Fornits

Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: Hamiltonf on January 18, 2003, 11:07:00 PM

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Hamiltonf on January 18, 2003, 11:07:00 PM

As an independant outside observer of this site, trying to attack/ work towards closing down a straight derivative that is currently getting good press, I feel it is important that you get your stories out.  This in-fighting is not constructive, and it appears to me as a lawyer with 23 years experience that despite numerous challenges FueLaw has failed to demonstrate that he is, in fact, a real lawyer.  If he is a survivor, he still seems to me to be trying to discourage people who are really trying to do something constructive.  I repeat what I have said in earlier posts  -- somebody is getting scared.  The best way to deal with such people is either to ignore them or, if you must respond, do so in a calm, reasonable manner.  DON'T LET DETRACTORS PUSH YOUR BUTTONS, IT AIN'T WORTH IT.
Above all try to keep the level of discourse respectful and calm.  Name calling will only destroy your credibility.  

Walk softly and carry a big stick!

The big stick is the truth.

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: GregFL on January 19, 2003, 08:07:00 PM

Just so you know, Fuelaw is indeed a prominent Florida Defense attorney, an early 70s survivor of the Seed, a long time critic of the program, a long time poster to the Seed discussion forum and a friend of mine. He was also one of those hero types, you know, the little guy that stood up and faced down the staff when the rest of us cowered and complied. He took beatings for this effort at the age of 13 or 14.


 He recently at my bequest sat for an interview with a national magazine on this very topic, and did so knowing full well that the risk of exposure was a chance, but nevertheless took the risk. This is true activism and he should be applauded for his efforts.


Why do people insist on trying to discredit people's occupations when they disagree with their opinion?


Owning my own business for over 17 years that specializes in the sale, delivery, and enforcement of legal contracts, I too have legal training  and unfortunately guys, after reviwing these threads am here to tell you much or all of what he wrote is absolutely right on point.


Sorry to burst your bubble. No one is trying to discourage anyone from doing what they feel is right and necessary but merely trying to direct people in the right direction. A forum is a place to share ideas and to even bicker when necessary. There is much we can all do but some of the efforts do seem a bit misdirected. It is a shame it erupted into a flame war.


To each their own path.




[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2003-01-19 17:12 ]

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Tampa survivor on January 19, 2003, 08:25:00 PM

Greg, thank you.  The flame war really sucked.
I also wish to thank Fuelaw for his honesty in the face of BRUTAL opposition. I have the utmost respect for anyone that fought back against the program at the age of 13.  I never could understand while I was in why so many older kids were sheep while us youngies were tearing the place up.
  Greg, last year you helped me with your insight to your children and the program.  My son is doing GREAT now, and we are closer than ever.  Thanks
Bill Hadley
GO BUCS

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: GregFL on January 19, 2003, 10:16:00 PM

You are quite welcome.  I understand that you are spending a great deal of time on WWasp message boards talking to potential parents.  What a wonderful constructive idea. You may be directly responsible for untold number of parents deciding to choose another path. That my friend is really making a difference.

Kudos.

There's no biochemical test to distinguish the so-called manic-depressive person from the elated or despondent football fan. Nor is there any resan to assume the manic-depressive's inner experience is driven by twisted molecules while the football fan's is driven, at worst, by twisted values
Dr. Peter Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Antigen on January 19, 2003, 11:54:00 PM

On 2003-01-18 20:07:00, Hamiltonf wrote: "As an independant outside observer of this site, trying to attack/ work towards closing down a straight derivative that is currently getting good press, I feel it is important that you get your stories out.  This in-fighting is not constructive, and it appears to me as a lawyer with 23 years experience that despite numerous challenges FueLaw has failed to demonstrate that he is, in fact, a real lawyer.  If he is a survivor, he still seems to me to be trying to discourage people who are really trying to do something constructive.  I repeat what I have said in earlier posts  -- somebody is getting scared.  The best way to deal with such people is either to ignore them or, if you must respond, do so in a calm, reasonable manner.  DON'T LET DETRACTORS PUSH YOUR BUTTONS, IT AIN'T WORTH IT. Above all try to keep the level of discourse respectful and calm.  Name calling will only destroy your credibility.   Walk softly and carry a big stick! The big stick is the truth.    "

Hamilton, have you taken a look at just exactly what these folks are claiming as grounds for a suite? Getting the story out, absolutely. But, on this side of the 49th parallel, you have about 5 years, tops, to file civil or criminal charges. Outside of that, it's extremely difficult to even get the courts to agree to hear a case.

No doubt, it is a disgrace that Melvin Sembler is Ambasador to Italy. Rather ironic, too, don't you think, in light of recent bad press on the Vatican? Never the less, he is. The whole world (except for Americans) knows about the Program. In international circles, they refer to it as the American Hitler Jugen.

Yes, get the story out. Newspapers, magazines, tv journalists, book authors... anyone who will listen. Those are all doable. But if you want to talk about a lawsuite, you'll have to talk to people who've just gotten out within the past couple of years or with parents who are trying to get their kids out now.

There are a bunch of recent inmates posting to the Orlando Weekly forum right now.
http://www.orlandoweekly.com/ubb/Forum1 ... 00239.html (http://www.orlandoweekly.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000239.html)

Have at it. (maybe you can figure out why it's so damned frightening for people to speak up for, say, 10 or 20 years)

To err is human; to forgive is simply not our policy.

 

-- MIT Assasination Club slogan

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Hamiltonf on January 20, 2003, 01:21:00 AM

5 yr limitation periods?  That's atrocious in the land of the free. It's understandable to some degree in civil suits, and, guess what, N of the border the trend is also to decrease limitation periods, especially since NAFTA.  I wonder if there's a link?  
Anyway, my apologies to FueLaw. What I find absolutely incredible is that you would have 5 year limitations in criminal matters! (in Canada it's 2 years on misdemeanours, but on felonies, no limits)
At the same time, I wonder FueLaw, if there is anything that could support survivors bringing lawsuits by what must be the enourmous number of lawsuits being brought against the Catholic Church in the recent sexual abuse cases.
I understand that in most States the age of majority is 21. In most of Canada it is 18.  At the same time, in tort law a cause of action essentially arises when the damage is felt... eg post traumatic stress syndrome may not be felt until (say) a nervous breakdown 10 years later.    Moreover, in most Canadian jurisdictions, the five years does not start to run until the age of majority is reached.  Hence... you're abused at age  15-16, where the age of majority is 21 you should theoretically, if the same principles apply, be able to sue up to the age of 26.  HOWEVER  -- if you are not aware that you are suffering from PTSD until you are diagnosed at age 26, theoretically, if the same principles apply you may still have a cause of action until you are 31.

It's tough to prove, I know, and with the current world climate it's clear that civil liberties are taking a beating.  But know that we're rooting for you and there has to be light at the end of this American nightmare.

One thing is... if you are afraid of defamation suits... truth, both north and south of the border is the absolute defence.
Peace.

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: GregFL on January 20, 2003, 01:51:00 AM

On 2003-01-19 22:21:00, Hamiltonf wrote: One thing is... if you are afraid of defamation suits... truth, both north and south of the border is the absolute defence. Peace.     "

It really isn't that simple. For example, it can be alleged that the allegation was simply brought to light to cause civil harm. For example, for no other reason that to cause the person to lose their job. This can be an actual tort, at least here in the land of the free.
Also, the rich in America operate under a different set of civil tools; Specifically they have an advantage not at the disposal of the average american; nuisance suits. A rich person or corporation can start suing you and effectively silence your voice financially and cause your world to come crashing down around you, at least to those that have something to lose. A good lawyer starts at around 250 per hour here ( and them be lawyer hours which is an entirely different clock  :wink: ). Finally, my buddy Fuelaw alluded to this earlier, that when you make an allegation against somebody you open yourself up to the discovery process and these people can make very public any skeletons you may have (such as a public or sensitive job and a past undisclosed history of drug abuse and/or treatment).

To most, these occurances are not acceptable and are best avoided.

Life may have no meaning.  Or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I disapprove.
Ashleigh Brilliant

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Hamiltonf on January 20, 2003, 02:09:00 AM

Hmmm:
Ever thought of coming to Canada and seeking refugee status?
Seriously,though, it's clear that there are serious problems down there.  And I hope you don't take that as condescending.  I just think that the rot really started to set in about 40 years ago --- and Canada usually follows about ten years behind.

Funny, that. When I was in Orlando, ten years ago we were kept awake at night by a police helicopter moving backwards and forwards in a housing area near our hotel.  

Just last year our police got a helicopter and it reminded me of that.  

The whole world's going mad. Have FueLaw contact me by private message, I'd like to set up a dialogue.  Maybe to our mutual benefit.

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Anonymous on January 20, 2003, 12:27:00 PM

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/28/State ... _yea.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/28/State/Court_allows_a_20_yea.shtml)

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: GregFL on January 20, 2003, 12:44:00 PM

See the above threads on Civil and criminal limitations. Your example was a civil action against the state and was a wonderfull victory.


We will need a seperate thread to discuss suing state agengies that knowingly withold information from the court. The abuse occured when she was four, and The woman brought the suit when she was 20, only two years after her age of majority in Fla. The state sought protection under 768.28, Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions

13)  Every claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions for damages for a negligent or wrongful act or omission pursuant to this section shall be forever barred unless the civil action is commenced by filing a complaint in the court of appropriate jurisdiction within 4 years after such claim accrues; except that an action for contribution must be commenced within the limitations provided in s. 768.31(4), and an action for damages arising from medical malpractice must be commenced within the limitations for such an action in s. 95.11(4).

This what the Fla supreme court overturned citing that the state voluntarily witheld the information for the cause of preventing prosecution. This section is not applicable to private individuals and private corporations.



http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index. ... TM&Title=- (http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0768/SEC28.HTM&Title=-)>2002->Ch0768->Section%


[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2003-01-20 11:25 ]

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Anonymous on January 20, 2003, 03:24:00 PM

EXACTLY.

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: Anonymous on January 20, 2003, 06:27:00 PM

So, is there any chance that some of these institutions   while being private nevertheless had residents placed ther under contract to the state authority. If the State knew or ought to have known of the abuse ..... ?

Title: Cool ithe rhetoric, guys
Post by: GregFL on January 20, 2003, 09:50:00 PM

On 2003-01-20 15:27:00, Anonymous wrote: "So, is there any chance that some of these institutions   while being private nevertheless had residents placed ther under contract to the state authority. If the State knew or ought to have known of the abuse ..... ? "

Anonymous, please feel free to come out and discuss this with me person to person on this board. I encourage a dialogue where we calmly explore factual effective ways to affect change today. Tomorrow is too late.

Referring back to your paragaraph above,  are we now talking about something else other than suing straight and or bringing criminal charges against the seed/straight and the individuals involved?

I am going to ask you to clarify this sentence:
"So, is there any chance that some of these institutions   while being private nevertheless had residents placed ther under contract to the state authority." Are you suggesting that Straight Inc. had a contract with a state agency to place residents?

I am sorry, but your question is not clear. It is not my understanding that the state had a contract to place individuals in straight but rather it was a function of the judgement of individual judges. Proving that these judges knew or should have known about the abuse AND proving that THEY withheld this information from the court to protect themselves from prosecution during the tenure of your 4 year statute of limitation to Sue the state is a high mountain to climb indeed.

The other alternative would be to sue HRS as the lady did in the case cited. It would have to be demonstrated that HRS knew of the abuse and Hid it from the court for the purpose of avoiding prosecution during the tenure of the statute of limitations that applies to the state (4 years proceeding the alleged abuse). Do you have evidence they did this? If so, let us hear about it. What I have read is not indicitive of this but rather indicates that HRS was forthcoming with their information about straight.

If you know of an alternate set of circumstances than the one I outlined above, lay it out and lets discuss it.

Irrespective, the statute of limitations would still apply to any actions of Straight, Inc and the individuals involved.

If you are further suggesting suing the state under case law set by the case cited, you are going to have to demonstrate that the state withheld information from the court for the purpose of preventing prosecution in your individual case during the tenure of time that the statute of limitations was running. You are also going to have to demonstrate to the court a legal reason why you waited xx numer of years after your age of majority to bring the case to the courts attention. I would defer this question to Fuelaw for further clarification as he is the real expert here and please remember I am talking about Florida here. I haven't the time or energy to look at other states.

Is it possible that a florida court would throw out the statute of limitations for officers and directors of Straight, Inc. for alleged crimes 20 years ago? Is it possible that the State would entertain waiving the states' immunity from prosecution in this instance? Not in my estimation. To me there are other more realistic effective ways to focus my efforts, If you think you can accomplish this herculean task, by all means have at it. I would suggest, however, that you go into it with your eyes open.

When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.
-- Gary Lloyd