Anybody Heard of This Organization?

[Anonymous]

http://www.assyrianvoice.org/homes_for_ ... _teens.htm

It is registered to someone named JW Starks in Cincinnati, Ohio

Thanks!

[Antibody?]

They all make money by referring to schools - There are 700 GULAGS in the US and MORE educational consultants who refer to them. Time for revolution?

[Anonymous]

Skip revolution.  Just change the damned laws so that placement out of country triggers custody hearings, and placement in country requires both a court order, with the teen represented by a family and childre's services caseworker AND a psychological/psychiatric evaluation of the parent(s) and/or all adults living in the household with the teen.  If significant mental troubles on the part of one or more of the adults is found, allow the teen to opt to try foster care FIRST.

Also, evaluation triggering court order must be with  court appointed expert, not parent-selected expert.

Make criteria for commitment and of [ a) imminent danger to self; or b) imminent danger to others; or c) delinquent behavior ] AND setting is least restrictive option necessary to provide treatment.

IOW, except for c, the same criteria for involuntarily committing an adult.

Provide that kidlet has to be transferred to least restrictive setting as soon as imminent danger that triggered commitment is stabilized.

Make failure to adhere to standards on part of parents count evidence parents are unfit, so even if authorities wink, wink, nudge, nudge and let the parent get the teen there, other relatives can fight them for custody.

[spots]

Love it, love it, love it!!!  Don't complain if you can't come up with some solution!  Very good ideas here.  

These parameters aren't even earth-shaking...more like common sense.  Use laws to:

a) make it impossible to incarcerate on a whim,
b) make it illegal to abuse children (duh), and set down and ENFORCE such laws [solitary confinement, food deprivation, physical restraint are already "illegal", so why can these BM facilities get away with it?]
c) make it have consequences of great magnitude for violations of the above.

[Antigen]

It all sounds pretty good, but remember that these people already break laws all the time. It's just damned near impossible to get law enforcement to act against them.

The Baker Act was initially supposed to do all that you propose here. Here's how the State of Florida acually applies it:
http://www5.myflorida.com/cf_web/myflor ... alth/laws/

It's already illegal to drug or shackle anyone except under strict guidelines pertaining to law enforcement and medical/mental health facilities and professionals. You just try getting the DOJ to act against unlicensed 'escorts' who advertise right out in the open that they break these laws every day for a living.

Trying to hem these people in with more laws while the public and law enforcement are largely in their camp is going to be about as effective as sending up a chain of command that staff doesn't want to get. You'll spend a whole lot of time, money and hope trying to force the legislature to change the language in various statutes. But the industry will respond quicker and more easily than that by pretending to comply with the spirit of the law, just as they've always done.

I think the only real value in pursuing new laws is that it will at least generate debate and investigation. At the end of the day, though, we are living in a society that wants to believe that teenagers are dangerous and hostile beasts that need to be broken, tamed and trained like wild horses. That has to change. It's a much bigger problem than just some legal language. But I think it's what we have to deal with.

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.
http://laissezfairebooks.com/product.cfm?op=view&pid=FF7485&aid=10247' target='_new'>Thomas Jefferson

[Antigen]

Here's an example. Something that just landed in my mailbox from a drug policy reform list. Those of you who are allergic to the drug policy reform issue, please hold you nose just for a few minutes and consider that I might have a valid point. We're working against the same people. Not just people of like mind, but the very same individuals. And we're not the ones dragging the drug issue into everything, they are.

http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/sum ... %2C00.html

Senate Bill Could Rework ONDCP Ad Campaign
11/14/2003

A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate would remove the ad agency Ogilvy & Mather from the White House's anti-drug media campaign and force the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to share control over the project with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), Ad Week reported Nov. 10.

The bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), reflects deep dissatisfaction with a campaign that has shown mixed results. "This bill reflects a concern about how the program has been managed in the past," one congressional source said.

Lawmakers are upset that Ogilvy & Mather was awarded the contract for the ad campaign again after the agency settled civil charges over its billing practices. In addition, lawmakers are displeased with the public feuding over creative control between the ONDCP and PDFA.

Under the Senate bill, an agency would be hired to handle the media aspect of the campaign, while the PDFA would handle the creative end.

See what they're doing here? The ONDCP gets some millions every year to promote Mel and Betty's agenda. It's all a pack of lies, so naturally enough it always fails to have the intended effect. So what do the politicos do? Why, they pick a scapegoat to throw to the wolves and go on pretending that what they're doing is good and right and worthwhile.

Here's how some other people are approaching the same problem:

Now Available Online:
 
The Cultural  Baggage radio show from Tuesday, Nov 18th, featuring Judge
Eleanor Shockett is now online at:  http://www.cultural-baggage.com/kpft.htm  
MP3  http://www.cultural-baggage.com/Audio/FDBCB_111803.mp3
RAM http://www.cultural-baggage.com/ramtorm/to111803.ram

I just did a quick count and there are now about 60 Cult Bag shows online
featuring judges, scientists, congressmen, district attornies and more, all
calling for an end to this nearly 89 year old jihad on our own people.

Men had better be without education than be educated by their rulers.

--Thomas Hodgskin

[Anonymous]

Ginger, I get your point that these scumbags are already breaking the laws that already exist, and that the authorities don't want to enforce the law.

That's why I want there to not only be clearly delineated procedures, I want not following those procedures and committing a kid to be defined in the law as *evidence that the parents are unfit*.

Because custody disputes are an adversarial process where someone who actually *cares about the kid* is in there with a lawyer fighting to win.

You can get law to work even when the authorities would rather look the other way---you do it by giving another party legal standing to take the matter into court and getting their lawyers into the fight.

You also stipulate in law that the complainant suing for custody has the right, and the child has the right and responsibility, to be physically present to give a preference.  You give the complainant the right to compel them to produce the kid for the custody hearing.

[Antigen]

On 2003-11-19 17:38:00, Anonymous wrote:

Because custody disputes are an adversarial process where someone who actually *cares about the kid* is in there with a lawyer fighting to win.

I'll agree that custody disputes are adversarial. But I don't know very many cases where the advocate(s) for the kid have really shown a whole lot of care for them. The trouble with just two parents and maybe a grandparent or two is that everyone involved believes they're the one who cares about the kid. That that can justify all sorts of really horrible and cruel behavior.

Being a street cop, witnessing the tragedy firsthand, I've become
convinced that drug prohibition -- not drugs themselves -- are driving the HIV epidemic and the systemic crime that has swamped our criminal justice systems.
--Vancouver Police Const. Gil Puder

[Anonymous]

I just think it would be an improvement, from seeing all these cases where the parents are split and one parent sticks the kid in a program--the changes would mean that if that parent didn't follow the rules and stuck the kid somewhere, anyway, that the other parent could use that to get custody and get the kid out.

Some of these kids are going to have adult siblings,  and maybe aunts or uncles, or adult cousins.

I know custody fights can be bad, but if the threat of a custody fight makes the programmed parent follow the rules---possibly getting them to realize a particular kid is *not* appropriate for placement in a program---or makes it easier for another relative to get an inappropriately placed kid out of a bad program, then it's an improvement.

It's not perfect, but I think it would help.

[Antigen]

But that's already the law. They just ignore it. Carey had joint custody of her boys but her ex just sent them off without telling her. When she went to get them, they were simply going to refuse to let them go with her. Had it not been for the hired beefcakes, they might have just called the local police and lied, just like the SAFElings did in Orlando when some friends of mine witnessed them assaulting and kidnapping a young man who tried to leave.

I think we just need a whole lot more people to put pressure on law enforcement to actually enforce laws against interfeing with custody like this. Then there are the laws requiring due process and/or psyche evaluation before a professional can administer psyche drugs or use restraints to force a kid or an adult to go or to stay where and with whom they don't want to be.

The weavers of linen and hempen cloth, ... may exercise their trades without paying any fine.
-- Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (chapter X, part II) notes:

[Antibody?]

Ginger is right,
I have, as a trained legislative activist, pursued enacting legislation to protect teens, the aged, and disabled folks form total guardianship.

I even tried to pass a law making it illegal in Idaho to hang up a single and do counseling without training. But all you would have had to do under my bill was register as a non-licensed counselor.That was too mush to ask. All were thrown out of comittie.

The Limited Guardiandhip rule was written into Idaho code. But Judges just continued to issue full guardianships without regard to competence in certain areas - removing all rights to self determination and giving all powers to the guardian. A board of guardians I was on tried to let a member buy a old lady's property after taking it from her. The chair lady had her husband shoot all the woman's dogs and cats and lied to the lady about it. The board was an agent of the Boundary County Idaho Board of Guardians. The members worked for agencies that profited from placement of "incompetent" people -the nursing home, the hospital, the rest home, hospital nurses etc. I quit due to this conflict, the corruption and because my boss - Board member and home health director said I better not resist putting people on guardianships or fighting the purchuse of property - she was employed by the county hospital.

Look, This is our legislative and judicial system at it's best. Don't waste your time folks - time would be better spent kicking butt.