Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Ridge Creek School / Hidden Lake Academy => Topic started by: Antigen on January 25, 2006, 01:20:00 PM
-
Dear folks,
I have a hunch. I think Joe Farrell and his partners at Quirk & Quirk will be celebrities one day. So I've become an avid collector of autographs. If you've got anything autographed by them, would you consider sending me a copy so that I can add it to my collection at http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/HLA/ (http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/HLA/) I'd be ever so grateful!
Thanks,
But this is far from demonstrating that the authorities must interpose to suppress these vices by commercial prohibitions, nor is it by any means evident that such intervention on the part of the government is really capable of suppressing them or that, even if this end could be attained, it might not therewith open up a Pandora's box of other dangers, no less mischievous than alcoholism and morphinism.
Why I Live at the PO (http://art-bin.com/art/or_weltypostoff.html)[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-07 21:26 ]
-
Not yet. But I have the sinking suspiscion that everyone who posts here is going to get hit. The suppression machine is in full swing.
Maybe HLA Truth can tell us why they feel the need to sue everyone who disagrees with them, rather than just setting the record straight?
I mean, that's two lawsuits this week. They've been very busy on that front.
-
Whoops! Spoke too soon. That's THREE lawsuits this week and TWO today.
Busier than I expected...
_________________
"Compassion is the basis of morality."
-Arnold Schopenhauer[ This Message was edited by: Dysfunction Junction on 2006-01-25 10:43 ]
-
Dysfunction, how are you finding out about the lawsuits, if you don't mind my asking?
-
Some have been made public by those who were served like OverLordd (3 months ago) and former patient WestSideStud420 (today).
Others have messaged me privately.
Still others come to light when Ginger gets hit with the court order like ex-employee Marla (four moths ago, give or take), another former employee who I won't name because he hasn't made it public yet (the day before yesterday) and former patient "name withheld" because he hasn't gone public yet (today).
That's five in the past few months, three in the past week and two so far today, and there are probably more that I just haven't heard about yet.
You can see that they don't discriminate. They go after former patients and former employees - anyone who speaks out about being treated badly there.
-
Wow.
DJ, please check your PMs. thanks
-
On 2006-01-25 11:00:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"Some have been made public by those who were served like OverLordd (3 months ago) and former patient WestSideStud420 (today).
Others have messaged me privately.
Still others come to light when Ginger gets hit with the court order like ex-employee Marla (four moths ago, give or take), another former employee who I won't name because he hasn't made it public yet (the day before yesterday) and former patient "name withheld" because he hasn't gone public yet (today).
That's five in the past few months, three in the past week and two so far today, and there are probably more that I just haven't heard about yet.
You can see that they don't discriminate. They go after former patients and former employees - anyone who speaks out about being treated badly there.
"
Unbelievable! Westside was served today? Must have missed that. Where was it made public?
-
MySpace.com HLA group
Page 3
-
Anybody else get sued yet today? Just curious.
You know, I've been doing some thinking about this subject. As an MBA, I often ponder the effects of business decisions. I must admit that I am in a quandry as to why this facility would even want to broach the subject of suing its former patients.
It seems to me that not only does it look really bad from an ethical viewpoint, it is absolutely horrible from a public realtions perspective. Surely the marketing management cannot believe that this will do anything but severely constrict revenue.
Exactly how do these people think a prosepective client would view the constant campaign of lawsuits against former patients? If it were me, I would say to myself, "Gee, not only are they charging an exorbitant amount of money for their services, they might also sue me if I ever talk about my experiences." This is a definite deal-killer. There are no two ways about that. It simply looks, sounds and feels completely unethical.
My second point is that should any one of the targets of this baseless litigation take the matter to trial or even to discovery for that matter, there is going to be a heck of a lot of damaging information made a matter of public record.
The media is already beginning to seize upon the issues raised by former patients. Once there are publicly documented statements and evidence entered into the public record, the "anti-program" media is going to have an absolute hay-day with it. It's going to be picked up by outlets like AlterNet first, then it's going to spin off into more mainstream media and it's going to eventually find its way into anti-program websites like ISACCORP.org as a matter of abundantly documented public record for which there will be no rebuttal.
Are Kathleen and her cronies really so obtuse that they can't see which way the wind is blowing without checking the weathervane? It is absolutely astounding to me that these people even entertain the idea that they can prevent the dissemination of damaging information to media outlets through litigation against patients. I have the distinct intuition that this is going to blow up in their faces and destroy their already tenuous public image.
-
Yeah, but only when you call their bluff. Just talked to one of the targets. I can't say which one or which type of retribution they received. All I'll tell you is that they are seriously frightened!
If it makes ya'll feel any better, I've done this before. See http://fornits.com/anonanon/#Fay (http://fornits.com/anonanon/#Fay) Never heard back from Lenny Englander about that, either, though I did get another letter demanding that I remove a website that I had nothing to do with. Come to think of it, I had way too many pots on the boil back then. I have a good many demand letters that I should scan in and publish. Think I'll just do that. I think I'll just call it the Dewey Cheetham & Howe Fan Club. (and no, I did not get that from Car Talk, but from the Three Stoodges, so there!)
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. ... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
--Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander, sentenced to death at Nuremberg
-
What goes around comes around, and it is coming..
They have had a pro-telecast with DR. Phil, but what
happens if Montel, Oprah, or Katie decides
to take the show....???Interesting...
-
What? I missed that. I remember hearing that McGraw shipped a kid to Provo Canyon, but I never knew about him sending kids to HLA. Do tell!
Our country has deliberately undertaken a great social and economic experimanet, noble in motive and far-reaching in purpose. [The Eighteenth Amendment, enacting Prohibition.]
Letter to Senator W.H. Borah
--Herbert Hoover (Feb 28, 1928)
-
On 2006-01-26 08:00:00, Dysfunction Junction wrote:
"Anybody else get sued yet today? Just curious.
You know, I've been doing some thinking about this subject. As an MBA, I often ponder the effects of business decisions. I must admit that I am in a quandry as to why this facility would even want to broach the subject of suing its former patients.
It seems to me that not only does it look really bad from an ethical viewpoint, it is absolutely horrible from a public realtions perspective. Surely the marketing management cannot believe that this will do anything but severely constrict revenue.
Exactly how do these people think a prosepective client would view the constant campaign of lawsuits against former patients? If it were me, I would say to myself, "Gee, not only are they charging an exorbitant amount of money for their services, they might also sue me if I ever talk about my experiences." This is a definite deal-killer. There are no two ways about that. It simply looks, sounds and feels completely unethical.
My second point is that should any one of the targets of this baseless litigation take the matter to trial or even to discovery for that matter, there is going to be a heck of a lot of damaging information made a matter of public record.
The media is already beginning to seize upon the issues raised by former patients. Once there are publicly documented statements and evidence entered into the public record, the "anti-program" media is going to have an absolute hay-day with it. It's going to be picked up by outlets like AlterNet first, then it's going to spin off into more mainstream media and it's going to eventually find its way into anti-program websites like ISACCORP.org as a matter of abundantly documented public record for which there will be no rebuttal.
Are Kathleen and her cronies really so obtuse that they can't see which way the wind is blowing without checking the weathervane? It is absolutely astounding to me that these people even entertain the idea that they can prevent the dissemination of damaging information to media outlets through litigation against patients. I have the distinct intuition that this is going to blow up in their faces and destroy their already tenuous public image.
"
Yes, their very own behavior will definitely hit them in the pocketbook. Suing kids so they shut up about what happened to them is patently crazy.
-
This is also common to the Troubled Parent industry. Check this out
The Horse Leah Stole. Now Leah, in my opinion, is one stout minded and dignified young lady! The Suds are facing trial soon on the charges to which Leah is a testifying wittness.
The cops in Nephi were not the least bit amused over the threats of violence coming to this gal. See, that's the problem w/ a scam like this. It's high turnover and money hungry. You know less about your marks than they do about you. Ya' just never know who you might be permanently pissing off.
Don't worry about temptation--as you grow older, it starts avoiding you.
-- Old Farmer's Almanac
-
Sounds like someone is getting really close to the truth here. Endless litigation to take the focus off of something. Can't imagine what it can be. Will I be there next target because I dare ask a few questions? :rofl:
A fundamentalist Christian President who claims God told him to invade Iraq ? an act that killed more than 150,000 civilians, mostly women and children ? is not that much different from a fundamentalist Islamic fanatic who claims it is the will of Allah that he send young men to America to crash airliners into office buildings and kill 3,000 plus.
DOUG THOMPSON
-
http://DCHFans.org/ (http://DCHFans.org/)
Nothing of value to the individual happens by coercion.
--Plato
-
Better get lawyered up quick folks, Eudora isn't going to have enough money to go around if this stands.
New Federal Anti-Stalking Bill Raising Concern Over Vague Rules Governing the Internet
USA TODAY
Richard Willing
February 15, 2006
the First Amendment and Free Speech.
WASHINGTON -- It didn't get much publicity, but an anti-stalking bill passed by Congress recently makes it a federal crime to "annoy" someone over the Internet.
And that's really beginning to bug some people.
It's a stupid law that has slipped in under the radar," says Clinton Fein, a San Francisco-based artist who runs annoy.com, a website that he says offers "unique and irreverent" commentary on politics and culture. "Who says what's officially annoying? Is that a business we really want our government to be in?"
The law makes it a crime to anonymously "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass" another person over the Internet.
Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington inserted the provision into legislation that reauthorized the federal Violence Against Women Act. It carries a prison sentence of up to two years and an unspecified fine for those convicted of violations. President Bush signed the bill into law Jan. 5.
McDermott said he was prompted to act by the case of Joelle Ligon, a Seattle woman who was sent menacing e-mails, falsely accused of resume-padding in messages to co-workers and impersonated in sex-oriented Internet chat rooms from 1998 to 2003.
Some of the communications were traced to a former boyfriend in South Carolina. He was sentenced to five years of probation and 500 hours of community service after he was prosecuted under a federal telecommunications law that protects against harassment.
To eliminate questions over whether phone law applied to the Internet, McDermott pressed for the new legislation. The language "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass" was taken directly from the telephone law.
Mike DeCesare, a spokesman for McDermott, says the new law is not intended to curb free speech.
"This is about bad people doing bad things. ... It relates to somebody who does something to somebody else," he says. "It's not about posting something on a message board. It's got to be direct, one-to-one communication."
No one has been prosecuted under the new law, DeCesare says.
Critics aren't satisfied. Fein says it is unclear whether the law refers to annoying "conduct" or simply an e-mail whose message irritates its recipient.
"No one knows what this means," Fein says. "That in itself has a chilling effect."
Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer who specializes in privacy issues at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, says the new law's chief problem is the "subjective nature" of the word annoy. "Words like threaten, harass and abuse can be defined by what a reasonable person understands them to mean," he says. "Anyone who's ever had their spam filter stop something they wanted, or let something through that they didn't, knows that deciding what is annoying is something else again."
He says the ACLU is considering whether to ask a federal court to declare the new law unconstitutional because it's too vague.
A scholar who specializes in cyber law says the law could be difficult to overturn. Susan Brenner, a University of Dayton law professor and a consultant to the Secret Service on cyber laws, says courts likely would read "annoy" together with the words that follow it -- "abuse, threaten or harass" -- and conclude that the law refers to specific behavior.
In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit used that reasoning to uphold the conviction of Erik Bowker, an Ohio man who had stalked a Youngstown television reporter via telephone.
But in 1999, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., ruled that a could not be prosecuted for "annoying" conduct because he had telephoned the U.S. attorney seven times to complain about a case that had been brought against him. The calls, the court found, were political speech protected by the First Amendment.
David Hudson, a lawyer with the First Amendment Center, a speech-rights advocacy group in Nashville, says the different ways that courts have interpreted the word "annoy" make the new anti-stalking law "ripe for a challenge."
To see more of USAToday.com, or to subscribe, go to http://www.usatoday.com (http://www.usatoday.com)
© Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
See More News Stories
Home | Feedback | Site Map
525 Arch Street, Independence Mall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106 ph.215.409.6600
Content Copyright 2006, National Constitution Center. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
:cry2:
-
Why don't you do a little research before you go shooting your mouth off. I don't think Eudora has sent HLA or any of its staff or clients any emails. That's what they're talking about. It really doesn't apply to hosting a website where others post information.
-
For those of you with limited reading comprehension skills, let me parse out from the prior article:
"Fein says it is unclear whether the law refers to annoying "conduct" or simply an e-mail whose message irritates its recipient.
"No one knows what this means," Fein says. "That in itself has a chilling effect."
So before you open your mouth, anon...oh forget it, I wouldn't want to "annoy" you.
:cry2:
-
Does anyone know where he got his Psychology
Degree from?? No one can seem to turn it up???
-
On 2006-03-03 18:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
"For those of you with limited reading comprehension skills, let me parse out from the prior article:
"Fein says it is unclear whether the law refers to annoying "conduct" or simply an e-mail whose message irritates its recipient.
"No one knows what this means," Fein says. "That in itself has a chilling effect."
So before you open your mouth, anon...oh forget it, I wouldn't want to "annoy" you.
"
Ottawa,
If you believe Fornits to be a little cyber-den, a tiny crevice of the world, WHY in the world do you come here and continue to ANNOY, ATTACK, HARRASS, THREATEN survivors? You are one of the worst offenders. Your research is done. What is your obsession with such an ?insignificant? site?
Go back to the Carlbrook/CEDU threads and stop annoying the readers of the HLA forum?
BTW, did anyone every cough up the name of DJ's employer for you? Which catagory would that fall under? Stalking? One not mentioned.
"This is about bad people doing bad things. ... It relates to somebody who does something to somebody else," he says. "It's not about posting something on a message board. It's got to be direct, one-to-one communication."
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-03-22 12:18 ]
-
Look, Karen, or whoever you are, the "new internet law" is basically an extension of existing aggravated harrassment laws in most every state.
It is a crime to INTENTIONALLY "annoy, harass or threaten" others. Recently, in my state, the harassment law has been significantly weakened as well. It is no longer a criminal offense to post material on the internet that someone feels is "annoying, threatening or harassing" SO LONG AS IT IS TRUE or that there is a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that it is true.
What has been done to ME is harassment. I have not harassed any other party. If you don't like what I have to say then leave and don't come back. It's really that simple.
As far as the information on HLA that was sent to me, well, I'm glad you're not my attorney, as you're a piss poor one. I already HAVE retained a lawyer who specializes in first amendment rights and she says, flat out, that you are full of shit, as we all have known for some time.
You have been trolling this site threatening lawsuits for over a year and you've done exactly NOTHING and you will do only more of the same. Keep up the good work. No wonder you're still unemployed: you're so full of shit that your eyes are brown.
BTW, Deborah asked a good question. While you were soliciting information about my workplace for the express purpose of harassing me and causing me financial damage, you were knowingly breaking the law. How 'bout I make a formal request for your ISP's records and share them with the BAR association? Aren't attorneys held to a higher standard than this? You are one pathetic individual.
Incdidentally, why does it make you so mad that HLA, ASR and Carlbrook are being exposed to the light of day? The lid has been blown off HLA and ASR and Carlbrook are only a couple of steps behind. It only takes time to get documentation. HLA lasted a decade before the whistle-blowers came out with solid evidence and documentation and reported to the proper authorities. I have good reason to believe the others won't last as long.
-
DC&H hit Clarke Poole with a cease and desist letter the day after he sent internal email documentation of HLA's "improprieties" to 25 EdCons who do business with HLA. They don't waste any time, do they?
The story I'm getting is that he's a "fighter" and is going to pay the requisite price to fight the machine. It will be very interesting indeed when all of his other records come to light under discovery. I would bet he's got enough dirt to bury the place either legally or by reputation. We'll have to wait and see...
-
I've added a little more to my Dewey Cheetham & Howe Fan Website. Anyone want to send me some copies of your autographed letters?
[Religion is] the daughter of hope and fear, explaining to ignorance the nature of the unknowable.
--Ambrose Bierce