kathleen.dickson

Sent Tuesday, the day before my kids were stolen.
My complaint to the CHRO is the exact opposite of
the new petition against me, and my complaint to the
Bar Counsel is that the DCF is out of their minds
and out of control.
------------------------------------------------------------
Novermber 23, 2003

Atty Gerald P. Dwyer, Statewide Bar Counsel, PO Box 1975,
New Haven CT 06521-1975 RE # 03-0299 ****son vs Gibson

Dear Atty Dwyer,

In response to Sarah Gibson's response, I stand by my statement that
Gibson made several knowingly false statements in reply to the CHRO.
It matters not to me that she had these false statements in reply to
the CHRO notarized. How could the notary know these statements are
false? Would a notary for the DCF even care? The DCF has a TERRIBLE
reputation, and I hardly need to demonstrate that. I think we all
know the DCF has been taken over by the Federal Court Monitor Ray
Sirry. In fact it is on the front page of today's Hartford Courant,
NorthEast Section, and the reasons and a protocol for them is well-
explained (included), by Martha Stone, UCONN Law, and
ChildrensRights.org
Since the DCF discriminated against me, violated Statutes,
re-substantiated unsubstantiated allegations, made fraudulent
statements of their own, retain incompetent staff members who do not
fulfill their employment requirements, duh DCF should not be given the
protection of Gibson's, follow-up lies to you and the CHRO.
I stand by the statement that the DCF COMPREHENSIVELY and flagrantly
did not take my serious complaints seriously, and that indeed, the DCF
had evidence that my complaints were true from the DCF's January, 31,
2002 records, as regards Don ****son mistreating our children, since
they took testimony from the children, and this is the nature of those
Jan '02 records.
If you read closely the Feb 1, 2003 complaint to the DCF regarding
Carolyn Martin and Martin Schade, I SAY, investigate this carefully,
you will not find any of these statements to be fraudulent. I realize
what the law is as regards submitting false accusations to the DCF
because I wanted to know IMMEDIATELY what would be the consequences
to my sister for filing false allegations, and later, I found out, her
trying to have me committed over her lies—Not knowing anything at all
about the law, since it does not interest me, in general. I am a
scientist, Autistic, and quite literally I find legal jargon to be
quite incomprehensible at times. Logic is Logic. Law is often not
logical. You may or may not know, we Autistic take things literally,
and nothing about people is intuitive to an autistic person, because
that is precisely the nature of Autism. I most certainly know True
from False, however, and Gibson is a liar.
I know this Lyme = RICO case is RICO, since that is straightforward.
Those I named to Kevin O'Connor, intend to continue to do what they
do, there is a formal network, it involves several companies, the
science is deliberately fraudulent, they continue to make fraudulent
statements, it is intentional since John Connolly advises HMOs,
Rowland was an Insurance Company Lobbyist, he owns and insurance
company, and the 1989 Infectious Disease Reviews, stand un-countered
by scientific fact. The 1989 Infectious Disease Reviews is the status
of the disease. We have not seen progress because soon thereafter,
the ALDF.com was founded. And THAT is the "Enterprise". No amount of
substituting vague and scientifically unfounded diagnoses such as
Depression, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, Munchausen's,
Aporology, Anxiety, or Paranoia will make spirochetes as permanent
nervous system infections, not permanent nervous system infections. I
believe, with 95% certainty, that Rowland knows all about Lyme being
just another borreliosis. I believe Rowland has no interest in
improving the DCF system, since it is clear, no corrections have been
eluted over these past several years, and things have just gotten
worse. I believe there are no other solutions to the Lyme problem in
CT besides legal-punitive, since we have tried everything else. I
believe the same recourse makes sense with duh DCF, and their
attorneys who are their leadership.

I stand by my allegations to you and the CHRO, and I put my
reputation on the line as a SCIENTIST, whereas clearly the DCF and
their lawyers have no standards whatsoever. They don't even have a
standard about their own reputations, which is exactly the purpose of
this complaint. If the DCF cannot control themselves, they must be
FORCED toà There needs to be legally punitive action against this
attorney.
I will include the warrant for my ARREST, based on the bizarre
allegations, of the DCF. Sarah Gibson most CERTAINLY is in charge of
overseeing the behavior of her staff. She may not have been
personally involved with me, but it is HER responsibility to reply to
the CHRO. She FLAT-OUT LIED to the CHRO. She would have HAD to
review my records, since she admits she reviewed them to supply me
with them. Therefore if she was competent AND morally committed to
the care of children, she would have noticed that these allegations
were unsubstantiated immediately, September, 2002. She also would
have noticed that James Phillips' statements in Jan, 2002 and Sep 2002
conflicted.
Now that these DCF PSYCHO lawyers have gotten wind, down here in the
East End, of my complaint to you and the CHRO, AAG Gauvin, invented
even more charges about me, which I will include here, and THIS WEEK,
they intend to take my children away, by executing an EMERGENCY order
to Judge Jongbloed, attempting to fraudulently indicate that my
reactions, such as this (but she will of course, not reveal to
Jongbloed that these complaints to the Bar Counsel and the CHRO are
the reason—she will give other nonsensical and bogus reasons) are the
absolute proof the DCF needs that I am insane, and that my kids are
not safe with me.
If I had another Blank Statewide Bar Counsel official complaint form
here, I would file another complaint against AAG Gauvin. I also don't
have the transcripts from the Middletown hearing, October 23, 2003, in
which Gauvin lied to the Judge AGAIN.
I suspect I will either be in jail this week, for crimes I have not
committed, or the police will come here to my house, this coming
Wednesday night, and take my children away, as a punitive action
against me, for filing these complaints to you and the CHRO. I guess
I will have to wait until I am out of jail to file these complaints.
Nothing can stop the DCF from harming my family. They KNOW these
allegations are false, they intend to keep their jobs at my expense,
ENTIRELY proving my point, that the DCF is not about Child Welfare,
and that the removal of Sarah Gibson as Principal Attorney, and
disbarment will be the example-setting punitive action, that may force
a correction to this HORRENDOUS abuse system, the DCF.
I stand by my statements. Gibson's was a really wimpy reply, in my
opinion. She could come up with nothing more substantial than, "The
facts set forth in my answer are a true and accurate representation of
my client's opinions, recommendations and concern in her regard, and I
stand behind my sworn statements and have every intention of proving
them to the CHRO should that become necessary." I already provided
to you evidence, last week, that these statements are false, that
these allegations were unsubstantiated, and that I signed over records
to the DCF, and they lied about them to the Superior Court, and that
they continue to lie, and intend to continue to lie to the courts.
As you know, Blumenthal, who will represent the DCF, got the same
do***ents you have. I intend to disprove again, Gibson's statements,
with more data, if necessary. But I don't even think that is
necessary, since I proved that the DCF had evidence in their own
RECORDS, that these allegations were unsubstantiated.

I am attaching more records. The amended Petition to the court, as
evidence that the DCF continues to lie and invent things, as they go.
THE NEW PETITION IS ALMOST THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MY COMPLAINTS TO THE
CHRO AND THE STATEWIDE BAR COUNSEL, which could not be funnier. These
people are NOT about child welfare, they are about protecting their
jobs, and will go to ANY lengths to keep them. DEMONSTRATING ONCE
AGAIN, that CHILDREN pay the price, and CHILD WELFARE is not a part of
their mission statement, in practice.
The DCF lawyers have to be disbarred. I need your assistance with
that. I am doing this because I sincerely believe there is cause,
and a need, and I sincerely believe it my moral responsibility to
prevent this very serious trauma from happening to other CT children.
I am a Lyme activist, a Human Rights, and have been, for several
years. I/We residents of the State, can only rely on you and the
Courts for protection from the CT DCF. I see no other recourse. The
DCF lawyers must be held to a Standard of Ethics.
I have executed no physical harm upon another person. I have not
deceived anyone. These two are nearly equivalent statements. That is
my criteria for ethical behavior, and it happens to be the inherent
standard for Pfizer. Our reputation is always on the line.
Integrity Matters. Why would absolute integrity not be what we want?
You will get a kick out of these new addended DCF allegations. I
did.
My kids are NOT safe in the DCF's care, by the example of the DCF's
lying lawyers. They think the Science I send them, means I am
insane? I am sure you can see how dangerous that is, to CT's
Children and Families.
I also believe, that since I know little about law, Gibson should have
seen that Lyme is RICO, and submitted a complaint to the USDOJ,
herself, since I did not know how, until I contacted Blumenthal's
office, last summer, AFTER I filed several Civil Rights complaints to
the USDOJ, and the CHRO about the DCF's discriminatory practices. I
tried calling the USDOJ, but I did not know how to submit a formal
citizen's complaint re RICO. Obviously my kids' protection from the
DCF came first.
I don't know whether Gibson is incompetent or immoral, but my sense is
that incompetence and immorality are the same thing, in someone with a
law degree--Perhaps her efforts should be directly elsewhere, in
something more productive.


My apologies to Laura Lustig for my being angry about the Independent
Psych Eval not only being invalid, but not Independent, if Lustig
appeared to have extensive knowledge of my "case". I did not know
Lustig was supposed to know anything. As you can see, I copied only
Gauvin's statement from the July Court Transcripts, in the response to
the CHRO, and did not HEAR, anyone say, Lustig was supposed to be
given info about me, which would CLEARLY makes a Psych Eval not
Independent, and never should take place Lustig can certainly learn
of my history before I was falsely accused, and my kids traumatized,
by everyone else's abuse and neglect over the years à Stonington
Schools, Rowland, James Phillips, the CT Medical Licensing Board, the
DCF, my family, their father…

This whole thing is insane. But then, I am Autistic and require
REASON to prevail. I don't see too much of that happening in either
CT, or the rest of the country. If the Judge decides I am insane
because I have Very Superior Reasoning Abilities, am a Human Rights
Activist, Lyme activist, was falsely accused, harassed by the DCF
relentlessly, nearly arrested as a result of the DCF's bizarre
allegations that I intend to murder my kids, testified at the FDA and
assisted with getting that dangerous Yale Lyme vaccine off the
market,.filed a RICO complaint, and do everything I can to protect my
children, and .. if Everyone Else's Children are as important to me as
my own, then that's that.

"Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
they soul and all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets..."--JC

If the Judge of Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, the Statewide Bar
Counsel, or the CHRO doesn't agree with that, then of course it
doesn't matter to me, because they are not really The Judge.
Thanks very much for your time, as well as your associates' in the
Statewide Bar Counsel.
Kathleen M. ****son

CC: Blumenthal, Lustig, Wallace, Stonington Police, Martha Stone, Ray
Sirry, Pamela McAvay, USDOJ O'Connor, Bartinik, Sawyer, Hammond.

a_weisman

If it was sent Tuesay the 25th why is it dated the 23rd?


Whoever sarah gibson is?

A notary doesn't verify the contents of a do***ent, just that you
signed something in their presence.

What does the federal court supervision of DCF have to do with your unsubstantiated allegations?


Whatever that sentence means to you it is incomprehensible.

NO ONE on the planet other than lisa takes any of your ravings seriously.


Snooze. Same old boring repetitive ravings.

Whoever these people are?

Even your family thinks you're insane.

Ah. You admit that you know nothing about the law. Finally the first
thing you've said that is true and that you've provided evidence for
in your many ravings about RICO. You don't have any idea what youd're
talking about.
Finally we agree.


You are a lunatic.


Who knows? Psychotic, yes. Paranoid schizophrenic, yes. Sociopathic,
yes. Borderline personality, yes.

We'd need to see evidence that you are autistic too.

Obviously in need of serious help and psychiatric medication and some
time in a rubber room in a straight jacket, no doubt.

You have not comprehended the rico law. Or anything else legal.


And nothing you say is logical.


YOU are a liar. We've seen evidence of that. But no evidence that
anyone else is a liar.


You know nothing about the law. You can't comprehend legal terms (or
concepts). But you keep saying that Lyme=RICO. Saying it doesn't make
it true. Lyme is not RICO. You are wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Not even close to right.

Whoever that is.


Whoever that is. Yeah that follows. <sarcastic>


I guess that is illegal under your version of the rico law?

Oh yeah that explains everything. <sarcastic>

You mean your reputation as a lunatic. Your reputation as a scientist
is that you are a joke. Incoherent raving insane. Misinterpret everything. Clueless.

Since you use the word "clearly" it MUST be true?


Now that you explain this obviously something has to be done on your
raving say so. <sarcastic>

Everyone is PROUD of the warrant for their arrest like you are.


She's lucky to have avoided personal involvement with you.

Whatever the hell the CHRO is I guess if YOU say she lied, then it
must be true? <sarcastic>


Whoever that is. Not that we care.

Pretty much any of your ravings is more than enough proof that you're
insane. No one has to make up bogus reasons. You are insane. Face it. You are farvineugin.

File more and more complaints. That's exactly how people will take you
seriously. <sarcastic>


My guess is that a rubber room and straight jacket are next for you.
The DCF wanted me to ask, what size you wear?


If you listened to your lawyer and shut the hell up you could probably
have saved your family. You decided to sacrifice your children and
martyr yourself.

You say that you had no choice since they have Lyme and had no future.
You sacrificed them NOW to pursue your garbled incoherent vision of
the future. You are a neglectful parent and that proves it. Your
children are less important to you than your delusions.

Get some help. Check yourself in somewhere. Take medication. Listen to
your lawyer. Shut the hell up already. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.


Yeah, sure, that's going to happen. Since YOU say so. <sarcastic>


You keep standing by your statements. No one cares.

Who cares about your opinion?

Attach all the records you want. They don't prove anything that you say.

Your complaints are insane. The opposite of them is sane.


YOU sacrificed your kids. Face it. You are not a fit parent. You've
admitted that more than once. You need help, you've admitted that. You
have a brain infection which causes dementia, you've admitted that.
And proved that you are demented.


You need assistance all right. Assistance finding your way to a mental institution.


So you've sacrificed your children for the sake of others? That's so
biblical of you. Guess that fits your delusional massiah complex.


You are a joke and have been for several years.


LIAR! You have deceived all of Lymeland and all the Lyme people with
your bogus RICO garbage and similar ravings.

You don't work for Pfizer. You are RETIRED from there. Their "ethical
standards" don't apply outside of Pfizer. Their "ethical standards"
are pretty questionable anyway.

What an insane thing to say.

What an insane statement. You send ravings not science. You ARE insane
beyond any doubt. you are farvineugen.

Correction. You know NOTHING about the law. Lyme is NOT Rico. You are clueless.


OBVIOUSLY your kids protection did NOT come first. You sacrificed them
proving you are not acting in their best interests. You WANTED them
taken away so you could bask in your martyrdom. You got what you asked for nowd.

Perhaps YOUR efforts should be directed at seeking help for your mental illnesses.


WWhoever laura lustig is. Whatever you're talking about here is incomprehensible.

Putting CLEARLY in caps REALLY MAKES IT TRUE! <SARCASTIC>

As the violins play the readers snooze.

You got that right!


You are INSANE and require meaningless gibberish to prevail.


He will find you insane because of the delusional untrue statements
above.

Whatever. Now you're a religious nut too?


Well that says it all, don't it? <sarcastic>

Whoever those people are.

greegor

Mailing date is not required to be same date as authorship.
Even stuff courts send out often is mailed two days
after it is decided. Proper service on pleadings does
not require same-day mailing even, though it's better.
We once received service on a do***ent from the prosecutor
that had been authored/signed on one day, delivered to
the sheriff a week later and was four or 5 days in the
sheriff's hands before first attempt at delivery.

TWO WEEKS.

Then later on the same prosecutor had the unmitigated GALL
to complain that service copies of a pleading were not
mailed out on the same day. Needless to say the answer
to her complaint outlined all of the details of the two
week service and pointed to state statutes. (What a pinhead!)

Our habit on some do***ents is to author a final draft on
a certain date, make HARD COPIES, and then e-mail the
do***ent two days later, without changing anything, and
bcc'ing the send to ourself for a sort of receipt
of what was sent. Pretty prints of that are then made
as well, just in case a "sent" receipt is in some
way useful. (communications to caseworker or other
officials involved, appealed to, etc...)

Really, Mr. Wise Man, what were you THINKING when you
started complaining about the date of authorship?

I have had them verify that several copies
were identical to each other and attest to that.
Proof of accurate and true copies.

Everything. By the way, they wouldn't BE
under Federal Supervision except they failed
the most basic requirements outright.
The biggest of which are basic civil rights
violations, like agency misuse as a tool
of harassment.

Kathleen is smart, and has good points, but she does have
a failing when it comes to proofreading and help to avoid
run on sentences. I hope she doesn't suffer huge losses
because of this quirk.

You are wrong. Ad hominem will not prevail in court I hope.

Legal crap often is boring. Don't read it then.
It's not intended to be entertainment for you. Move along.

Family infighting happens. Stop pretending that such
a betrayal is automatically a proof of something bad.
A family member with an 11 year Prozac history started
our Child Abuse case, because of her OBSESSIVE want of
the child. Child Protection caseworkers will believe
reports from ANYONE. In the Wallis v Escondido case
the reporting RELATIVE was in a locked psychiatric
ward but caseworkers took the WILD accusations
seriously and greatly harmed a family.

If you are not qualified to say this, Wise Man,
then this is just methane. If you were qualified,
it would be unethical (subject to license revocation)
for you to make such a diagnosis telemetrically
over a newsgroup. I've seen this lame attack used
several times before. It also backfired both times.


Citations please.

What you think he might be related to Dan, or maybe Kane? (To smart to be
in Ron's family tree)

Dan, is every body getting Nurse Rat-shit?

( :

kathleen.dickson

Because I have Lyme disease and I am sick
and I have kids to take care of. I don't
have all the time in the world to devote
to solving this Lyme Cryme, because kids
need food, baths, clothes, to be driven
to lessons, to be driven to evals, and so
forth. Court dates, etc.

I had to make several copies of that data
package. Sunday was the 23. The copy
shop is closed. Monday I think I didn't
even work on it much because I was too
tired or something.

It was an enormous data package, as usual
and I obviously made several copies, and'
mailed them out, which requires packaging
them all up, and going then to the post
office.

I hope you find that explanation satisfactory.

Sorry I could not expose "Lyme disease" to
be a fraud sooner. It's just me, you know.
with the three kids who have Lyme disease
and I have Lyme disease, and people like you,
MORONS, have an opinion, rather than help.


Kathleen

a_weisman

Greg you have no idea what you're talking about. Using one date in the
do***ent and mailing on a different date can be fraud especially when
deadlines are involved.

Do you think that you don't owe a late charge on a bill that is due on
the 15th if you date the check on the 10th and wait to mail it?

Comparing apples and pine trees here. Not very useful greg.

Your experience in the court system is apparently as a lay person who
has been sued. Please don't offer stupid and incorrect legal opinions.

That may be how they handle service to child abusers like you in
whatever backwater trailer park you live in.


Thanks for capitalizing that.


See I did make a valid point. Service copies should be mailed the same day moron.

Anyone who would take advice from you is the pinhead.

I was thinking that stupid child molestors and abusers like you might
give stupid responses but I was hoping that we'd be spared.

Thanks for that useful distinction. <sarcastic>\

The point is that they failed because they didn't intervene enough not
because they were too aggressive in intervening. That is the most
common problem with child welfare that cases where they should
intervene they don't. They don't have enough case workers or
resources.

Not that they are too aggressive.

It takes a LOT to have your kids taken away.

Kathleen is insane. The only point is on top of her head. She isn't
going to suffer losses as a result of gramatical quirks. She is going
to suffer losses because she is insane insulting and irrational and
lets everyone know with every email message.

You are wrong child molestor!

There is no legal stuff here. Kathleen's endless repetitive ravings
are boring and old news. There is no legal argument or legal do***ent only her rantings.


I know you resent the child welfare people because they took away your
abused kids and now you have to troll the playgrounds to find kids to
abuse greg you sicko.

It is working here. Because it is true.


Citations? See kathleen's postings. See Lisa's. There is no RICO suit.
No class action. No law they cited. Holc Noble didn't resign from ny
times over a Lyme story. Len Sigal didn't leave RWJ because of
kathleen's ravings. There was no murder. There are no deaths from Lyme
vaccine. etc.

There's a long list of lies by kathleen and sancho lisa.

Greg why don't you go back to child molester and child abuser land
where you came from.

frank andreas de groot

Greg, a_weisman likely is "Chuck" and when he calls you a child molestor, you
can force his ISP to disclose his real address (to be able to sue him) and
disconnect him immediately from the internet (because they are aiding his
defamation of character after being forewarned).

The "weisman" and "Chuck" trolls hide their identity but it is trivial for a
computer-savy person to retrieve the path their postings take and even though
they use anonymous remailers, it is no problem to get their actual home address.

frank andreas de groot

Greg, another thing, In the US and Europe, slander, libel and insults done
anonymously over the Internet are prosecutable and punishable just like they
were done as a signed publication in a major newspaper.

In case of an anonymous publication, the only organization that can be made
responsible is the ISP in the case they refuse to disconnect and blacklist the
poster, but the poster him/herself *always* is liable.

In case of publishing that a medical doctor is a ***ual child molester, the
sentence, in the US, likely is a prison sentence. Someone who is not
"prison-savvy" is likely to get a very hard time there. I have experience with
trolls, I can help you if you want (I know how to find Chuck's/weisman's ISP and
you can take it from there).

ISP's are legally bound to disclose the actual address of the poster in case of
libel & slander and this is trivial to find out, as the physical wire end at the
poster's own home or a place where the people are forced to disclose his
identity in case of a suspected felony/crime.

People have to learn that although less often enforced, on the Internet, the
same rules are valid as in mainstream media.

Frank

a_weisman

Your children were RESCUED.

NOT stolen.

kathleen.dickson

====

The answer was that my children are
fine, by all reports. Including the
order to take them.

The children are fine, and there is no
risk to them, was the criteria, that
there is a risk to them, and that is in
the order to take them.

God as my witness.

Kathleen