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

[Anonymous]

PURE just won their case against wwasps.

[Antigen]

Really?

America when will you be angelic
When will you take off your clothes....
America after all it is you and I who are perfect
Not the next world.
--Allen Ginsberg

[Anonymous]

Just wait till you see the transcripts people.

Its such a shame they couldn't have a camera in the court room!!

Transcripts are great but no way can they convey the drama and emotion that was there during the testimony.

There are so many side stories that won't be in the transcripts.

Like the French film crew shadowing wwasp.
Like the student spectator who broke down sobbing as High Impact was explained and the film shot of the kids in dog cages was shown.
Like the spectator booted from court for making facial gestures at Ken Kay; and him complaining and asking why; and she telling him "Because your a liar."
Like Spence taking his thumb and popping his shorts every time he stood up. . . Must need larger panties.

[turbinekat]

Yes, Ginger...It is my understanding that a NOT guilty verdict was handed down on ALL accounts against the accused just minutes ago!!!  Grant it, this is second hand news...even if it is from five different people who were in the court room.

I didn't have the pleasure to see it in person...some of us have to work for a living!  No what I mean?

This should open the door for many more...just proving wwasps is NOT untouchable!!!

Regards,

Lee

[Antigen]

But define the term "won". What was the ruling? Is it apealable? What's the dish, woman?

Despite ongoing differences between me and Sue, I really want to believe the Utah court has come down on the side of allowing open discussion of the troubled parent industry. That would signal a real sea change.

My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character.
-- Charles Barkley, on hearing Tonya Harding proclaim herself "the Charles Barkley of figure skating"

[Anonymous]

I had to fly out last night and so was not present in the court room today - but word is spreading fast and I feel very secure in my sorce - She was exonerated on all counts.

I don't know if WWASP can apeal or not; But I swear - I can't imagian that they would dare try.

No kidding - wait till you get your mitts on the transcripts.

[turbinekat]

Ginger,

This is a very big victory for free speech...it's also a huge victory for parents against BIG business concerning their children...and these so called "programs" pertaining to children & their welfare.

This case alone should open some doors for many of the previous victims of these so called "experts" in the industry.

Let the good times roll...

Regards,

Lee[ This Message was edited by: turbinekat on 2004-08-06 16:33 ]

[Antigen]

So then, Lee, you've softened some in your views on free speech?

Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;

He who would search for perls must dive below.

Prolougue (from preface to
the Panther Book)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0510337112/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'>John Dryden, All for Love, Prolougue

[turbinekat]

In this case...and my opinion...I guess you could say I support freedom of speech when it's directed towards a corporation or business that tries to hide or silence its victims.  YES!

On the hypocrite side;

As long as it's the truth... I don't have a problem with someone speaking their mind.  I don't think it should harm individuals...however, in my favor...if I'm trying to convey a point who the hell cares!  Although, this process would probably warrant a law suit against ME personally.

My biggest issue would be the truth...of the matter!

This trial just proves...now this is my opinion...that someone may go out and spread the truth about someone harming them in some form or fashion.  Now who gets to decide harm?...I guess my son will find out whenever his legal experts get through with wwasps and their settlement offer?  I've yet to see it...been informed that it was on the way.

Would I ever sell out just to get MY money back...no, it's the principle & my hard head that get in the way.

Regards,

Lee

[turbinekat]

Ginger,

If you'd have told me three years ago that there were corporations that housed & abused children located here in the US...I'd have called you a liar...so YES my eyes have been opened very wide ever since witnessing these organizations first hand.

But now...I'll never give up on my children or any others for that matter in my old age.

Free speech has always been welcomed in MY house...not always agreed with but listened to.

Regards,

Lee

[Deborah]

So, what was Carey;s contribution?

[Antigen]

On 2004-08-06 15:26:00, Anonymous wrote:

Like the student spectator who broke down sobbing as High Impact was explained and the film shot of the kids in dog cages was shown.

This brings us back to the epoch. So then, the film footage really does exist? My understanding was that they put the kid in the garbage bin. But 6 of these, half dozen of the other. No difference at all.

But the original issue w/ Carey was that she wanted that footage released to the media... how many years ago now? And the argument against it was that it would jeopardize this highly vaunted court case (which, I note, has not pre-empted election coverage on Nightline tonight) And that's what got Carey booted from, and demonized by, the inner circle.

So... what about the kid in the cage? While the London Guardian was looking, you folks held onto it. When we all wanted to see it, you held onto it. Some folks even intimated that it might not exist. Frankly, I'd sort of concluded that it was all a bluff. Not an empty one, mind you. Knowing what I know from firsthand experience about the lengths to which zealots will go, I don't doubt that there's a few dozen or so kids locked up in dangerous and humiliating cages, pits, closets and "timeout" rooms around the country and the teritories we control diplomatically even as we fritter away the hours typing about it.

But, if you had the footage, why in the HELL didn't you hand it over to every media outlet you could find years ago!?

Cause, if you did, you wouldn't get sued? Cause, if you did, there might not have been a WWASP to sue you? Cause, even their dedicated attorneys, if they saw that, would not have been able to stomach signing on?

What about the kid in the cage? Is he still there?

Fuckers!

As a consolation, can we see it now???

It's obnoxious to ask law enforcement to follow the law. That's insulting to every cop.

--John Lovell, lobbyist for the California police chief's association

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.

[turbinekat]

Ginger,

In my opinion...if it counts?  I've never seen, heard or witnessed any of the items you mentioned in your last post.

Nor was anyone ever kicked out of an "inner circle".  What we had was a group of parents that exchanged information between households pertaining to everything under the sun.  It just so happened that all of us had previously had children who attended a behavior modifications program.

I personally have a tape of a one hour conversation that I had with Dace Goulding at Casa BY The Sea pertaining to my son, my family & me.  I've never been asked or needed to produce it as evidence, nor will I until WE go to court.

I've personally never heard anything about any garbage cans?  New one on me...but with their current records & accusations against them...it wouldn't surprise me.

I've heard of the photos of cages...and would tend to believe that they exist since I know the individual that has them.  Never met them, but spoke many hours on my PC with.  That's their choice what they do with their possessions & I have no say in the matter!  That's it, the end...some people read MORE into situations than there really is.

As for the other individual that you mentioned...me personally...again my opinion...they were on a divorce adventure...not a child saving mission.  Again...my personal opinion...

I myself have just been privy to other information that was produced in the Utah federal court.  It didn't surprise me...I wasn't involved in the law suit nor a witness in the end.

Deborah;

Carey's contribution...was that she cashed a check from the "program" to turn over her bank owned PC to provide the plaintiff with information to support their case against people who disagree with the "programs" teachings of warehousing children.  She was a pawn in the "program's" attempt to silence the many parents who dispute what has happened to their children or grand-children.

Just my opinion?for what it?s worth.

Regards,

Lee

[Anonymous]

A correction.

It was Fred who was popping his panties.

[Anonymous]

I understand your point of view Ginger but it is based on miss information.

If you'll think back what Bock was goin on about was photos and where she wanted them was in Lon's hands. Lon. Keep that in mind.

What was shown in court was the same footage Inside edition had; and it came from the Mexican police. Anyone could have obtained it who wanted it; tho naturally it would help a lot to be able to speak and read Spanish.

The media has been told about all this and when they asked for it they got it.

If CNN and FOX have ignored the story, its not for a lack of trying on the part of many to get their attention.

As for Cary's contribution - a big fat Zero - even less - it put them in the red, in my opinion.