The time recorded for each of these entries are sometimes approximate, but they are in order of occurrence.
February 1990: Had a disagreement with my grandmother about the placement of my daughter with my step-dad to get him off my back, but FALSE ALLEGATIONS made in a report dated 2-28-1990 ruined my opportunity to deal with the problems in court. I don't know who made the statements, but the report claims my mother spoke to the Lieutenant listed in the report by meeting with her shortly later.
1990: While trying to adjudicate parental rights, a witness said I would 'cut my daughter's ears off'.
1992: Lost my home and moved to another State to make my way.
1992: Someone I met in a coffee shop said she was making arrangements to experiment on Autistic Children by using vibration.
1994: Sued for child support by the Mother of my second Daughter by Long-arm Petition while trying to become self supporting.
1996: Organized in an effort to close a Hospital by ending County based referrals. (Hospital Staff was accused of causing the deaths of three patients while improperly restrained).
1996: Recruited to work as an advocate for vulnerable adults in the health care system.
1997: Granted a conditional release after being convicted of reckless driving (for driving on a flat).
October 1998: Encountered a Hate Crime Scene while traveling to ask about a confession made by my daughter because I couldn't get anything done by telephone.
This example does not provide a prosectution - its not supposed to. The goal is to show how easy it is to overlook the real causes and conditions of our circumstances, and the danger of attempting to do this work on our own. The government does not have to stop defamation, but others can and do.
In a prior effort to report, the author shared what was apparently inflammatory information - we believe it lead to an assault.
Is that wrong? Because a violent crime took place, the information used to justify it has to be 'toned down'. Offensive language must be removed, and ambiguity is safe - not crazy, or unreliable. There are many reports, and usually at least two reporters: the author, and the publisher. Perhaps the most tragic problem of all, is that the Internet can never really represent Itself. Its always representing others.
Our reputations may be sullied by ambiguous or unreliable accounts, but decisions made by the Courts can ruin our lives. If our only remaining opportunity for a safe defense or passage online becomes compromised, then we'll have no recourse at all.
While we may be mocked in our efforts to do so, God is not mocked, and we're seeking new accounts every day, but will it help them, or become harmful? We believe that without these lessons, it will become harmful to innocent children - and deadly to us all. Prior to this, that is how we were taught! Our powers of awareness during crisis are feeble, especially when traumatized.
Because the author was unaware of the consequences of his bad swing, he failed to respond to his friend's need for recovery. But what's become clear, is that God's effort to forgive them both is at work. These are difficult challenges fo face when we're young children, but we've been able to overcome our human failure to make things right by witnessing what God can do in these works. We're lucky to be able to pass it on.
Please see: Project Details for an example of the kinds of problems we've encountered with spoken language, and lessons in general.