 CAS Baby for sale? |
CFSM - “Citizens for Social Morality”Operation ETA-End the Abuse, “real” & “business” Now where did this “idea” come from, and, what are we intent on doing with it? Only I wish, the answers came that easy. Yet, in having said that, we’ll for now anyway, at least make an attempt in providing you some insight. Show the entire world community, a short glimpse, a quick little snapshot of the, “our” concept, the “operational platform”, and of a few, of many “systemic” alternatives. Now as to this “idea”, platform, the plan or whatever one chooses to call it. Actually, and I think maybe before we get started in on it, there is something we need to “clarify”, get it right out front and center. That said, and if you would, just bear with us one moment and while we ponder this all important question. Then ask, wonder, now why it is we’ve chosen this time to take pause, and while making this “inquiry”, or rather, and if you would, let’s just get right into it. Ok, now let’s put on our, say, “personal opinion thinking cap” here, and while answering this, the “preponderant” issue at hand, and by simply defining for us, “Jus-tice”. Please, anyone, as all opinions are welcome, but “only” in the truest sense or in terms, as to “how it’s suppose to be applied”, in a child protection case? Pretty easy, straight forward stuff, no problem, right? Wrong! But let’s take a peak at it anyway. Now, question, is it simply captured in, either A) “honesty, finding of truth, moral principles by which actions are determined as just or unjust, reasonable, rightness: equitableness”, or in B) All or None of the above? Respectfully speaking, I hope you chose not to opt for the first example, cause if you did, we got a bigger problem than was previously thought. Nevertheless, we’ll need you to come up with an answer, as the question does beg, require, demand and necessitates one. Take your time on it, be thorough, yet deliberate. Why, you ask of yourself? Because my friend, “this is mostly it”, the core, a, “the” central point of much of the problem. But not necessarily as one might think, or where you may have rightly assumed, our thoughts and opinions may have been headed, and as to “this issue”. For in a “protection” case, “it”, “JUSTICE” is not only applied, litigated and in a, the physical setting of a family court. “It”, does not simply begin and end and only within the confines of, “the courtroom”. Unfortunately not. As “it” is, and as always an end result, filtered down and into the home. As in, an “order”, and as the “infestation” and onslaught, upon “the family unit”. “It”, giving, taking, controlling, and of all of that which covenants the “abuse” of this, “their” destiny, and “their” future. Fix or destroy, and in one fell swoop. That is “it”, justice, a sobering thought, the one that needs be contemplated, and one that does “rightly” deserve an answer. So then, now it’s become yours to go figure out. And in your thoughts and mind, in “order” come to a decision. On, what is the “real and actual” causal effect of J-u-s-t-i-c-e, in a C.P. case? As to my personal opine, well I for one do know the answer, but that’s for another day and this shall be dealt with, at a place and time of our choosing. But for now, just think on it. As to the “why”, why that “other day” of “honesty, truth, rightness“ just never came to froition? Or even why it was, at least for scores of relatively, seemingly “normal” families, where for these innocent “victims” of the system, it’s become, “unfair and inequitable” injustice? And why was that? I suppose right about here, at this point, we could analyze, dissect, research or find some rhyme or reason, but I’ll leave that up to you to decide. As it is what it is, and I submit to you, as asked and answered, “captured” and as annotated in the oxymoron, “jus-tice” is blind. Nothing more and expect the greater of two evils.
But then again, do you, or for that matter, does anybody really give a, well, rats“a - -“ about the plight of these “defenseless” families? Since in the minds eye of a, “the doctrine of “C.Pro-tec-tion”, they’re merely designated as, as easy prey. Just swoop on in, snatch em’ up and be gone, done like dinner. No mercy, or empathy for these folks, this bunch of unassuming, societal misfits, or in “those eyes” anyway. Right or wrong? You bet, and that’s certainly just about it, not worth wastin’ anyone's time on, correct? So then what, “we” and you all know who “we” is, come to the conclusion, and that it’s in their “best interest”, in giving this thing some cover. How so, simple. Paint the conquests with the eloquent stroke of “best interest”, canvas it as “protective”, and get on about “the business”. Only sorry people, and we really hate to tell ya , but oh CPS buddy, “we”, as in “We, the People”, ain’t about into lettin’ ya off, not quite that easy. Since, I mean really, what’s going on here with this, stereotyping“those people”, and you do know what I’m talkin’ about don’t ya, and with the “they needed to have their kids taken away”, BS? Well p-ssss, don’t mind if we ignore you on this, like a bad gas, odor in the room, cause hey we ain’t buyin’ in on it, nor are we gonna leave ya alone either, and it’s better you realize it now, rather than later. That said, I think we’ve made our point, and thus from this day forward anyway, in so far as this “we”, “Citizens for Social Morality” is concerned, you best start blowing it up someone elses, see above“---“. For what we have here, is well this “conundrum”, and though for a lack of better terms, a, a “conspiracy” of sorts. Media driven, and as an all to convenient, beating on the “severely” abused drums theme of public perception. This as “the CPS profile of choice”, as in the representation, of “all abuses”. Retrofitted by legalized containment, and then sanctioned by public persona. Oh yes, “you” know, and in all along with it, this societal nemesis, “child abuse”, hiding in wait. Legislatively sprung out of the closet, complements of CAPTA/the Mondale, Child Abuse for Profit & Termination Act. Oooops, but Question is, have I got it wrong? Whichever it is, your doing a great job congress, phenomenal, and as a “disservice” to your constituents. For again in this statute, you’ve only gone to prove, and once again, how prolific Congress is, at throwing “Billions” more, of taxpayer dollars at a problem, and for what? So you can proliferate something, codify your indignation, and by showing us the true mosaic, of how to fund a, this “welfare industry feeding frenzy”? When on one hand we espouse how wonderful America is, land of the “free”, and while on the other, we go and show how prolific we are, at gaining the #2 “worst” ranking in the world? I’d say good job, only “ignorant” fits better. Meanwhile, the family, the kids, no repair, no fix, C.P.S. & A.F.C.A.R.S., “no comment necessary”, more public sentiment and hell, when all else fails, let’s just piss more money down the drain of, “family sacrifice”. All of it, all so eloquently, conveniently cloaked in a “protective”
shell/vacuum, and as to your “treatment”. Court doctored/administered
and by “statutory inoculation”. Beautiful, only someone
forgot to tell us, explain and then answer, the how and why, of
how is it, the Child(ren) Protectors became the “predators”?
Please, just answer me that, will ya. And oh yes, “the remedy”?
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that based on No Contest, kids, ma, dad, have
a lousy life, thank you very much, and “it is, so ordered”.
Remove, foster, 15 months, just and for a lack of a better phrase,
roll the dice and bend over. Also, and we regret to inform ya, and
as well, you can forget all about any “alternative response”,
for it’s pillage the family and send the kids off to some
strangers home, point set match. So now that I/we’ve gotten that off our chest, well maybe we’ll just go, and take a stab at recommending something. Possibly, how about we consider severing “neglect” from the types or forms of abuse list, first. Cause why, one might ask? Because in and by it’s inclusion, it’s openly prejudicial, that’s why. Guilt by “term association”, being what it is. But beyond even this reasoning, because it needs to be dealt with in an entirely differing methodology and from that of, the atypical perception, of abuse as being “sexual, physical“. Where it is far more sensible, “reasonable” and “appropriate”, that we move “neglect” into a slot, within a more design specific and “practical” application of how best to alleviate or repair. As only common sense dictates, a/this change, towards perpetuating a different approach and as the first course of action, not the last. By a “categorically” definitive and broadened terminology and within the confines of a stricter interpretation of federal statutes, as in, changing the “minimum” requirements? Whereby “reasonable efforts” means just what it says, as opposed to, that which is “contrary to the welfare”of the family. Where prevention, rehabilitation, or any necessary “family repair mechanisms” becomes the first line of defending the child(ren), and certainly not as any last alternative. Further, and that if in the event a petition is made and assuming verification of, a/the allegations, whereas and therefore, that the court refer the issue for independent review and screening. That no “Temporary Wardship” may occur until there has been first, a determination which cites the “neglect”, and at a threshold which signifies or necessitates a/any pre-emptive protective action, or otherwise, as seeded within a Category Assessment Levels II-V(non-removal). Within these constraints, it is, does, and continues to remain the case, that each level still maintains CPS control, but in the understanding, that the “rehabilitation program”, will be both assessed and tailored/fashioned and as a “proper fit” to the situation and problems, as necessary. Where certain confrontational aspects are ceased. That on “both” sides of the abuse issue, the “business” and the “real”, we agree/stipulate and as to the “best interest” of both child(ren), the family unit and within this affirmation, we reconcile both, as being autonomously equal. And as to an/the absolute “necessity” for creating, or putting into place, some form of historical verifications/checks and balance? To that end, there are none, they are virtually non-existent that is, and in terms of any compiled statistical validations of negative/positive protective claim(s). Thus in the absence of such, there must be an available “safety net”. A federal “foster” funds, check on the “states” acting in “good faith”, auditory control, if you will. That is, I/we suggest random audits, but on neglect files/cases, only. That even beyond this probative oversight, we establish a foster history link, of child(ren) placed, past and current. Even further, establish a data base of sorts, as to “where the kids went, what became of them”, empirical history. Question is, why hasn't’t this been done? Maybe entertain an institutional charting, via probation, BOP, local and state corrections, colleges, etc. etc. Do a study? Query past and current respondents, and thus determine the “real and actual”effects of any such authoritative interventions, again, past and current. Or, in other terms, provide for an audit, but with a two pronged mandate. One, the check, in evaluating foster care/adoption systems and in part, by authorizing the questioning of the child(ren) and respondents and in either closed or open cases. Two, in balancing how well the system is working and whether the outcomes bolster whether a/the CPS authority may be, or is abusing it’s power and or authority, and at the expense of any ”best interest proclamation”. And if this being the case, amend legislation's, adjust protocol, do whatever, and or in a nutshell, establish a “legitimized” control, for the making of determinations, and, but, by “factual”base and analysis. As we can only suggest, how this might go to best serve “all parties”, give us a peak into what’s isn’t working, and and as to how this stands to benefit “all concerned” and or, as opposed to where we are currently. That is, stuck in a climate of misleading, counterproductive, unfair and unfettered “victimization” of the family and worse, “the kids”. I guess, or suppose, that one could sum up this entire issue of the current state of “child” abuse/protection, grade it on a scale 1-10, with [10] being excellent, [1]=poor and give it, probably a “five”. [5], not too good and in dire need of improvement. Or as best, fully captured in the words, “abysmal” or better, “dysfunctional”. Below is our advice, as to what you should do if contacted by C.P.S. (Child Protection Services) and how you should respond if a case is opened against you. What you may find is that you have very few rights, in these circumstances. Therefore, protect your family and read this information, or face the probability of some very dire consequences. The Rule Book: 1) Anything & everything you say, may be used against you. Or, in the reality of the combined judicial and case management process, anticipate that all information, either gathered by, or offered to the agency, will most probably be used against you, and will only serve to prejudice your case. 2) If CPS attempts to file for any “court action”, and more specifically, for the removal of your child(ren), do not open the flood gates to 15 months of punitive adjudication, by stipulating to any of the petitions probable cause allegations. If yours is a “neglect” case, understand that due to the ambiguity in its definition, it will be more likely than not, that a determination will be made which is not favorable. 3) Take into consideration, from the onset, that your court appointed lawyer may be of little assistance, or ineffective, on your behalf. That it will be incumbent upon you to speak with an advocate or expert. Study the issues of child “abuse” and “protection”. Do your homework and do not rely solely on counsel. 4) Do not expect fair, impartial, unbiased, equal justice, as these case are litigated in a C.P. agency controlled environment. 5) Do not submit to evaluations, psych assessments, or for that matter, any form of interview, unless it is appropriately documented or recorded. 6) When or if forms need to be filled out, consult with your lawyer first, prior to supplying any response. 7) If you, the child(ren), friends, relatives, or anyone with any connection to you, or with your case is questioned, keep in mind that all responses and answers are potentially harmful, and open to prejudicial interpretation. Therefore, keep quiet whenever possible and avoid offering anything, as some of these workers/agents, can be manipulative, devious and are not to be trusted. Always remember that one of your key assets in defending yourself against the C.P.S. is diligent research, and an understanding of what it is you’re really up against. That in failing to comprehend the nature of the opposition and the system, you cannot fully protect yours and the child(ren)’s best interests and rights. Why? Because most respondents have no insight into how a case is constructed against them. 8) Therefore, it is absolutely imperative you not only take charge of your case from the beginning, you must stay in charge throughout the process. This is merely a sampling of what you need to know and how best to prepare yourself. There have been far too many kids like yours, who’ve become victims of C.P.S. through no fault of their own, and have become fodder for the protective agenda. So, in that context you are certainly not alone. For assistance, contact CFSM and help us, ETA-End the Abuse. And, if your child(ren)’s been abused, then they are certainly in need of being “protected”. However and as unfortunate as it is, I/we would not be launching this sight or ETA, if it were not necessary. Where there is now a drastic need to curb the unconstrained, egregious nature of treating children as “business units”, or as a “supply side”, to this lucrative entity we call C.P.S. And in conclusion to this short version of the rules of engagement, keep in mind that the child(ren) are yours by birth and are not property. So in putting that on the back burner for a moment, we’ve chosen to offer a few brief quotes and opines, which best reflect the realities of the current status of protection and as follows. - Termination of parental rights causes a “social death”. Where the current state of the issue is such, and whereas the issue is as much about state sponsored terrorism of the family and their capitulation, as it is about any “best interest” assertion. Cases padded with “bogus evidence”. Media-driven-hyper-hysteria, protect at any cost, cover-your-ass, systemic hypocrisy. Parents “armed with little or no resources to fight”, and considering, The States ability to assemble its case, almost inevitably dwarfs the parents ability to mount a defense”. A family court which functionally operates along the lines and whereby “judicial bias” is or operates under a structural error that is non-amendable to a harmless error analysis, and to that end, one which conspicuously turns Santosky v. Kramer’s, ‘clear & convincing’, burden of proof, into more or less, “guilty until proven innocent”. Unfortunately, this mentality of stripping parents of their children, has or is, rapidly becoming as big a problem, that is, as the cure-all “protection” was set out to be. With most or all of this invariably placing demands on time and resources, that could best be utilized elsewhere. And what’s the argument and claim? Too much caseload not enough staff. Maybe, possibly, but this excuse needs retooling. So then, what’s the answer? Only I wish I knew, though we could start by fixin’ “this system”, cause it’s flat out broke, abusive and punitive. But in today’s age of giving ones-self cover, by percolating rhetoric, acting the good Samaritan, in truth, caring’s become more about, “seamless” desensitization of non-involvement. Everything, anything along the lines of being politically correct, like in any “reasonable” fabrication of, transparency, dialogue, “policy”, “protocol”, oversight, bi-partisanship and from an esteemed colleague, no less? I mean really, that’s it, seriously it is. Because the truth of the matter is, that here in the real world of protecting our child(ren), this equates in general terms, as rear view mirrored [protection by proxy]. Yes, pleading families out to neglect, because that’s what the lawyer is required to do. Simple economics cost factored by, no contendre v. trial. Or in the short, cash cow, little 15 minuted hearings, versus, going to trial and getting booted off the proverbial gravy train list, of “zealously” representation. Superficial, disingenuous, call it what you will, but that’s it, “equal” justice baby. How they, the system, goes about it’s business, in silencing of the lambs, Family Court style. Cause fact is, if you want “that” raise your right handed whole truth and nothing but the truth, in reality part of the Child Protection Story and but for sake of keeping the results short and simple, let’s just call far too many of these “endings/outcomes” a/the “Holocaust of the home”. As in, a sacrifice or the wholesale destruction of a, ”the family”. Certainly a disturbing metaphor to say the least isn’t it, but yet if the problem wasn’t so dire, I suppose this might make for a great sound bite. Actually, you could go on ahead and feature it, put it right in there with, “abused baby found dead” or “Uncle allegedly molests 12 year old niece”. Media play, government, politics, from/or compliments of, the (new and improved child welfare system), but f- - - em, who cares, oops, sorry, I meant, just go “screw the family”, and back to news at 11. Throw another story on the pile and if it’s all the same to you and while you’re at it, you may as well pitch that “community-based prevention program” too, ya know, the one which discusses a “shifted to a proactive approach”. Say what? Yes, sorry and as part of the above mentioned “reasonable” application, got it? OK and let’s just look at it, dissect it, see it for what it is. This defining of “abuse” and based on categorical interpretation, as in (Emotional, Maltreatment, Mental, Physical, Sexual), or in the diagnostics of poverty, otherwise referred to, that is at least in the majority of such cases, as “ne-glect”.
Ya, right! Meanwhile, lurching in the background, worker & psych lobbyists, states looking for funding structure, MOE’s, a 50-80% federal match, entitlements, a SSBG, the new and improved, CWPO. All, all of it about more bang for the buck, while and having little to do with repairing anything, let alone paying any attention to that little p, as in “prevention”. Fact is, there is absolutely no desire to proceed in any other direction, other than by the one they’ve long ago chosen. Like in, don’t go and bite the hand that feeds/neglects ya? As really, this perception of most all “neglect” being abuse, is in itself a stretch. Oh, most certainly there are varying degrees of neglect, but at what point neglect equates to abuse, remains the core issue, while though as a matter of “policy”, it’s shown itself for what it is. And that is, as an extremely lucrative diversion/investment and just ask the 800 pound gorilla of C. P. Services. As folks you best understand the intrinsic realities of any such motivations, this insulating of their little scheme and beyond infiltration. There’s the C.P.S., all of its proteges as the subsidiaries, and the parent agency, D.H.S., Inc. [Chi-Pro-Ser-apitalism]. NO, no little d as in due process, or e, like in effective counsel, and no, they’ll be none of that. Because it’s guilty cause we got ya, whether we got ya or not and/or, the kids are in need of protection and because we say so. Bundled all up in whichever orchestrated “best interest”, or “paramount purpose” doctrine you so eloquently prefer. In “good conscience/faith”, and therefore proclaimed, “child protection”. Fact is, the issue of “protection” has gotten so muddied up by rivers of “funding structures and service quality”, that in terms of clarification, hope has all but drifted away and along with it, those polluted “outcomes” and “systemic factors” the CFSR’s treasure so dearly. All lost in a quagmire of plenty of questions and noteworthy recommendations/solutions, but yet diluted in the toilet of ready made answers. Yes, more convenient little snippets of expert analysis and that’s just about it, or in retrospect, as just another assessment or service, which is best sent to the sewer. But don’t be too alarmed folks! It’s not just another prescription for some disaster waiting to happen, nor a predicament of tragic consequence and proportion. Not at all. It’s merely departmental pro-to-kol/policy. Government sanctioned and as a/the remove first, deal with it later concept of C.P. As if this disingenuous approach underscores, or appropriately defines how best to repair the various bad situations we sometimes come to find in a home? I mean really, let’s stop with the b—s—. For really, it was I/you, who has allowed this fermented erosion of the abuse issue, and thus it is I/we, who need shoulder much of the blame. And my fellow citizens, if this is an illustration of how best to “protect”, then it’s time we got back to square one, as in “what’s the bottom line here”? Well, ‘ ’, this quick fix doctrine of child protection, it just ain’t workin’. Therefore, we are faced with trying to put our best foot forward
and in order to accomplish what needs to be done and by effecting
a change in the current status quo. Get back with the program, educate
the public and as to the realities of abuse. Because really, what
is child abuse anyway? The why, where, by whom and under what circumstances
of it. Rather, it’s more or all about understanding it’s
implications, the moral degradation, the disease. Simplistic as
it is or isn’t. Because at days end, {big people need to STOP
hurting smaller ones and just because they can}.Circa 2007 So then,
and now what? The government helps us saddle ourselves with this,
the “business”, or that infective/defective portion
of a welfare industry we’ve gone and created, known to all
as C.P.S. Great idea, bad application. So now and at this juncture, one finds themselves at a crossroads and where his or her decisions can either follow a course, which helps things take a turn for the better, or end up at that dead end, where things can only go from bad to worse. Or rather, and/or do we submit to a continuation of this ideology, and by one, which elevates our children and even beyond that of the welfare of a family? Must we just always go and jump the gun, remove the children and consider it settled. I mean come on, does this method really work all that well? Or just maybe we just need to back up and go right or left, take a different turn at any corner, find some “moral compass”, or whatever. Be “Citizens for Social Morality” and consider the obligations, of how best to repair a/the problematic situation in a family and most certainly, not by “removal for profit”. To our mind, we’ve contemplated on all of this, long and hard. Thousands of hours actually, going back some four years now. And what we’ve come to understand is this, as simple as it might appear. That there needs to be a significant and strategic change in opposition. Which brings us to our platform, the plan and as by design, phases I-IV. In this context, let’s just suffice to say, that it’s intended to be persuasive. Extensive, formidable, all of that and more.........
“Citizens for Social Morality” Operation ETA-End the Abuse |
|||||
Questions
& Answers, and as to the CFSM real world picture, of this, the
“protective” issue. Or as to our opinion, of an advocates
having two integrated responsibilities. That is, first and foremost,
s/he must deal with the “abuse” of a/”the child”.
Second, we must find a more plausible alternative to this other
half of that two headed monster, or what I’ve come to term,
the “business” side of “protection”. Now
in regards to the first problem, “abuse” or moreover,
this blanketed terminology for child maltreatment. As a precursor
to this notion, that all “neglect” equates to the child(ren)
being in need of protection and in this or any inaccurate social
betrayal/martyrdom of “best interest”, one must be first,
cognizant of whether or not a/the problem is ‘transitory or
chronic’. That amongst those of us, who have grown increasingly
skeptical of C.P.S. intentions, I suppose it best, that we attach
an identity to a majority of these cases, and as being more or less,
“targeted groups”. The poor, disabled, elderly, undereducated,
single parent families, but, and of course, not your atypical next
store neighbor. Parents/guardians, unfamiliar with the law, and
more likely than not, saddled with “insignificant” legal
representation, partnered up, with good ole buddy, “C.P-rubber
stamped inequitable judicial oversight”. Or, and in a manner
of speaking, the “fraternity of quid pro quo case management
”. 
There,
that’s all folks! Simply tell em, well whatever, mommy will
see ya soon. Now I do realize, I know it sounds unconscionable,
but that’s it really, all wrapped up nice and neat, like a
“C.Protect styled burrito” filled with “ ”,
and no need to be polite, just fill in the blank accordingly. Although,
fact is and we’ll “stipulate”/concede to it, in
part, here in this next sentence. “In that”, sometimes
the child(ren), somebody else’s that is, did/do by necessity
mandate removal and though just as often, there’s probably
a shouldn't’t have, or “didn't’t” need to,
somewhere in the S.D.M.-“Tool”. But and then again,
who cares, really. So then, and within “that perspective”,
go, just get on with “your” life, and with it, take
that “they probably deserved to have their kids taken away”
mentality, with ya’. While then at the same time, “we’ve”
gone and condescended, “ourselves”, into letting these,
“others” go do it, you know, just written em’
off to the “big business”side, of “family servitude”,
have a nice day/TPR, thanks but no thanks, sorry and go fend for
yourselves. Anything and whatever, just so long as it looks kosher,
that’s all, and just be done with it. 
Yes
and there you have it folks. “Neglect codified”, as
the one size fits all formula for removal. Mix, pour and poison.
A concoction you can’t rightly get a grip on, but one which
is nonetheless, “distasteful” and problematic. An evil
minded “secreted” agent, in this, as “the formula”
for monetary acquisition, if you will. The one that requires you
to be one part devious, second part, negatively introspective and
third, lacking in morals. Socially acceptable poison, per say. But
to that end and in any discovery of the financial backbone, what
you’ll inevitably discover, is well, “neglect”.
Yes, and vaguely defined, easy to prove and with a lucrative 60%
upside too. Anonymous reporting, easy prey, single mom, struggling,
depressed. Mix in some substance abuse, alcohol, drugs, whatever
works, what la “neglect”, no other ‘proofs’
necessary. Though by now, what begs the question, like, or as in,
what happened with those reasonable efforts provisions in AFSA,
anyway? PRESERVATION, reunification? 
This
being the agency who was given that ultimate responsibility, to.
I bet you thought I was going to say to protect the children, our
kids, right? I was, but that’s not really the case here, not
exactly. Since here is where the directions got all confused. I
say, protect a kid when s/he is “in need of protection”
and with due consideration to the “best interest of the family,
first”, pre-removal. They got a/the law in their back pocket
saying, possession is 9/10ths of the law, we’ll see ya later
in court. Filed under, we got em and just try and get em back, but
in accordance with, due process and equal justice under the law.
Problem being, the latter seldom comes and as they conveniently
skip right on through the procedurals and go straight on into POC/PAA.
And herein stands one of the many flawed, convoluted, components
and by any measure of attempting to mitigate by legislative intent.
The citation of which, would be protection v. profiteering. One
that’s become in and by itself and through it’s activities,
abusive and as an epitome of the worst of the worst of abuses.