Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Kiwi on February 04, 2004, 10:06:00 AM
-
http://http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042004/utah/135541.asp
Group of schools sues reporter, alleging slander
By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune
An embattled collection of schools for troubled youths struck back Tuesday against a reporter it claims defamed its reputation by falsely telling parents that school officials abused their children.
St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) seeks unspecified damages in the federal civil suit filed against United Press International reporter Thomas Houlahan.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges Houlahan called Maryland-native Laura Boatright in July 2003 telling her he had investigated WWASPS for the past eight months and knew about supposed abuse involving her son at The Academy at Ivy Ridge, in Ogdensburg, N.Y.
Ivy Ridge is one of seven behavior modification schools associated with WWASPS in the United States. The association also has two schools operating outside of the country.
Boatright declined to comment Tuesday.
WWASPS alleges Houlahan made similar calls to other parents of students and did so knowing the claims were false.
"I don't know what Mr. Houlahan's agenda is, but it seems to me that he is blatantly trying to interfere in our business," WWASPS President Ken Kay said Tuesday.
Houlahan and UPI declined to comment.
In May, Costa Rica officials closed the association's Dundee Ranch Academy, saying the school violated the children's civil rights.
Kay claims his organization has been maligned by reporters too willing to believe the stories of troubled teens with chronic lying problems.
-
On 2004-02-04 07:06:00, Kiwi wrote:
"http://http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042004/utah/135541.asp
Group of schools sues reporter, alleging slander
By Matt Canham
The Salt Lake Tribune
An embattled collection of schools for troubled youths struck back Tuesday against a reporter it claims defamed its reputation by falsely telling parents that school officials abused their children.
St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) seeks unspecified damages in the federal civil suit filed against United Press International reporter Thomas Houlahan.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges Houlahan called Maryland-native Laura Boatright in July 2003 telling her he had investigated WWASPS for the past eight months and knew about supposed abuse involving her son at The Academy at Ivy Ridge, in Ogdensburg, N.Y.
Ivy Ridge is one of seven behavior modification schools associated with WWASPS in the United States. The association also has two schools operating outside of the country.
Boatright declined to comment Tuesday.
WWASPS alleges Houlahan made similar calls to other parents of students and did so knowing the claims were false.
"I don't know what Mr. Houlahan's agenda is, but it seems to me that he is blatantly trying to interfere in our business," WWASPS President Ken Kay said Tuesday.
Houlahan and UPI declined to comment.
In May, Costa Rica officials closed the association's Dundee Ranch Academy, saying the school violated the children's civil rights.
Kay claims his organization has been maligned by reporters too willing to believe the stories of troubled teens with chronic lying problems."
This suit's a loser. WWASPS and its leaders are public figures, they're going to have to prove Houlahan knew what he was saying was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
No court is going to find a reporter believing the stories of "troubled" teens who have been in these schools to be "reckless disregard for the truth."
I know that's what WWASPS would *like* the court to find, but the burden of proof for suits of this type where public figures are involved is very high, and WWASPS saying its survivor accusers are all "lying" isn't going to meet that burden of proof. No way in hell.
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't specific legal advice, etc. What I am is a bit of an amateur law buff, and suits of this type virtually always lose and tend to only be brought in the attempt to intimidate critics into silence.
Anybody can sue anybody else for anything.
Actually having a case is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Unless they can prove some of the Houlahan's sources were just posing as former students and had never really been students at WWASPS schools and that Houlahan should have known they had never been students, WWASPS has no case.
Either they're too insulated from the outside world to realize they have no case, or the case is a cynical attempt to intimidate. I don't know which.
-
My question is, why didn't the teens tell this parent about what the abuse? Why did the reporter have to tell the parent? It seems the problem here is that he is repeating hearsay. If he is a reporter ethics would say report the news, don't become a part of it.
-
Is any of this relevant?
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3008&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3008&forum=9)
-
More from the archives:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4297&forum=9 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4297&forum=9)
-
My question is, why didn't the teens tell this parent about what the abuse? Why did the reporter have to tell the parent?
Because the teens can't talk freely with their parents. We all know that (apart from those whose heads are stuck resolutely in the sand).
It seems the problem here is that he is repeating hearsay. If he is a reporter ethics would say report the news, don't become a part of it.
He is ethically trying to get the point of view of all concerned.
-
Let me try and answer your question by relating my experience in a behavior modification program (not affiliated with WWASP) adn why I did not tell my parents about it or anyone for that matter for almost 25 years.
When I was in the program, the motivation is to ultimately get out. If I got some good from the program, then so be it, but the nmotivating factor was to get out and by graduating, not running. Couple that with the steadfast rule that was drilled into us each and every day (15 months for me)" what you see hear, do here, see here, remains here". I saw many many children started over for talking about what they saw while on their phases.
As I said, I spent 15 months in the program, 12 to 20 hours a day, 7 days a week. The re-education and thought reform process takes it toll and by the end of the 15 months and even for many years I actually thought my time at the program and the things I "learned" were actually helped me AND I convinced myself that the ends in my case justified the ends. When I got out, I was just darn glad to be free. I didn't want to think about what happened. I wanted to be as far away as possible. Every time I did try to talk about it my family would say "look at what you've done with your life because of the program". They only wanted to say how wonderful the program was. How can a young adult or child fight that attitude? It was enough trying to put my life back together. I pushed down the pain and harmful memories for years...got on w/my life the best I could. Serious traumatic situations sometimes take a long time to manifest themselves.
I have female friends that were raped. One particularly close friend told me about a rape that happened to her almost 30 years ago. I was the first person she had ever told. The thought never crossed my mine that she was not telling the truth 'cause it took so long to tell someone.
Having experienced a harmful behavior modification program and experienced the way children are treated in this country, I would tend to believe the kids.
So I hope I shed some light on why a person might not tell their parents or the police or any other authority right away. Tho, I wonder if you really wanted to know or are you just some wwaspy supporter trying to just post your justification crap. Even if you are, I hope anon, that you consider what I wrote, cause it's the truth.
Straight Survivor
St. Pete, 1978 - 1980
Not any more.
-
http://wwaspsrebuttal.com/wwasps_interview.html (http://wwaspsrebuttal.com/wwasps_interview.html)
-
While searching the Internet using key words Ivy Ridge Academy, I stumbled across this link which I believe may relate to an earlier discussion. Anybody have any better luck finding any news articles about Ivy Ridge written by this particular reporter?
http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/impor ... wasps.html (http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/important_notice_of_lawsuite_against_wwasps.html)
-
wow - so all of them are lying. Thank God - I thought there was something wrong with the WWASP places.
-
On 2004-02-04 11:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"While searching the Internet using key words Ivy Ridge Academy, I stumbled across this link which I believe may relate to an earlier discussion. Anybody have any better luck finding any news articles about Ivy Ridge written by this particular reporter?
http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/impor ... wasps.html (http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/important_notice_of_lawsuite_against_wwasps.html)"
Here is a link to a website that also came up in the search using key words "ivy ridge academy".
http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml (http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml)
-
http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml (http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml)
Wow, recognize any of the names mentioned on this website? Personally, I was pretty shocked to read a parent drugged her daughter prior to having her escorted. I sure hope that is not standard procedure b/c it seems like the teenager ought to have the right to know what kind of drugs they are taking. Any feedback on this?
-
Anon you said:
So I hope I shed some light on why a person might not tell their parents or the police or any other authority right away.
So then who told the reporter about the abuse? Someone had to tell the reporter. If the kids told the reporter about the abuse then why could they have not been the ones to tell the mother?
-
Well, just attending a regular high school can be an abusive experience for kids who were bullied and treated like they were pond scum by other students. Do these kids always tell their parent or even another adult about their experience? Some do, some don't. Those that do usually find their situation improves with proper parent/school intervention. Those that don't can end up being pushed too far and losing control (e.g. the school-related shootings in San Diego, Oregon, Colorado, Arkansas, etc.).
-
The article says:
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges Houlahan called Maryland-native Laura Boatright in July 2003 telling her he had investigated WWASPS for the past eight months and knew about supposed abuse involving her son at The Academy at Ivy Ridge, in Ogdensburg, N.Y.
This is where the reporter has opened himself up to a law suit. Who told this reporter about the abuse? Was it teens? Was it those that witnessed the abuse? Who ever it was, they were the ones who should have been talking to this parent, not the reporter.
My question is, why didn't the teens tell this parent about the abuse? Why did the reporter have to tell the parent? It seems the problem here is that he is repeating hearsay. If he is a reporter ethics would say report the news, don't become a part of it.
No one has answered this question.
Has this reporter ever spoken with Amberly, Sue, or any other Trekker?
-
Aren't journalists protected by law from revealing their sources?
-
They might be protected by law from revealing their sources when simply reporting the news.....but I betcha once they cross over that line of reporting the news to becoming a part of it, they just might not be.
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-04 13:25 ]
-
I agree, it would be interesting to know how this journalist got involved in investigating this school in the first place.
:???:
-
This is the moral of the story:
"The idea that moral viewpoints acquire their importance from the groups that utter them rather than from their content is to some philosophers, a misguided attitude. In the old days of western culture, the dominant viewpoint was the one held by some, but not all, WHITE MALES, and for most white males as well as for OTHERS that was enuf to make the viewpoint "correct". churches and political groups occasionally take the same attitude: The identity of the group is enuf justification for the correctness of its view. Today, we also see this same viewpoint applied socially by certain groups: if you are a member of an oppressed group, your viewpoint on right and wrong is valuable just b/c you are a member of that group, and if you are not, then your viewpoint is irrelevant. THIS FORM OF RELATIVISM WHICH GRANTS THE IMPORTANCE OF A VIEWPOINT ON THE BASIS OF GENDER, RACE, AND CLASS, MAY BE AS MISPLACED AS ONE THAT DENIES THE IMPORTANCE OF CERTAIN GROUPS , JUST B/C THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE. Such an attitude, the arguement goes, reflects the logical fallacy of the ad hominem arguement: YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG B/C OF WHO YOU ARE, NOT B/C OF WHAT YOU SAY OR WHAT IS REALLY THE TRUTH. In Jim Garrison's words from the Oliver Stone movie JFK, "I always wondered in court why it is b/c a woman is a prostitute, she has to have bad eyesight". MEANING, B/C SOMEONE THINKS SHE IS A PROSTITUTE, WE CANNOT TRUST HER TESTIMONY. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER SITUATIONS IN WHICH A PERSON'S IDENTITY ALONE WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER HE OR SHE WAS RIGHT OR WRONG. teens, perhaps???????
gina.
-
On 2004-02-04 11:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2004-02-04 11:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"While searching the Internet using key words Ivy Ridge Academy, I stumbled across this link which I believe may relate to an earlier discussion. Anybody have any better luck finding any news articles about Ivy Ridge written by this particular reporter?
http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/impor ... wasps.html (http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/important_notice_of_lawsuite_against_wwasps.html)"
Here is a link to a website that also came up in the search using key words "ivy ridge academy".
http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml (http://www.orwelltoday.com/teenstortured.shtml)"
This story published on the orwelltoday.com website contains statements from Karen Burnett (Karen Z) and Jeanne D. who apparently is affiliated with PURE. See Link Below.
http://helpyourteens.com/about_us.html (http://helpyourteens.com/about_us.html)
-
:tup:
"the moral of the story"
an intro to ethics
-
On 2004-02-04 12:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The article says:
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, alleges Houlahan called Maryland-native Laura Boatright in July 2003 telling her he had investigated WWASPS for the past eight months and knew about supposed abuse involving her son at The Academy at Ivy Ridge, in Ogdensburg, N.Y.
This is where the reporter has opened himself up to a law suit. Who told this reporter about the abuse? Was it teens? Was it those that witnessed the abuse? Who ever it was, they were the ones who should have been talking to this parent, not the reporter.
My question is, why didn't the teens tell this parent about the abuse? Why did the reporter have to tell the parent? It seems the problem here is that he is repeating hearsay. If he is a reporter ethics would say report the news, don't become a part of it.
No one has answered this question.
Has this reporter ever spoken with Amberly, Sue, or any other Trekker? "
The reporter did not "open himself up" to a lawsuit by telling the parents.
You, I, or *anybody* has exactly the same defense in court against a libel or slander suit by a public figure as a reporter has.
To win a libel or slander suit, against joe shmoe or a reporter or God, a public figure must prove that *either* the person being sued knew what they said to be false *or* acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Believing the "wrong" person in a he said/she said situation---which is what each and every situation with of a survivor kid's word against the school's is--is *not* "reckless disregard for the truth."
Additionally, truth is an absolute defense against a libel or slander accusation---which means the reporter can haul everything he's got into court to prove what he said was true, and WWASPS can't keep him from doing so.
Basically, if he has *one* kid who was there and says, "I saw it"---he can tell his newspaper, the kid's parents, or the Pope and in the eyes of the law it makes not a damned bit of difference---he'll win the suit---and it won't make a damned bit of difference how many times WWASPS says the kid's a liar, either.
-
This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused. It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention. Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way. I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents. He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents. The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.
I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity. Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.
-
Piss off you WWASP supporting piece of shit. You know you're a fucking liar.
-
On 2004-02-04 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused. It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention. Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way. I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents. He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents. The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.
I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity. Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.
"
Sure, just like my parents KNEW I wasn't being abused. :roll: I'm happy to see that WWASP is fighting this too....it will shed more light on those assholes and the fucking damage they're doing.Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
--Edward Everett
-
On 2004-02-04 19:12:00, Anonymous wrote:
"This isn't about a kid that said he was being abused. It's about a reporter that is/was looking for attention. Sounds like he had a bleeding heart and thought he was helping in an odd sort of way. I agree with those that asked why this kid didn't tell his parents. He had plenty of opportunity as they can write anything they want to their parents. The parents can ask to speak to their child anytime, too, even if the kid hasn't "earned" the phone call.
I'm happy to see that wwasp is finally doing something about the negative publicity. Even if they don't WIN the case, it may, at least, be a way to stop one reporter from printing heresay and pissing off parents that know their kid isn't being abused.
"
In other words, you're admitting this is a slap suit.
Slap suits don't typically work against reporters. They tend to piss off the media and inspire future feeding frenzies.
WWASPS is likely to lose this case because one of the things they will have to prove is that what the reporter said was false.
The reporter doesn't have to prove it's true---WWASPS as the plaintif has to prove it false.
(I just looked that up, see the following article on defamation for the particulars.)
http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_12.html (http://www.modrall.com/articles/article_12.html)
Now, if WWASPS can *prove* what the reporter said was false, then they *can* go after him for listening only to sources that hate WWASPS.
But they have to prove it was false *first*.
And I seriously doubt they can do that. It's a high burden of proof.
If I'm alone in a room with a guy and later come out and accuse him of raping me, he can't successfully sue me for defamation pretty much unless he can prove to the jury that he doesn't have a dick.
It's real hard to prove a negative.
-
It's hard to prove a negative. No, I disagree. It's not hard to prove a negative. Lie detectors have a way of proving negatives.
-
On 2004-02-04 19:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"It's hard to prove a negative. No, I disagree. It's not hard to prove a negative. Lie detectors have a way of proving negatives."
It's hard to prove a negative to the satisfaction of the Courts. Lie detector results are inadmissable. Did you really not know that? Hello?
-
I agree with Anon except I wonder if WWASPS knows (or discovered) something about this guy that compelled them to file suit? It just doesn't seem logical that they would take on UPI without good cause. Second, what about the direct-action lawsuit and the current litigation involving PURE? Why would they want to over extend themselves? Doesn't make sense, IMHO.
-
Is the complaint online yet on PACER?
-
On 2004-02-04 20:39:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I agree with Anon except I wonder if WWASPS knows (or discovered) something about this guy that compelled them to file suit? It just doesn't seem logical that they would take on UPI without good cause. Second, what about the direct-action lawsuit and the current litigation involving PURE? Why would they want to over extend themselves? Doesn't make sense, IMHO. "
It happens all the time. People get insulated from the outside world from hanging with their own little group, and they think the group's standards of right and wrong and what's acceptable behavior is what "all right-thinking people" think. So they file lawsuits that make perfect sense from the group's internal perspective but make no damned sense from an outside world perspective.
And, they hope fear of lawsuits will deter critics whether they actually have a case or not.
I think the WWASPSies are so convinced that what they do is their own private business that they're incapable of realizing they're going to be found to be public figures practically right off in any defamation suit regarding the issue of teen behavior mod facilities.
I also think they're so internally insulated that they're incapable of realizing that their *internal* standard of proof---pounding the table and repeating the mantra, "they're all lying druggies"--is not going to impress the court as proof that whatever the defendant said was actually false.
Most cases that go to court instead of getting settled---and there are a *lot* of cases that go through the courts---go not because reasonable people well-informed on the law and in touch with reality would disagree about who's right and who's wrong.
Most cases that actually make it into court make it in because either the defendant or the plaintiff is in deep denial and really expects the court to find for him even though he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
One of the reasons we have courts is not just to decide genuinely borderline issues, but to ensure that, when someone's deeply deluded in a way that causes them to blatantly commit crimes or torts OR blatantly unreasonably accuse others of crimes or torts, the deluded guy's reality check finally bounces.
Reality is that your average joe can go on and on and on about how he or she "experiences" reality and get farther and farther out from objective reality with almost no hard reality intervening---until it gets to the courts and the verdict comes in and it doesn't matter how joe "experiences" whatever, the court holds him accountable to the laws and standards of society as a whole.
WWASPS filing a suit where they have no case makes no sense *if* WWASPS is run by rational actors in full touch with objective reality.
WWASPS filing a suit where they have no case makes *perfect* sense if WWASPS is run by people disconnected from reality by groupthink who *irrationally believe* they have a case, when they don't.
To predict the behavior of a crazy person, you can't ask what behavior would be rational or crazy with respect to actual reality. You have to ask what behavior *seems* rational to the crazy person (or crazy organization) in the context of what he, she, or they inaccurately *perceive* reality to be.
Bottom line: It makes perfect sense for them to file a suit where they have no case if they're nuts.
-
I see your point, Anon. Guess the only *rational* thing to do is wait and see what the complaint says (or doesn't say, as the case may be). In the meantime, I am curious as to what this guy published? So far, I can find nothing on the Internet.
-
Why would they want to over extend themselves?
Are you kidding? With their money they could sue half the planet.
-
This is where the reporter has opened himself up to a law suit. Who told this reporter about the abuse? Was it teens? Was it those that witnessed the abuse? Who ever it was, they were the ones who should have been talking to this parent, not the reporter.
I don't see how this reporter could reasonably have done anything differently. He heard an allegation. It doesn't matter if he heard it from the kids, from Sue, from an Anon on Fornits or from the devil himself. It makes no difference.
He did what any responsible reporter would do; he checked it out by interviewing everybody involved including the parents. Its difficult to ask someone what they know about an allegation without mentioning the allegation. Then he gets sued.
As I see it, the only other options he could have taken are:
1. Ignore the allegation (because as every program parent knows, they are always lies).
2. Go into print without interviewing the parents, in which case they would have been the first to complain that he didn't speak to them.
-
Well, maybe if these referral services would stop feeding kids to the teen help industry, these organizations would not be such fat cats and would have to seriously think twice before filing lawsuits against their critics.
Can we say KA-CHING, here?!!
:wave:
-
A question has been asked how this reporter even got involved in this story? Let's start there.
-
Speaking of MONEY. I would think the IRS will be interested in THEIR MONEY too.
:smile:
-
On 2004-02-05 10:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"A question has been asked how this reporter even got involved in this story? Let's start there."
Yes, why DID this reporter start an 8 month long investigation? Do tell.
::bigsmilebounce::
-
Not necessarily "Nuts." Definately methodically arrogant,deceptive,harrassment.
Thomas has enough student testimonies to stubstantiate his efforts to enlighten the parent to the truth. He will have good fun with this one.
I hope the Judge in Utah stops to thimk: Maybe,just maybe there is some truth to all of this on going complaints of "allege" abuse..
-
Does anyone have the email address or the phone number for this reporter? If so please post it.
I have a lot of information that I would like to share with him.
Thanks!
[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-02-05 10:38 ]
-
Because the teens can't talk freely with their parents. We all know that (apart from those whose heads are stuck resolutely in the sand).
Kiwi, I was asking why the teens who had previously been at Ivy Ridge did not tell the parents about the alleged abuse. I was not asking why the kids in the program did not tell the parents, but the kids who are now out saying that it happened to them. The reporter lost his objectivity when he became an active part of the story.
-
Anyone with a PACER account can read the complaint online. The Case # is 2:04cv00107
Search by Case # or Party Name:
World Wide Association of Specialty Schools
-
Thanks. For all of those who don't have Pacer, I will post it for you this evening.
-
On 2004-02-05 10:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Not necessarily "Nuts." Definately methodically arrogant,deceptive,harrassment.
Thomas has enough student testimonies to stubstantiate his efforts to enlighten the parent to the truth. He will have good fun with this one.
I hope the Judge in Utah stops to thimk: Maybe,just maybe there is some truth to all of this on going complaints of "allege" abuse..
"
I don't mean "nuts" in the sense of having a clinically diagnosable mental illness.
I'm calling the industry "nuts" in the sense of having perceptions and beliefs that are substantially disconnected from reality.
In that sense, arrogance is a form of "nuts"---arrogance is the misperception that you can either fool all of the people all of the time or that you can come a lot closer to doing so than you really can.
The only *rational* thing WWASPS could be planning that could lead to winning this case would be if *either* the reporter's sources were provably not present to witness the events they said they witnessed *or* if WWASPS could intimidate enough sources into not testifying or changing their testimony that they could make it look like true allegations were false *or* if WWASPS had something nobody knew they had, like comprehensive video and audio surveillance recordings, to prove conclusively that the allegations were false.
Personally, I don't think they have a prayer. Defamation suits brought by public figures rarely win.
A possible rational motivation for taking a loser of a defamation suit into court would be the ability to spin the case and its outcome to the parents who are WWASPS customers. If the parents are too lazy to read the case transcripts, or too inclined to keep drinking the kool-aid, WWASPS could spin a loss in court into a travesty of justice by the mean old court system that just doesn't understand.
-
World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) seeks unspecified damages in the federal civil suit
You know, it has only just struck me, WWASPS is suing Houlahan, not Ivy Ridge. Does this mean they have finally given up pretending they are just a referral agency and the schools are independent?
-
Kiwi, with all due respect, why don't you register with PACER and read the complaint instead of speculating? It's obvious you are biased (which is fine with me) but this is an issue that has entered the legal arena, and as such, has taken on a whole different flavor.
-
Actually, I think Kiwi addressed an important issue:
"Does this mean they have finally given up pretending they are just a referral agency and the schools are independent?"
Why is it that the individual, "independent" programs don't file suit(s)? I think it is a very important point that appears to refute the whole twisted illusion of ownership. Most people tend to believe that they are set up "independently" for tax purposes, and to protect other programs reputations when a umbrella facility gets a bad wrap.
Does the information at PACER answer Kiwi's wondering? If you have access, post up the evidence. I don't perceive her wondering as "speculation", but a legitimate question.
-
Deborah, why haven't you taken advantage of the new instant registration at PACER? The legal issues are fascinating. You are cheating yourself (for 7 cents a page???) out of being informed and that just not sound like you at all.
:nworthy:
-
Ok. Who is going to take responsibility for scaring me to death with the profane talking post.
It almost gave me a heart attack .I was bring in a priest for an exorcism.
Was that YOU Froderick? Very clever.
-
Web PACER (v2.4)
Docket as of February 4, 2004 10:15 pm Page 1
Proceedings include all events. JURY
2:04cv107 World Wide Assn of, et al v. Houlahan
JURY
U.S. District Court
District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 04-CV-107
World Wide Assn of, et al v. Houlahan Filed: 02/03/04
Assigned to: Judge Dale A. Kimball Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $75,000 Nature of Suit: 320
Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander
WORLD WIDE ASSOCIATION OF Dennis J. Conroy
SPECIALTY PROGRAMS AND SCHOOLS, JFAX 9,5322270
a Utah Corporation [COR]
plaintiff Fred R. Silvester, Mr.
EMAIL
[COR LD NTC]
Spencer C. Siebers
JFAX 9,5322270
[COR]
SILVESTER & CONROY LC
230 S 500 E STE 590
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84102
(801) 532-2266
THE ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE, a Dennis J. Conroy
New York partnership (See above)
plaintiff [COR]
Fred R. Silvester, Mr.
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
Spencer C. Siebers
(See above)
[COR]
v.
THOMAS G. HOULAHAN, a foreign
individual
defendant
Docket as of February 4, 2004 10:15 pm Page 2
Proceedings include all events. JURY
2:04cv107 World Wide Assn of, et al v. Houlahan
2/3/04 1 Complaint filed, assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball
Receipt no.: 136080 (kla) [Entry date 02/04/04]
[END OF DOCKET: 2:04cv107]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
02/05/2004 20:00:09
PACER Login: cb1337 Client Code:
Description: docket report Search Criteria: 2:04cv00107
Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I don't have a vested interest in the WWASP legal fiasco(s). Not enough to warrant paying to read the legal mumbo jumbo anyway. All I need to know will make it to the papers in due time, or get posted here.
So, if you have access, does the info at PACER address Kiwi's "speculation"? Are the facilities independent or not? If so, why is WWASP suing?
One question. If it doesn't get answered, no big deal. Pretty much par for the course, but I still think it is worthy of notice. I think it's more of the "have your cake and eat it too" MO of the industry.
If W is truly just a referal agent to the conglomerate of "specialty programs", then that would be equivalent to an independent agency like PURE suing someone for slandering/defaming a program they refer too.
PS
World Wide Assn of, et al
World Wide Assn of Et Al !!
That pretty much says it all.
Thanks Carey.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-02-05 19:23 ]
-
My advice is for Kiwi to read the complaint and come to her own conclusions about whether the complaint answers her questions or not, especially since she is clearly interested in the issues at hand.
The info Carey posted is the court docket where the complaint, itself, can be found and read online.
:wave:
-
Tell me how to get more than just the docket. Can I access it on Pacer?
-
Carey, all you have to do is click on the number of the docket entry that follows the date. See example below. See if that works.
2/3/04 1 Complaint filed, assigned to Judge Dale A. Kimball Receipt no.: 136080 (kla) [Entry date 02/04/04]
:wave:
-
Whoops, yes, you can read the complaint on PACER, unless the court has not scanned the document. The only way to know is go back and see if the number of the docket entry is HIGHLIGHTED. That means the document has been scanned, I think.
-
On 2004-02-05 16:06:00, Kiwi wrote:
"World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) seeks unspecified damages in the federal civil suit
You know, it has only just struck me, WWASPS is suing Houlahan, not Ivy Ridge. Does this mean they have finally given up pretending they are just a referral agency and the schools are independent?"
Kiwi, it appears that Houlahan was sued by both WWASPS and Ivy Ridge. (See Court Docket posted by Carey)
-
Has anybody read the complaint so we can get some dialogue going here?
-
Deborah,
Was that a joke? "Are the facilities independant?
The whole purpose of Isac report is to show they are owned by the same few.
The LIE has been exposed.
As well they are NOT NON PROFIT.
How do you spell money laundering.
-
Yes, anyone with a brain cells firing knows they are not independent. It's great that ISACs spells this out, but they weren't the first to do so. Are you familiar with Intrepid?
It wasn't a joke. They continue to tell the press, and lead others to believe that the facilities are independent. At least one of their latest websites does not mention any of the other facilties. Guess they discovered that having all the programs listed at every site was not a wise marketing technique.
-
People, these schools and programs are for all intents and purposes independently owned and operated. Read the complaint. It spells out in no uncertain terms what WWASPS relationship is to IVY Ridge and why the lawsuit was filed. Now, if you are saying WWASPS is not being truthful, where is the documentation to support your argument? All I know is what I have read here, on the ISAC website and in the court filings. So far, I have more faith in the court system to be the one that ultimately sorts this all out.
p.s. No, I am not a WWASPIE or a PURE PERSON.
-
How would a parent know that their child, who they placed in one of these programs and are paying thousands of dollars, know if their child is being treated humanely?? Oh let's see, because the people who are taking their money and who will continue to take their money as long as their child continues to "misbehave" told them so. THINK! If a parent is told by the program that your child is being mistreated and unless the parent is an abuser themself ,why keep the child there? WWASP can't tell the truth, LOOK at what they have to lose $$$$$$$.
-
Something tells me this is a case that is not going to generate much public opinion or interest by the media. I mean, was this conducting a private investigation or working for UPI? The complaint does not make this clear but maybe I am missing something here?
-
From the document filed on Pacer:
...Shortly after Ms. Boatright transferred her son, she was contacted by defendant at home in Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Defendant represented himself to Ms. Boatright as a reporter for the United Press International, or UPI.
Defendant represented to Ms.Boatright he had been investigating World Wide and its member schools for over eight months.
Defendant represented to Ms. Boatright he knew of facts surrounding her son's transfer form Ivy Ridge to Tranquility Bay.
Defendant respresented to Ms. Boatright her son had been physically abused at Ivy Ridge.
Defendant respresented to Ms. Boatright her son was being transferred to Tranquility Bay to facilitate further physical abuse.
Defendant's statements to were false.
Upon information and belief, defandant has contacted numerous other parents of students in World Wide member schools in the same manner.
Upon information and belief defendant has also published false and defamatory statements to such parents.
Upon information and belief, defendant has contaced an attorney in Utah invovled in the filing of frivolous lawsuits against World Wide. Knowing the claims and lawsuits to be baseless and false, defendant nevertheless offered to use his position to publicize the claimants stories to injure plaintiffs.
-
It is very stupid to sue the media. They don't like it. They usually win. They have deep pockets. We do have this little thing called the First Amendment that exempts reporters from claims related to "interfering with someone else's business" (Lanham act).
And, doing so will allow the reporter to bring all the evidence he has of abuse into the courts as sworn testimony-- and *that* will get a lot more attention than just a few UPI stories.
-
Ah, but the media has not been sued. Do you see UPI listed as a defendant? I sure don't.
-
Just b/c the guy is a reporter for UPI does not mean he was working on assignment. Why don't you wait and see what the merits of the case are before calling the game? That would be the intelligent thing to do intead of jumping to conclusions that may be off base.
-
Also, there is the matter of the allegation about Houlahan contacting an attorney in Salt Lake City for some rather dubious sounding purpose. What's that all about????
-
On 2004-02-06 18:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Also, there is the matter of the allegation about Houlahan contacting an attorney in Salt Lake City for some rather dubious sounding purpose. What's that all about????"
My money says this is bad news.
-
I really don't see this as being ABOUT WWASP. I see this as being about the parents and their children. What I see WWASP doing is helping those parents by doing what they can to stop the abusive reporting and allegations. If you wanna think it's about $$, go ahead.
The parents know their kids are not being abused. They are on campus everyday in every area of the property. So are therapists, nurses, doctors. What do you think? Once the sun goes down the torture chamber appears?
The upper level students are in the towns playing sports, public service, visiting senior citizens, hiking, shopping. Do think every single person in these towns from New York, Iowa and whereever are under some kind of spell to turn the other way if they suspect abuse?
So far, in all these months, I've only read allegations, from not so credible sources. That's more abusive to the parents than anything else.
I'm glad that WWASP is finally doing something to support the parents, to help the families by taking a stand, instead of just sitting around hoping all this crap being said will disappear.
-
This is not crap, sir/madam. They are allegations made by people who are parents and children who apparently are not being taken very seriously by other parents and children. Why is that? Why is it that as long as someone says something positive about these programs, they are telling the truth but if someone says something negative, they are liars? That is just plain ridiculous. Ever test driven a car and told the salesman the care just didn't live up to your expectations? Well, it's not like parents get to test drive these programs so there you go!
-
The reporter, like many of the other reporters on this story, many of whom have *quoted* that lawyer from Utah, was probably seeking to interview him or to have him see if his clients would be willing to talk to him.
there's absolutely nothing sinister about that. reporters talk to lawyers all the time in course of their reporting.
and UPI *is* also being sued.
-
Where is the documentation that UPI is being sued? Second, who is this attorney you are referring to and how is it that this reporter's "interview" with the attorney even became a LEGAL ISSUE?
-
No use speculating here, and that's all anybody can do, but since the complaint does not name UPI as a defendant, it does appear to me that they have not been sued. Am I missing something here?
-
On 2004-02-07 16:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
The reporter, like many of the other reporters on this story, many of whom have *quoted* that lawyer from Utah, was probably seeking to interview him or to have him see if his clients would be willing to talk to him.
there's absolutely nothing sinister about that. reporters talk to lawyers all the time in course of their reporting.
and UPI *is* also being sued."
Okay, then why has only THIS reporter been sued? Doesn't make sense at all.
:silly:
-
Yes, it is important that discussions about legal issues be specific to what's in the public record, not based on pure speculation or assumptions of fact. Hopefully as this case progresses, the answers to these very good questions will be addressed.
-
On 2004-02-07 16:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
The reporter, like many of the other reporters on this story, many of whom have *quoted* that lawyer from Utah, was probably seeking to interview him or to have him see if his clients would be willing to talk to him.
there's absolutely nothing sinister about that. reporters talk to lawyers all the time in course of their reporting.
and UPI *is* also being sued."
FYI: Judging by the complaint, as filed, the statement that UPI is being sued, is factually incorrect. Anon should present documentation to the contrary in support of his/her statement.
-
if I were a betting man I'd say that this is bad news and a move WWASP may regret
-
On 2004-02-08 13:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"if I were a betting man I'd say that this is bad news and a move WWASP may regret "
Oh this is bad news allright. But not for the reasons you suggest. Quite the contrary. Read the complaint, Anon. My sense is there is much more to this than meets the eye (ergo, ya might want to hold off on placing any bets until all the facts are on the table.)
-
Wow, over 1,000 looks at this thread. Amazing. Wonder how many of these people registered with PACER to read the complaint, probably quite a few I would imagine.
-
Huh, I dunno know, maybe because WWASP want's him to shut-up! Because if he keeps talking about what's going on more and more kid's will be pulled from the programs and WWASP will start losing big bucks. Do you think?
-
Still waiting for some documentation to support the Anon's contention that UPI is being sued.
:???:
-
What difference does it make if UPI is being sued or not? Really...what difference? In reading the Pacer accounts, perhaps the one available is of the suit against the reporter. Is there another one WWASPS has filed against UPI that we're not seeing, possibly because it has a different name, format, or filing date?
BTW, this reporter is a stringer for UPI, meaning that he works as a subcontractor, providing information to UPI (in an area they may have asked him to investigate) but his work is his own. UPI may pick up his story, or they may not. This system would seem to me to protect UPI from liability. On the other hand, I think WWASPS is really stupid to bring suit, which just puts the burden of proof of *non-abuse* on WWASPS. Do they really want to shine the bright light of the media on their dirty secrets?
-
It makes a lot of difference Anon, given that *someone* wrote a post saying that UPI HAD been sued. When asked to present documentation to support his/her statement, this *someone* provided none. As for the complaint, if you have read it, then there should be no doubt in your mind that UPI is NOT named as a defendant in the complaint against Houlahan. You intimate that perhaps UPI has been sued in a separate action, yet that also remains to be shown as fact. What peaked my interest in this case is the fact that aside from Houlahan, I have not heard of any other journalist that has been sued by WWASPS. Have you? If so, please share.
-
On 2004-02-09 17:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"What difference does it make if UPI is being sued or not? Really...what difference? In reading the Pacer accounts, perhaps the one available is of the suit against the reporter. Is there another one WWASPS has filed against UPI that we're not seeing, possibly because it has a different name, format, or filing date?
BTW, this reporter is a stringer for UPI, meaning that he works as a subcontractor, providing information to UPI (in an area they may have asked him to investigate) but his work is his own. UPI may pick up his story, or they may not. This system would seem to me to protect UPI from liability. On the other hand, I think WWASPS is really stupid to bring suit, which just puts the burden of proof of *non-abuse* on WWASPS. Do they really want to shine the bright light of the media on their dirty secrets? "
Anon,if you think about it, why would WWASPS and Ivy Ridge sue this guy if as you say, that would be stupid? It really doesn't make sense which leads me to conclude they do not share your point of view. Second, I am aware of only 1 other lawsuit brought by WWASPS (the one against PURE). Are there any other lawsuits filed by WWASPS or any of their other member schools that have not been made public???
-
What difference does it make if UPI is being sued or not?
Are there any other lawsuits filed by WWASPS or any of their other member schools that have not been made public???
Well, these questions are related. It seems UPI is not a litigant. There is no point in suing Houlahan and UPI separately: the issues are identical and they would just apply for them to be heard together anyway.
According to ISAC's WWASP report (you know, the one Carey doesn't believe) WWASP has threatened lots of kids with legal action for speaking out. When you have as much money as WWASP you only have to threaten most of the time. Most private individuals don't have the money to put up a decent defense and stand to lose everything.
WWASP seems to only go after the little guy. They have never sued the New York Times or Salt Lake Tribune. They go for people who they think will roll over and die. They may have made a mistake with PURE: they have enough money to put up a fight. In the case of Houlahan, maybe they have had to back up their threats with action. After all, his career is on the line and maybe he has insurance or a union behind him. They may still be hoping he will settle.
-
Duh WWASP would like to keep UPI out of it. They seem to go after the little guys- Duh again
*** betcha that UPI does not have their affiliates sued often and may see more than oddness here and take a ride with their guy- probably WWASP's greatest fear in this case.
UPI can choose to involve their attorneys and would probably leave WWASP weak in the knees.
That's my 2sense
-
Kiwi, it seems there is another organization which one could say also likes to go after the "little" guys. Have you forgotten? Perhaps the next time you hit the "Say It" button to post another one of your self-serving messages, you might want to say a thank you to Ginger, one of the "little guys" who's been sued -- not by WWASPS -- but by PURE, a competitor of WWASPS. Do you even care to know why that is or would you rather spin the truth and blame it all on Ms. Bock? Sheesh, talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.
:roll:
-
On 2004-02-10 06:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Duh WWASP would like to keep UPI out of it. They seem to go after the little guys- Duh again
*** betcha that UPI does not have their affiliates sued often and may see more than oddness here and take a ride with their guy- probably WWASP's greatest fear in this case.
UPI can choose to involve their attorneys and would probably leave WWASP weak in the knees.
That's my 2sense
"
FYI: That's 2 cents (not sense). Dunce.
-
How is it that Kiwi would know if PURE has enought money to do anything? Do tell.
-
Hey Kiwi, here's a thought. Post on the ISAC board. People here might be a little sensitive about your pro-PURE agenda.
::puke::
-
This is so fucking stupid. No WONDER nothing ever gets done about this shit. I am so sick of coming on here and seeing nothing but backbiting and bitching at each other. Most people on here have the same intention, to shut the places down, but it'll never happen with everyone so divided. Somehow I don't see us as being effective until or unless we can get our own pettiness out of the way. Carey makes some great points and I believe, for the most part, she has good intentions. But she's such a bitch that it just rubs most people the wrong way and then they're turned off to whatever she has to say or to anyone else that might come along and try to get something done. If she comes across in court the same way she does here, she'll be looked at as a vindictive ex-wife trying to get back at the husband. I'm not saying that's the case, but that's how she'll be perceived and it will hurt what we're all trying to do. My point is that we ALL have hurt the credibility of this "cause". ISAC, Carey, the anons (self included) etc. It's gotten stupid now. I think it's time we stopped jumping each others shit and focus the attention where it needs to be.
-
"she'll be looked at as a vindictive ex-wife trying to get back at the husband."
Oh yeah, someone trying to protect her kids, will be seen as vindictive. I don't think so.
It does not matter what side of the fence you are on. It will be seen as either the kids were being abused and Carey saved the kids from any more of that abuse. Or, it is PURE making up shit about WWASP to make a case against them because of her legal troubles scarring Carey to death for Sheffs own self serving agenda.
This is not about Carey's ex husband in any way, other than the fact that he might have bought into something he really did not have all the facts about.
-
Speak for yourself, Anon. Not everybody is caught up in the PURE v. WWASPS legal battle nor do they care to be. As for Carey, I think most folks have figured out that she is not the dirty sock in all this but is certainly being hung out to dry to satisfy the agenda of her critics. What a crock of shit this is!!
-
It makes no sense to speculate about the merits of this case before it goes to court *other than* to say that in cases like this one the plaintiff has one hell of a burden of proof to overcome and is *generally* likely to lose just because this particular kind of case (public figure defamation) is so very hard to win.
-
Kiwi, it seems there is another organization which one could say also likes to go after the "little" guys. Have you forgotten? Perhaps the next time you hit the "Say It" button to post another one of your self-serving messages, you might want to say a thank you to Ginger, one of the "little guys" who's been sued -- not by WWASPS -- but by PURE, a competitor of WWASPS.
Yes, thank you very much Ginger.
Do you even care to know why that is or would you rather spin the truth and blame it all on Ms. Bock? Sheesh, talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees.
When it comes to forests and trees I think WWASP is the forest and PURE is the tree.
How is it that Kiwi would know if PURE has enought money to do anything? Do tell.
By reading this forum. I recall something about PURE raking in $300,000 a year. I can't find it now. When searching on PURE there is a low signal to noise ratio. Please correct me if I am wrong.
People here might be a little sensitive about your pro-PURE agenda.
:nworthy: I whole-heartedly agree.
[ This Message was edited by: Kiwi on 2004-02-10 09:45 ]
-
On 2004-02-10 08:19:00, Anonymous wrote:
""she'll be looked at as a vindictive ex-wife trying to get back at the husband."
Oh yeah, someone trying to protect her kids, will be seen as vindictive. I don't think so.
<
This is precisely what I mean. I AGREE that she's not doing this to get back at her ex. BUT...it will be perceived that way because they will jump on ANY excuse to discredit her and, sorry, the way she comes across plays into that. Read what I actually wrote, not what you want to see in it.
-
Anybody know who this Houlahan guy is and what the status of the lawsuit is that was filed a few weeks ago? Seems we should be keeping an eye on this given the number of views(over a thousand!).
-
Seems we should be keeping an eye on this given the number of views(over a thousand!).
Surely you realize the number of hits represents the same people hitting over and over.
Its not like a thousand people even look at Fornits; much less this one thread.
As for who Tom is; thats clear enough from whats already posted. My personal opinion is he's an interesting fella, who is doing a good job.
I find myself thinking they've got a tiger by the tail this time.
Go get 'em big guy!
-
Don't think you are right on either count, Fornits or Houlahan. Wishful thinking sounds more like it. But what else is new? The facts are always the last to be considered, even as they are beginning to emerge faster than you can say "go get 'em tiger"!
:silly:
-
P.S. You might ask Ginger to give you the head's up on just how many people do look at Fornits. It is most definitly in the thousands, pal.
-
Source: From What is a Froderick Thread:
... and I (Quote)
"Nah, only tens of thousands
Vistor report for Month of: 2003/11
hits examined: 963148
visitors found: 19529
Visitor report for: Month to date
hits examined: 520609
visitors found: 9398
(End Quote)
You Go Fornits!
::drummer:: :wink:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
--John Quincy Adams, Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives [July 4, 1821]
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous
-
Source: From What is a Froderick Thread:
I know, I know...no need to thank me...I know I've helped make this site what it is today. :wink: :lol:
-
Fornits is very large if you look at all the forums. I was speaking of just the one we're on here; the teen help one.
It just seems like a new post or thread gets about 20 - 25 hits; then they begin to double as new posting takes place. Thats just how it has seemed to me. I could be wrong. I'd like to know myslef what the actual story is on this. But in any event, I'm sure many of the hits represent the same people looking multipul times. Thats just common sence.
-
Yes, I'm sure people do visit and revisit threads all the time, depending upon their level of interest (or boredom) of course :lol:
But it seems to me that when the number of hits reaches 500-1,500 we are talking about a rather significant number of fist-time readers, especially when the number of posts per thread is in the range of just 6-12. Regulars do tend to keep track of dates and times, skipping threads that they have already read, for example. Also, the system is designed to keep active threads at the top so readers know what to look at when they are looking for new info.
But really, I'm only speculating here. What seems very clear is this forum (The Teen Help Industry) is second to none of it's kind that I know of on the Internet. Just how BIG it is, only Ginger can say.
-
http://http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07082004/utah/181868.asp
Judge tosses St. George-based company's slander suit
"U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball on Tuesday dismissed a slander lawsuit filed against a reporter by the St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS) because the allegations involve actions that took place outside Utah. The association claims United Press International reporter Thomas Houlahan defamed its reputation by falsely telling parents that school officials abused their children, citing calls he made to a Maryland woman whose son was in a New York school. The WWASPS is associated with seven behavior modification schools in the United States and two operating outside the country."