Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 11, 2004, 01:56:00 PM
-
http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/pure_ ... wwasp.html (http://www.helpyourteens.com/news/pure_defeats_wwasp.html)
-
what's wrong? i guess everyone now realizes these people put up...and everyone else shut up?
what happened to all the basher's against pure? what happened to all of the pure people? did everyone go away?
-
I don't recall anyone ever bashing PURE. I had a couple of good questions that never got answered. And I did ask Sue. She changed the subject. Anyone else care to explain to me the difference between WWASP and PURE?
One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation.
--Thomas Brackett Reed
-
PURE was/is the one doing the bashing.
Difference? WWASPS oversees the schools, which are all independently owned. PURE refers to schools that pay them a fee. They won't disclose the schools they refer to, so no one knows if they have allegations of abuse or not.
Why the secrecy? Are they ashamed of the schools they refer to, or do those schools have the same allegations.
What I don't see in this PURE written press release is who WWASP had there to dispute these allegations. Was this Press Release picked up and printed by any newspapers? If there were press present, did they print anything in their newspapers.
Rep Miller said that visiting any of the schools WWASPS oversees would be a dog and pony show. This press release reads like a dog and pony show.
Karen was so quick to post this press release, but has she forgotten how badly Abundant Life Academy has received allegations of abuse? Is this one of the "programs" PURE refers to?
BTW, if kids is in "the Hobbit" have no way of hurting themselves (a time out place for observation?) how did a kid carve "Let Freedom Ring?"
This press release just shows that PURE can now print anything they want with no repercussions.
Sad.
-
WWASP oversees the schools - that's the story and your sticking to it, huh?
Go on - keep your head in the sand and your ass in he air.
I was there and I herd the man explain how he oversees the schools. Hope he hear all the complaints - I bet he does.
I herd the man explain how he had no problem with staff screwing students as long as the student consents. Wasn't worth filing a report or even talking to the staff member when it happen at TB.
I herd the man explain it himself.
I saw the photo of the hobbit. The dad was only allowed to draw a depiction of the photo for the jury - but I saw the photo. Tiny. Devoid of comfort of any kind. Wood shelves to lay upon and that was all. There was no heat it was explained - and this was Montana. The kids orange froze overnight, it was so cold. I herd the father testify and explain how his son was left to languish in this tiny, cold, stark hole for MONTHS. All the time he is being told his son was fine. I saw the writing on the wall. I saw the boys name on his sleeping board. I saw his cry for freedom on the wall.
I saw the kids being marched around in the Mexican sun in long johns and sweat suits. I saw them laying in the dog cages. It was on a big screen. No problem making out what one was looking at. I saw and herd the boy break down sobbing as the father of one of the dog cage kids explained what the film was of; where it came from; and what was happening.
WWASP didn't dispute the allegations. Just like you, they tried to deflect and distract and minimize. They sat in court and sneered and laughed and giggled.
It made a very poor impression.
And know this smart ass, I haven't forgotten anything.
-
To the person asking the question, "who did WWASP have there?" to refute Pure's so called bashing:
Please note, this case was brought BY the WWASPies, dragging a Florida defendant 2000 miles from home to Federal District Court in Utah. This is the $90 Mil per year business versus a small timer with a few employees.
WWASP wanted to shut her up and intimidate other voices -- just like they tried (unsuccessfully) to shut up Tom Houlihon of UPI with their earlier frivolous SLAPP Suit.
Anytime a person wants to file a defamation case, they necessarily run the risk that if they lose, the general public will reasonably conclude that the purported defamatory statements were indeed true.
In this case, it was THEIR suit on THEIR home turf, and presumably, WWASP had every reason to take their best shot. If their high falootin attorneys couldn't get it done, it just might have been because they were holding a losing hand. I Don't have time to listen to any whining that they didnt have a fair chance to present their proofs. Its time for a little accountability please.
-
So far this is all heresay. No news articles from reporters that were there. I find that quite odd. Also no court transcripts, only anonymous posters, like me, that have their views. That press release uses actual events and twisted them to fit what PURE has done over and over in the past. If the outcome of the court decision IS true, then it will give free rein to anyone who wants to post their distortions of the facts.
I didn't say WWASPS didn't have a fair trial. I asked, in other words, if they had any of the hundreds of students that know there is no abuse tell their stories to the jury. I'm asking, not accusing.
Got a question...have any of you ever lived where there are chiggers and sand flys? Have you ever had a picnic in a humid area and had flys on your food? No amount of repellent can stop those little critters from biting the hell out of your legs. Isn't that what really happened to some of the kids at the South Pacific school?
That whole press release is full of the same type of distortions. Based on the truth, but twisted to fit someone's agenda.
As for "deflecting"...who's doing the deflecting here?
-
The Salt Lake Tribune covered the story-- though very poorly because the reporter didn't seem to have attended the trial every day.
But it's there in black and white in the paper: WWASP lost and PURE won.
Google it if you don't believe it!
What that means is that a jury of twelve Utah citizens believed that PURE's allegations against WWASP had enough basis in truth not to be a violation of the Lanham act, which prevents business competitors from making false claims about each other.
Journalists and citizens are not bound by the Lanham act because their free speech is simply that: not aimed at harming a business competitor.
The case was not about which group was "better" nor was it about whether there are any confirmed allegations of abuse at facilities to which PURE refers-- it was about whether PURE's claims that WWASP abuses kids were based in fact. The jury believed that WWASP abuses kids after hearing testimony by several parents and seeing videos illustrating the conditions in its programs.
Ken Kay testified for WWASP and WWASP had at least two lawyers present. This wasn't any sneak attack on poor tiny 100 mil a year grossing WWASP.
-
On 2004-08-13 22:23:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So far this is all heresay. No news articles from reporters that were there. I find that quite odd. Also no court transcripts, only anonymous posters, like me, that have their views. That press release uses actual events and twisted them to fit what PURE has done over and over in the past. If the outcome of the court decision IS true, then it will give free rein to anyone who wants to post their distortions of the facts.
I didn't say WWASPS didn't have a fair trial. I asked, in other words, if they had any of the hundreds of students that know there is no abuse tell their stories to the jury. I'm asking, not accusing.
Got a question...have any of you ever lived where there are chiggers and sand flys? Have you ever had a picnic in a humid area and had flys on your food? No amount of repellent can stop those little critters from biting the hell out of your legs. Isn't that what really happened to some of the kids at the South Pacific school?
That whole press release is full of the same type of distortions. Based on the truth, but twisted to fit someone's agenda.
As for "deflecting"...who's doing the deflecting here?
"
I've lived in an area with rampant chiggers.
You *can* keep them from biting the hell out of you. You don't wear the kind of binding clothing that attracts them.
IOW, you dress appropriately for conditions.
And you recognize and treat the rare chigger bite that happens anyway by immediately covering it with nail polish.
It doesn't matter where you live in this world, the locals have *some* basic rules for dressing appropriately for local conditions and immediate treatment of insect bites and other injuries.
If minimizing and treatment is not possible in a certain environment---YOU DON'T PUT KIDS THERE.
Sending a kid out in clothing with tight elastic bindings, day after day, in chigger country. Providing no nail polish to treat chigger bites promptly. Those would be examples of child neglect.
Every child protective services department in the country treats dressing kids inappropriately for weather or conditions to be child neglect.
Likewise, all CPS departments treat failure to provide necessary medical attention promptly as child neglect.
If you don't think letting kids get eaten up with bug bites, or letting their food be buggy, for prolonged periods is child neglect, then your reality check just bounced.
Timoclea
-
Its not hearsay. I was there.
WWASp lost this b/c the program is extremely abusive and grossly neglectful and it was proven in federal court.
To answer your question, no, they did not present any of the faithful legions to testify how wonderful the program is. I suspect the reason being they didn't want to expose them to the truth; or the jury to the parrot like quality of their program praising. Just a guess.
The Salt Lake Tribune did a very poor job of reporting but they did cover it.
It was also covered by a French film crew and the BBC. American media has so far failed to grasp what kind of story is taking place right under their noses. I think too, American media is to addicted to sound bites. News in drips and dabs. This story can't be told in such a fashion, so they just won't try and tackle it. That's my thinking on the matter.
I do think other news sources will report on the trial. I have gotten email asking for the press release. So, lets wait and see how much coverage the story gets.
As for the transcripts - go buy yourself a copy.
They will be very important reading and I am so glad Sue hung in there and saw this threw and so provided us all with an invaluable document detailing the abuse and neglect that takes place in The Program.
-
Chiggers and Sand Flies? Thats what "really" happened to the Samoa kids?
I guess that means that you'd prefer to make the members of the insect kingdom accountable for the abusive conditions, rather than the humans who put the kids in the way of the bugs, knowing there was no reasonable means of protecting them.
It must be something in the LaVerkin water supply that causes intractable denial and paranoia.
After all, it was that mean old California building inspector that caused Bell academy to close, not the bright, enthusiatic, dynamic men and women who put the kids in a substandard facility (and would druther close it up than comply with local building safety codes).
It was them mean old big city newspaper reporters (from NEW YORK! with NON-ARYAN surnames!) who caused Dundee ranch to close -- certainly not the highly trained Pre-owned Motor Vehicle Professionals who ran it.
And that Costa Rican prosecutor, the Czechoslovakian prosecutor and that Mexican outfit that closed High Impact, well what do they know about troubled teen help -- they're just a bunch of DUMB ASS FOREIGNERS who were probably looking for a payoff.
And why didn't the person who videotaped the kids in the dog cages in Mexico just unlock the gate? Certainly the manufacturer of the videocamera must share in the responsibility!
Of course, its absolutely wrong and unfair to hold WWASP management responsible for any of these abusive institutions. How can anyone reasonably expect THEM to be accountable? After they get caught, they pay big money to their lawyers to set up new legal entities. They pay big money to their IT people to set up identical websites with different names. They pay big money to public relations firms to find out WHY people think brainwahing kids is a bad thing, and then find ways to convince folks that maybe its NOT REALLY SO BAD after all.
Hey, just because someone gets caught on tape putting kids in cages, or endorsing making kids lie face down on concrete for months at a time as an appropriate form of treatment doesn't mean they should be branded child abusers for the rest of their lives, does it?
Even if those practices WERE bad (a proposition which WWASP vigorously disputes) they happened under a DIFFERENT CORPORATE SHELL! We've CHANGED the logo on our caps and golf shirts. Now we are GOOD, and ALWAYS have been (that is, going back at least to the date of our most recent re-incorporation).
-
Wonder why they keep trying to deny wwasp opperated High Impact?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HIGH IMPACT BOOT CAMP
Baja California, Mexico
Dwayne Lee, Admissions Coordinator ?
Parent Resources Hotline
Hurricane, Utah
800-793-5156
[I called their web site number to ask some questions about the Parent Resources Hotline, identifying myself as an educational consultant. The person answering the phone informed me he was only authorized to send a packet of information and did not answer any of my questions.
:exclaim: The packet I received included a photocopy of a letter from Dwayne Lee of Parent Resources Hotline, a Sample Daily Schedule
:exclaim: for WWASP Programs, :exclaim:
a brochure for High Impact, a Video Tape and a brochure for the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs: Casa by the Sea, Carolina Springs Academy, Cross Creek Academy, Spring Creek Lodge and Tranquility Bay. Apparently Parent Resources Hotline exclusively markets High Impact and WWASP programs.-Lon] :exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim:
High Impact describes itself as a 28 day+ boot camp for defiant teens ?that is well defined and well structured. This experience is designed to help teens replace destructive attitudes and behaviors with new perspectives and direction in their lives. This is accomplished by focusing on the three R?s of Reality, Respect, and Responsibility.? One of their stated goals ?is to help participants gain an appreciation for home and family by learning to take total and complete responsibility for themselves.? They use a ranch setting ?along with the rigors of an authentic military type schedule?.? The typical schedule presented starts with ?Wakeup? at 6:00 AM, and ?Shutdown? at 8:00 PM, including four hours of ?Marching? and six hours of ?Worksheets.? The remaining time is devoted to Hygiene, Inspection and meals. ?Staff members maintain 24-hour ?round the clock? supervision and interaction with participants. They teach values, acceptable behavioral norms and proper respect for authority?.Our ?gender separated? compound? is designed to create an environment with ?minimal distraction.?
:exclaim:
The program describes its short-term program as a ?wake-up? call for the teen, that parents can use to buy some time while deciding whether to enroll their child in their long-term program. The audiotape sent with the promotional packet consisted of a number of testimonials by parents and ex-students, mostly, however, apparently referring to the long-term WWASP programs rather than High Impact.
:exclaim: A price list was included for the various WWASP programs, but none for High Impact.
:exclaim:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You'll notice there is nothing mentioned about dog cages or forced laps in the blazing MX sun while wearing sweat suites; or forced stress positions on the concrete floor of the dog run.
No mention of the cattle prods.
I had forgotten to mention it myself. . .
Cattle prods were used to frighten the kids and keep them in the stress position. That's what the Iraqi tormentors called it - maintaining a stress position. Seems to be a well understood "soft torture" to help facilitate brainwashing. Cattle prods or snarling guard dogs, serve the same purpose.
This is real.
This is how they treat the "students."
And the attempts at denial when caught prove they know what they're doing is wrong.
Its criminal.
We have U.S. solders facing court marshal and prison for treating prisoners in the same way as these monsters treat kids.
They have gotten away with it for so long. But the tide has turned. The winds have shifted. I hope the storm serge washing them clean away.
-
I did a google search, also checked the SALT LAKE Tribune and didn't find what you said was printed. Just the original one saying it would take about 7 days for the hearing to be complete.
So...please provide the link here. I'd love to read it.
-
Go to SL Tribune and search under "World Wide Assocation", last 14 days.
By reciting the WWASP anti Pure allegations in both her original story and the story concerning the jury verdict against WWASP, she sure sounded biased in favor of the home team (even tho the jury only took 3 1/2 hours to reach a unanimous verdict in PURE's favor)
-
I am hoping Pam with the SLT will regret her lazy and biased reporting and will dig further and do a better job - but there is just no telling why she is so reluctant to tell the story entire. Maybe her uncle is a Litchfield; or her bank account fatter or she is just one of the faithful programmed legions.
But, she did write a story. I found the SLT wants money to look at archived stories - this one included and wasn't willing to pay for it.
-
Let Freedon Ring? How funny. Who's free that wasn't already free? Not any teens, that is for sure. Parents who want to tell their story, they already were free? Teens who are no longer in programs, they are free. All of these people can tell their story. Why, because they are free. But what about the teens in PURE's programs? Are they free? Are their voices being heard?
-
Date: August 7, 2004
Section: Utah
Edition: Final
Page: B3
St. George troubled-teens group loses in court
Verdict: A jury clears a Florida rival of making claims of abuse against kids
Pamela Manson The Salt Lake Tribune
A Florida woman accused of pumping up her own credentials and denigrating her Utah business rival through unfounded Internet accusations was cleared Friday of allegations of false advertising.
A 12-member federal jury in Salt Lake City deliberated about 3 1/2 hours before rejecting claims in a lawsuit that Sue Scheff and Parents Universal Resource Experts Foundation (PURE) had conspired to damage the St. George-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs (WWASP).
"They're not going to silence me anymore," an emotional Scheff said. She insisted the WWASP suit filed against her was an unconstitutional attempt to stop legitimate criticism.
Her attorney, Richard Hendriksen, agreed.
"The jury recognized that a large company has a right to speak, but so do moms and dads," he said.
An attorney for WWASP, Fred Silvester, had no comment about the verdict.
Both WWASP, which provides support and public relations services to six residential treatment programs for troubled teenagers, and PURE make referrals to families and collect payments from schools when students are enrolled based on their recommendations.
WWASP filed suit seeking unspecified damages from Scheff and PURE, which is based in Weston, Fla., shortly after a series of negative comments about the Utah company were posted on an Internet chat room. The remarks, under a half-dozen different names, claimed children were abused at WWASP facilities, among other allegations.
Scheff later acknowledged being the source of all the postings.
She said the comments were based on true events and that she used pseudonyms to protect the privacy of the individuals whose stories she told. She also contended that a false claim on her own company Web site that she has a college degree was an honest error.
The dispute has been acrimonious. U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell, who presided over the weeklong trial, ejected one spectator who was accused of making faces during witness testimony.
WWASP also had private security guards in the courtroom.
pmanson@sltrib.com
(c) 2004 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc. by NewsBank, Inc.
**********************************************
The only thing this tells me is that the jury decided it was okay for PURE to repeat heresay as a marketing tool.
Sue Scheff got on internet sites, posted as several different people saying things that "were based on true events" and also pumped up her website saying she had a college degree saying it was "an honest error"
Yep, this is giving her validation to pump up her marketing efforts as evidenced in her Press Release.
So, Ginger, watch for many new postings "based on true events" showing up here.
What I don't get is if a kid claiming abuse, or a parent believing their troubled child says this stuff without proof, is that really based on "true" events?
-
Sue Proved her case pal.
What she was saying was not defamatory or slander b/c the things she said were true and happened to real people.
The "pumped up" web site was explained and the explanation was credible b/c it is the truth.
What this decision did, was make it clear people in this country do still have first amendment rights - and if as Fred complained, that's wrapping myself up in the Flag - then so be it. I like the flag.
What this decision did, was make it clear you can't defraud people and abuse people an get away with it forever. You can't intimidate the victims to silence, forever. A long time maybe; but not forever.
What this case did, was get on the record, in Federal court, accounts of gross fraud perpetrated upon the parents; and gross abuse and neglect inflicted upon the kids.
This decision has made WWASP's favorite line of defense collapse. No longer can they say abuse has not been proven in court. I think this is the most important thing this decision has done.
And as for you, you swine, you know damn good and well being out of wwasp doesn't mean the kid is free of wwasp. And you've got some gall talking about the parent's freedom after you tried to help muzzle the parents. Now you'll learn a lesson about the boomerang effect.
-
This decision has made WWASP's favorite line of defense collapse. No longer can they say abuse has not been proven in court. I think this is the most important thing this decision has done.
And as for you, you swine, you know damn good and well being out of wwasp doesn't mean the kid is free of wwasp. And you've got some gall talking about the parent's freedom after you tried to help muzzle the parents
_______________
For someone who thinks they won something, you sure are angry. But you need a reality check, abuse was not proven. All that was proven was that PURE was not posting alegations all alone. All that was proven was that PURE was repeating what others were saying. That was what the jury was ruling on, and that is all the jury was ruling on.
"Free of wwasp"? What about free of PURE? Whats the difference?
"Muttle the parents"? Who tried to muttle parents?
Wow, if you accomplished your goal, then celebrate. Don't be angry because others don't see it as a victory.
-
What this case proved is that you can't believe anything you read on the internet unless you choose to. It didn't prove abuse, it proved freedom of speech. If there was abuse proven, don't you think the newspaper would have reported that? That's BIG news. Have there been ANY newspaper articles anywhere that said abuse was proven.
What this case proved is that no one has jurisdiction on what is posted on the internet, web sites, etc.
Was this case about proving abuse? That's not what I read in the article or the purpose of the court case.
If it had, I'm sure WWASP would have had the courtroom filled with credible witnesses.
-
These were the four rulings:
Did defendant engage in false advertising in violation of the Lanham act?
Did defendant PURE engage in false advertising willfully?
Did defendant defame plantiff with actual malice?
This is what the jury ruled on. They did not rule on abuse, so to say abuse was proven is absurd.
-
Thank you for this. It's the only thing that makes any sense. Since PURE is not the only agent making these false allegations "based on whatever troubled kids and parents say" they can't be held accountable. WWASP would then have to go after everyone, which could prove impossible.
So, continue to post your allegations of abuse. No one will believe it...unless they choose to.
As for the copyright infringement, the Lanham Act, just using the WWASP name in the postings doesn't constitute an infringement. Is that it?
If PURE hasn't done what they have for "actual malice" what is it? To save the children? LOL!
-
As I understood the judge when he ruled to let in some of PURE's documentation; the evidence of abuse is what went to disprove malice. She had a right to say what she said, b/c it was true. Thats how I saw it.
As for the News papers, they can't report what they didn't cover. I suspect once the transcripts hit the net, that will change.
-
First you don't want people to believe newspapers or media; Then you say the abuse disclosed is not real unless we see it in the paper!
So?
Which is it?
-
So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse? Or, she had documentation of heresay? Big difference.
As for newspapers not reporting what they didn't cover...since when?
-
On 2004-08-15 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse? Or, she had documentation of heresay? Big difference.
As for newspapers not reporting what they didn't cover...since when? "
If you really want to be anonymous, weeding out consistent misspellings would be a good start.
It's "hearsay."
Timoclea
-
On 2004-08-15 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So, what you're saying is that PURE had documentation of proven abuse? Or, she had documentation of heresay? Big difference.
Do you believe the Nazi holocaust occured? After all, none of us were there to see it. We only have, as evidence, the testimony of the people who were there.
How about Stalinist reeducation camps? Believe they existed? Do you believe anything that doesn't proceed from the mouth of some smug mother fucker who thinks he's a god on Earth?
Doubt it.An Animated Cartoon Theology:
1. People are animals.
2. The body is mortal and subject to incredible pain.
3. Life is antagonistic to the living.
4. The flesh can be sawed, crushed, frozen, stretched, burned, bombed, and plucked for music.
5. The dumb are abused by the smart and the smart destroyed by their own cunning.
6. The small are tortured by the large and the large destroyed by their own momentum.
7. We are able to walk on air, but only as long as our illusion supports us.
-- E. L. Doctorow "The Book of Daniel"
-
Antigen, Ginger - Amusing comparison. I have no reason NOT to believe what has been well documented in the History books, etc.
If I told you that when I was in the 7th grade, I told my mother that a nun had smacked me on the cheek with a ruler because I knew she would transfer me to a public school, would you believe me? I even made a mark on my cheek and had to keep up the lie for years. I almost believed it myself. I got what I wanted and ended up only hurting myself. I hurt the nun by telling lies about her but didn't care at the time. My mother told other mothers and on and on. It was ugly, but I didn't care because I got away from having to go to church everyday and wearing uniforms, walking in line, not looking out windows during class and raising my hand if I needed to pee only to be told I should have gone before class.
What I said was well documented, but it wasn't true!! It was true to anyone who believed it.
-
Shoulda gone before class. . .
Was it uncomfortable? Even painful?
Imagine yourself, forced to maintain 'the position'; knowing if you move a mussel you'll suffer the torment of restraint; Needing to go real bad. . .
Asking for permission and being told to maintain silence.
Needing to go REAL bad. . .
Asking again - given a warning.
Asking again and then yanked up and slammed against a wall; or pounced upon by two or more men twice your size. . .
You'll not be able to hold it. No way.
The humiliation is extreme and the torment of having your joints ground into the concrete adding injury to the insult.
This happens in the program on a regular basis. On the boys side anyway. I haven't heard the girls mention this kind of treatment. But the boys uniformly do. My son experienced this and Fathers have given sworn testimony in federal court of sons who've experienced this.
I would call this Abuse of the physical and emotional kind.
I think anybody would - unless they've been well programmed.
But you refuse to believe it; the reality of this is beyond your grasp, it seems.
As was said earlier -
Keep your head in the sand and your ass in the air. Show them how much you trust them.
But what about your kid???
-
Post URL:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#57731 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=6282&forum=9&start=10#57731)
-
On 2004-08-15 21:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Antigen, Ginger - Amusing comparison. I have no reason NOT to believe what has been well documented in the History books, etc.
If I told you that when I was in the 7th grade, I told my mother that a nun had smacked me on the cheek with a ruler because I knew she would transfer me to a public school, would you believe me? I even made a mark on my cheek and had to keep up the lie for years. I almost believed it myself. I got what I wanted and ended up only hurting myself. I hurt the nun by telling lies about her but didn't care at the time. My mother told other mothers and on and on. It was ugly, but I didn't care because I got away from having to go to church everyday and wearing uniforms, walking in line, not looking out windows during class and raising my hand if I needed to pee only to be told I should have gone before class.
What I said was well documented, but it wasn't true!! It was true to anyone who believed it.
"
Look, I understand your mother was gullible. Mine was too. Not always, but frequently.
Every small child lies. Parents have to get used to telling the difference between when their own kid is lying and when she is telling the truth.
Occasionally, junior high or high school students lie.
It doesn *not* logically follow that every time a teen says something you don't want to hear, even if it's something that improves his/her circumstances, that the teen is lying.
You lied, so you over-assume anyone else who says something similar *must* be lying.
What you said wasn't "true" to anyone who believed it. It was false, you just allowed that.
That doesn't mean that every time some teen reports abuse and you don't want to hear it that that teen is lying.
What it means is that when children allege abuse, you have to look very carefully at forensic-type evidence and other, similar abuse reports, and what *all* sides have to gain from telling falsehoods, and whether, if the kid *is* lying to get out of a situation, if the situation is one that it would be objectively good to get out of, anyway.
It sounds as though you had some valid reasons to find the school you were in a difficult, potentially hostile learning environment. Some kids need that extra structure, some kids thrive in that extra structure. Some don't.
Sometimes kids lie out of desperation because their parents don't listen to an unpalatable truth.
I don't know if that's what you did. I don't know how your dislike of Catholic school was or wasn't affecting your ability to learn and your lifelong attitude towards learning.
I *do* think you're projecting your guilt and anger at yourself for lying onto other kids---you're taking it out on them that you still hurt because you lied.
Did you ever 'fess up to your mom? Is she still alive so you could? If you didn't, you need to. Even if it's going and talking at a grave or writing a letter and leaving it there.
You should also, if you never apologized to the nun, send a letter to the school, or the diocese, admitting the lie and apologizing for it.
If you've already made it right, okay, sorry for getting in your business--but you did bring it up.
I think all of us remember lies we told as children and adolescents. I think most of us remember times we told the truth and weren't believed and got punished anyway, too.
As parents and society, we have to do the best we can not to assume kids are lying, and not to assume kids are telling the truth, but to look at the whole situation.
We also owe it to our kids to recognize that sometimes a lie is a cry for help escaping a bad situation where the child doesn't know how to express the truth in a way that will communicate the reality of why that situation is a problem.
Usually with my kid when I suspect that's the case, I keep talking to her and try to get around to an admission of the real reason she's unhappy with something. I try not to judge that reason. She may not get her own way--frequently doesn't.
But the funny thing is that usually once I find out what the problem is there is some kind of compromise I can arrange, some kind of change to alleviate all or part of the problem, or help her cope better with something that was hard for her, without her missing out on something I think she really needs to do.
For instance, if I thought it was important for my child to go to Catholic school, but she had come and told me what you said about Catholic school--what you really hated about it, not the nun thing--well, I'd work with it. I'd work within the uniform rules to get as much comfort or individuality possible--work on *what* you didn't like about it. Work on maybe your concerns about fitting in with the other kids from public school. Work on *why* you were hating going to church every day--was it boring? Was it physically unpleasant (cold? hot? hard pew? scary homilies?), work on the bathroom issue---find out if you had some physical issue and needed to go more than normal, find out if their expectations were unreasonable for your age, find out if you needed to plan better and help you do that.
And maybe I wouldn't be able to reach a workable accomodation with you and the school to make it an overall positive learning experience for you.
I mean, if you were just angling not to have to work to learn, that would be one thing, but it sounds like you had some legitimate concerns that could have been worked with.
And if the school wasn't responsive to something *legitimate*---like if the homilies were unduly frightening in a way that wasn't age appropriate, or the uniforms were unreasonably uncomfortable or impractical (or outrageously ugly, even), or they weren't allowing enough bathroom break time for your age and medical condition, and they wouldn't fix it, or you just weren't academically thriving, I might have moved you to public school anyway and worked to try to get some of the benefits I was looking for from Catholic schools other ways.
I think the first part of healthy parenting is learning to listen and being willing to evaluate and address your kid's *legitimate* concerns.
It doesn't mean you address them by letting the kid dictate *how* you remedy legitimate concerns. The kid can't be the boss. But you kill your communication with your child when you don't listen, or try to figure out what portion of your child's concerns are legitimate or can be accomodated without harm to the kid or undue hardship to the family or others.
It sounds like you had a problem going to your Mom with legitimate concerns, or she had a problem getting them out of you.
Without that example, maybe it's hard for you to tell the difference between kids dictating terms versus adults listening to kids and searching for legitimate concerns and reasonable ways of dealing with them.
I hear you that not all kids are truthful. Not all kids are lying, either. And not all kids that are lying don't *also* have legitimate grievances underneath the lie.
Timoclea
-
Hi. I'm the one that posted about the Catholic school...
Yes, I told my mother about the lie. But not for 20 years. And, no, the bathroom thing was an excuse to leave the classroom, even if it was true. I knew to go to the bathroom prior to class instead of chatting with my friends.
It had nothing to do with a hostile environment. I just wanted to go to the public school to be with a guy I liked in my neighborhood.
I learned in college the Catholic school was the better of the two schools, but didn't see it at the time.
I'm not assuming these stories that PURE tells are untrue completely, but I do know that most of the kids will lie to get what they want in the beginning or not tell the whole story. They got what they wanted, so to fess up before they're 18 can mean another trip back to the Program. There was a reason they were admitted and being honest wasn't one of them.
-
This is one of the best posts I've ever read.
-
On 2004-08-15 21:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
If I told you that when I was in the 7th grade, I told my mother that a nun had smacked me on the cheek with a ruler because I knew she would transfer me to a public school, would you believe me?
Not enough info. Did I (reluctantly playing the role of your mother) go to the same school? Do we attend the same parish? Are we, as a family, familiar the people who work there? The other students and their families? Do I know the nun? Do I have access to talk to all these people about the incident? Does this nun, or others in the same institution, have a history of abusing their students?
Odd that you would choose Catholic school as an example. Is it possible that you're unaware of all the scandals breaking out around the Catholic church covering child abuse going back decades? I was going to find a link to a particular story about a particular orphanage in Ireland which was horrendously abusive and has since been shut down. That would be a better comparison because, like kids entered to some of these toughlove gulags, the orphans had no contact w/ the outside world and no advocate on the outside who would believe them.
Ironically enough, I can't find a link. Not because it's not documented, but because a search on "Anonymity Anonymous (http://fornits.com/anonanon)
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
...but I do know that most of the kids will lie to get what they want in the beginning or not tell the whole story.
Why single out the teens? Parents and programs lie and manipulate to get what they want as well.
***There was a reason they were admitted and being honest wasn't one of them.
Again, you assume that teens are habitual liars, and that parents/programs are white as the driven snow. That is such an inaccurate perception. Are you trying to manipulate the way people think about teens? Why all the hating and fear of teens?
-
As I have said before, my grandaughter was seldom referred to by her name while in a WWASPS school. She was either called by her number, or the Spanish word for "Liar".
-
On 2004-08-16 11:00:00, Deborah wrote:
Again, you assume that teens are habitual liars, and that parents/programs are white as the driven snow. That is such an inaccurate perception. Are you trying to manipulate the way people think about teens? Why all the hating and fear of teens?
Yeah, no kidding! How many times have we heard from some of these ppl, years later when we're all grown up w/ no incentive to lie, that their parents told them they were going along on a business trip or that they were just going to talk to some ppl for an hour or so? Nothing new under the Sun. In my day, the stock lie was "Just sign yourself in for a two week evaluation. If you don't like it, why you can walk right out on your 14th day." I even know a couple of people who were told by staff and their parents that they were court ordered when, in fact, no court order ever existed.
If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil
deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
-
All human beings lie and always have. Its one of the first social skills a young child developes.
How and why a person lies is what makes the difference between a thoughtful person and a malicious psycopath. Or a manipulating teen or parent or program. Let us not forget the program.
-
Basically, ditto. *People* lie. Including people running businesses that let them rake in lots of money or give them a certain power over others or other ego stroke.
Most of us aren't demanding that all RTC's everywhere shut down.
Most of us want Sunshine--The Best Disinfectant.
I think if every one of these places had a pay phone, and the kids got an allowance, and could and did use the pay phone to communicate with the outside world freely---be it with former teachers, friends, extended family, parents, or child protective services---that most of us, while we still would have reservations about sending children away from home, would be greatly relieved and a lot less vehement about criticizing these places.
Especially if it were known that the kids were free to bitch about the school as much as they wanted on these calls and they wouldn't be punished for it.
Just a simple pay phone and a certain minimal amount of free time and money to stand in line to use the thing.
The biggest PR black eye the Programs give themselves, that make it *look* like the abuse stories are generally true, is cutting off the kids' communication with the outside world.
-------------
On the Catholic school thing, where the "grievances" were pretty much excuses to get what you wanted---that's one of the tools I use to figure out when my daughter has real grievances and when she's just playing me. When I go after the grievances and address them, does she feel a certain amount better, or does she get really frustrated like I'm not following her script?
:smile:
Mostly, now, she's a pretty truthful kid.
Timoclea
-
BRAVO!!!
-
bravo to the people who hung in there and saw this lawsuit through. Awesome good job. :tup:
-
I really really dislike hearing pro program parents and staff etc say the kids are liars and manipulators.Some kids may be, many are not.
Not all of the true stories I have heard from kids who have been in the program are on PURE.
Many of the stories are consistent with the mistreatment they recieved and the kids have never met or heard of each other.I think it is time you nay sayer come to the realization that the "lies" may be the truth.
I for one am tired of the real liars.
Lets start with the LIE about the quality of education our kids will receive.The "kind and loving staff" etc etc etc etc etc.
-
I'm not assuming these stories that PURE tells are untrue completely, but I do know that most of the kids will lie to get what they want in the beginning or not tell the whole story. They got what they wanted, so to fess up before they're 18 can mean another trip back to the Program. There was a reason they were admitted and being honest wasn't one of them. "
[/quote]
You need to understand that the majority of the kids now telling their stories about these child abuse compounds are home. I rescued my son from one of these Hell Holes. I placed him there and yet found too many horror stories about the place via the internet. I wasn't taking any chances. I hadn't even talked to my son yet showed back up unannounced a few days later. My son had been beaten, tortured, starved, deprived of sleep, water and bathroom priviledges. There was no calling me to whine. He wasn't allowed phone calls. He was covered head to toe in bruises. Most of these victims were rescued or had finally served their sentence. Now they could finally tell the truth about the treatment they had rec'd.
-
http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/let ... n0408.html (http://www.strugglingteens.com/news/lettertoeditor/burnettkaren0408.html)
Disclaimer: The opinions, interpretations and recollections of the testimony of parents or other parties expressed in this Letter to the Editor are solely those of the author. By publication of this letter neither Woodbury Reports, Inc., StrugglingTeens.com. nor its employees express any opinions either for or against the parties involved.
Vidi et Scio
I saw and I Know
Karen J Burnett
Shepherdsville, KY
502-955-1219
It is now nearly two years since I've made my first public statements about the WWASP program. It?s been a long couple of years. I have learned a great deal since that first statement and found reasons for hope as well as despair.
I would now like to comment on some highlights of the recent WWASP vs. PURE trial in Salt Lake City; which concluded with Sue Scheff being exonerated on all counts, which included defamation, conspiracy and false advertising.
This is my personal observation; what was for me most profound, or interesting. Others will naturally have differing points of view. I wasn't able to attend the entire trial, but was present all day Wednesday and Thursday. I was sorry to miss the closing arguments and verdict; but I am so glad to have been able to attend the days I did. I might as well say, right up front, for those who don't know me; I was sitting on the defendant's side of the courtroom. For a full account of the trail, you will need to read the transcripts; and I do very much hope you will do so. As I do not yet have a copy of the transcripts, where I quote testimony, I am doing so from memory.
It is such a shame they couldn't have a camera in the court room. The transcripts will be important and powerful reading, but there is no way can they convey the drama and emotion that was there during the testimony. The credibility of the parents who took the stand; and of Amberly Knight/Chirolla, as she explained her situation and knowledge, was beyond dispute and so powerful!
There are many side stories that won't be in the transcripts and I'd like to mention a few of those.
There were two Frenchmen attending, who are working on a documentary. At one point, they took to shadowing WWASP. It struck me as amusing when WWASP's attorney complained in court and said they had the FBI looking into who the Frenchmen were. In my opinion, this trial proved the FBI needs to be looking at WWASP.
At one point during his testimony Ken Kay complained that a woman was distracting him by making gestures. At first, I thought he meant me, as I had at that moment turned to get my note pad from my purse; But it turned out to be the lady sitting next to me. As she was pointed out, Ken Kay asked her why was she making gestures; She stood up and replied, "Because your lying, sir." At that point the judge gave her the boot. Of course the jury was instructed they mustn't pay any heed to what a spectator might say. I found it odd and somewhat amusing, that Mr. Kay brought such attention to the situation and asked such a question in open court.
Later in the trial, there was another situation with a spectator, that I felt was powerful, but which won't make it into the transcripts. Mr. Goodwin was on the stand, testifying to the conditions in WWASP's High Impact. A film that had been shot by the MX police was being shown; and they were going frame by frame, as Mr. Goodwin explained what the jury was seeing. He was saying for example, as he pointed to the screen, Here are the kids marching; here is the 'on the cross' position; here is the 'Indian' position. . . At this point, a young man observing the trial began to sob. He had been crying for awhile, but at this point he began shaking and sobbing. As I happened to know who the young man is, and some of his history with WWASP, I was concerned for him. The judge, very wisely in my opinion, decided to take a break for lunch. In this way, he was able to stop the trial, and exit the jury, with no extra attention drawn to the situation. Even so, as the lawyers were gathering papers and people prepared for the brake, there was this young man sobbing, and on a large screen, the image of a boy, despondent, in the Indian position, in a dog run. There was plenty of time to take all this in before the jury was excused.
As for some of what will be in the transcripts, I think for me, the following would be the highlights.
At one point WWASP hands Amberly Chirolla, a one time director at Dundee Ranch, in Costa Rica, a copy of an email she had sent in reply to Ms. Cary Bock with the apparent intent of impeaching her testimony as to when she 'met' Sue Scheff. They asked her if she remembered writing it, and she said she did; she then asks if they'd like her to read the third paragraph. NO, he snapped - just answer the question - Did you write this? There was a line about how if Carey wanted to pursue claims of abuse against WWASP, she should maybe contact other parents and suggested she get in touch with Sue. WWASP wants to know, dose she remember writing that? Amberly at first seemed puzzled and said she remembered the post, but didn't recall knowing Sue at that time. Then she says, "Oh I do remember! I do! This wasn't a reference to Sue Scheff, but to Sue Flowers!"
On re-direct, the first thing they had her do was read the third paragraph. It had to do with her fear of speaking out, due to WWASP threatening litigation. She was asked to explain that, and was able to explain how they hush people by threatening to sue them; that she had been so threatened. It also enabled them to talk about who Sue Flowers is. Also, Dundee's fall and her letter to PANI came in.
At one point, while WWASP had Sue on the stand, they brought up a recent negative article about a program PURE has referred to. The judge appeared not to be pleased with this move, and allowed many of Sue's documents that had been excluded, back in. Sue had many documents that had been excluded because WWASP wanted to keep the case centered between certain dates. The judge told them if they were going to bring up something that happened two weeks ago, then they were going to have to allow Sue to present what she had up to that point. I was glad of this, as I suspect the documents included many parent's statements, including my own.
I was often struck by WWASP's harassment of the parents who testified. For example, Fred Silvester, WWASP?s attorney, was asking Mr. Goodwin, a father whose son was in WWASP?s High Impact, about a comment made having to do with going to look around the "school". In what appeared to me to be a sharp, sarcastic tone, he asks, "And what did you see?" I guess maybe he thought Mr. Goodwin would say, happy kids soaking up knowledge! Mr. Goodwin responded, "Well, I looked in one door and saw a girl sitting with a three inch strip of duct tape across her mouth." Silvester?s back went stiff, as he drummed his fingers on the podium; Then he waves his hand at Mr. Goodwin and snaps, "You just made that up, didn't you?!"
"NO I did NOT just make that up!" was Mr. Goodwin's adamant reply.
It was powerful.
It was during Mr. Goodwin's testimony about High Impact that I learned some things I had not been aware of before. He explained how the staff used cattle prods to terrify the students and keep them in the stress positions. It was either maintain the position, or get a jolt from the cattle prod. They would strike the ground and create a discharged by the kids' heads, so they would know the prod was hot.
He talked about his son being restrained; really more of a violent take down; with no warning and for no reason; where he hit the ground so hard his bottom teeth went clean threw his lower lip. He was made to lie in the 'on the cross' position while a pool of blood spread from his face around his chin. They did later tell him it was for 'run plans'. He had mentioned to another boy, earlier in the day, how impossible it would be to escape; and that was the reason.
Mr. France's testimony was also deeply moving and beyond any dispute. He gave testimony about the tiny, cold and bare room his son was kept in for nearly 9 months, while in a WWASP program. The room is known as "the Hobbit." He drew a depiction of the room and explained the wood shelves his son had been made to sleep on. He was able to do this with accuracy, as he has a photo of this room. He knows it was the room his son was kept in, b/c his son wrote his name on the edge of the wood shelf, as well as, Let Freedom Ring, on the wall. He talked about the extreme cold in this unheated room during the Montana winters. He explained how an orange his son had tried to stash away, froze over night. He testified to the extensive dental work his son has needed as a result of having his mouth injured while in this WWASP program. In response, WWASP attempted to cast blame on Mr. France's parenting; As if what happens to his son, while in their program, was his fault. This is also what they tried to do to Mr. Goodwin.
I found myself wondering, where is Their Accountability? Why can they not admit these are horrible things that never should have happened, and apologize? Then do whatever it takes to be sure these things cease? Personally, I suspect if they made the needed changes, the program would not be The Program; and so they must continue to deflect and deny and minimize, if they are to continue at all. In other words, in my opinion, the abuse and neglect are an important aspect of WWASP?s method of behavior modification.
Lastly, some of Ken Kay's testimony just floored me. For example, he was shown a page from a WWASP handbook listing what constitutes abuse by staff. One rule was, striking a student; open handed or with a fist, was abuse. He said he wouldn't agree with that. It depended. When pressed, he agreed that according to the WWASP handbook, it was abuse.
Another rule was sexual contact with a student is abuse. He said it depended. Yes, the hand book says that, but it depended. He explained one has to keep in mind the kind of students they have. They are troubled, disturbed teens. That's why they are there, he explained. So, sex might be consensual. Apparently, in Ken Kay?s mind, consent negates abuse. The fact that he is talking about captive, troubled students, consenting to sex with staff, who have control over every aspect of their lives, is of no consequence. It seems to be his view, that yes means yes, no matter the circumstances.
When asked about a specific situation at Jay Kay's Tranquility Bay, where this very thing occurred, he explained that he had gotten a complaint from the father. He had talked with the student who said it was consensual. That was it. He did not talk to the staff member. He made no report. Filed no complaint of any kind. In other words: Nothing was done. He seemed to think this was OK, according to the testimony I heard while I was observing the trial.
Do you?
-
At one point WWASP hands Amberly Chirolla, a one time director at Dundee Ranch, in Costa Rica, a copy of an email she had sent in reply to Ms. Cary Bock with the apparent intent of impeaching her testimony as to when she 'met' Sue Scheff. They asked her if she remembered writing it, and she said she did; she then asks if they'd like her to read the third paragraph. NO, he snapped - just answer the question - Did you write this? There was a line about how if Carey wanted to pursue claims of abuse against WWASP, she should maybe contact other parents and suggested she get in touch with Sue. WWASP wants to know, dose she remember writing that? Amberly at first seemed puzzled and said she remembered the post, but didn't recall knowing Sue at that time. Then she says, "Oh I do remember! I do! This wasn't a reference to Sue Scheff, but to Sue Flowers!"
Oh my gosh, that is so funny. :lol:
That had nothing to do with Flowers, that was totally about Scheff. Amberly is still lying.
-
Lon tinkered with it a bit.
He left out the part explaining how wwasp came to have the email in the first place
(so you know, Carey Bock sold her hard drive to wwasp for 12,500.)
Why weren't you there Carey?
You could have explained how everyone was lying and how wwasp never did any harm.
Except that you had claimed they did . . . Oh, but that was Dundee, not wwasp.
Must keep that Straight.
-
email me please I need to ask you some questions away from the forum arena. You contacted one of our Non Profits and got me going on another case that led here. I am Jay Beswick my email is patches@as.net
Thank You
-
I should say that the message was for Karen.