Aspen Education Group lawyers..AEG not mental health program

[Whooter]

What would be great to get is Aspen Education Group's expert witness, Larson's depostion for Aspen that they are in any legal sense a treatment center for drug or mental disorders, and that the "phases" Aspen offers are in no legal sense of the term "therapeutic."

Not too sure.  Most anything can be considered therapeutic.  Sitting quietly watching the sun set would cover it, thats therapeutic enough to put up a sign.

[Anonymous]

Not too sure.  Most anything can be considered therapeutic.  Sitting quietly watching the sun set would cover it, thats therapeutic enough to put up a sign.

In some sense of the word anyone can be called a doctor and anything can be called therapeutic. Legally and medically, however, these terms are tightly defined and infer liabilities and standards of care.


You may not be sure about that, but Aspen is .

 Aspen swore under oath that it is NOT ,in any legal sense, a treatment center for "drug and alcohol or mental health therapy",   that the "phases" Aspen offers are, in no legal sense of the term, "therapeutic," and that the counseling Harless offered and the confessions she took were not part of any form of therapeutic process

III. Third Claim - Negligent Provision of Mental Health Tx


 Expert witnesses disagree as to whether Matthew Pence's list of confessions was part of a therapeutic treatment program, whether NorthStar is a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program, and whether NorthStar personnel violated a standard of care applicable to counselors and therapists. See Dr. Larsen's Aff. (for defendants), Dr. Huffine's Aff. (for plaintiffs). Disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment for Matthew Pence or defendants on the third claim for negligent provision of mental health treatment.

[/quote][/quote]

[Troll Control]

Flip-flop, wiggle-wiggle-squirm-squirm.  Sorry, Whooter, but nothing you (a secondary source) say matters, as Aspen (a primary source) has already disclosed that it provides no therapy or treatment, only "phases" of a "program" just like the worst abusive ones out there (WWASPS, Straight, KHK, etc).

I wonder how Whooter claims Aspen programs "aren't like the other programs from years ago" when they use the identical "program" with "phases"?  I guess he was lying about that, too.

[Whooter]

Aspen swore under oath that it is NOT ,in any legal sense, a treatment center for "drug and alcohol or mental health therapy", that the "phases" Aspen offers are, in no legal sense of the term, "therapeutic," and that the counseling Harless offered and the confessions she took were not part of any form of therapeutic process

Is there any link that can be provided to support this?   I didnt see where Aspen made the statements you listed above.  But I can find where the court sided with Aspen that Matthews treatment team included a licensed therapist.

Are you able to cut and paste and exact quote and provide a link?

[Troll Control]

Flip-flop, wiggle-wiggle-squirm-squirm.  Sorry, Whooter, but nothing you (a secondary source) say matters, as Aspen (a primary source) has already disclosed that it provides no therapy or treatment, only "phases" of a "program" just like the worst abusive ones out there (WWASPS, Straight, KHK, etc).

I wonder how Whooter claims Aspen programs "aren't like the other programs from years ago" when they use the identical "program" with "phases"?  I guess he was lying about that, too.

Yes, in fact, the expert witness for Aspen declared that nothing that happens in an Aspen facility can be construed as treatment, as Aspen never made promises to deliver any services from any licensed professionals.  Yet, Aspen did deliver therapy sessions illegally by using unlicensed people.  The court will decide how much Aspen will have to pay the plaintiffs who are asking $1,000,000 for fraudulently claiming to provide therapy, which implies legal delivery of therapy, i.e. by a licensed provider.

Aspen really stepped in the shit by offering therapy when none is actually delivered or it is delivered illegally.  Either way, Aspen is guilty of fraud or practicing without a license.

[Whooter]

Aspen swore under oath that it is NOT ,in any legal sense, a treatment center for "drug and alcohol or mental health therapy", that the "phases" Aspen offers are, in no legal sense of the term, "therapeutic," and that the counseling Harless offered and the confessions she took were not part of any form of therapeutic process

Is there any link that can be provided to support this?   I didnt see where Aspen made the statements you listed above.  But I can find where the court sided with Aspen that Matthews treatment team included a licensed therapist.

Are you able to cut and paste and exact quote and provide a link?

Who, if thats who you are.  I read the first post on this thread and the person confused Harless with being Matthews therapist.  They stated she was unlicensed but she is the director and therefore doesn’t need to be licensed.  Matthews parents never signed Matthew up for individual Therapy (which costs extra) and that is why he never received those services.  So that is where all of this is coming from.  They cant post a link because there isn’t any.

[Troll Control]

Flip-flop, wiggle-wiggle-squirm-squirm.  Sorry, Whooter, but nothing you (a secondary source) say matters, as Aspen (a primary source) has already disclosed that it provides no therapy or treatment, only "phases" of a "program" just like the worst abusive ones out there (WWASPS, Straight, KHK, etc).

I wonder how Whooter claims Aspen programs "aren't like the other programs from years ago" when they use the identical "program" with "phases"?  I guess he was lying about that, too.

Yes, in fact, the expert witness for Aspen declared that nothing that happens in an Aspen facility can be construed as treatment, as Aspen never made promises to deliver any services from any licensed professionals.  Yet, Aspen did deliver therapy sessions illegally by using unlicensed people.  The court will decide how much Aspen will have to pay the plaintiffs who are asking $1,000,000 for fraudulently claiming to provide therapy, which implies legal delivery of therapy, i.e. by a licensed provider.

Aspen really stepped in the shit by offering therapy when none is actually delivered or it is delivered illegally.  Either way, Aspen is guilty of fraud or practicing without a license.

Aspen advertised that they would provide therapy through Northstar and Northstar's website still includes this language.  The problem is that Northstar was and is providing UNLICENSED therapy sessions.  That's where the Pence's cleaned their clock and won a huge settlement.  Aspen demanded the settlement include a gag order, so there will be no further disclosure.  Aspen paid up big time in this claim, like it has been forced to do in many other cases.  Estimates range from $20-$40 MILLION has been paid out by Aspen to settle lawsuits like these in the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Lon Woodbury and John D. Reuben are now pushing teens with behavior problems and not mental issues, I guess in response?  Since Aspen has clearly stated it provides no treatment of any kind, I have to wonder about the parents who took tax deductions for Aspen programs, listing the deduction as mental health treatment?  They defrauded the government and they were probably told it was legitimate by Aspen.

There is a problem with Lon and John D. Reuben's new focus on behavior vs. mental illness for Aspen:  How will the parents get their insurance companies to pay for any part of an Aspen program?  Given that it is parental choice and not a medical necessity, the insurance companies will gladly shove expensive Aspen placements away as "elective".

Lon and John are either very shortsighted, desperate, or planning on conning some parents.  The bottom is falling out and they haven't a clue.

John D. Reuben aspired to be Sue Scheff.  How does it feel to finally be at her level John?

[Whooter]

Lon Woodbury and John D. Reuben are now pushing teens with behavior problems and not mental issues, I guess in response?  Since Aspen has clearly stated it provides no treatment of any kind, I have to wonder about the parents who took tax deductions for Aspen programs, listing the deduction as mental health treatment?  They defrauded the government and they were probably told it was legitimate by Aspen.

I think any of us here would be hard pressed to find anyone who still does their own taxes with the way the tax laws are structured these days.  But that aside the program provides documentation which allows for the deduction.  The accountant doing the taxes will request this prior to the deduction being made.  So if any problems occur it would be with the program not the parents taxes.  Any tax changes would take effect the following tax year, not the year they are filling in.  So the deductions would still be valid even if the program went out of business that year or declassified to receive governement support.

There is a problem with Lon and John D. Reuben's new focus on behavior vs. mental illness for Aspen:  How will the parents get their insurance companies to pay for any part of an Aspen program?  Given that it is parental choice and not a medical necessity, the insurance companies will gladly shove expensive Aspen placements away as "elective".

Almost all of Aspen’s clientele pay for services out of pocket.  But for those few who qualify for insurance coverage there is an 800 number on the back of the insurance card to call.  They will be able to tell you in advance if any or all of the expenses are covered by insurance.

[Anonymous]

Lon Woodbury and John D. Reuben are now pushing teens with behavior problems and not mental issues, I guess in response?  Since Aspen has clearly stated it provides no treatment of any kind, I have to wonder about the parents who took tax deductions for Aspen programs, listing the deduction as mental health treatment?  They defrauded the government and they were probably told it was legitimate by Aspen.

I think any of us here would be hard pressed to find anyone who still does their own taxes with the way the tax laws are structured these days.  But that aside the program provides documentation which allows for the deduction.  The accountant doing the taxes will request this prior to the deduction being made.  So if any problems occur it would be with the program not the parents taxes.  Any tax changes would take effect the following tax year, not the year they are filling in.  So the deductions would still be valid even if the program went out of business that year or declassified to receive governement support.

There is a problem with Lon and John D. Reuben's new focus on behavior vs. mental illness for Aspen:  How will the parents get their insurance companies to pay for any part of an Aspen program?  Given that it is parental choice and not a medical necessity, the insurance companies will gladly shove expensive Aspen placements away as "elective".

Almost all of Aspen’s clientele pay for services out of pocket.  But for those few who qualify for insurance coverage there is an 800 number on the back of the insurance card to call.  They will be able to tell you in advance if any or all of the expenses are covered by insurance.

Nice spin.  But you are wrong, the deductions are not valid and you think too highly of accountants.   You are either naive or trying to deflect attention from a potentially devastating blow to Aspen.  The Feds will not be as warm and fuzzy toward the parents, they will go after them and nail them.  Then it will be up to the parents to turn around and sue Aspen for fraudulent misrepresentation.  

There is really no need to argue this.  You have your weak defense for the terrified, soon to be audited program parents and we've contacted the IRS via GAO with news of Aspen's confession and current legal exposure.  Right on good time, Reuben.  You were a pain in the ass as the who, but now that you've been dragged into the daylight like a squirming worm you have been a great opponent of Aspen, albeit only because you are a narcissistic braggart and a terminal fuck up.

[Whooter]

Nice spin. But you are wrong, the deductions are not valid and you think too highly of accountants. You are either naive or trying to deflect attention from a potentially devastating blow to Aspen. The Feds will not be as warm and fuzzy toward the parents, they will go after them and nail them. Then it will be up to the parents to turn around and sue Aspen for fraudulent misrepresentation.

There is really no need to argue this. You have your weak defense for the terrified, soon to be audited program parents and we've contacted the IRS via GAO with news of Aspen's confession and current legal exposure. Right on good time, Reuben. You were a pain in the ass as the who, but now that you've been dragged into the daylight like a squirming worm you have been a great opponent of Aspen, albeit only because you are a narcissistic braggart and a terminal fuck up.

Bruce, you lose again.  Apparently you use the short form.... Oh, that word at the bottom "Link" is useful and foreign to you...but it comes in handy.  Try it sometime.!!

“Publication 502”

Link

[Anonymous]

Nice spin. But you are wrong, the deductions are not valid and you think too highly of accountants. You are either naive or trying to deflect attention from a potentially devastating blow to Aspen. The Feds will not be as warm and fuzzy toward the parents, they will go after them and nail them. Then it will be up to the parents to turn around and sue Aspen for fraudulent misrepresentation.

There is really no need to argue this. You have your weak defense for the terrified, soon to be audited program parents and we've contacted the IRS via GAO with news of Aspen's confession and current legal exposure. Right on good time, Reuben. You were a pain in the ass as the who, but now that you've been dragged into the daylight like a squirming worm you have been a great opponent of Aspen, albeit only because you are a narcissistic braggart and a terminal fuck up.

Bruce, you lose again.  Apparently you use the short form.... Oh, that word at the bottom "Link" is useful and foreign to you...but it comes in handy.  Try it sometime.!!

“Publication 502”

Link

Here's a picture for you John D. Reuben of STICC.  Just one of the reasons you'll boil in the bowels of hell for eternity.  Choke on it.


This is how John D. Reuben and Lon Woodbury react when their bread and butter program implodes.  Surely you two EdCon whores are not worried about your reputations?  This fresh coat of shit must really shatter your delusions.

Stopped reading at the Bruce part.

Not the Bruce, paranoid and desperate freak.  Come on.  Robert Bruce isn't the only Fornitscator who knows what a pig you are.  You are pissed, though.  Out come the ad hominem attacks on anonymous posters as you frantically try to attach identities to them so you can make personal attacks.  Glad to see you are now clearly identified and revealed to be as fucked up as we thought.  This is how John D. Reuben and

[Whooter]

Not the Bruce, paranoid and desperate freak.

Using ad hominems on yourself isnt going to throw everyone off, Bruce.  Oh, wait!!  you never guest post, we forgot (wink).

[Anonymous]

Bruce, you lose again.  Apparently you use the short form.... Oh, that word at the bottom "Link" is useful and foreign to you...but it comes in handy.  Try it sometime.!!

“Publication 502”

Link

Why would you post a link to allowable medical and dental deductions when we're talking about a non-treatment program?  It makes you look like a clueless ass.  Aspen does not provide any form of medical treatment, so it makes no sense for you to post this.  Are you getting all emotional and sloppy?  Tighten up, Aspen can't afford to have you digging the hole deeper for them.

This is close to what Aspen does, but it is "not includable":


Baby Sitting, Childcare, and Nursing
Services for a Normal, Healthy Baby

You cannot include in medical expenses amounts you pay
for the care of children, even if the expenses enable you,
your spouse, or your dependent to get medical or dental
treatment. Also, any expense allowed as a childcare credit
cannot be treated as an expense paid for medical care.


Gosh, John.  All the allowable deductions have words like "medical" and "treatment attached.  There's nothing about allowing deductions for a non-clinical warehouse for teenagers that openly admits it provides not a shred of any recognized medical treatment.  

Those are the facts John.  They have been laid out clearly and despite your efforts not to, you have brought more damning facts to the table in your hamfisted and idiotic attempts to defend AEG.

[Anonymous]

Not the Bruce, paranoid and desperate freak.

Using ad hominems on yourself isnt going to throw everyone off, Bruce.  Oh, wait!!  you never guest post, we forgot (wink).

You must rub one out to the Bruce three times a day, killer.

I give the admins permission to confirm I am NOT Robert Bruce, which should drive Reuben's paranoia meter into the red.