Ramius Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 This is 2008. The Left has won. For several decades, the social agencies have been awarded sweeping, unchallenged, police powers, with an implicit assumption of guilt. If he has kids, nephews, nieces, make the anonymous call about abuse and have the power of the State go after him. He is a male, so will be assumed guilty until he spends a lot of money to prove his innocence. He cannot by default avail himself of a protected status, such as being a single Mom. Thats fugged up man.
Cynical Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 This is 2008. The Left has won. For several decades, the social agencies have been awarded sweeping, unchallenged, police powers, with an implicit assumption of guilt. If he has kids, nephews, nieces, make the anonymous call about abuse and have the power of the State go after him. He is a male, so will be assumed guilty until he spends a lot of money to prove his innocence. He cannot by default avail himself of a protected status, such as being a single Mom. Better yet, since the elections have NOT taken place yet, place a call to Homeland Security on the tip line and inform the gov't the guy is a terrorist, laundering and funneling money to Al Queda. Instant "Enemy Combatant", presumed guilty until Bush decides he's innocent.
stuckincincy Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Better yet, since the elections have NOT taken place yet, place a call to Homeland Security on the tip line and inform the gov't the guy is a terrorist, laundering and funneling money to Al Queda. Instant "Enemy Combatant", presumed guilty until Bush decides he's innocent. Naw...too many levels of government to go through. Too much bureaucracy to filter down through before you get results. Homeland Security has to kick around the possibility that you might be a crank. The social police on the other hand, jump on anything and anybody quickly, to make sure their funding and their employment for the next year is never questioned.
DC Tom Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Naw...too many levels of government to go through. Too much bureaucracy to filter down through before you get results. Homeland Security has to kick around the possibility that you might be a crank. The social police on the other hand, jump on anything and anybody quickly, to make sure their funding and their employment for the next year is never questioned. True, that. Call someone a terrorist, and everyone will assume they're victimized by the system. Call somebody a child abuser, on the other hand, and the system will abuse the sh-- out of them. A terrorism accusation doesn't carry with it the a priori presumption of guilt.
The Dean Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 True, that. Call someone a terrorist, and everyone will assume they're victimized by the system. Call somebody a child abuser, on the other hand, and the system will abuse the sh-- out of them. A terrorism accusation doesn't carry with it the a priori presumption of guilt. Call them a drunk driver, and they will be arrested before you finish the sentence.
Estro Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 In the meantime, pick up ANY job BK McD's whatever. 70$'s/day is better than 0$... Worst thing u could do is sit idle. I would also show up at his next jobsite while doing a job, inform his customer of what he did, then call the police and file the police report right on the spot on his job. Put the pressure on legally.
Hazed and Amuzed Posted October 29, 2008 Author Posted October 29, 2008 I wanted to thank everyone for their advice, I called him and left a message last night saying that I would give him until the end of today before I call the Dept. of labor. So we'll see what happens...
Cynical Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 True, that. Call someone a terrorist, and everyone will assume they're victimized by the system. Call somebody a child abuser, on the other hand, and the system will abuse the sh-- out of them. A terrorism accusation doesn't carry with it the a priori presumption of guilt. I do not know what reality you people live in, but my wife works for a private company that does assessments and therapy sessions for DFACS. One call has no effect, regardless of the charge. Most DFACS workers assume the single call is nothing more than a "revenge" call (neighbors not getting along, couple going through a nasty divorce, etc ..). A call to 911 will get the police out, but here is the checklist the police use: 1. Roof over the kids head? 2. Electric / Heat on? (an extension cord running from their neighbors place qualifies) 3. Food in the house? (gallon of milk, Twinkies, and Pop Tarts qualify as food) 4. Adult supervision? (18 yr old meth addict qualifies) 5. Any sign of abuse to child(ren)? 6. Any sign of illegal activity? (i.e somebody snorting coke in the corner?) If they pass those 6 questions, investigation over, case closed. False alarm. Bucket in corner being used as a toilet and is overflowing? Ok as long as the kid(s) is not covered in it. So many cockroaches that every time you walk you hear "crunch"? Not grounds for removal.
ans4e64 Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Mythbusters showed the sugar in the gas tank doesn't work. It ran even after sitting overnight. Yes it does.
tennesseeboy Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I would point out to the guy that you had moral reservations about being paid off the books and felt you should report the matter to IRS. Also you might consider that back pain you are suffering from being on your knees with the tile and file a workers comp claim against him. You might want to consider the FLSA complaint you might file as well. I think that might make him feel a little guilty about not following through on his promise. you might want to consider a sexual harassment charge given his sexual advances...but that might be stretching it. Oh...and I don't know your race, age or national origin, but you might want to give that a consideration as well.
stuckincincy Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Call them a drunk driver, and they will be arrested before you finish the sentence. http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...WS01/310300012/
Fan in San Diego Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I do not know what reality you people live in, but my wife works for a private company that does assessments and therapy sessions for DFACS. One call has no effect, regardless of the charge. Most DFACS workers assume the single call is nothing more than a "revenge" call (neighbors not getting along, couple going through a nasty divorce, etc ..). A call to 911 will get the police out, but here is the checklist the police use: 1. Roof over the kids head? 2. Electric / Heat on? (an extension cord running from their neighbors place qualifies) 3. Food in the house? (gallon of milk, Twinkies, and Pop Tarts qualify as food) 4. Adult supervision? (18 yr old meth addict qualifies) 5. Any sign of abuse to child(ren)? 6. Any sign of illegal activity? (i.e somebody snorting coke in the corner?) If they pass those 6 questions, investigation over, case closed. False alarm. Bucket in corner being used as a toilet and is overflowing? Ok as long as the kid(s) is not covered in it. So many cockroaches that every time you walk you hear "crunch"? Not grounds for removal. I really really hope that is not true.
Ramius Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I do not know what reality you people live in, but my wife works for a private company that does assessments and therapy sessions for DFACS. One call has no effect, regardless of the charge. Most DFACS workers assume the single call is nothing more than a "revenge" call (neighbors not getting along, couple going through a nasty divorce, etc ..). A call to 911 will get the police out, but here is the checklist the police use: 1. Roof over the kids head? 2. Electric / Heat on? (an extension cord running from their neighbors place qualifies) 3. Food in the house? (gallon of milk, Twinkies, and Pop Tarts qualify as food) 4. Adult supervision? (18 yr old meth addict qualifies) 5. Any sign of abuse to child(ren)? 6. Any sign of illegal activity? (i.e somebody snorting coke in the corner?) If they pass those 6 questions, investigation over, case closed. False alarm. Bucket in corner being used as a toilet and is overflowing? Ok as long as the kid(s) is not covered in it. So many cockroaches that every time you walk you hear "crunch"? Not grounds for removal. Disagree with #3. One of my friends was in a custody battle for her kids with the father (both of them adults in their 30s), and he tried to say she was an unfit mother because she allowed the kids (ages 5 and 3) to run around the house in their underwear and eat pop tarts for breakfast. I thought, hell i'm 27 and i eat pop tarts and run around the house in my underwear when the girlfriend isnt around.
Cynical Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Disagree with #3. One of my friends was in a custody battle for her kids with the father (both of them adults in their 30s), and he tried to say she was an unfit mother because she allowed the kids (ages 5 and 3) to run around the house in their underwear and eat pop tarts for breakfast. I thought, hell i'm 27 and i eat pop tarts and run around the house in my underwear when the girlfriend isnt around. Eating pop tarts takes on different perspective when a gallon of milk, a box twinkies, and a box of pop tarts are the only sources of food in the house. There is no bread, eggs, no Hungry Man frozen dinners, etc... In your case and in the case of your friend, there is probably more to eat than just pop tarts and twinkies.
Cynical Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 I really really hope that is not true. Unfortunately, it is. The bucket in the corner is a health hazard for sure, and the officer can cite the inhabitants for it, but that's it. The kids stays. There has to be a pattern of re-occurrence or of non-compliance before the gov't will yank the kids out.
Movinon Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Disagree with #3. One of my friends was in a custody battle for her kids with the father (both of them adults in their 30s), and he tried to say she was an unfit mother because she allowed the kids (ages 5 and 3) to run around the house in their underwear and eat pop tarts for breakfast. I thought, hell i'm 27 and i eat pop tarts and run around the house in my underwear when the girlfriend isnt around. Your girlfriend prohibit you from eating pop tarts and running around the house in your underwear.
Ramius Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Your girlfriend prohibit you from eating pop tarts and running around the house in your underwear. No i still run around in my underwear, i just eat the bacon and eggs she cooks instead of pop tarts.
erynthered Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 No i still run around in my underwear, i just eat the bacon and eggs she cooks instead of pop tarts. Is that you, Tim Tebow?
Ramius Posted October 31, 2008 Posted October 31, 2008 Is that you, Tim Tebow? Did i say i ride a gay scooter around campus, give rim jobs to the UF football team and hold the cookie at frat house circle jerks? No, i didn't, so don't call me tim tebag.
Recommended Posts