Author Topic: One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W  (Read 9003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« on: January 12, 2004, 03:09:00 PM »
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2 ... -4985r.htm

Justice refuses child welfare probe
By Thomas Houlahan
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- The Justice Department has declined a request from a California congressman for an investigation of a controversial program designed to modify the behavior of troubled teenagers.

On Nov. 3, Rep. George Miller, senior Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, asked the department to launch a formal investigation of the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and its founders.

WWASPS is an umbrella organization based in St. George, Utah, that oversees seven behavior modification facilities in the United States and two abroad. Many of the facilities are owned or run by family members of the corporation's founders. An estimated 2,400 children are enrolled in these residential programs at a yearly cost of between $30,000 and $54,000 per child in tuition and fees. The program's first facility was opened in 1987.

On Tuesday, Miller's office received formal notification of the department's decision not to investigate WWASPS. Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella said while the Justice Department has the authority to investigate complaints concerning conditions in public institutions, "this authority does not extend to facilities outside the United States or purely privately owned facilities."

"I find the Justice Department's decision puzzling," said a congressional staff member on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Congressman Miller asked the DOJ (Department of Justice) to investigate a number of allegations, including fraudulent and deceptive advertising, fraud and unjust enrichment under the Internal Revenue Code, and violations of other federal civil or criminal laws. These are allegations that the Justice Department clearly has the authority to investigate. It seems that DOJ has chosen one narrow area over which it has no authority and is using it to justify sidestepping the problem." Moschella declined to comment in response.

In his letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Miller said "there have been serious allegations that hundreds of children have been mistreated or neglected," and that there are "hundreds of parents who assert that they were drawn into the program by misleading advertising."

Miller cited an "extensive and consistent pattern of abuse," and said that he was "very concerned that the health and welfare of hundreds of children may be in jeopardy."

"WWASPS, formerly known as Teen Help, has had problems with the law since its inception," Miller wrote. He said since 1996, seven WWASPS/Teen Help facilities (two in the United States, five abroad) have closed after running afoul of the law.

In May last year, a facility called Dundee Ranch Academy in Costa Rica closed after authorities there charged the facility with violating the children's civil rights and the health code. A Costa Rican government inquiry found that:

-- Many of the youth appeared to be ill;

-- The levels of nutrition and food provided were limited;

-- The hygiene of the facilities was inadequate;

-- Living quarters were overcrowded;

-- Medical care was inadequate, and

-- The punishments given were considered physical abuse and psychological abuse and were prohibited under Costa Rican law.

"The Federal Government must take greater action and initiative to safeguard American youth in WWASPS programs in the United States and overseas," Miller wrote.

"There is a laundry list of abuse of children at WWASPS schools: deprivation of food, deprivation of contact with their peers, physical abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse, and parents are paying big money for services not rendered," Miller added in a Nov. 6 news release.

A written response to Miller from Ken Kay, president of WWASPS, said the organization had been unfairly portrayed in the news media.

"We feel strongly that WWASPS and its schools have been distorted by the media," Kay wrote. Kay invited Miller to visit WWASPS' facilities. Miller declined, contending that such visits should be undertaken by trained investigators with law enforcement powers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2004, 03:15:00 PM »
Maybe some of you might like to tell the White House what you think about this.

Contacting the White House

Mailing Address

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500


Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2004, 03:21:00 PM »
This wasn't unexpected.
There is a process to go threw and this was step one. Now that the J.D. has declined, as was expected, they'll move to step two.
There is a methoid to the maddness.

But by all means, tell the White House how disapointing it is that the Justice Department hasn't got the gumption to tackel this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2004, 05:03:00 PM »
What qualifies as purely private?  How many of these programs in the industry accept FEDERAL and STATE money (i.e.g School district paying tuition under Idea Act (IEP's)?  Don't know if WWASPS does it, but Elan does and I'm sure there are others.  What about wilderness programs?  I thought some of these programs qualify for insurance payments toward enrollment cost?

 :???:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline kaydeejaded

  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2004, 05:13:00 PM »
In my mind it shouldn't matter if it is purely private. Shouldn't the civil rights extend into private institutions. If they are going to use that arguement where does the line begin and end?

Come in the evening, or come in the morning; Come when you 're looked for, or come without warning.
-- Thomas O. Davis (1814-1845): The Welcome.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
or those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don\'t, none will do

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2004, 06:17:00 PM »
Don't know if they receive funds, but here's a situation in which a parent requested to be reimbursed after enrolling their child... and was denied.

http://www.ode.state.or.us/sped/spedleg ... 98-143.pdf

FINAL ORDER A.B. v West Linn-Wilsonville S.D.,

Page 13 ?If a child with a disability has FAPE available and the parents choose to place the child in a private school or facility, the public agency is not required by this part to pay for the child?s education at the private school or facility. . . .? (emphasis added) 34 CFR Sec. 300.403(a)

Because:
a. No notice was provided by the parents to the District which would have afforded the opportunity to reconsider, and if appropriate change A.B.?s IEP; and
b. The District IEP was reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit in the least restrictive environment; and
c. The private school placement was not for educational purposes, did not utilize any IEP, and, at best, provided minimal education of any kind: The request for reimbursement is denied.

ORDER: The parents of A.B. are not entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses they incurred in placing her at Cross Creek. Their request is denied.
Date: April 6, 1999
Thomas B. Hebert, Hearing Officer TBH:jeo NOTICE

TO ALL PARTIES: If you are dissatisfied with this Order you may, within 120 days after the mailing date on this Order, commence a nonjury civil action in any state court of competent jurisdiction, ORS 343.175, or in the United States District Court, 20 U.S.C. ยง 1415(e)(2). Failure to request review within the time allowed will result in LOSS OF YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER.
------------------------------------------
Page 14
FINAL ORDER A.B. v West Linn-Wilsonville S.D., Page 14 ENTERED at Salem, Oregon this 6th day of April, 1999 with copies mailed to: Judie Lane, Oregon Department of Education, Public Service Building, 255 Capitol St. N.E., Salem, OR 97310-0203
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2004, 06:49:00 PM »
http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/agenda/yr20 ... da1102.pdf

ITEM W-13 Request by Pacific Grove Unified School District to waive Education Code (EC) Section 56366.1(a), certification for an uncertified
nonpublic school, Cross Creek Manor located in LaVerkin, Utah, to provide services to one special education student, Wendy D.
CDSIS-11-8-2002
(Recommended for APPROVAL)
ACTION
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2004, 08:55:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-01-12 12:15:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Maybe some of you might like to tell the White House what you think about this.



Contacting the White House


<


Considering Pres. Bush supports National Families in Action, good luck!  Rep Miller was not given accurate information and by now he is aware of the scheme and agenda of the "nameless" You know who you are .   ::mecry::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2004, 09:25:00 PM »
Why would Rep. Miller even ask for a DOJ investigation unless he felt confident about the source(s) of his information?  Does not make sense.  

 :???:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2004, 11:34:00 PM »
That's too bad.  WWASPS welcomes an investigation.  That can certainly be a plus and the truth would finally be told.   :nworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2004, 07:35:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-01-12 20:34:00, Anonymous wrote:

"That's too bad.  WWASPS welcomes an investigation.  That can certainly be a plus and the truth would finally be told.   :nworthy: "


Thats a real joke.....WWASP would have them see what they want to see which is a far cry from the truth of the situation.  How easy it is to set up an appt and make things look pretty.

If a drug house or criminal was given a heads up before the police came I am sure it would no longer look like a drug house and the evidence needed to convict a criminal would vanish.  Does that mean someone didn't die, get raped, or buy crack?    UMMMMMMMMMMMM   NOT!

The only truth that would be told is what you want the truth to look like.  Seems to me there are plenty of parents that have been telling the truth (not manipulation of their angels (Pun intended)).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2004, 10:29:00 PM »
The last poster doesn't think an investigation would be worthwhile because of what?  Do investigations need an appointment?  

Betcha Ashcroft knows about the agenda of the competition and is smart enough not to get sucked in.  

The only purpose it would serve is to show the kids are safe and are not having the same kind of fun they did before they went.  Boohoo  ::boohoo:: I'm sure HE views it as a waste of time.  I wish he would do it just to spite some of you all.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2004, 12:06:00 AM »
I wish he would enforce federal postal laws and send in cops with letters, pens, papers, envelopes, and a postman with the inmates mail--hand-deliver their mail to them.  Stand there and let them write to anybody they friggin' want with no staff looking over their shoulders as they write, take the addressed envelopes on the way out the door, and come right back next week with mail call again.

Give 'em the letter of family and children's services every time.  Show periodic videos of what constitutes abuse and is actionable so the staff can't brainwash the kids that so-and-so isn't *really* abuse.

Then investigate every single allegation, refuse to take the crap line "they all lie," question the kid separate from the staff---and wherever the kid maintains he/she is being abused, yank him or her right out and put him or her in foster care.

Let the parents go through family court where a judge can order a shrink to look at the parents as well as the kids, and if the parents are loopy and the kid is within the reasonable ranges of normal, then don't let the loopy parents have the kid back.

The worst of the schools would shut down for lack of enrollment inside of a year, and after the shakeout, what was left would be the better places that were able to adapt to *not* inducing Stockholm Syndrome---after the kids were all guaranteed mail call, the facilities would no longer be able to.

That particular abuse, at least, would be out of their arsenal.

Anyplace that keeps a kid from sending and recieving his/her own mail is committing federal offenses with every single instance.

Strictly enforcing just that one, single, existing law would do a world of good.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
One More Reason to Despise Ashcroft- Refuse to Investigate W
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2004, 01:39:00 AM »
"Anyplace that keeps a kid from sending and recieving his/her own mail is committing federal offenses with every single instance.

Strictly enforcing just that one, single, existing law would do a world of good. "


 :question:
don't know what program you were in, but it wasn't wwasps!  I agree that any program that would keep a kid from writing or getting mail from their parents is wrong.  Who does that?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »