Re: dirty underwear in your faces- blast from the past!



derdrittemann2003@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> LymeRayja wrote:
>
> > "Dirtman, as you know **very, very well**, Kathleen had her children
> > taken from her as a result of a false charge"...
>
> I know NOTHING

Yes. You know nothing.
Those of us who know Kathleen know she was a lovign devoted mother. In
fact, even people in the Lyme movement who don't like Kathleen are
appalled at these obscene charges.

I DO know that the JUDGE who heard BOTH
> sides of the arguments ruled AGAINST her.

How do you know the judge heard BOTH sides of the argument? how do you
know how many witnesses kathleen was allowed to call, who they were,
what was said etc?


A
> But to SUGGEST...EVEN for a minute that her children were removed from
> her custody because of LYME DISEASE is a baldfaced abhorrent,
> disgusting LIE. Absolutely despicable and totally IRRESPONSIBLE.


No, Dirtman. You and your Steere camp cronies are the baldfaced
abhorrent liars here. Kathleen's troubles with DCF first began when she
criticised them for refusing to help her when she was extremely ill
with Lyme and on her own with three young kids. Then, when she became a
major threat to the Steere camp by speaking out about your fraud, we
had the Chuck episode I mentioned earlier.

When I asked Chuck how he could possibly have known in advance the
exact false charge that would be laid against hher, he replied :

"Lucky guess. i should play the horses."

A bit like a guy saying in court, when asked by prosecuting attorney
how he knew a certain Lyme advocacy group would be discredited,
replying : "Clairvoyance."

>
> Do you know what you are missing? Every damn time this comes up...it's
> all about Kathleen. The issue is what is BEST for the CHILDREN.

Yes, Dirtman, and what exactly are your qualifications for determining
what's best for the children. Do you know her family personally? Have
you ever spent even one minute in their company?

Those who have, know what a terrible wrong has been done.


> That is just STUPID. Figure it out. Anything like that is rank hearsay.
> Only if there were corroborating witnesses would that kind of a
> statement be allowed in.

You clearly know NOTHING about how the Family Court works, "lawyer",
don't you?
Hearsay forms the mainstay of evidence in these cases much of the time.
The requirement to prove is not there - only to make a convincing case
of "probability". False accusations from a party with a motive to
hurt, combined with the US judicial's system and mainstream
psychiatrists' total ignorance of Lyme issues would be enough to hang
not just Kathleen, but probably many many women in her situation.


>
> >
> > "Her children then tell her that he has done the things she described.
> > The squeezing of their hands till they hurt was to get them to drop the
> > receiver when they were caught phoning their mother, who they miss
> > desperately".
>
> Save it for Court. We don't try this sort of thing on the internet.

So why are you doing it? When you have NO direct knowledge of anything,
not competence in any field remotely related to her case?



> The State of Connecticut put her away. Source of that information: YOU.

Oh, I thought you dont trust anything I say, Dirt?

>
> She herself, believes herself to have been psychotic and delusional.
> Source of that information: Kathleen herself.

Guive it a rest, Dirt. No matter how hard you try, no matter how many
hours you spend typing your insane drivel, you are NOT going to
convince us that the crime at Dearborn was someone's delusion,
hallucination etc.


Just GIVE UP.
>

>
> I expect a BIG check from YOU.

No, honeychile. Expect a checkmate, not a check.

Lisa

.

Quantcast