Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on December 17, 2003, 02:32:00 PM
-
Anybody know what that was (or is) all about?
-
Anybody got a smoking gun icon? That's what this post appears to be about.
:grin:
-
::smokingun::
Ok. Now, please explain why this is a smokin' gun issue? As I understand it (which may be way, way off), courts can issue a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs mere claim w/ no evidence whatever. Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
--
-
Hmm, this question about the details of the preliminary injunction (WWASPS v. PURE) has been asked before, with no answer.
:tup:
-
Is there a lawyer in the house? Anyone who has read the court document and can explain the specifics in layman's terms? PURE? ISAC?
:idea:
-
On 2003-12-18 15:00:00, Antigen wrote:
" ::smokingun::
Ok. Now, please explain why this is a smokin' gun issue? As I understand it (which may be way, way off), courts can issue a preliminary injunction based on the plaintiffs mere claim w/ no evidence whatever.
No response from PURE or ISAC in spite of repeated requests? There's your answer, Ginger.
:eek:
-
preliminary injunction
: an interlocutory injunction issued before a trial for purposes of preventing the defendant from acting in a way that will irreparably harm the plaintiff's ability to enforce his or her rights at the trial
(called also temporary injunction)
(compare temporary restraining order at order)
Note: Before a preliminary injunction can be issued, there must be a hearing with prior notice to the defendant. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the hearing and the trial may be consolidated. (Source: findlaw.com)
=============================================
injunction
[in-'je[ng]k-shen]
Middle French injonction, from Late Latin injunction- injunctio, from Latin injungere to enjoin, from in- in + jungere to join
: an equitable remedy in the form of a court order compelling a party to do or refrain from doing a specified act
(compare cease-and-desist order at order § 3b damage declaratory judgment at judgment § 1a mandamus specific performance at performance stay)
Note: An injunction is available as a remedy for harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Thus it is used to prevent a future harmful action rather than to compensate for an injury that has already occurred, or to provide relief from harm for which an award of money damages is not a satisfactory solution or for which a monetary value is impossible to calculate. A defendant who violates an injunction is subject to penalty for contempt.
================================================
FYI:
The specifics of the afore-mentioned preliminary injunction are public record.
:wave:
-
KEY PHRASE
... "an equitable remedy in the form of a court order compelling a party to *do or refrain* from doing a specified act".
-
Excerpted from the WWASPS v. PURE lawsuit thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9)
7/30/03 Docket Entry #90 Minute entry: Court rules GRANTING/DENYING in part World Wide Assn's motion for preliminary injunction against Ms. Scheff and Pure [58-1],Judge: Paul Cassell Court Reporter: Pam Smith Court Deputy: Trisha Little (tl) [Entry date 07/31/03]
-
Here are some of the filings associated with the WWASP vs PURE lawsuit. All of these, except for the docket, are Portable Data Format (PDF) files, so you'll need Adobe's proprietary Acrobat software to read them. Seems apropos for the legal profession, eh?
Docket as of November 5, 2003 10:09 pm Web PACER (v2.4)
Dec 2nd, 2002 - PURE answer and counterclaim
Dec 19, 2002 - First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
April 3rd, 2002 - I'm not Donna's lawyer!
May 2nd, 2003 - Deny, deny, grant WWASP motions to dismiss counterclaims
June 3rd, `03 - PURE objects to subpoenas
June 27, `03 - More of the same
Oct 23, `03 - The court would like a peek at those infamous emails, too
April 22, 2002 - WWASP motion for preliminary injunction
http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPure/ (http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPure/)
Ginger, apparently you are missing the court document that outlines the specifics of the preliminary injuntion.
:smile:
-
Whoops, the correct link to the PDF files is:
http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPURE/ (http://fornits.com/anonanon/docs/wwasp/WvPURE/)
:silly:
-
On 2003-12-19 21:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
Ginger, apparently you are missing the court document that outlines the specifics of the preliminary injuntion.
Indeed I am. In fact, I'm missing all but those few docs you see there.
See, awhile back, Rich Titsch got real ambitious about spreading the word on Tranquility Bay. He has access to the PACER system and so he very generously provided me copies of some of the documents listed in that docket. Then there was an ugly row and he took his ball and went home.
If anyone else would like to provide documents, just send them along and I'll stick them on the server.
But I still don't understand how a preliminary injunction can be all that important. Aren't they usually just gag orders intended to keep someone quiet?Here's freedom to him who would read;
Here's freedom to him who would write;
None ever feared that the truth should be heard,
But them that the truth would indict.
--author unknown (circa 1914)
-
As in the case of Sun v. Microsoft, Preliminary Injunctions are not just about shutting people up.
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html (http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html)
-
Ok, so can anyone get a copy of the WvP preliminary injunction?
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
George Washington
-
The silence is deafening.
:roll:
-
Yoo-hoo ... anybody home? Not too worry, PACER is open 24/7/365 and sooner or later, somebody will log on to retrieve the document in question, which by the way, is in the public record for a reason. This is America.
:wave:
-
Carey, can you retrieve the preliminary injunction court order from the PACER service? Not the motion, which Ginger already has, but the document, itself, which would explain why the judge ruled as he did and the purpose of the injunction?
-
Carey, can you retrieve the preliminary injunction court order from the PACER service?
I have printed quite a few documents. I am not exactly sure which one is the court order.
Let me tell you what I have.
I have Jeff's deposition.
Sue's deposition.
Cross Creek v. Paula Reeves.
Christer v. Christer
WWASP v. PURE,, Inc et al
There are hundreds of pages. The injunction court order could be in here and I just have not gotten to it yet.
I have a document titled "Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction."
I can't find a "court order." I will keep looking.
Ginger, can I fax some of these documents to you for you to post?
-
Carey, I don't currently have fax capability. I'm sure, though, that PACER delivers those docs in PDF format. If you haven't got them saved on your computer already, I would think you'd be able to access them again, since you've already paid for the access. Since it's a huge number of docs, I'll set up some space on my server where you can dump them and I'll walk you through the process.
If All it takes is an infinite number of monkeys with type writers, then how come there's no Shakespeare coming out of AOL?
-- Anonymous
-
Excerpted from the WWASPS v. PURE lawsuit thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9)
7/30/03 Docket Entry #90 Minute entry: Court rules GRANTING/DENYING in part World Wide Assn's motion for preliminary injunction against Ms. Scheff and Pure [58-1],Judge: Paul Cassell Court Reporter: Pam Smith Court Deputy: Trisha Little (tl) [Entry date 07/31/03]
------------------------------------------------
Docket #90 Judge's Order
-
On 2003-12-23 09:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Excerpted from the WWASPS v. PURE lawsuit thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3486&forum=9)
7/30/03 Docket Entry #90 Minute entry: Court rules GRANTING/DENYING in part World Wide Assn's motion for preliminary injunction against Ms. Scheff and Pure [58-1],Judge: Paul Cassell Court Reporter: Pam Smith Court Deputy: Trisha Little (tl) [Entry date 07/31/03]
------------------------------------------------
Docket #90 Judge's Order"
This is just a summary. The document #90 would be the one to read if one is interested in details regarding the judge's ruling.
-
Ginger,
You may want to consider the information Carey provides could be personal and not needed on this Forum.
We already know she sells her soul cheap.
Carey is walking on thin ice. Don't go under with her.
YOU Ginger should be smarter than that.
You're trading your integrity to the wwaspies.
Just because you can doesnt mean you should.
-
We're talking about posting legal filings, which are in the public domain. Nothing personal, get it? Public domain documents of record.
I'd like to see them. Several people are giving contradictory accounts of what the lawsuit is about. The surest way to clear it up is to let us all see for ourselves what is actually in these documents. I don't really have enough interest in WvP to pay for the docs. I figure the parties most interested probably already have copies and if they want the truth told about it, why of course they'll share their copies, right?
I just want everbody who's demanding that we believe this and that about this suit to either put up or shut up. I don't see how that damages my integrity at all.
Has it occured to you that maybe you are not getting the whole story?Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.
--George Orwell
-
Ginger,
The WWASPIES are USING YOU.
USING your forum to distract from their mistreatment of kids.
You're falling for it.
Just because you can doesnt mean you should.
Happy Holidays GOOD WILL TOWARD ALL MEN.
-
Well, they may be trying. But they're not getting very far.
See http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 65&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=U&topic=3865&forum=9)
It's clear to me that PURE has been using some ppl to try and distract from their abusing troubled parents and their children.
I sure hope ya'll get that figured out pretty soon.
I don't go lookin' for trouble. I just keep a little in a box should someone come by who is.
--Bill Warbis
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2003-12-23 19:37 ]
-
Check out the little whistle in the bottom right hand corner of this post on Struggling Teens.
http://www.strugglingteens.com/cgi-bin/ ... p=1#000000 (http://www.strugglingteens.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000028;p=1#000000)
Now some people (ANON) may think "reporting a post" is a fine idea. Me? I think not. What
say you, Anon? Should ppl report Mrs. D.VA's post to Jena,the moderator of Struggling Teens?
On what grounds?
:roll:
-
Ginger
For a bright girl,you miss the point.Obviously you are not open to hear it.
Get over the pure hurdle and see the bigger picture.
-
It's impossible for me to tell which anon you are. So many posters use the same proxy.
Are you the same anon who said
"The WWASPIES are USING YOU.
USING your forum to distract from their mistreatment of kids"
???
If so, well please don't fall for it. Go right ahead and discuss the mistreatment of kids. Feel free to start anytime or just join the rest of us in this thread:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?So ... 65&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?Sort=U&topic=3865&forum=9)
or in another thread that interests you. There's one in the KIDS forum, topic heading "A message from a sibling", or something to that effect. Some anon over there wanted to know more about long term effects on families and several ppl have given some good insight.
If you want me to get your point, come right out and state it. Quit hinting around. I flunked long distance mind reading.
Everything that people say to you is personal. Whether it is constructive criticism or not will determine whether it cam from and asshole or not.
----Bill Warbis
-
On 2003-12-24 06:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger
For a bright girl,you miss the point.Obviously you are not open to hear it.
Get over the pure hurdle and see the bigger picture."
Anon, is there something in this document (the preliminary injunction) that troubles you? Like Ginger says, be specific.
:silly:
-
Okay, don't be specific. Silence is golden, right?
:wave:
-
Girls,
Have you figured out why you only have been given the wwasp's side of the documents? Just look at your list you refered to in the last post...
I wonder why "they" didn't give you any of "their" depositions? Why the onesided affair? So you could tell "their" story for them?
Just a thought...
Kindest Regards,
Lee
[ This Message was edited by: turbinekat on 2004-01-02 10:20 ]
-
I have more depositions than you think. I promise. Like I have already said, there are others in your camp who see what is going on.
-
Carey,
What camp are you referring to? I have a beef with an organization & I'm taking care of it...your bull-shit accusations are becoming tiresome.
Stick to YOUR problems & quit worrying about what I do.
Regards,
Lee
-
Carey,
Post ALL of them & not just the ones that you chose...then let people make a decision. Don't make one for them or taint the issues with YOUR problems or what you chose to expose. Now you are guilty of what you are accusing others of! Let others be the judge, not just you & Ginger.
Regards,
Lee
-
I wonder why "they" didn't give you any of "their" depositions? Why the onesided affair? So you could tell "their" story for them?
"Your Camp" - I was addressing the "they."
What problem?
-
Carey,
Like I said; "I don't have a camp, contrary to your beliefs."
Problems...just a comment to life's problems in general. Nothing specific.
Regards,
Lee
-
Get your buddy to post them for you. I am sure she has copies. I am not tainting any issue. I am telling what is relevent to my beefs with PURE and Sue. The other depositions I have at this point don't have anything to do with what PURE has and is doing.
What ever is in those other depositions has nothing to do with what Sue is all about. So if you want them posted you get them from the one that you support...Sue and PURE, Inc. and you post them.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 11:15 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 11:19 ]
-
Carey,
Just as I expected...you either don't have the other docs...or you don't want everyone to see for their selves. Which is it?
Regards,
Lee
-
Nice try, but it is not going to work. You just can squeeze hard enough, you poor dear. I know squeeze your buddy. Get them from her and post them. Then make your case. Just don't ask me to make your case for you...that's being lazy.
-
Carey,
I don't need a case, contrary to your comments. Like you said before evidence is evidence...hell if you don't have it I understand. But not posting it is another story!
BTW; I ain't a poor dear. If memory serves me correctly, I haven't sold wwasp's anything. Nor will I. OTOH; you let them rent your PC, didn't you? Guess they coudn't afford to buy one similar to your super PC with their fortunes.
You already made the comment that you had the info. Just to lazy to post it or affraid someone will find out the truth. Now which is it?
Regards,
Lee
-
What's the matter Lee, Sue does not share everything with you? I mean gosh, why do you need what I have. I would think Sue would be more than willing to share all of the documents with you. I would think she would want you to make an informed decision. I guess, from what you are telling me, she's not. Doesn't that tell you something? does it tell you anything?
Lee, when you are ready to go after "program abuse" instead of protecting Sue...let me know.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-02 12:05 ]
-
When & where have I protected anyone? Please advice...Where is it listed or when did you conclude my information comes from others? I get my own information...that I need. I could care a less what you have or anyone else for that matter. I just find it ironic that you are proceeding like the others before you & not giving the public ALL of the information! That's it!!!
You exposing "child abuse"...what are you going to do? Loan me the dirty money wwasp's paid for renting a PC? Don't think so!!!
Carey, I've been doing this for awhile longer than you have. I currently do not need any help from any passer byers. I'm in this for the long haul, always have been, always will be. I can investigate MY complaints all by myself. Thanks for the offer though.
Kindest Regards,
Lee
-
Personally, I'd like someone to post the WWASPS v. PURE preliminary injunction court order. Any chance Mr. Colburn can oblige us with this request?
:nworthy:
-
Sorry, anon. other than what's posted out on the net, I am privy to the same info you have.
Regards,
Lee
-
Lee, Question -
Your kid was in a wwasp program, was not abused, and chose out of the school at 18. What is your beef other than your kid didn't look like you wanted and you want someone to blame?
-
anon.
You may want to attempt your question again. I don't recall my son opting out at eighteen?
Never mentioned anything about him not being abused, either?
Blame...Not at all!
Please get YOUR facts straight, they are way off the mark.
Regards,
Lee
-
On 2004-01-02 12:58:00, turbinekat wrote:
"Sorry, anon. other than what's posted out on the net, I am privy to the same info you have.
Regards,
Lee"
Hmmm. You have not read the actual court order nor appear to have any interest in doing so. Care to explain why that is, Mr. Colburn (or anyone else who calls themselves a PURE parent volunteer)?
:???:
-
Okay, I think we need a HOT POTATO emotocon 'cuz I'm starting to think that's what this issue must be.
:cry2:
-
Ginger, are people afraid of being sued if they put this document on the boards? It's in the public record, is it not? So what's the problem? Is it against the law to read this stuff?
:???: