Parents Sue WWASPS . Read Complaint Here

[Nonconformistlaw]

Hey Antigen-----Or do you prefer Ginger?

In my situation, the fact that I may have had to bring down my parents (jail), in order to take on Straight (criminally & civilly), also was a factor, in addition to my need for 'sanity' as you so accuratly put it. Emotionally I just could not handle a legal battle.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the problem is not so much in the validity of the legal theories of the plaintiff's complaint, as much as the HUGE problem that the whole drawn out discovery process takes, where WWASP attorney's would probably STONEWALL every discovery (AKA information, etc.) request that hits them. That would make it very difficult to build a case against WWASP in and of itself. Finding witness's at all, who also "appear credible" is also a potential problem I think. Not to mention running up huge legal fees for both sides, but then again...WWASP can basically feed $ to their attorney's longer.

In other words, "he who has the most money wins, he who runs out of $ first loses." Doesn't always work this way, but it happens all too often. And many attorneys will not work on a case once the $ stops flowing....for attorneys handling the plaintiff's case its all about profit as much as it is for WWASP and their attorneys.  ::rainbow::

[Shortbus]

I agree with much of your post NCL. But I also know there are clients out there that have invested way too much emotionally in their cases and can't/won't look at their cases objectively. A good attorney tells em up front and a good client follows the advice given. A client has to realize when to drop something and maybe take another tack. I wish there was any easier way.... if nothing else the system is set up as incentive to hopefully not have to use it. People make noise about women filing sexual harrassment suits against employers to make a fast buck......... anyone who's been there knows that's not the case. Lawsuits of any flavor are grueling, painful, expensive and time-consuming. Which is unfortunate when its about something serious - like trying to get your child OUT of a program.

So now Im asking myself how much is too much emotional investment when it comes to your child? Or shutting down a program? Or just regulating an industry? And how much money is too much money? And who winds up winning?

_________________
Its never too late to procrastinate[ This Message was edited by: Shortbus on 2005-08-14 13:43 ]

[Nonconformistlaw]

Hey Shortbus, you said----"But I also know there are clients out there that have invested way too much emotionally in their cases and can't/won't look at their cases objectively. A good attorney tells em up front and a good client follows the advice given. A client has to realize when to drop something and maybe take another tack."----

Yup, also very true. Part of winning a war, is knowing when to cut your losses and back out, and then redirect your energies through another course of action, or simply move on, whatever the case may be. And sometimes the lawyer is the only one who will realistically be able to advise clients on those options because it is sooo emotional.

I think its safe to say, that fighting WWASP's and others supporting institutionalized child abuse, is a war no matter how you look at it. And the ones that pay the highest price in all this mess, and suffer the most, are enlightened suffering parents and suffering kids.

What is VERY discouraging is that many people with strong legal claims never come forward because they dont have the financial resources to pay a good attorney...and I doubt free/low cost legal services agencies are properly equiped to help those families. ::rainbow::

[Anonymous]

Not long ago I remember a now 18 year old boy who was contemplating suing his mother for impounding him in some behavior mod program.

His biggest complaint aside from the physical abuse he endured was his claim that he was denied an adequate education for 2 years.

Said his mother admitted she did't send him to get an education at the "boarding school" but to isolate him from friends she did not approve of (namely a girlfriend).  He had a 4.0 GPA and did not smoke, drink or do drugs.

The nature of the lawsuit was child abuse and neglect leveled against the mother.  That even if his mother did not know he was being maltreated, she should have known (ignorance is not an excuse) and would have known had she believed the numerous news reports and/or gone to look at the place herself.

Instead, she buried her head in the sand and left him there for 2 years.  He left when he turned 18, she was planning on keeping him longer if she could have gotten a court order.

Personally, I think kids should sue their parents in cases like these where the parent abdicates their duty as a parent and as long as money is no object, can afford to keep their kid under lock and key until they turn 18.

[Antigen]

Well, I would never advise anyone to go at it through the legal system. I really wouldn't. Why? Cause, all of the times I've considered it, I've always come to the same conclusion. It's a lot of effort, a lot of turmoil, a lot of expense w/ very little chance of a good outcome and a larger chance of a bad one.

I think it's just not the most sensible, logical means of addressing this particular problem, though it does have its benefits. If someone is willing to go that route, I won't discourage them, either. For one thing, I could be dead wrong. And I just know so many good, intelligent and competent people who do see merit in that strategy.

That's my take, so far, on approaching the problem through the 3 estates of government. But that approach always encompasses the discovery process, which nearly always contributes to what I view as a far better tack; the 4th Estate, our vaunted free press and freedom peacably to assemble.

Step back and take broad view of the industry. What do you see? They're promoting a lot of different ideologies all the way from the religious reich (VCA, NYHM, for example) to newage native culture rip offs like SW. And there are different structures. Some look like extremely tough boarding schools, some still operate out of warehouses by day, host homes by night. Some are conducted out in the wilderness or in a ranch type setting. All of these differences serve to accentuate the salient commonalities.

Lifton and Singer's criteria for thought reform describes those commonalities almost verbatim. One of those core principles common to so many of these programs is that they strictly control communication. "No talking; out in group, to old friends, behind backs; what goes on here stays here." That's the weakest spot, in my opinion. If you can subvert that athoritarian control somehow, the whole thing unravels. And you'll note that all this free talking 1) really annoys them 2) often draws litigation and threats of litigation and 3) best of all, they routinely lose in this arena.

RAMPANT Talking Out in Group!

 :rofl:

Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
--Edward Everett

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed Chicklett `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;

[tommyfromhyde1]

Another problem with lawsuits that I don't see
addressed on this thread is that some of these
programs, and WWASP looks like one of them, are
good at moving money around from corporation to
corporation. That could make collection hard even
if you win in court. In turn that could make it
hard to get a lawyer to accept your case.
BTW Antigen, do you know if Fred Collins ever
collected the $220,000 that he was awarded from
Straight?

Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor

[Nihilanthic]

Why not go to programs with some giant megaphones and have a 'talk-in'? Hell, my big mouth doesnt need a megaphone, just a funnel to direct the LOUD at a particular area so Im not just an indiscriminant  motormouth. The real issue is we'd have to decide on what we want to say, and be able to say it from the edge of their property if the program building is secluded from wherever we could protest.

It wouldnt have the same effect as the protests of that 'straight-camp' because they dont go home at night, and theyre not even allowed to look outside, but at least it would let all of us vent  :silly:

Innocence implies the ability to restrain from the initiation of aggression, and to question those who don't.
http://www.MisesRomania.org' target='_new'>Sorin Cucerai

[OverLordd]

I really think litigaton is for the few and those that wish to take it down and dirty. Indeed, its more of a side attack against the industry than anything else, because few people have the time and cash to do it. Supporting a few large lawsuits would be wise, but we need to focus on protesting, doing stuff on the net, and getting the news involved. I believe you guys agree with me, well from what I have seen anyway.

[Anonymous]

http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/impor ... wasps.html

[BuzzKill]

All the information in that link posted from help your teens is out dated.
If anyone wants to contact the attorneys in this case they will need up dated contact info. I can provide it, if you want to email or PM me - but I am not sure they want it posted on Fornits. I doubt it.
This "notice" was the cause of some argument and friction between the attorneys and Susan. She took it down, but I guess it is still available as an archived page.

[Anonymous]

On 2005-08-13 16:07:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Is this even really the legal document, or is it the made up for the internet version?"

I have the original complaint. It is legit, check with the L.A. Superior Court. For a nominal fee you can view the filing. This suit is for real. As for why more complainants aren't listed: This is a DIRECT ACTION SUIT. Not a CLASS ACTION. There may be more suits coming. Bushkin also said he plans to modify the complaint to include something like 60 more complainants.

Just my two cents. :wink:

[The Liger]

I actually think suing would be the most effective way to bring down the business.  A lot of parents don't care that these places are abusive.  There will always be parents who will send their kids to these places.  The places will only cease to exist when they lose money.  Suing these places for intentional torts is great, because the insurance companies won't pay the legal fees.  Even if they don't have to pay a big settlement or whatever, they're still paying for it.  Unfortunately, a lot of kids don't figure out that they were wronged until after the statute of limitations is up.  

Well, that's just my two cents.

[Nihilanthic]

Stat of limitations only counts from the day they turn 18...  :smile:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religion than it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
--Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have a phone number to reach David Pollack's office...or city he's located in??

[Anonymous]

On 2005-09-13 20:39:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Does anyone have a phone number to reach David Pollack's office...or city he's located in??"

Is this the dude that was on Montel Williams?  Sheesh.  Why would you wanna hire that guy?