WWASP Sues Reporter

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-04 20:39:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I agree with Anon except I wonder if WWASPS knows (or discovered) something about this guy that compelled them to file suit?  It just doesn't seem logical that they would take on UPI without good cause.  Second, what about the direct-action lawsuit and the current litigation involving PURE?  Why would they want to over extend themselves?  Doesn't make sense, IMHO. "

It happens all the time.  People get insulated from the outside world from hanging with their own little group, and they think the group's standards of right and wrong and what's acceptable behavior is what "all right-thinking people" think.  So they file lawsuits that make perfect sense from the group's internal perspective but make no damned sense from an outside world perspective.

And, they hope fear of lawsuits will deter critics whether they actually have a case or not.

I think the WWASPSies are so convinced that what they do is their own private business that they're incapable of realizing they're going to be found to be public figures practically right off in any defamation suit regarding the issue of teen behavior mod facilities.

I also think they're so internally insulated that they're incapable of realizing that their *internal* standard of proof---pounding the table and repeating the mantra, "they're all lying druggies"--is not going to impress the court as proof that whatever the defendant said was actually false.

Most cases that go to court instead of getting settled---and there are a *lot* of cases that go through the courts---go not because reasonable people well-informed on the law and in touch with reality would disagree about who's right and who's wrong.

Most cases that actually make it into court make it in because either the defendant or the plaintiff is in deep denial and really expects the court to find for him even though he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

One of the reasons we have courts is not just to decide genuinely borderline issues, but to ensure that, when someone's deeply deluded in a way that causes them to blatantly commit crimes or torts OR blatantly unreasonably accuse others of crimes or torts, the deluded guy's reality check finally bounces.

Reality is that your average joe can go on and on and on about how he or she "experiences" reality and get farther and farther out from objective reality with almost no hard reality intervening---until it gets to the courts and the verdict comes in and it doesn't matter how joe "experiences" whatever, the court holds him accountable to the laws and standards of society as a whole.

WWASPS filing a suit where they have no case makes no sense *if* WWASPS is run by rational actors in full touch with objective reality.

WWASPS filing a suit where they have no case makes *perfect* sense if WWASPS is run by people disconnected from reality by groupthink who *irrationally believe* they have a case, when they don't.

To predict the behavior of a crazy person, you can't ask what behavior would be rational or crazy with respect to actual reality.  You have to ask what behavior *seems* rational to the crazy person (or crazy organization) in the context of what he, she, or they inaccurately *perceive* reality to be.

Bottom line:  It makes perfect sense for them to file a suit where they have no case if they're nuts.

[Anonymous]

I see your point, Anon.  Guess the only *rational* thing to do is wait and see what the complaint says (or doesn't say, as the case may be). In the meantime, I am curious as to what this guy published?  So far, I can find nothing on the Internet.

[Kiwi]

Why would they want to over extend themselves?

Are you kidding?  With their money they could sue half the planet.

[Kiwi]

This is where the reporter has opened himself up to a law suit. Who told this reporter about the abuse? Was it teens? Was it those that witnessed the abuse? Who ever it was, they were the ones who should have been talking to this parent, not the reporter.

I don't see how this reporter could reasonably have done anything differently.  He heard an allegation.  It doesn't matter if he heard it from the kids, from Sue, from an Anon on Fornits or from the devil himself.  It makes no difference.

He did what any responsible reporter would do; he checked it out by interviewing everybody involved including the parents.  Its difficult to ask someone what they know about an allegation without mentioning the allegation.  Then he gets sued.

As I see it, the only other options he could have taken are:
1. Ignore the allegation (because as every program parent knows, they are always lies).
2. Go into print without interviewing the parents, in which case they would have been the first to complain that he didn't speak to them.

[Anonymous]

Well, maybe if these referral services would stop feeding kids to the teen help industry, these organizations would not be such fat cats and would have to seriously think twice before filing lawsuits against their critics.  

Can we say KA-CHING, here?!!

 :wave:

[Anonymous]

A question has been asked how this reporter even got involved in this story?  Let's start there.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of MONEY. I would think the IRS will be interested in THEIR MONEY too.

   :smile:

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-05 10:00:00, Anonymous wrote:

"A question has been asked how this reporter even got involved in this story?  Let's start there."

Yes, why DID this reporter start an 8 month long investigation?  Do tell.

 ::bigsmilebounce::

[Anonymous]

Not necessarily "Nuts."  Definately methodically arrogant,deceptive,harrassment.

Thomas has enough student testimonies to stubstantiate his efforts to enlighten the parent to the truth. He will have good fun with this one.

I hope the Judge in Utah stops to thimk: Maybe,just maybe there is some truth to all of this on going complaints of "allege" abuse..

[Carey]

Does anyone have the email address or the phone number for this reporter?  If so please post it.

I have a lot of information that I would like to share with him.  

Thanks!

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 10:38 ]

[Anonymous]

Because the teens can't talk freely with their parents. We all know that (apart from those whose heads are stuck resolutely in the sand).

Kiwi, I was asking why the teens who had previously been at Ivy Ridge did not tell the parents about the alleged abuse.  I was not asking why the kids in the program did not tell the parents, but the kids who are now out saying that it happened to them.  The reporter lost his objectivity when he became an active part of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anyone with a PACER account can read the complaint online. The Case # is 2:04cv00107

Search by Case # or Party Name:
World Wide Association of Specialty Schools

[Carey]

Thanks.  For all of those who don't have Pacer, I will post it for you this evening.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-02-05 10:23:00, Anonymous wrote:

"



Not necessarily "Nuts."  Definately methodically arrogant,deceptive,harrassment.



Thomas has enough student testimonies to stubstantiate his efforts to enlighten the parent to the truth. He will have good fun with this one.



I hope the Judge in Utah stops to thimk: Maybe,just maybe there is some truth to all of this on going complaints of "allege" abuse..



"

I don't mean "nuts" in the sense of having a clinically diagnosable mental illness.

I'm calling the industry "nuts" in the sense of having perceptions and beliefs that are substantially disconnected from reality.

In that sense, arrogance is a form of "nuts"---arrogance is the misperception that you can either fool all of the people all of the time or that you can come a lot closer to doing so than you really can.

The only *rational* thing WWASPS could be planning that could lead to winning this case would be if *either* the reporter's sources were provably not present to witness the events they said they witnessed *or* if WWASPS could intimidate enough sources into not testifying or changing their testimony that they could make it look like true allegations were false *or* if WWASPS had something nobody knew they had, like comprehensive video and audio surveillance recordings, to prove conclusively that the allegations were false.

Personally, I don't think they have a prayer.  Defamation suits brought by public figures rarely win.

A possible rational motivation for taking a loser of a defamation suit into court would be the ability to spin the case and its outcome to the parents who are WWASPS customers.  If the parents are too lazy to read the case transcripts, or too inclined to keep drinking the kool-aid, WWASPS could spin a loss in court into a travesty of justice by the mean old court system that just doesn't understand.

[Kiwi]

World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) seeks unspecified damages in the federal civil suit

You know, it has only just struck me, WWASPS is suing Houlahan, not Ivy Ridge.  Does this mean they have finally given up pretending they are just a referral agency and the schools are independent?