuss them, or something more ulterior.  In
other words, there's a hint of innuendo here that I find rather distasteful.
I'd prefer that you made your words clearer.  If I'm all wet here, I
apologize in advance, of course.  But somehow I have the gut feeling I won't
have to.
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 Nostalgic conservatives will soon be referring to the Bush Era as
 "those Halcion days of yesteryear".