Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Nate The Lawyer" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. Why is no one questioning how a person with "life long mental health issues" was capable of becoming a state social worker in the first place? This scheme can only occur if she's a social worker for the state. It doesn't work any other way. Why is the bar to employment by the state for people charged with looking after people with mental health problems and trauma not high enough to exclude those with their own significant problems? I don't believe this was a grooming operation. That doesn't make any sense. You don't need to go to these kinds of elaborate lengths to groom kids when you have an internet connection, and so do they. You certainly don't withdrawal from a school after a week if you're trying to groom kids. A week isn't long enough. What if it's this simple. You're a social worker. Day in and day out, you handle kids in terrible situations. You get to know the schools in the area and how they handle things. Some of the schools treat the kids terribly but you don't have the kind of evidence to affect real change. So you come up with a scheme to create that evidence by posing as a traumatised teenage girl and artificially tank their KPIs. You can't do it alone so you get your work friend on board pulling at their heart strings. That works, but you still need a mum and dad, so you pull the heart strings of your landlord and their spouse to pretend to be your parents. After all, all they have to do is make a phone call. What if it's that simple? Crazy? Yes, but she unquestionably has mental health problems. Plausible? Completely
    1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1