Recording conversations, and other interactions with idiots.

Well, this is yet another ranting post about the Family Rights movement....specifically Suzanne Shell.

It all started early this morning when I responded to a post on the Child Protection Reform Yahoo, Group.

The post I made had to do with the laws governing recording conversations and the various state laws. I responded to this post with the following:

• It's important to remember that an argument can be made that
  government employees do not have the same expectation of privacy that
  would apply to private citizens.
  
  I have seen families get away with hidden taping in "all party states"
  by using this argument.
  
  I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice, just an observation.
  
  Dorothy

Then out of the blue, here comes Suzanne "I invented Family Advocacy and own copyrights to everything up to and including the Bible" Shell making this comment on her group:

• I am not a member of child protection reform - my request was denied - so I will respond here to the message posted by D Baez (Your request was probably denied because you have a tendency to be disruptive, and basically rude and obnoxious. We've been over this before when I had to deny you membership in a group I moderate. -DKB)
  
  Yes, after I researched the issue and found that public servants have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties, I wrote and published a Memorandum of Law Documenting (Recording) Public Officials on her web site which clearly details the reasons why you can record a case worker without notifying them regardless of the wiretapping or recording laws. (Never read it, sorry. The world doesn't revolve around you. Get over it. - DKB)
  
  Thank you so much, Ms. Baez, for providing another sterling example why I stopped freely publishing my work online, because of YOUR propensity, and AFRA's insistence on claiming credit for work you did not do and/or for not attributing credit where it is due. (This is where Shell accuses me of theft. -DKB)
  
  
  
  Suzanne.

After I read the post above, I made a mistake. I tried to email the moderator of the group about this latest accusation and instead sent my message to the group. I quickly apologized and deleted the message. To be clear: I stand by what I wrote, but I still maintain that it was inappropriate for the message to be sent to the whole group.

I have reproduced that message here:

• Jane, Suzanne Shell is claiming that I stole something she wrote about
  taping government agents. I didn't know until just now that she
  claims to have originated this idea. My own recollection of Shell's
  statements on taping are that suggested quite a different method.
  
  Actually, my interest in exceptions to taping laws began as much of my
  advocacy strategies do - by the seat of my pants. I had a mom who
  taped a police officer in an all party state and was threatened with
  arrest. On the spur of the moment, I had to speak with a supervisor
  and explain why this mom shouldn't be arrested. I used the "public
  official does not have an expectation of privacy" argument. It
  worked. Then, once I caught my breath, I did the research to back it
  up. This was a really long time ago, before I quit even talking to
  families if they weren't in Georgia - therefore according to my
  memory, this would have had to be pre-2001.
  
  Thanks for reading this. If it's alright with you, I'd like to post
  just the second paragraph of this email to your group.
  
  Dorothy

Only a few minutes later, Shell was responding.

• First,
  I don't see where anybody, much less me, claimed you 'stole' anything.
  I suggest you invest in a reading comprehension course to clear up the
  misinterpretations you are forwarding to your group. (Yes
  you did. You seem to
  be the one with the reading comprehension problem. -DKB)
  
  
  Second, naturally, you will have certifiable and forensically provable unaltered documentation of your priority claim to this other than your "memory." I have a forensic expert standing by to analyze your contribution and mine. Mine , of course, resides in the U.S. Copyright office which, incidentally, supersedes any unreliable and non-documented "memory" claim you are attempting to foist on the unsuspecting public. And, should that proof fail to convince, naturally, we can resort to dueling file creation dates and email dates proving the earliest creation dates. (Oh, blah blah blah. I stand by my statements. Considering your behavior these past several years, I think I'll count on being the one who is more credible. Why don't you sue me? Seriously. -DKB)
  
  Care to take me on - here on this group? Or are you wiling to concede and properly attribute the source of that concept and document to the rightful author? I would suspect, not. True to your nature, you will take your complaint behind my back and dare not attempt to prove it here. That is your MO, isn't it?
  
  (There's nothing to concede. I have no obligation to join your little group. I'll say what I have to say publicly and on a setting that I choose. Demanding that people join your group and agree to your bullshit requirements is just more evidence that you are a complete control freak. - DKB)
  
  Oh - BTW - interesting how your first message quoted, " I have seen families get away with hidden taping in 'all party states'
  by using this argument." without taking credit, and now, TA DA, you take credit. How incredibly inconsistent.
  
  (Has it ever occurred to you that since I am not a complete egomaniac I don't need to pat myself on the back and constantly take credit for everything around me, down to copyrighting the snot that lands in my handkerchief when I sneeze? - DKB)
  
  Regards
  Suzanne Shell

Once I realized that my email to the moderator had been posted to the group, I deleted the post and wrote the following apology, titled "OMG - So Sorry":

• I mistakenly sent a private email out to the group!
  
  I have deleted it. It was never my intention to bring any arguments
  to this group, or to discuss certain issues here. I got distracted
  and didn't change to "to line." I'm so sorry - lately I seem to be
  like a squirrel with ADD.
  
  Dorothy

And guess what??? Shell responded:

• Dorothy - interpretation - OMG - I blurted out my malicious and deceitful tattling to the whole world. . .what if I get caught? O:-) (I stand by what I wrote. I may be malicious, but at least I'm not deceitful. - DKB)
  
  Sucks to be vindictive AND brain addled, don't it? :-! (Not really, I've gotten used to it.)
  
  So, Dorothy. . .what's your take on the Cheryl Barnes debacle? Looks to me like she whipped on a four year old baby pretty brutally, and is a filthy, disgusting pig when it comes to housekeeping. You'd think, knowing she is targeted by CPS and the subject of repeated interventions, she'd keep her act clean. Curious why she didn't. Any comments? Disavowals? Excuses? Nah. . . too embarrassing to talk about, right? (Embarrassing? How about totally off topic. You're trying to create a straw man argument to redirect my focus away from responding to your accusations so that you can then say that I "avoided" giving an answer. I know how you operate. And Cheryl Barnes and her unfortunate situation has about as much to do with me as the price of crystal meth down on Broad Street.)
  
  Suzanne
  

Now, shut up and go away.




Tags: Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez, AFRA, family rights, twitter, cyber-dissident, tarot cards, psychic, DFACS, Georgia, politics, Suzanne Shell, childprotectionreform, family advocacy, Bad Advocate List, badadvocates.com, Profane Justice