Congrats

 

I would sue just to see that dyfs worker gets reprimanded for her actions. I would sue for harasment and invasion of privacy.

So the big question is what was Nappen's fee and who pays for that? Can you sue them for the cost of the attorney you retained to protect you from their illegal actions?

If you do go ahead and sue and you win some cash you should spend all the money on guns and ammo to take your kid shooting with LOL

All this talk about sue, sue, sue - hello people, who do you think pays for these lawsuits? Do you think it comes out of "unidentified state worker's" pocket? Hello geniuses - it comes from us, you and me. So - you want him to sue for Nappen's fee? Why don't you just send ShawnMoore81 a check directly??

 

Oh, you think that a lawsuit will "punish" the state agency and worker. Yeah, right. That's worked so well in the past.

I am relieved that they are no longer pursuing it.  I guess "glad" wouldn;t describe how I feel.

 

 

All this talk about sue, sue, sue - hello people, who do you think pays for these lawsuits?  Do you think it comes out of "unidentified state worker's" pocket?  Hello geniuses - it comes from us, you and me.  So - you want him to sue for Nappen's fee?  Why don't you just send ShawnMoore81 a check directly??

 

Oh, you think that a lawsuit will "punish" the state agency and worker.  Yeah, right.  That's worked so well in the past.

 

Well, I don't have federal arrest powers.

 

Damn right sue them.  It's the only avenue for redress you have.  There are several examples of people accomplishing quite a bit by suing the government in PA.  It is the reason you can Open Carry in the Commonwealth without fear of harassment.  

 

And not just for that issue, but for others as well.  Suing has changed laws, changed local and state policies, changed local ordinances, and instituted annual training requirements for police.

 

Honestly, if you are doing it for the right reasons (change not $), it's the easiest way to get something done about an overbearing regulatory or police organization.  

 

You may be able to change actual statutes by lobbying and voting.  But, when it comes to abusive government policies and illegal behavior, it seems that the easiest way to force change is indeed by lawsuits.  For some reason legislators never seem to want to or be able to do anything about these issues.

Shawn, why don't you ever respond to my PMs?

 

On topic though, sometimes it is better to stay off the radar. No lawyer will take this case unless paid up front, since there is little chance of a monetary settlement outcome.

 

We know a family who disciplined a crazy teenage daughter, and was hounded by DYFS for years...weekly visits, interrogations, etc. Once they latch on, it is like a hobby for them. Gives them something to do, a power trip.

 

It's similar to taunting the IRS. They'll audit you every year on the hopes of finding a nickel of misreported income. Retaliation.

Last one I got from you was just a statement.

On topic though, sometimes it is better to stay off the radar.  No lawyer will take this case unless paid up front, since there is little chance of a monetary settlement outcome.

 

 

I'm glad people around where I live don't think that way. Including lawyers. I don't think you can tell him which lawyers will or will not take the case on contingency or contingency plus filing fees. He would have to talk to some of them to find out.

All this talk about sue, sue, sue - hello people, who do you think pays for these lawsuits? Do you think it comes out of "unidentified state worker's" pocket? Hello geniuses - it comes from us, you and me. So - you want him to sue for Nappen's fee? Why don't you just send ShawnMoore81 a check directly??

 

Oh, you think that a lawsuit will "punish" the state agency and worker. Yeah, right. That's worked so well in the past.

 

Then what exactly is our legal system for? If we cant sue a government agency for violating our rights, then what good is it. our legal system was designed for this specific reason, checks and balance.

 

Then what exactly is our legal system for? If we cant sue a government agency for violating our rights, then what good is it. our legal system was designed for this specific reason, checks and balance.

 

Our legal system was never designed to deliver a cash payday to some guy for posting photos of his kid on the internet. It was designed for true redress of grievances. I would like to see a suit filed for the purposes of disciplining the unidentified government agent as well as the government organization. Beyond that is where I draw the line.

I'm glad people around where I live don't think that way. Including lawyers. I don't think you can tell him which lawyers will or will not take the case on contingency or contingency plus filing fees. He would have to talk to some of them to find out.

 

I'm not telling him anything cast in stone, but in this case, it is a matter of expunging the record or whatever else. There is no money to be won as if it were a slip and fall case. Shawn can certainly sue the state to clear his record, but getting some sort of settlement is a huge longshot, and no lawyer I know will take that on a contingency basis (including a Philly lawyer friend). So Shawn can hire any lawyer to fight his case, at the standard hourly rate.

 

If you know some Pennsy lawyers who are licensed in NJ, who would take this case on contingency, by all means PM Shawn with their contact info.

I already have a lawyer. Nappen has been guiding me through all this and I will act he as seems fit. I want my name cleared and I want this to not happen again. I would really live to have the person who reported the false claim punished

 

 

Our legal system was never designed to deliver a cash payday to some guy for posting photos of his kid on the internet. It was designed for true redress of grievances. I would like to see a suit filed for the purposes of disciplining the unidentified government agent as well as the government organization. Beyond that is where I draw the line.

 

I personally never said sue for cash. I said sue for harasment and invasion of privacy to make sure those.responsible get reprimanded, and hopefully policy gets changed.

I personally never said sue for cash. I said sue for harasment and invasion of privacy to make sure those.responsible get reprimanded, and hopefully policy gets changed.

 

What is the invasion of Privacy? Once again, the full story is not public nor do we know, or was publicly told who reported the incident? Do we know what was said in that incident? Was there prior concern? If Shawn posts a picture of his son on the largest public, social media network....with over 500 million users... there is no privacy.

 

Policy should get changed, somehow, but how?

 

What we don't want a complete over reaction to the other side.... ie... Right now anything reported to DYFS must be investigated. We don't want it changed that DYFS does not investigate stuff when you make a call.

 

What if Shawn was a bad parent who was beating his child? there would be more issues if they did not investigate.

 

My main concern would be to make sure this gets off Shawn's record.

What is the invasion of Privacy? Once again, the full story is not public nor do we know, or was publicly told who reported the incident? Do we know what was said in that incident? Was there prior concern? If Shawn posts a picture of his son on the largest public, social media network....with over 500 million users... there is no privacy.

 

Policy should get changed, somehow, but how?

 

What we don't want a complete over reaction to the other side.... ie... Right now anything reported to DYFS must be investigated. We don't want it changed that DYFS does not investigate stuff when you make a call.

 

What if Shawn was a bad parent who was beating his child? there would be more issues if they did not investigate.

 

My main concern would be to make sure this gets off Shawn's record.

 

The invasion of privacy is dyfs walking into Shawn's house and demanding he open his gun safe. And no, they didn't have probable cause, a picture of a kid holding a rifle and smiling is not illegal and is not probable cause. There was absolutely no evidance of any child abuse in that photograph. And yes, procedures should change, I have heard countless stories of people calling dyfs for no reason other than to get someone in trouble. And when dyfs shows up you are guilty until proven inoccent.

The invasion of privacy is dyfs walking into Shawn's house and demanding he open his gun safe. And no, they didn't have probable cause, a picture of a kid holding a rifle and smiling is not illegal and is not probable cause. There was absolutely no evidance of any child abuse in that photograph. And yes, procedures should change, I have heard countless stories of people calling dyfs for no reason other than to get someone in trouble. And when dyfs shows up you are guilty until proven inoccent.

 

And do you know 100% that there was not ANYTHING ELSE that led prior to this?

 

If it was JUST the picture, then I am 100% it should not have happened. HOWEVER.... only Shawn knows the full story, and no one else. WE all know the media blasted the story out of proportion, especially if you followed the thread as it was happening while Shawn was posting it on NJGF.

 

After the three or four people whom the gun community fell so strongly behind get the FU.... Brian Aitken, that other guy recently in Jersey City, we all know there is more to the story.

 

Procedure should be looked at... however no one here is qualified to say sue them for this or that, because no one here knows the complete story as it happened.

 

I am sure Shawn and Nappen will discuss and do what they have to, since only they know what was happening along with Shawn's wife and authorities involved.