P.U.R.E ....1 WWASPS....0

[Anonymous]

This is what Carey said about the media footage:

Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen. A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.

Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs. So the need of urgency is less important to them. The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list. I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first. I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view. Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."

I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website. However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them. He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.

I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen. I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.

Carey



It seems it was more important for the footage to be held and used to help PURE than to help kids.  Seems she just wanted it shown.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please tell me what it is that PURE exactly won.  Did they prove child abuse?  Did they win some kind of compensation?  When you say they won, what do you mean they won?  What were they trying to accomplish with this case?

[Anonymous]

carey,

There were other options to help the kids then the footage you seemed so concerned about.It came out in the inside edition footage.

What I remember you were so fixated on the raped of the traumatized young girl's story.You must have her experience documented for the judge.
You were,are a self serving, selfish individual.

Helping kids is really not your thing.

You sold out to wwasp way to cheaply.

Like a cheap corner you know what.

The so called conspiracy was found to be unfounded too.  What a joke.

The doors have been opened for a big one. YEA!

[spots]

As I understand it...

PURE was being sued by WWASPS for "business infringement" or somesuch.  That means that PURE was bad-mouthing WWASPS (don't use them; use what we direct you to [PURE is an Ed Con]).  Such bad-mouthing WITHOUT PROOF is contrary to federal law about slander.  If you cause a business to lose BUSINESS because you say untrue things about them [this hairstylist has an unsanitary and unhealthy shop, so come to mine], you can be sued. WWASPS took a big gamble that PURE would fold its cards; they lost.  The court victory for PURE is that they did, in fact, not say anything truly false.  PURE "won", but unless monetary damages were assessed, WWASPS should only have to pay court costs that PURE incurred while defending itself from this case.  Even that may not have been part of the case, and PURE may be out lawyers' fees...but I doubt it.  WWASPS tried to bully yet-another voice.  Bad move, WWASPS.  What were you thinking?

While I don't support PURE because I personally think sending a kid off sucks, I must admire Sue Scheff for carrying through.  This court case may seem like small potatoes for the media, but WE can lead them onto the story...with additional graphic details...and it may prove to be the little crumbling block at the base of the House of Cards that is WWASPS.

[Anonymous]

"What I remember you were so fixated on the raped of the traumatized young girl's story.You must have her experience documented for the judge. "


Carey had a rape vitims experience documented for the judge?  Was Carey there?

[Anonymous]

Spots if I understand correctly, you are saying PURE did not win anything but nor did they lose anything.  There was no monetary settlement? There were no kids removed from programs?  Basically as I understand it...BOTH...PURE and WWASP are free to place children in unregulated, risky, and for the most part dangerous programs?

Sounds like a victory to me... :flame: But not for the teens. :flame:

[Anonymous]

This lawsuit was never about 'removing kids' from programs, unfortunately. It was all about PURE defending itself from W's claim.

How this could become a 'victory for the kids' is if the media picks up on the evidence of abuse that was revealed during testimony, and does a good job of presenting it to the public. It could give credibility to future claims of abuse. In regards to the media, it sometimes takes a court case to get their attention.

[Anonymous]

First, and most important, what evidence was revealed?  Second, why could the evidence not have been revealed to the media prior to this case?

[Anonymous]

Lots of evidence was reveled. I can't think of anything that hasn't been in the press or on these forums all ready  -
But what makes the difference was that the evidence was presented in Federal court; under oath; by the very people who experienced it; and their credibility was absolutely indisputable!!
I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law.
Well, they might try (What a bunch of snakes)but it will be easily proven a lie after this week.
It is a big deal folks.

[Anonymous]

"I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law."

The abuse was proven?  You are saying that the court has made the statement that abuse was proven? If so, is the prosecutor taking criminal action against WWASP?

[Anonymous]

the dog cage film was on Inside Edition years ago as I understand it.

[Anonymous]

maybe the insurance co will go after WWASP to recover their attorney costs??

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind this was a civil case and so its not like there was a prosecutor present. Under these circumstances, the closest thing to a prosecutor would have been wwasp's attorneys.
It was the jury of 12 who all say abuse was proven by the verdict they gave.

However, one would hope that there are prosecutors who will hear of this and take action.

And for those of you who are still trying to defend Carey, keep in mind you are trying to do so with her statements; and she has well proven her total lack of integrity.

I was there, and I know what went down, and she has presented a very warped and twisted version of events.

In light of her actions, I can not understand how you can fail to accept this.

But please lets not get into yet another long thread on the virtue, or lack thereof, of mz Bock.
This is truly Not about her.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-08-07 09:16:00, Anonymous wrote:

""I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law."



The abuse was proven?  You are saying that the court has made the statement that abuse was proven? If so, is the prosecutor taking criminal action against WWASP?





"

Standards of proof, legally, may be an issue on whether a DA will pursue criminal charges---even if you have the best DA in the world.

In a defamation suit, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence.  Basically WWASPS had to prove that it was 51% likely, or more, that the things Sue and PURE were saying were false.

They lost their case, but all that means is that a court found that it was *at least* 50% likely that Sue and PURE were telling the truth.

The problem with taking it to criminal court is that just because there's a 50% level of proof that what Sue and PURE said was true, doesn't mean that there's a 95% level of proof that what they said was true.  And 95%, or "beyond a reasonable doubt" is what you have to prove for a criminal conviction.

Then, even if you have a 95% level of proof that it happened, for criminal court you have to be able to prove not just that it happened, but who did what to whom, and when, and which laws it broke, and that the statute of limitations has not expired on it.

And if you don't have all that, then even the most honest and sincere and competent DA in the world won't take it into court and spend the money and the resources on it, because he won't be able to get a conviction.

*BUT* if someone does something bad, the statute of limitations may expire before they get caught and protect them from criminal prosecutions, but as long as what you're saying is true, you can *talk* about it forever.

It's why OJ was acquitted of criminal charges but found responsible in civil court---the burden of proof in civil court is much lower, because you're not talking about people going to jail, you're just talking about money changing hands.

Timoclea

[Anonymous]

What WWASPS really lost here is that there are rules of evidence in a Court of Law, and the Court goes to much greater lengths to find the truth, and both sides get heard---so the evidence presented in Court on Sue and PURE's behalf has a lot more credibility now than it had two weeks ago.

The other thing WWASPS lost is that people who oppose them can cite the official court records all over the Internet, and hand them out as leaflets at protests, etc., and WWASPS can't get away with threatening the people who cite those records with lawsuits.

They can threaten, but if they actually bring suit against someone for citing that court testimony, the defendant's lawyer will have an *excellent* counterclaim for all court costs based on abuse of process and bringing a frivolous lawsuit----and they're going to have an interesting time finding halfway decent lawyers who will actually be willing to file those suits.

So basically, if all you're doing is citing the testimony from the Court case in criticizing WWASPS, they can threaten until they're blue in the face and you can just ignore them.

They're inability to use their lawyers in the future to intimidate critics into silence is a huge PR loss for them.

Timoclea
(I'm not a lawyer)