On Nov 15, 2:00=A0pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 1:57=A0pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 12:58 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 1:46 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 13, 8:19 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 13, 4:05 am, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 12, 9:13 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 12, 8:32 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > CT DCF ignored Federal consent decree for 17 years, grag
cl=
aims, but
> > > > > > > > the article actually says "it has met the majority of
crite=
ria
> > > > > > > > established by the court." Why can't grag read and
comprehe=
nd what he
> > > > > > > > posts?????
>
> > > > > > > > They got put under a Federal consent decree 17 years
> > > > > > > > ago and still haven't completely complied.
>
> > > > > > > "Got put?"
>
> > > > > > > What does that mean?
>
> > G > How long should the aggrieved plaintiffs wait, Dan?
>
> > DS > Which critical steps remain undone?
>
> > G > Do you think the Federal Court's consent
> > G > decree asked too much of them?
>
> > DS > Again, which critical steps remain undone?
>
> > G > Something the JUDGE ordered.
>
> > DS > The typical grag pathetic response.
>
> >http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consent+decree
>
> > DS > Another typical pathetic response from grag.
>
> > DS > The question you are evading is
> > DS > "which critical steps remain undone?"
> > DS > You don't know, do you?
G > Tell us Dan! =A0I know it chaps your hid so!
G > I know that in other cases the agency
G > didn't do diddly squat in over ten years!
DS > But this thread, started by you, isn't about "other cases."
DS > First you claimed DCF "ignored the Federal Consent decree," when
the
DS > story you posted actually said DCF "met the majority of
criteria."
When a Federal Judge orders things and 17 years
have gone by, close is "no cigar"!
DS > And when TWICE asked which critical
DS > steps remain undone, you ignored
DS > the question.
DS > Now for the third time I ask, which critical steps remain undone?
Now, 17 years ago, or sometime in between?
|
