AARC's Congenital Disease

[psy]

I just dono't think they're going to chance anything like that.

Ya.  I thought the same til I got sued.  I thought the best solution was to take them to court, present evidence, do the discovery thing, and show truth...  til I talked to an attorney who deals with this industry.  After he explained to me the costs of going to court, he told me "how much justice can you afford?".  While there are ways of dealing with the situation without going to court (at least in the states) such as anti-slapp legislation, it's still a hassle.

I'm not saying stop speaking out... I'm saying anything but that.  All i'm saying is to prepare yourself for anything.  Ya never know what a program will do when pressed against the wall.

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest getting a different attorney then.  If they sued Ajax, there are a number of attorneys (a few that I could put him in touch with) that would take it pro bono just for the free speech issue alone.  If Ajax won, the other party would be liable for Ajax's court costs and attorney fees.

There's also the Whistle Blowers rights, although that may only apply to employer/employee,  I'm not sure.  There are ways to deal with it if it happens, but again.  I don't think they'd take the chance on all their dirty laundry coming out.

My .02

[psy]

If they sued Ajax, there are a number of attorneys (a few that I could put him in touch with) that would take it pro bono just for the free speech issue alone

Well, I grant you that.  But if a lawyer is going to take the issue on free speech alone, that's what's going to be addressed, and likely only that.  It really depends on the state you're in, though, and i'm not that familiar with Canada law.

In California, if you get slapp sued you can file an anti slapp special motion to strike.  It does a few things:  it halts the ability of a plaintiff to amend their complaint (so they can't create a moving target by amending it each time you blow their complaint apart), it halts discovery (so the plaintiff can't sue you just to find out what you know and who you talk to), and if you win the motion, the case is dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiff has to pay your attorneys fees (HEE HEE AHHAHAHAHAHHAHHH...)...  The downside is that you really don't want to raise a fact dispute in the anti-slapp motion because this will make the judge think there should be a trial (if somebody says something is true, it is accepted as such for the purpose of the slapp motion.  The judge is forbidden from deciding what is true and false).  Other defenses (such as opinion, priveledge, etc...) should be raised instead.  So if the program, for example, says that you they heard you behaved "outragiously", bla bla bla... while you might want to dispute it, it's legally more beneficial to just say "heresay, opinion, irrelevant, etc..." and get their "evidence" deemed inadmissible (showing the judge that the plaintiff, based on their initial complaint and admissable evidence, have no chance of winning their case...  one of the primary things on which an anti-slapp motion is supposed to be decided).

While it means you win the case without it going to trial, it also means that you don't get to hold the program over a fire until they spit out those documents you've wanted for so long.  Of course, if going to court would be extremely expensive, would require you to relocate across the country, or otherwise would be unfeasible or extremely difficult, it's easier to just win the case off the bat, without having to go to court.  Of course you still get to say "I was sued by the program for defamation and I won!".

[Anonymous]

Well, I grant you that.  But if a lawyer is going to take the issue on free speech alone, that's what's going to be addressed, and likely only that.  It really depends on the state you're in, though, and i'm not that familiar with Canada law.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  They would be willing to take it because they feel so strongly about the issue of free speech.  Not that free speech would be the only issue raised.

[TheWho]

The lawsuit would probably focus on the areas like calling board members clinically obese and stating it was due to addiction issues.  Ajax would need to present how he came about this information and present a doctor as a witness on his behalf or diagnosis.  Otherwise it would be slander.  Making fun of boards family members.  The issue where Ajax was writing on here that Vause had an unaccredited degree.  This was also proven to be a lie.  Ajax would also have to produce evidence (police reports) that his wife was raped inside AARC and at what point did they approach AARC with this information and how was it documented.  I don’t think the judge is going to buy the story that she waited 10 years to say anything.  Ajax would also need to explain why he is trying to damage AARC and deprive them of income.  If it is shown that income was lost because of his slander he would be responsible for reimbursing AARC for their loss and damages.
Another area would be credibility.  This will all be weighed against how AARC stands within the community and which ones have more credibility and contribute to society.  ajax and his wife or AARC.

[Anonymous]

You are perfectly aware that fornits is NOT the only forum you spread your mistruths and slander or is it called defamation. yes, defamation of both Vause and AARC.

Dont' let this shit scare you, Ajax.  If they sue you, it'll hurt them far more.

don't get your hopes up, psy.  AARC wouldn't waste the time or money on someone like ajax13. he is just an obsessed husband that is taking the word of an unrecovered addict displaying classic signs of being unrecovered! hard to tell which is sicker, her or him .

[Anonymous]

The AARColyte can't bear to hear anything negative about his guru or the cult because that would mean that everything he's built his identity on is complete bullshit.  That's a devastating thing to admit and those unfortunates who are THAT washed will take a very long time to come out of it, if they ever do.  Who is just an industry shill who will constantly and continually disrupt, derail and generally trash any thread he wanders into.  Go read up on him in the Aspen forum.  he's a sick piece of work.

I think it is not the case of negative it is more the case of spreading lies but he will wear himself out and if he doesn't ,. . . al the better. it is not healthy

[Anonymous]

The more people that show up here that are angry about Ajax's posts, the more we know it's getting to them.  "Vinny's fav guest" is a prime example.  If Ajax wasn't having any impact on Vause/AARC, they wouldn't worry about some kids postings on a message board.  Obviously, Ajax has indeed hit a nerve.  I find that amusing.

It is obvious that vinny's fav guest is hitting a nerve more than ajax is. he drew out the "special lady friend" to defend herself not just ajax. I find that more amusing!

[Anonymous]

I just dono't think they're going to chance anything like that.

Ya.  I thought the same til I got sued.  I thought the best solution was to take them to court, present evidence, do the discovery thing, and show truth...  til I talked to an attorney who deals with this industry.  After he explained to me the costs of going to court, he told me "how much justice can you afford?".  While there are ways of dealing with the situation without going to court (at least in the states) such as anti-slapp legislation, it's still a hassle.

I'm not saying stop speaking out... I'm saying anything but that.  All i'm saying is to prepare yourself for anything.  Ya never know what a program will do when pressed against the wall.

Personally, I would like to see AJax drop some dough 'to stick some money where his mouth is' because the things I have seen him write are clearly material for a defamation suit and that would cost him $$ I am sure he doesn't have. If he gets funded by like-minded people,  they are just out their money too, which I would find even more amusing. AARC will just carry on doing what they do. They tend to stay focused and put up with what they realize is a given in the adolescent treatment industry - very sick treatment clients who leave and then decide they really got their feelings hurt too much and they need to claim abuse to get some attention and deflect blame for their own screw-ups. i.e  "oh, I would not have done that if it wasn't for how . .  . . AARC, ya AARC treated me" boohoohoo please don't get mad at me, get mad at . .  AARC ya AARC and AJAX has taken that to a whole new level!!  LOL

That certainly has come out in the last several months

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest getting a different attorney then.  If they sued Ajax, there are a number of attorneys (a few that I could put him in touch with) that would take it pro bono just for the free speech issue alone.  If Ajax won, the other party would be liable for Ajax's court costs and attorney fees.

There's also the Whistle Blowers rights, although that may only apply to employer/employee,  I'm not sure.  There are ways to deal with it if it happens, but again.  I don't think they'd take the chance on all their dirty laundry coming out.

My .02

Slander can cost up to $25, 000 if he loses heheheheh

[Anonymous]

They aren't going to sue anyone.    First, he hasn't said anything that isn't true so they CAN'T sue him.  Second, they won't because then all their dirty laundry would be aired for all the world to see.  They're not going to chance that.

Ajax, you keep on keeping on.  You're dead on in your assessment of AARC and Vause.  It's nothing more than a continuation of Straight and the Miller Newton philosophy of humiliation and thought reform disguised as some whacked out form of "therapy".

The AARColyte can't bear to hear anything negative about his guru or the cult because that would mean that everything he's built his identity on is complete bullshit.  That's a devastating thing to admit and those unfortunates who are THAT washed will take a very long time to come out of it, if they ever do.  Who is just an industry shill who will constantly and continually disrupt, derail and generally trash any thread he wanders into.  Go read up on him in the Aspen forum.  he's a sick piece of work.

'yeah, right on' is far from that. he is more like right off
AJAX13 has said lots that is untrue, which can easily be substantiated by AARC. the rape stuff won't fly and the list of things he keeps harping on as fact is so bloody easy to prove in a court of law to be untrue and slanderous.  even the ridiculous thing about whether Vause played for Swift! He was a star goalie, lived in Swift Current and was quickly scooped up from there to other teams. Because AJAX doesn't know any better and only driven by the sick obsession of his wife, he is the one that is the 'sociopath' and the liar not Vause.

[psy]

Ajax would also have to produce evidence (police reports) that his wife was raped inside AARC and at what point did they approach AARC with this information and how was it documented.

Actually, at least in the united states, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something false.  In this case, AARC would have to prove the rape didn't happen, and I would watch yourselves there, AARC, as I have heard of rape from multiple people... willing to testify too.

Ajax would also need to explain why he is trying to damage AARC and deprive them of income.  If it is shown that income was lost because of his slander he would be responsible for reimbursing AARC for their loss and damages.

And good luck proving that.  What?  are you going to say "we heard from a parent that they were not going to enroll their son in AARC because of Ajax's statements".

Objection, Heresay!

Sustained!

And you got shit.

Good luck figuring out another way to directly link ajax to a decrease in enrollment.

[psy]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  They would be willing to take it because they feel so strongly about the issue of free speech.  Not that free speech would be the only issue raised.

But the lawyers might feel that's the best defense (and they might be right).  Get another lawyer?  Beggars can't be choosers.

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest getting a different attorney then.  If they sued Ajax, there are a number of attorneys (a few that I could put him in touch with) that would take it pro bono just for the free speech issue alone.  If Ajax won, the other party would be liable for Ajax's court costs and attorney fees.

There's also the Whistle Blowers rights, although that may only apply to employer/employee,  I'm not sure.  There are ways to deal with it if it happens, but again.  I don't think they'd take the chance on all their dirty laundry coming out.

My .02

Slander can cost up to $25, 000 if he loses heheheheh

Only if what he's saying can be proven a lie.  It can't.  Ajax, you're fine.  Read up on Ray Bradbury and the Semblers.

 :rasta:

[Anonymous]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying.  They would be willing to take it because they feel so strongly about the issue of free speech.  Not that free speech would be the only issue raised.

But the lawyers might feel that's the best defense (and they might be right).  Get another lawyer?  Beggars can't be choosers.

They might and they might not.  Yes, beggars can be choosers sometimes.  There's more than one atty out there interested in this stuff and I'd venture to say that it would be well worth anyone's while to seek out as many possibilities as they can.


Again, MY OPINION.