Chew on this for a while!

[Carey]

Somewhere in another thread I told ya'll I would give WWASP my emails. So why you are now surprised I did, I don't understand. I could have said no and had them subpoened or I could attempt to negotiate with them and have them pay for them. Afterall, I incurred a lot of expense removing my boys from a program that I did not want them in. I chose the later. It was going to cost WWASP one way or another to get them, whether it be incurring legal expenses or paying for the inconvience it caused me. If you have a problem with that...well, its your problem.

When I have more time, I will share with you something else that was uncovered in this depostion. Well briefly let me throw this out there for you. If you found out that your child was in a program that you felt was abusive and if you appealed to the director of that program for help and hit nothing but rock solid walls, as she was not willing to help, only to find out later that this same director who refused to help you at the time they were in the program once again refused to help you to protect your child from further abuse in being sent  back to the program by making a statement that could be used in court would not do so, but then was more than willing to help PURE by providing them with a statement, a company that places kids in these risky programs (adults that is, a business, not children who are or who had been subjected to abuse, but adults making money off of this business) would you start to question the motives and the story of that director?

Just and FYI, there is a lot more to that (the director's involvment) which you will be seeing more of in the future.  That is not over...she was responsible for the wellbeing of my kids for approximately 5 months of their 7 month stay at Dundee.  If she knew about the proported abuse and did not report it...she is just as guilty as those commiting the abuse.  She is also responsible for the months after my boys returned home and the fact that they were afraid of being sent back.  

Is she hooking up with Sue because she wants to stay in the "teen help" business because she too has the potential for earnings therein?  Is it really about abuse with these people or is about something else?






[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-12 07:40 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-12 07:44 ]

[Anonymous]

omg   on an earlier thread you said you contacted them first!!!  if you hadnt contacted them and offered they would not have known!!! loser

[Anonymous]

How did wwasp know about your emails?  Why would they subpeona yours and no one elses?  Why won't you tell everyone the truth?  You called them, not the other way and offered to sell them?  Thats right, honesty is not one of your better qualities.  I am not sure what is, I haven't seen any.

[Carey]

Could they have read it on a public forum just like you did? Think big...don't limit yourself to narrow minded thinking.

Now how about addressing the second paragraph in my original post this morning.  Care to comment?

Why were they interested in mine?  Probably because they were mostly with PURE and the trekers people.  But you really should ask them that question, I can't speak for others like you tend to do.

[Froderik]

It seems odd that WWASP would shell out 12500.00 to someone for something that they could just as well take from them by subpoena. This doesn't follow the lines of reason. Any seasoned legal "experts" out there? :lol:

[Froderik]

Jesus Christ, Carey...could this sentence be any longer or grammatically convoluted??

If you found out that your child was in a program that you felt was abusive and if you appealed to the director of that program and hit nothing but rock solid walls only to find out later that this same person who refused to help you to protect your child from further abused refused to but then was willing to help others who prosper off of this same unregulated industry (adults that is who are not being abused) would you start to question the motives and the story of that director?

Would you mind rephrasing that, please? (And anon, don't even go there, wiseguy...that sentence is a mess, anyone can see that)

[ This Message was edited by: Froderik13 on 2003-12-12 08:56 ]

[Carey]

From: "Amberly Knight"
>To: "Director"
>Subject: Dundee News Update
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:03:52 -0600
>
>Dear Parents and Friends,
>
>I have recently been presented with some different options in my life, and
>I
>have made the very difficult decision of leaving Dundee Ranch to pursue
>these other options.  I feel very blessed to have had the opportunity to
>meet so many of you and to work with your teens.  I want you to know how
>much I love you and support you.  I believe in the program because of the
>changes I have seen in so many lives.  You are giving them the opportunity
>of the lifetime, and I applaud your courage and commitment to their change.
>
>My co-directors, Joe Atkin and Kenny Wilson, will be assuming my
>responsibilities. Joe has been here since the program opened.  Kenny has
>four years of experience with the program in Carolina Springs.  I have full
>confidence in their abilities to continue improving things here at Dundee
>Ranch.  I will miss you all.  Best luck to you now and in the future.
>
>Love,
>Amberly
>Amberly Knight
>Director, Academy at Dundee Ranch
>011-506-428-7000 x 28

[Froderik]

Nice job rephrasing that statement there, Carey... :silly:

And: Do you mind telling us what this letter is supposed to prove, if anything?

[Carey]

Frog, go back and read the subtitle.  

Looks like you have a problem reading short sentences too.

For someone who claims to have no personal involvement in this particular case, you sure seem to take it as though you do.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-12 10:08 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-12 10:10 ]

[Froderik]

Yeah, I read the subtitle. That post answers none of the above questions whatsoever, scatterbrain..

[Carey]

If it need be explained to you...then you have a bigger delima than I thought.

I am really sorry Frog, but I don't think explaining the situation to you is prudent, afterall you don't have a personal stake in this PURE/WWASP debacle.  You are just angry with me for, as you put it, "snitching," remember. So let me give you peace. I am sorry if I offended you with my disclosure of PURE.  Hope that helps.

[Froderik]

Quit beating around the bush then, and answer the questions presented above. Please. ::ftard::

[ This Message was edited by: Froderik13 on 2003-12-12 10:28 ]

[Carey]

That post answers none of the above questions whatsoever, scatterbrain

What above question?  If you are talking about the letter, I asked if it were authentic.  Are you asking me a question about why I am asking a question.  What are you the Riddler?

[Froderik]

I can't believe you are so dumb. I truly pity you.

question
Posted: 2003-12-12 07:35:00

I'll give a hint. It's back in this very same thread. Do you think you can find it?

[Carey]

I am really trying to help you here.  Is this the question you are refering to:

It seems odd that WWASP would shell out 12500.00 to someone for something that they could just as well take from them by subpoena. This doesn't follow the lines of reason. Any seasoned legal "experts" out there?