Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 18, 2005, 10:47:00 AM
-
Rumor has it they're going to be sued by WHITEMORE soon too I hope they get a good free lawyer case 05050037/0
-
Lichfield is such a bully - he sues anyone who gets in his way and exposes him. ISSAC should sue him for malicious prosecution. There has been too much press on Litchfield for him to sue anyone for anything.
you Momma is a big fat's ________
--Leroy Brown
-
On 2005-03-18 07:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Rumor has it they're going to be sued by WHITEMORE soon too I hope they get a good free lawyer case 05050037/0"
What's your point in posting this? Do you believe it's true? How would you know something like this? Do you hang out w/ Bob Lichfield or something? Are you celebrating? Why? When an innocent Californian millionaire gets killed by a drug squad
trying to seize his house with a bogus search warrant, people better ask themselves if they really want to turn their cops into money-makers.
--Vancouver Police Const. Gil Puder
-
SUE,,,,
Let me suggest that you rejoice here carefully. Remember there are those of us who you have sent many an email to requarding your last case. I am sure you are aware that those emails and statements you made indicated that you were shall we say not completely honest, You also know that P.R could testify to that.
I havent been around for awhile as you already know however, an email indicating that you are rejoicing over this did get my curiosity up.
Sue, think back hard on the on the one who talked to P.R. at length day in and day out over a year and a half ago. Now, wouldnt it be a shame if all those public statements, emails etc where no expectation of privacy was involved suddenly hit the internet. Ummm, that would make that appeal thats going on in your case ,, go VERY quickly now wouldn't it.
Isnt it a crime to lie under oath? I thought so. Not saying you did. But if you did and someone could prove it man that would be a bad day huh...
Survivor
Willing To Prove It
-
What a great idea, I have emails too..
Shall We Dance Sue
Old Parent
-
It appears someone here has finally lost their mind.
You might want to get a "reading" before following through. It doesnt look good for you.
-
survivor and willing to prove what, that you're pathetic has anyone told you extortion is against the law and Queen Ginger, the answer to your question is that yes it's true and I did it for s & gs
-
On 2005-03-18 07:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Rumor has it they're going to be sued by WHITEMORE soon too I hope they get a good free lawyer case 05050037/0"
Oh please!!! For what possible reason? :roll: Neither in my private life nor in my writings, have I ever made a secret of being an out-and-out unbeliever.
--Sigmund Freud, Austrian-born psychologist
-
On 2005-03-18 12:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"survivor and willing to prove what, that you're pathetic has anyone told you extortion is against the law and Queen Ginger, the answer to your question is that yes it's true and I did it for s & gs"
Extortion? Might want to get yourself a dictionary. Look it up.
Its very foolish to make bitter enemies of those who have been fast friends.
You are being very foolish. Again.
-
On 2005-03-18 12:29:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
Oh please!!! For what possible reason? :roll:
Because a lawyer know that WWASP/Litchfield is good for plenty of billable hours.The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.
--Thomas Sowell
-
What in the heck is going on here. Does anybody care to explain?
-
On 2005-03-18 12:34:00, Erinys wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 12:29:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
Oh please!!! For what possible reason? :roll:
Because a lawyer know that WWASP/Litchfield is good for plenty of billable hours
True, very true.
Come on guys! Tell me why they're all going to be sued. I really would like to know from your perspectives. What has ISAC or Ginger done that would provoke a lawsuit? Seriously, I really would like to hear your reasoning.It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle
-
EXTORTION - The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent. USC 18
The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).
I think willing to prove it was just saying simply Sue that you should not rejoice and throw stones at others. There is NO telling what could come out of your closet.
Oh, for your convience I have provided you with the "legal" definition of extortion.
An individual who at one time may not have wanted to be involved in your mess who subsequently changes their mind does not meet the legal definition of extortion.
But then all you had to do was ask Lichfield's attorneys and you would know that.
The only way that I can determine your PRE knowledge of all this as well as the details on the attorneys involved is a simple deducement that you are talking quite frequently with WWASP.
Of course, thats just my opinion.
Perhaps you may want to review the penalty of perjury. You know what happens to those who lie under oath, in depositions etc. Not that you have its just good to know all the ramafications involved in all the lawsuit business. I believe P.R. could enlighten on that matter.
Your best bet here in my humble opion, is to let the legal proceedures proceed without your play by play calls or announcements of them. I am confident the party's involved will disclose what they feel is appropriate and will disclose at the appropriate time.
We do not need your news cast.
Old Parent
-
Old Parent
Aren't you obligated to report any perjury if it existed? Do you need help with that? I use to get stuff all the time. I have my old computer still and I could certainly look for any inconsistencies.
San Diego Parent
-
SECOND DEGREE EXTORTION under RCW 9A.56.130) (Â?[threat] to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridiculeÂ?]; and (j) [Â?[threat] to do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationshipsÂ?].
uh huh, this is exactly what Miss Isac did and since Ginger (the Great Lady of WWW) makes her site available in every state, I think state law might apply LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
-
Specifics please.
-
On 2005-03-18 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
"SECOND DEGREE EXTORTION under RCW 9A.56.130) (Â?[threat] to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridiculeÂ?]; and (j) [Â?[threat] to do any other act which is intended to harm substantially the person threatened or another with respect to his health, safety, business, financial condition, or personal relationshipsÂ?].
uh huh, this is exactly what Miss Isac did and since Ginger (the Great Lady of WWW) makes her site available in every state, I think state law might apply LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! "
Are you kidding me? You are, right? You guys just CANNOT be serious. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Know what I think? I think ISAC, WWF etc. have really got you guys riled up. Somewhere they must have really hit a nerve with you. Opinions are expressed, personal experiences with the programs are posted and you guys go running SCARED!! Think maybe people are catching on to the whole scam??? :lol: :lol:
-
please educate me - what is wwf?
-
On 2005-03-18 13:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"please educate me - what is wwf?"
you're on it. Fornit's Home for Wayward WebFora. See the little logo at the top of the screen? Sheesh, one would think you'd know, following Ginger so closely and all. :lol: :lol:
-
Wayward Web Fora or Worldwide Wrestling Federation. Take your pick
Don't hate the media. Become the media
--Jello Biafra
-
On 2005-03-18 13:31:00, Erinys wrote:
"Wayward Web Fora or Worldwide Wrestling Federation. Take your pick
:rofl: :rofl:
-
wwaspinfo.com is getting sued as well? This seems so crazy
-
What's going on? The truth about these places is starting to leak out and they don't like it.
-
thats a stupid question are you kidding no extortion, even 2nd degree, seems serious to most of us
-
the truth about ISAC is getting out that's what people don't like
-
On 2005-03-18 13:37:00, Anonymous wrote:
"thats a stupid question are you kidding no extortion, even 2nd degree, seems serious to most of us"
Alright now, if you're going to post here and would like to be understood then you're going to have to brush up on your sentence structure. I got what you were trying to say, but I had my secret decoder ring on...not everybody has one ya know. :lol:
-
On 2005-03-18 13:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"the truth about ISAC is getting out that's what people don't like"
What truth is that? Please tell me. :roll: Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
--James Madison
-
My My My,
?[threat] to expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false,
I don't recall anyone threatning to devuldge a "secret". That would mean publically disclosing (of course, if there were no secrets, there is nothing to divuldge but I digress). However, if one was questioned on the matter and they simply stated the truth in a legal setting than that is hardly publically disclosing. However, many legal proceedings are then made public record and subsequently often are seen on the internet. Many depositions are on the internet.
I am unclear on who "Miss ISAC" is or why you would refer to that.
The Bigger Question here seems to be why are you defending and or enjoying a lawsuit against survivors? One who truly has empathy for their position does not enjoy in any hardship given to them. Truly anyone with any compassion for another does not enjoy nor feel the need to publish the business of another.
I do not know the individuals at ISAC very well but I have seen the good that they have done. I believe your daughter was saved by them if I am not mistaken.
Again, the issue here is WWASP suing survivors the rantings of a gossip are in my opinion, just that rants.
Furthermore, to wit; there has been no such disclosure of any "secret" or "asserted fact". Further, there has been NO threat to do so. I believe the individual was simply stating that they felt it terriably inappropriate for you (one who Claims to be against abusive rehabilitation) to in fact enjoy a lawsuit against a child rights group. I believe they indicated that you had NOT done anything. As for the publically divuldging of secrets I am sure that the individual does not hold the corner on that market in these circles.
So tell me, why is WWASP suing a survivor of all people? Since you seem to know so much on the case, do enlighten us.
Old Parent
-
This is nothing more than a move of desepration or bullying on their part. PURE is a COMPETETOR to WWASPS and got out of the lawsuit, and ISAC is not a competetor or a business at all. Its just out to spread awareness and stop abuse.
So tell me, if a BUSINESS COMPETETOR could tell the abuse accuastions against WWASPS and put some facts out there, and get off okay, what are the odds that ISAC, too, would get off?
Pretty high, I'd say.
And aside from that, PURE sucks too, WWASPS sucks a little more, and I bet Shelby is gonna laugh her ass off out of court.
He that lives upon hope will die fasting
--Benjamin Franklin 1758
-
Good Lord, if Litchfield sued everyone who spoke negatively about him...when could he ever leave his attorney(S) offices????
Whitmore to sue ISAC? Sounds like their NICE FRIEND has been giving them an ear-full of poor advice. SUE SUE SUE...what a game they play. Bet their attorneys really laugh all the way to the bank. Can we spell S-L-A-P-P????
-
Oh---BTW: MAKE SURE to make copies of those "interesting emails you might want to review with Sue," there has been a bit of computer hacking going on here lately. YOU DON'T want SOMEONE getting into your computer erasing anything, OK???
Soon as the FBI finishes up with their investigation on my "HACK JOB" I will post exactly who the "bad guy/bad girl" was OK?
Just a little warning there.
Things do get messy, you know.
-
Whomever has the PROOF concerning SUE -- turn it over to the authorities ASAP. As far as I know, PERJURY is still a CRIME. (I'm not in the loop and even I've heard talk that there were some LIES told from the stand. I'd love to see that proof put on the Internet and I'd love to have law enforcement take a look at it and take ACTION on it.)
(Time to send these weasels underground where they belong.)
-
I do agree: Why would anyone, Like Sue Scheff be happy to know any WWASP person has filed a suit against ISAC (if this is true)? And the big question.....How would SHE know about it?
-
Its a wonder Sue has time to refer kids, what with "suing" just about everyone she's ever met or talked to on the phone. Parents aren't immune from her either...BELIEVE ME!
-
the once tried to get a court order in federal court to take down Mountain Park Horrors. The court ruled that the webiste was protected by the first amendment and could not be touched. Here is a link to the rulling:
http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf (http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf)
The webiste Mountain Park Horrors was heavily discussed in this rulling i think this will shut down any lawsuits WWASP and PURE both if they are going to sue ISAC. Also if i was shelby i would counter sue for Malitious Prosicution. I would use this rulling to bury them and then make them pay me BIG.[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 16:40 ]
-
Just a reminder. We don't really know at this point what's true or who's behind it if any of it is true.
All we really know is that somebody's been avidly trolling Fornits. That's not exactly newsworthy, is it?
What's going on w/ Thayer? How about Majestic Ranch? Where have all the Whitmore kids gone? Not a peep out of any of them in a few days now. What do you think about the new Utah legislation? Is CEDU really up Shits Creek?The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.
--Thomas Sowell
-
On 2005-03-18 16:39:00, Devlin wrote:
"the once tried to get a court order in federal court to take down Mountain Park Horrors. The court ruled that the webiste was protected by the first amendment and could not be touched. Here is a link to the rulling:
http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf (http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf)
The webiste Mountain Park Horrors was heavily discussed in this rulling i think this will shut down any lawsuits WWASP and PURE both if they are going to sue ISAC. Also if i was shelby i would counter sue for Malitious Prosicution. I would use this rulling to bury them and then make them pay me BIG.[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 16:40 ]"
-
On 2005-03-18 16:45:00, Antigen wrote:
Where have all the Whitmore kids gone? Not a peep out of any of them in a few days now.
I was just wandering around the Whitmore forum wondering the same thing. :???: He that lives upon hope will die fasting
--Benjamin Franklin 1758
-
Devlin, you rock!
"Why would anyone be happy to know any WWASP person has filed a suit against ISAC (if this is true)? "
I hadn't thought of it that way. Mostly, I've only worried about the ppl at ISAC personally and, generally, about the harm that might come from something like this. And I don't want to let the litigious jerks win out by diverting attention away from other matters. But, the way you put it, some good might actually come of this. I suppose even mushroom clouds have a silver lining.
Infidel: In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does.
--Ambrose Bierce
-
This is a link to the rulling that WILL WORK..
http://www.mountainparksurvivors.com/co ... eOrder.pdf (http://www.mountainparksurvivors.com/court%20docs/blair/Orders/83_ProtectiveOrder.pdf)
-
Works for me. :tup:
You know, too many weirdos out there. At least with you people I know WHY you are weird!!!
Kady
-
Looks like you have to start at the main page.
http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/ (http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/)The Internet is now safe for free speech.
-- Christopher A. Hansen on the overturning of the Communications Decency Act
-
i hope bob litchfield chockes on that ruling. I hope she counter suies for millions.
-
On 2005-03-18 16:39:00, Devlin wrote:
"the once tried to get a court order in federal court to take down Mountain Park Horrors. The court ruled that the webiste was protected by the first amendment and could not be touched. Here is a link to the rulling:
http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf (http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf)
The webiste Mountain Park Horrors was heavily discussed in this rulling i think this will shut down any lawsuits WWASP and PURE both if they are going to sue ISAC. Also if i was shelby i would counter sue for Malitious Prosicution. I would use this rulling to bury them and then make them pay me BIG.[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 16:40 ]"
To start out with, there is no parallel between the two cases. Also, there were four appeals filed in the matter, three of which are still pending, and I believe one win. More importantly however, is the fact that exposing secrets in a docketed legal matter has nothing to do with pre-suit extortion. In other words, you can do what your threatening to do, before a suit is filed, but you can't just threaten to do it to force someone else to do your will.
Also, "Old Parent" needs to change her name to Senile Parent! She also knows nothing about Law.
Oh, and hi Marti :wave:
-
Well what is it you think you know about "this case"? How do you know it? What is this supposed truth about ISAC that you say is leaking out that, evidently, only you and your friends know? When you hear a rumor that a Lichfield is suing ISAC, Occams razor demands that you assume it's got something to do w/ what ISAC does very publicly, not some deep dark secret that no one (but you) ever suspected.
For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist
-
Think the Sudweeks may have those kids on the big bus off to Mexico....??? not sure, but think so.
-
On 2005-03-18 18:33:00, Antigen wrote:
"Well what is it you think you know about "this case"? How do you know it? What is this supposed truth about ISAC that you say is leaking out that, evidently, only you and your friends know? When you hear a rumor that a Lichfield is suing ISAC, Occams razor demands that you assume it's got something to do w/ what ISAC does very publicly, not some deep dark secret that no one (but you) ever suspected. For myself, I do not believe in any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.
--Charles Robert Darwin, English naturalist
"
Medieval Philosophy, Great Goddess of Free Speach? It's late and I'm rusty on this, but, if I remember Occam's Razor (which I thought was spelled differently) you are trying to say that I am assuming to much, making this overly complicated and, in general, not keeping it simple. How about 2005 way post medieval philosophy - HELLO, what I'm saying is that there is a brutal lack of civility on this website and, for some, it gets a little annoying when something important is thrown out there, like major litigation, and everyone talks with this nasty and imperious attitude, instead of just talking it through. Who knows why these lawsuits have been filed? Maybe it's because WWASP is just gearing-up again after its most recent defeat. Why does everyone just assume that Sue Scheff is responsible for everything that's wrong on every subject up for discussion on this website. It's not possible. All of the parties involved here have big mouths, WWASP is now forcing all of you to back it up, and it's that simple. It's not going away by trashing Sue Scheff and making nutty conclusions of law which most people here are not qualified to do.
In other words, D E A L!
Simple enough Ginger?
-
the appeals you are talking about have already been argued why dont you listent to them yourself!
http://8cc-www.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio ... 042434.ram (http://8cc-www.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2005/3/042434.ram)
[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 19:39 ]
-
On 2005-03-18 19:30:00, Devlin wrote:
"the appeals you are talking about have already been argued why dont you listent to them yourself!
http//www.ca8.uscourts.gov%2FOAaudio%2F2005%2F3%2F042434.ram
Just so you know if you are a WWASPIE were coming for you! Since WWASP is now affiliuated with Bethel Academy your fair game! If your with PURE if you keep up the way you currently heading you are next.
Just rember what happend to Mountain Park Academy and Palm Lane Academy.[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 19:31 ]"
Listen up Devlin, after apeal there is Certiorari (certification) to the next highest Court, which your comments have nothing to do with. Again, you have brought useless information in a very weak attempt to cover for your previous post. In other words, what you know is not current and is poorly researched. The appeals process is not complete, even after the Court of Appeals there are at least two more appeals to go. Also, did you pay attention about the case not being parallel you moron?
As far as you coming for anyone - ooh, I'm scared. Go suck on some eggs or something.
-
On 2005-03-18 19:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
Medieval Philosophy, Great Goddess of Free Speach?
Speech
It's late and I'm rusty on this, but, if I remember Occam's Razor (which I thought was spelled differently)
Occam's (smart ass :grin: ) Razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)
Who knows why these lawsuits have been filed?
Well, it appears that Sue and Co. came on here running there mouths, attempting to taunt people with promises of the suits so it's only logical that we would be asking.
Why does everyone just assume that Sue Scheff is responsible for everything that's wrong on every subject up for discussion on this website.
I don't think anyone's saying that. Before the lawsuit talk came up a lot of us were asking questions of Sue/PURE that weren't being answered. Some pretty relavent and forthright questions.
All of the parties involved here have big mouths, WWASP is now forcing all of you to back it up, and it's that simple.
Back WHAT up? What have Ginger or ISAC said that they have NOT backed up??
It's not going away by trashing Sue Scheff and making nutty conclusions of law which most people here are not qualified to do.
I'm not trashing her, I'm inquiring as to how she deems the programs she refers to "safe"...among other things. What is the problem with ANSWERING that question? Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
--Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire", French author and playwright
-
On 2005-03-18 19:37:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 19:24:00, Anonymous wrote:
Medieval Philosophy, Great Goddess of Free Speach?
Speech
It's late and I'm rusty on this, but, if I remember Occam's Razor (which I thought was spelled differently)
Occam's (smart ass :grin: ) Razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony.
In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)
Who knows why these lawsuits have been filed?
Well, it appears that Sue and Co. came on here running there mouths, attempting to taunt people with promises of the suits so it's only logical that we would be asking.
Why does everyone just assume that Sue Scheff is responsible for everything that's wrong on every subject up for discussion on this website.
I don't think anyone's saying that. Before the lawsuit talk came up a lot of us were asking questions of Sue/PURE that weren't being answered. Some pretty relavent and forthright questions.
All of the parties involved here have big mouths, WWASP is now forcing all of you to back it up, and it's that simple.
Back WHAT up? What have Ginger or ISAC said that they have NOT backed up??
It's not going away by trashing Sue Scheff and making nutty conclusions of law which most people here are not qualified to do.
I'm not trashing her, I'm inquiring as to how she deems the programs she refers to "safe"...among other things. What is the problem with ANSWERING that question? Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
--Francois Marie Arouet "Voltaire", French author and playwright
"
Cayo, please don't start with me over one typo. I've been schooling you and your fellow retards all evening. Forgive me the typo.
You have plenty to say, but who says my comment was directed solely to you? The comments were general and in this case I was answering Ginger. Unlike the likes of you, who probably did some sort of google on the subject I was drawing from actual information on the subject. Obviously, I did pretty well.
-
On 2005-03-18 19:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
Cayo, please don't start with me over one typo.
I only pointed it out the absurdity of you pointing a an error that Ginger made (NOT) while you can't spell a very simple word. "Speach" is not something you 'typo'.
You have plenty to say, but who says my comment was directed solely to you? The comments were general and in this case I was answering Ginger.
OK, well I was making a comment and asking a question...mmmkay?
Unlike the likes of you, who probably did some sort of google on the subject I was drawing from actual information on the subject.
I've been around here for quite a while. I don't claim to know all of what's going on, but that's why I'm asking questions.
Obviously, I did pretty well.
That's highly debatable. Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
-- F. P. Jones
-
On 2005-03-18 19:53:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 19:46:00, Anonymous wrote:
Cayo, please don't start with me over one typo.
I only pointed it out the absurdity of you pointing a an error that Ginger made (NOT) while you can't spell a very simple word. "Speach" is not something you 'typo'.
You have plenty to say, but who says my comment was directed solely to you? The comments were general and in this case I was answering Ginger.
OK, well I was making a comment and asking a question...mmmkay?
Unlike the likes of you, who probably did some sort of google on the subject I was drawing from actual information on the subject.
I've been around here for quite a while. I don't claim to know all of what's going on, but that's why I'm asking questions.
Obviously, I did pretty well.
That's highly debatable. Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a mistake when you make it again.
-- F. P. Jones
"
Cayo, I'm typing from a PDA, with a "thumb keyboard" and it was a typo. I'll go through all of your posts if you like and I'll be glad to point out what words you can't spell. Did you even get the point Cayo, or are you just looking for a way to top me? Gheeez, (a) it's pointless and (b) better ass-wipes than you have tried.
-
Like I said, the only reason I pointed it was...well, I already explained that.
Are you going to address any of the questions?To regard Christ as God, and to pray to him, are to my mind the greatest possible sacrilege.
--Leo Tolstoy, Russian revolutionary
-
On 2005-03-18 20:01:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"Like I said, the only reason I pointed it was...well, I already explained that.
Are you going to address any of the questions?To regard Christ as God, and to pray to him, are to my mind the greatest possible sacrilege.
--Leo Tolstoy, Russian revolutionary
"
[/quot
Cayo, the first poster gave you an Index or Case Number, so the suit is not fictional. How is anyone taunting anyone? It's a real issue. But here, when people don't like what they hear, then they just attack. As far as Ginger's questions about leaks, I don't even know what she's talking about. Where have I posted about any leaks? What other questions do you have? Also, who says I'm part of a group, perhaps I'm just a passer-by observing and commenting. I don't think I mentioned anything about placing a bet on this situation with OTB? Based on what I've seen though, I probably would bet on the likes of people that can afford to prosecute legitimate civil claims against those who just ran their mouths without any regard for the probable outcome of that type of recklessness.
-
On 2005-03-18 20:01:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"Like I said, the only reason I pointed it was...well, I already explained that.
Are you going to address any of the questions?To regard Christ as God, and to pray to him, are to my mind the greatest possible sacrilege.
--Leo Tolstoy, Russian revolutionary
"
Well Cayo Hueso, a spelling expert is needed in the Karen B thread. You had better jump on that!
-
On 2005-03-18 20:07:00, Anonymous
Cayo, the first poster gave you an Index or Case Number, so the suit is not fictional. How is anyone taunting anyone? It's a real issue.
I'm not saying its not a real issue, you guys (whoever you are, its hard to tell with all of you being anon so I never know who I'm addressing when on any given subject) just seemed to be reveling in it. You don't post here in how long, and then come dancing around. I'm not personally offended by it, I'm considering the source. I was just commenting on it.
What other questions do you have?
for starters
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#88965 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9&start=20#88965)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#88968 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9&start=20#88968)
Also, who says I'm part of a group, perhaps I'm just a passer-by observing and commenting.
:rofl: :rofl:
Based on what I've seen though, I probably would bet on the likes of people that can afford to prosecute legitimate civil claims against those who just ran their mouths without any regard for the probable outcome of that type of recklessness."
Ran their mouths about what????? When we talk to god, it's prayer. When god talks to us, it's schizophrenia.
--Lily Tomlin, American actress
-
Got an email today from a friend, the first one in awhile. That email led me to this board where apparently I was mentioned.
To whoever it is let me state this as bluntly as possiable.
First - If you have something to say to me and you know who you are you have my email say it to me.
Second - I do not involve myself with the WWASP issues or the Sue issues. I know that the ladder of those seems to be an ever present topic of debate.
I have distanced myself from these issues for this reason too much he said , she said, no real ACTION. I do not chose to waste my time with petty gossip battles.
I do what I can when I can to help.
I prefer getting results not posting here or seeing how much inaction I can accomplish. Just ask Miller and Mel.
So, Anonymous whoever you are, Leave me out of your juvenile games. If that anonymous who posted my name is in fact Sue, please stop hiding. You got something to say to me say it in an email. I unlike you do not chose to hide behind anonymous post. NEVER HAVE.
I am curios though, what on earth makes you rejoice at a survivor ANY survivor being sued. Do you not see how obvious that makes you to everyone? If I am remember right that same survivor who you seem so happy is getting sued is the same one that helped you with your lawsuit are they not? The same one that came to the aide of all the parents that were listed on the suit. The same one who helped you more times than you could count and yet your happy they are being sued. Man, blue chair time.
Doesn't mean I will respond to your email as these posting games that are non ending with some people are not and NEVER have been my style.
I think this will be interesting , I seem to remember another survivor that got sued , the suers took the bait and found themselves avoiding depositions. The survivor , I am assuming, had them in just the right position. Has anyone thought that maybe ISAC baited them into suing them. Penis Pump. Interesting thought isn't it. I would be willing to bet we don't know the whole story.
Glad I left Florida When I Did
Marti H.
Survivor
-
(http://http://www.motherearthnews.com/menarch/archive/issues/017/017_images/017-080-01c.jpg)(http://http://www.agonybooth.com/snuff/entrails.jpg)
-
On 2005-03-18 20:22:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 20:07:00, Anonymous
Cayo, the first poster gave you an Index or Case Number, so the suit is not fictional. How is anyone taunting anyone? It's a real issue.
I'm not saying its not a real issue, you guys (whoever you are, its hard to tell with all of you being anon so I never know who I'm addressing when on any given subject) just seemed to be reveling in it. You don't post here in how long, and then come dancing around. I'm not personally offended by it, I'm considering the source. I was just commenting on it.
What other questions do you have?
for starters
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#88965 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9&start=20#88965)
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=20#88968 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=8735&forum=9&start=20#88968)
Also, who says I'm part of a group, perhaps I'm just a passer-by observing and commenting.
:rofl: :rofl:
Based on what I've seen though, I probably would bet on the likes of people that can afford to prosecute legitimate civil claims against those who just ran their mouths without any regard for the probable outcome of that type of recklessness."
Ran their mouths about what????? When we talk to god, it's prayer. When god talks to us, it's schizophrenia.
--Lily Tomlin, American actress
"
Cayo Hueso, you do have me confused with someone else on the links. The truth about ISAC is for some other person who posted the original comment to answer. I could only guess what they were talking about.
On the "running mouths", I don't think people have collected all of the facts here. Plus I don't think there has been a lot of fact verification. Also, these comments are very harsh and clearly designed to harm the organizations involved. If I'm wrong, then Karen, ISAC and Ginger will win as Defendants. If not, people need to be a little more careful before they slam a person or company on this board.
Hope that answers your questions.
-
On 2005-03-18 20:33:00, The Butcher wrote:
"(http://http://www.motherearthnews.com/menarch/archive/issues/017/017_images/017-080-01c.jpg)(http://http://www.agonybooth.com/snuff/entrails.jpg)"
Oh yeah, everyone's so scared and worried after seeing that picture. I laugh at you! :razz:
-
On 2005-03-18 20:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Cayo Hueso, you do have me confused with someone else on the links.
I'm sure I do, its difficult to tell the anons apart. Simple way to solve this would be to register or at least sign the anon posts.
On the "running mouths", I don't think people have collected all of the facts here. Plus I don't think there has been a lot of fact verification.
On this we agree. What is your perception of the facts? Specifically? I'm willing to listen to all sides, but you guys (sorry again for the generalization but hey, can't be helped) come on here and post this enigmatic shit and then change the subject or ignore it when anyone tries to pin you down to specifics.
Also, these comments are very harsh and clearly designed to harm the organizations involved.
WHAT comments???? Specifically please!!!!!
If I'm wrong, then Karen, ISAC and Ginger will win as Defendants.
We agree again.
If not, people need to be a little more careful before they slam a person or company on this board.
Specifics please!!!! What was said that slammed who or what company???
Hope that answers your questions."
Obviously it doesn't. Would you like to try again?Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
_________________
St. Pete Straight
early 80s
-
Score Board Wins Losses
Those who have sued Straight 15 None
(That I know of)
Those who have sued Survivors 0 15
Your Call
-
On 2005-03-18 20:42:00, Cayo Hueso wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 20:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Cayo Hueso, you do have me confused with someone else on the links.
I'm sure I do, its difficult to tell the anons apart. Simple way to solve this would be to register or at least sign the anon posts.
On the "running mouths", I don't think people have collected all of the facts here. Plus I don't think there has been a lot of fact verification.
On this we agree. What is your perception of the facts? Specifically? I'm willing to listen to all sides, but you guys (sorry again for the generalization but hey, can't be helped) come on here and post this enigmatic shit and then change the subject or ignore it when anyone tries to pin you down to specifics.
Also, these comments are very harsh and clearly designed to harm the organizations involved.
WHAT comments???? Specifically please!!!!!
If I'm wrong, then Karen, ISAC and Ginger will win as Defendants.
We agree again.
If not, people need to be a little more careful before they slam a person or company on this board.
Specifics please!!!! What was said that slammed who or what company???
Hope that answers your questions."
Obviously it doesn't. Would you like to try again?Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
--Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain", American author and humorist
"
Cayo, please tend to the spelling issues. They are your specialty. :em:
-
Score Board Wins Losses
Those who have sued Straight 15 None
(That I know of)
Those who have sued Survivors 0 15
Your Call
-
Whoooooooooooooo
-
On 2005-03-18 20:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Score Board Wins Losses
Those who have sued Straight 15 None
(That I know of)
Those who have sued Survivors 0 15
Your Call "
Apples and Oranges
-
Oh yeah, everyone's so scared and worried after seeing that picture. I laugh at you!
You may be now, but you won't be. :grin:
-
On 2005-03-18 20:51:00, The Butcher wrote:
"Oh yeah, everyone's so scared and worried after seeing that picture. I laugh at you!
You may be now, but you won't be. :grin:
"
You're got everyone so worried NOT hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-
He who laughs last laughs loudest. HAHAHA!!!!
-
If WWASP goes down, that equals more potential clients for SIBS! Go ISAC!!!
-
am I reading all this correctly--Is Sue Scheff playiing "friends with WWASP" for some little revenge reason? or am I confused?
-
no it appears you hit the nail on the head
-
OK--think I got it. That's amazing. WHEN Sue Scheff referred us to Whitmore Academy all we heard was NO WWASP NO WWASP..NO WWASP---just anything she could say to "save us from sending our daughter to the big bad WWASP school Majestic Ranch." Of Course--Whitmore DID NOT end up being "nice, loving and wonderful" at all...we removed our daughter after 2 months, and are involved in the abuse mess there--a horrible expericene for our daughter. But Sue tells us she supports the owners, The Sudweeks 100% and we understand she continues to refer kids there even tho the investigation for child abuse is still underway. Now to read this. Strange.
-
Above posting: forgot to sign in Joyce Harris
-
YOU PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS!! You are making it more clear by the moment. Damn, you are pathetic. You have lost sight of the big picture here and I am appalled that you would include such a gross picture. GROW UP YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!
I know for a fact that some children visit your site when they do Google searches. Don't you people have any heart or soul? Do you ever wonder what they might be thinking? What about a parents seeking help. Wow, wake up and grow up!!!
-
By the way, I was referring to the picture on the bottom of page 6 by Butcher - The Consequences of ...
-
Nobody seems to really know what, if any, connection there is between this suite and Sue. It's all conjecture at this point. Only think I know is that Lee Colburn seems to have a bee up his bonnet about it. It's all very confusing. I suggest we wait and see how this all develops.
Mean time, where are the Whitmore kids? I hope they're ok. Looks like there's a shot at getting some info out of Thayer cause Tim Rocha(sp?) is speaking out. CEDU may be in some real trouble. Mark Wardle has reincorporated as Distant Drummer. Majestic Ranch is making headlines. VCA is in the news. And what's w/ that new place in Georgia? Not Hidden Lake Academy (though that's busting out too) but the new one built in an old strip hotel?
Eerything anybody actually knows about Lichfield vs ISAC was already posted a minute ago. All the rest is just gossip, trolling and assorted other bullshit. There are other issues. The world doesn't really stop revolving just because a few idiots want it to.
The world is so exquisite, with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's no good evidence. Far better, it seems to me, to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
--Carl Sagan
-
YOU PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS!! You are making it more clear by the moment. Damn, you are pathetic. You have lost sight of the big picture here and I am appalled that you would include such a gross picture. GROW UP YOU IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!
I know for a fact that some children visit your site when they do Google searches. Don't you people have any heart or soul? Do you ever wonder what they might be thinking? What about a parents seeking help. Wow, wake up and grow up!!!
I have two words for you:
FUCK YOU.
Thank you.
This has been a public service announcement
brought to you by me, The Butcher.
-
Now that was mature and you thought long and hard before posting - you thought about the kids who are going to see this - that's what is appalling. Kids come here for help, parents come here for help. This is what they find and that is what is disturbing.
-
On 2005-03-19 07:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Now that was mature and you thought long and hard before posting - you thought about the kids who are going to see this - that's what is appalling. Kids come here for help, parents come here for help. This is what they find and that is what is disturbing. "
No, its really not disturbing. The majority of the people who come here are intelligent enough to tell the difference between legitimate posts and trolls.
-
Yeah, I agree. I think the really obscene and frightening content around here usually comes from adults who are not joking at all. For instance, if my kids got wind of Lee's repeated implicit threats that someone was trying to take our house, that might really frighten them. But The Butcher's pranks? Now that would probably make them laugh. Nothing here any worse than what's on Showtime this month.
Tough Love: Abuse of a type particularly enjoyable to the abuser, in that it combines the pleasures of sadism with those of self-righteousness. Commonly employed and widely admired in 12-step groups.
--Chaz Bufe
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.
-
Now that was mature and you thought long and hard before posting - you thought about the kids who are going to see this - that's what is appalling. Kids come here for help, parents come here for help. This is what they find and that is what is disturbing.
Two more words:
EAT SHIT.
Thank you.
This has been another public service
announcement brought to you by me,
The Butcher.
-
Who is Lee Colburn, and why would he be happy that WWASP is suing ISAC? Why would anyone be happy that WWASP is suing ISAC for that matter, especially Sue Scheff? Didn't she fight long and hard for people to have the right to speak out against programs that are abusive towards kids? Did she maybe forget what THAT legal fight was all about?People do still have THAT RIGHT don't they?
-
Sure doesn't seem like ISAC is running scared from The Sudweeks and Whitmore Academy. They just published another statement from a grandmother--giving her views of Whitmore and laying out the abuse her granddaughter suffered at Whitmore. Guess who referred them to Whitmore? Of course, Ms. Scheff! The people at ISAC have an important job to do, and they are doing it. They need our support too. Let's not forget that, either.
-
Bet my kid would find threats against his own mother more distrubing than some stupid picture with some bloody "whatever it was" this guy is holding up. Kids do react to attacks on their moms and all that you know.
-
Seems that Butcher needs a little more time to "grow up". People are trying to discuss serious issues and he (or she) certainly isnt contributing intelligent debate. Butcher I see the facility you stayed in didnt do you any good at all. Is it fun being that immature? Because it sure isnt doing anything for your credibility.
-
Seems that Butcher needs a little more time to "grow up". People are trying to discuss serious issues and he (or she) certainly isnt contributing intelligent debate. Butcher I see the facility you stayed in didnt do you any good at all. Is it fun being that immature? Because it sure isnt doing anything for your credibility.
Obviously you've mistaken me for someone who gives a shit. Life's too damned short to "grow up." Now go blow it out your ass you 'mature' adult, you. :lol:
-
Back to the question: Just what is the connection with Sue Scheff and this suit by Litchfield/WWASP against ISAC, if there is one? Could it be that Sue is as upset about all the Whitmore Academy mess as people are saying? Surely one little school out there in Utah couldn't be that important could it? If it is, people are sure wondering why???? Perhaps Sue might need to rethink her loyalties on this one; if that's the deal.
-
When threads like this come up I'm taken aback and stuck scratching my head, or ass, depending on how strong the STUPID is in the thread.
Why are people on this forum still supporting any facility at all? Whats your excuse? Seriously. Almost all of these are problematic and if cars made by a manufacturer had the same rate of problems as these programs (and the kind of effects on passengers) theyd be sued to hell and back in a second. Imagine if drugs had side effects like these programs. Or food. Or FAST-food? What about TV?
But, as we all know, these facilities work off of secrecy and misinformation, and somehow these days parents fall for it. But naturally, your supporters call helplesness and isolation "part of the program" and "making an impact". I'll forgo the obvious sex-jokes because its actually happened to a few unfortunate boys and girls.
So, anyway, where are we? ISAC sued by WWASPS, supposedly. Seeing how PURE was able to beat WWASPS at its OWN FUCKING GAME and is a very obvious business competetor, how the fuck is WWASPS thinking it could sue ISAC and win? ISAC isnt selling a product, isnt a buisness, and isnt competing with WWASPS like PURE was. So that angle is going to go NOWHERE. But well, its not slander if you tell the truth, now is it? I just hope I get a good laugh out of the 3 ring circus that seems to take place in american courts nowadays.
Now, about the current herd of anon-sheep in here putting down butcher for being indignant, or the "think of the kids"-idiot... WHAT are you all smoking? Dickweed? I sure want some! If a kid sees someone getting pissed off about child abuse, they might get the right idea. It seems YOU HAVENT YET.
Just whats the point about getting your panties up your ass (and apperently not enjoying it) and bitching us out if we're a bit ticked about it? Getting all defensive about dirty words was the thing to do in kindergarten, but we're all adults or older teens in here. And, we're not going in the hobbit or wtf ever you call your isolation cells these days. Why is it theres never a retort to the substance of what we have to say, just evasion or attacks on the way we convey what we have to say? We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again---and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore.
Mark Twain
-
Now, about the current herd of anon-sheep in here putting down butcher for being indignant, or the "think of the kids"-idiot... WHAT are you all smoking? Dickweed? I sure want some! If a kid sees someone getting pissed off about child abuse, they might get the right idea. It seems YOU HAVENT YET.
Thank you, Mr. Nihilanthic. Finally we hear from someone who has some intelligent and mature input to contribute! ::kma::
It's really funny how squeamish some people can get over a little bit of guts or a "FUCK YOU." :eek:
Big fucking deal, right?
Right.
There are plenty of worse things to get upset about......like child abuse, perhaps...
-
It's part and parcel of the fear that sends them running for a programs help.
Butcher, they'd prefer you to be nice when you speak of the perpetrators, abuse, neglect.
Ya know, like picture of rainbows and sunshine?
-
Nope, It seems like Ms. Scheff gets all upset and SUE-HAPPY if anyone utters a word against PURE, or points out that she supports and refers kids to a program that have been reported for child abuse. When something like this happens, it appears that PURE's philosophy of placing kids in a better, safer program just doesn't seem to be holding water. And ISAC published a parents' statement about Whitmore Academy--a school that almost every student there was referred by PURE. The parents stated their displeasure with Sue Scheff and PURE in their atatement to ISAC. Can't help but believe Ms.Scheff might not be so giddy about WWASP going after ISAC, if she thought she could maybe "sweet talk" ISAC into removing this parents' statement about Whitmore and PURE from the ISAC site. Doubt that will happen since ISAC just printed another parental statement about Whitmore. But I just bet ISAC got a bunch of pressue from the Sue-Camp about removing it. But pal-ing up with WWASP---if that is what is going on???? That is way out there.
-
The parents who made the Statement to ISAC spoke up on "Time for some damn answers from PURE" thread.
-
On 2005-03-18 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
uh huh, this is exactly what Miss Isac did and since Ginger (the Great Lady of WWW) makes her site available in every state, I think state law might apply LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! "
Assuming that this is one of the PURE people, I have a question. How did you find out about this suit before papers had even been served? How and why on Earth would PURE have inside knowledge as to what WWASPS/Litchfield are doing? And again the question, why on Earth would PURE being celebrating ISAC being sued?????
-
On 2005-03-21 10:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 13:14:00, Anonymous wrote:
uh huh, this is exactly what Miss Isac did and since Ginger (the Great Lady of WWW) makes her site available in every state, I think state law might apply LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! "
Assuming that this is one of the PURE people, I have a question. How did you find out about this suit before papers had even been served? How and why on Earth would PURE have inside knowledge as to what WWASPS/Litchfield are doing? And again the question, why on Earth would PURE being celebrating ISAC being sued?????"
:tup: :em: Me. Forgot to login.
-
DAMN! :wstupid: Gimme a break, coffee hasn't kicked in yet. :wave:
I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!
-- Monty Python
-
I have a bruther named Isaac...me and him whip kids asses to help get them strate down here in VA. Y'all ain't talkin' about HIM by any chance, are ya? Who is this WWASP and why do they wanna sue my bruther??
-
Hello???
-
Goddamn dumb sons-o-bitches...can't anyone tell me what thuh FUCK is going on????
-
Think maybe Sue Scheff is mad at ISAC because they won't pull that Harris statement about Whitmore Academy, or that's my understanding of things, but I could be all wrong. So it appears that Sue is buzzzzing all around the WWASPIES and enjoying the trouble they are giving ISAC, or something like that.
-
Sue Scheff is a real cunt.
-
naw.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
--Unanimous
-
On 2005-03-18 17:31:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-18 16:39:00, Devlin wrote:
"the once tried to get a court order in federal court to take down Mountain Park Horrors. The court ruled that the webiste was protected by the first amendment and could not be touched. Here is a link to the rulling:
http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf (http://mpcourtdocuments.netfirms.com/sealdenial.pdf)
The webiste Mountain Park Horrors was heavily discussed in this rulling i think this will shut down any lawsuits WWASP and PURE both if they are going to sue ISAC. Also if i was shelby i would counter sue for Malitious Prosicution. I would use this rulling to bury them and then make them pay me BIG.[ This Message was edited by: Devlin on 2005-03-18 16:40 ]"
To start out with, there is no parallel between the two cases. Also, there were four appeals filed in the matter, three of which are still pending, and I believe one win. More importantly however, is the fact that exposing secrets in a docketed legal matter has nothing to do with pre-suit extortion. In other words, you can do what your threatening to do, before a suit is filed, but you can't just threaten to do it to force someone else to do your will.
Also, "Old Parent" needs to change her name to Senile Parent! She also knows nothing about Law.
Oh, and hi Marti :wave: "
FORGET THE THREATS: JUST POST THE PROOF OF ANY & ALL PERJURY ON THE INTERNET and POINT LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH JURISDICTION TO THE SITE -- THAT WILL SQUELCH ANY EXTORTION CLAIMS. (BTW: Could you explain who is trying to extort WHAT from WHOM? You apparently have some inside information that the rest of us here don't have -- DO TELL!!!)
Also to the LEGAL-KNOW-IT-ALL --- the two issues ARE similar at LAW: BOTH deal with FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS of those RIGHTS.
Oh, and just in case those HOLDING THE EVIDENCE don't know: IT IS NOT PROTECTED OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, so don't let the legal-eagle-wannabe try to dupe you into believing that you can't release it to the public. In other words: POST AWAY!!! (Of course, sometimes it is best to hold one or two things back, so you can use it later as a trump card.)
PLEASE DO RELEASE THE PROOF -- BIT BY DELICIOUS BIT and watch some CHOKE ON IT. :grin:
-
My oh My this sounds a lot like the old TV Show, "Who Do You Trust?" Seems like no one's word is safe is it? Is everybody sitting back re-thinking, "Now exactly what did I tell her and when?" What a way to gage confidences, right?
-
Also to the LEGAL-KNOW-IT-ALL --- the two issues ARE similar at LAW: BOTH deal with FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS of those RIGHTS.
Oh, and just in case those HOLDING THE EVIDENCE don't know: IT IS NOT PROTECTED OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, so don't let the legal-eagle-wannabe try to dupe you into believing that you can't release it to the public. In other words: POST AWAY!!!
I agree. There is no extortion issue here. The only possible claim would be based on libel. Something people don't realize is that when people sue for libel, they are faced with the possibility of the defense of truth. People will usually threaten to sue for libel to scare people, but will drop the case before anything harnful to their reputation becomes a matter of public record and hits the news.
But I must admit that it's entertaining to come on here and read posts by a person who thinks he knows a lot about the law and really doesn't know shit, and can't even understand the statute he tries to talk about.
Shelby will be just fine.
From,
Someone qualified to talk about the law
-
Everybody playing legal-eagle trying to figure out if they can talk on a forun anonymously. Isn't this something else? Guess everyone is afraid the ole process server might show up at their door next, huh? Guess that's what tickles the lady's fancy, or just maybe attorneys are the only people some people have left to talk to these days. Some people do have a way of running off friends I suppose. Processors do that, you know?
-
Cliche man is here.
On 2005-03-22 15:54:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Everybody playing legal-eagle trying to figure out if they can talk on a forun anonymously. Isn't this something else? Guess everyone is afraid the ole process server might show up at their door next, huh? Guess that's what tickles the lady's fancy, or just maybe attorneys are the only people some people have left to talk to these days. Some people do have a way of running off friends I suppose. Processors do that, you know?"
-
http://www.palgrave.com/skills4study/ht ... riting.htm (http://www.palgrave.com/skills4study/html/subject_areas/history/writing.htm)
On 2005-03-18 13:40:00, Anonymous wrote:
"the truth about ISAC is getting out that's what people don't like"
And, if I'm not mistaken (which is surely a possability) you're the same person who opnened this can of worms w/ "ISAC SUED BY WWASP/BOB LICHFIELD"
That's a backhanded way of saying something about WWASP and Bob Lichfield. But I haven't seen a single statment about ISAC, true or not.
I'll shut up now.You say there is but one way to worship the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it?
--Chief Red Jacket, Seneca Indian Chieftain
-
On 2005-03-22 15:22:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Also to the LEGAL-KNOW-IT-ALL --- the two issues ARE similar at LAW: BOTH deal with FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS of those RIGHTS.
Oh, and just in case those HOLDING THE EVIDENCE don't know: IT IS NOT PROTECTED OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, so don't let the legal-eagle-wannabe try to dupe you into believing that you can't release it to the public. In other words: POST AWAY!!!
I agree. There is no extortion issue here. The only possible claim would be based on libel. Something people don't realize is that when people sue for libel, they are faced with the possibility of the defense of truth. People will usually threaten to sue for libel to scare people, but will drop the case before anything harnful to their reputation becomes a matter of public record and hits the news.
But I must admit that it's entertaining to come on here and read posts by a person who thinks he knows a lot about the law and really doesn't know shit, and can't even understand the statute he tries to talk about.
Shelby will be just fine.
From,
Someone qualified to talk about the law"
Freedom of Speech; some legal precedents.
Defamatory speech (oral or written) that harms anothers reputation may not be protected under the First Amendment. Speech that is written is termed libel and such oral speech is termed slander.
The truth of the speech in question is a defense against a defamation charge. But the statement at issue must be true in whole, not in part. For instance, if the accusation is that X defrauded and decieved Y, it is not sufficient to show that X has been accused or convicted of fraud previously. But it is not necessary to prove every detail. For example, saying X defrauded Y of $25,000, the charge is still justifiable even if it is shown that the amount was only $2,500.00
Paraphrased from West's Business Law, 6th Edition, 1995
Other defenses to to defamation may exist. And some utterances ae considered actionable in themselves. These four definitions are:
1. A statement that another has a loathsome communicable disease. (Usually interpreted as STD)
2. A statement that another has committed improprieties while engaging in a profession or trade.
3. A statement that another has committed or has been imprisoned for a serious crime.
4. A statement that an unmarried woman is unchaste.
But of course we've never seen anything like that around here, Never!...Well, hardly ever.I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant.
---Richard Nixon
-
I really should turn off that random quote option too.
Being a street cop, witnessing the tragedy firsthand, I've become
convinced that drug prohibition -- not drugs themselves -- are driving the HIV epidemic and the systemic crime that has swamped our criminal justice systems.
--Vancouver Police Const. Gil Puder
-
The statement doesn't have to be true. If a jury finds that the defendant reasonably believed the statement to be true, then the defendant will win. Take a look at the transcript of WWASPS v. PURE, which is probably linked on here somewhere, but I found it on ISAC. It's several hundred pages, but you can just look at the jury's verdict toward the end. The standard of proof was higher in this case because WWASPS was in the category of "public figure." To find PURE, et al. liable, the jury would have had to find she made false statements with actual malice.
Does anyone remember the Jerry Falwell v. Hustler case? Fun stuff. They printed a Campari ad where they had been having different celebrities talk about their first time drinking Campari. The ads sort of had a sexual connotation about the "first time." Anyway, they had Falwell talking about how his first time was in an outhouse with his mother. It was friggin' hilarious. He sued over it and lost, because it was so obviously a joke. It doesn't really relate much to any case against ISAC or anything, but I thought it was funny. I guess the point is that when you have a public role, you have to put up with more shit than the rest of us. And no one on the jury felt sorry for the WWASPs people who make a bazillion dollars a year.
-
Thanks, Anon above! I considered adding some similar info but thought it would be a bore. Do you have more legal knowledge to share?
Maybe I've missed something but ...
Has there actually been a suit filed by WWASPS against ISAC? Or is it just a rumor? The 1st post gave a case #, but not where the suit was filed.
Would the documents filing the suit be public record? That is would a private citizen be able to review the allegations?
What damages or injury is WWASPS claiming?
If anyone knows please answer.
The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known.
--John Stuart Mill
-
On 2005-03-23 10:44:00, Erinys wrote:
"Thanks, Anon above! I considered adding some similar info but thought it would be a bore. Do you have more legal knowledge to share?
Maybe I've missed something but ...
Has there actually been a suit filed by WWASPS against ISAC? Or is it just a rumor? The 1st post gave a case #, but not where the suit was filed.
Would the documents filing the suit be public record? That is would a private citizen be able to review the allegations?
What damages or injury is WWASPS claiming?
If anyone knows please answer.
The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known.
--John Stuart Mill
"
I don't know if this helps, but I think a copy of the court action has been posted at another forum (maybe Voy or one of those). I have seen people talking about it during my travels today.
-
http://www.voy.com/cgi/addpost-58570Lit ... awetuxetal (http://www.voy.com/cgi/addpost-58570LitchfieldversusPUREEarnshawetuxetal)
-
General Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cgi_addpost(): Error, missing one or more form variables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what comes up.
-
On 2005-03-23 11:05:00, Anonymous wrote:
"General Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cgi_addpost(): Error, missing one or more form variables.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what comes up."
VOY seems to be locking the link. It's in the Jamaica School's forum. Sorry, I tried to make it easy for everyone.
-
whoops sorry "blocking" not locking
-
Maybe ask someone at ISAC, or of course we could just ask Sue.
-
On 2005-03-23 13:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Maybe ask someone at ISAC, or of course we could just ask Sue."
We could ask your Mother :lol:
-
On 2005-03-23 14:13:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2005-03-23 13:44:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Maybe ask someone at ISAC, or of course we could just ask Sue."
We could ask your Mother :lol: "
LMAO!
-
Ok, I'm not familiar with where Whitemore is. That post in the beginning says Whitemore is suing ISAC. So I'm guessing the suit is filed wherever Whitemore is, or wherever its parent company is. Not sure. But yes, a Complaint would be a matter of public record. If it is in federal court, you can look for it online at PACER, but it costs $. I'm sure we'll be seeing a copy of it online sometime soon, since a lot of people are interested.
But seriously, a case against ISAC? All they do is put up documents. All of their statements are signed and sworn to be true. And as long as ISAC believes that what they have put up is true, they'll be fine. These lawsuits are all about intimidation, but get a jury involved and no one is ruling for the big-ass money-making corporations accused of abusing children. I honestly don't even think a case against ISAC could make it that far. In that Sue Scheff case, they accused her of bad-mouthing WWASPS because she was getting $ from competitor facilities. This is totally different, and I don't think it would even make it into a courtroom.
I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion.
On 2005-03-23 10:44:00, Erinys wrote:
"Thanks, Anon above! I considered adding some similar info but thought it would be a bore. Do you have more legal knowledge to share?
Maybe I've missed something but ...
Has there actually been a suit filed by WWASPS against ISAC? Or is it just a rumor? The 1st post gave a case #, but not where the suit was filed.
Would the documents filing the suit be public record? That is would a private citizen be able to review the allegations?
What damages or injury is WWASPS claiming?
If anyone knows please answer.
The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known.
--John Stuart Mill
"
-
On 2005-03-24 12:07:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ok, I'm not familiar with where Whitemore is. That post in the beginning says Whitemore is suing ISAC. So I'm guessing the suit is filed wherever Whitemore is, or wherever its parent company is.
On 2005-03-23 10:44:00, Erinys wrote:
Thanks again! I asked a paralegal aquaintance of mine, and she said pretty much the same. Though she indicated that the suit would be filed in the jurisdiction where the offense occured.
As I understand it, the suit is Bob Litchfield/WWASPS (Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools) versus ISAC. Not the Whitmore versus ISAC.
ISAC is out of Virginia, so if my paralegal pal is correct the suit would be filed there. (If Litchfield filed in his jurisdicton, which would be St. George Utah.)
Virginia has online access to public court records. I'll be busy!
::read::
Standby for more legalese!I know that our bodies were made to thrive only in pure air, and the scenes in which pure air is found.
-- John Muir
[ This Message was edited by: Erinys on 2005-03-24 16:39 ]
-
Can anyone sue ISAC? I mean, they are full of "my opinions" and "Alleged", etc.,
Is WWASPS currently being sued by anyone? If so, provide proof, please.
-
On 2005-04-07 21:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Can anyone sue ISAC? I mean, they are full of "my opinions" and "Alleged", etc.,
Is WWASPS currently being sued by anyone? If so, provide proof, please.
"
Well, sure. Technically, almost anybody can sue almost anybody for anything or nothing. You know that already. I think what you're asking, though, is can anybody sue ISAC successfully for publishing opinions and allegations. The answer is probably not. Long as they're doing it right and stating opinions as opinions and facts as facts that damnable First Amendment protects them legally. Sorry! :wave:
Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice.
--Hearst newspapers nationwide, 1934
-
I want to sue ISAC, just for the hell of it.
-
It seems foolish to me that WWASP once again will be exposing all of their dirty laundry in the court proceedings. More documentation of abuse for the public records.
Go Isac. You have my permission to share my story.
I'll be a witness too. Just ask.
-
Lichfield v. ISAC, Shelby Earnshaw, William Earnshaw
5th Judicial District Court of Washington County, Utah
Case No. 050500 370
Complaint filed 2/28/05; 30 days to answer
Attorney representing Lichfield:
Fred R. Silvester, Esq. (3862)
Spencer Siebers, Esq. (8320)
1371 East 2100 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105
Tel: (801) 532-2266
Causes of Action:
1. Defamation
2. Invasion of Privacy
3. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
Prayer:
1. For special damages to his business relationships
2. For the additional costs of rebutting the false information
3. For general damages
4. For injunctive relief
5. For cost and attorney?s fees as allowed by law
6. For punitive damages
7. For such other and further relief as is just
Plaintiff demands jury trial on all issues triable to a jury
MOVED TO FEDERAL COURT (ATTEMPT TO MOVE):
U.S. District Court
District of Utah (Central)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 05-CV-254
Lichfield v. Intl Survivors Actio, et al
Filed: 03/24/05
Assigned to: Judge Tena Campbell
Jury demand: Both
Demand: $0,000
Nature of Suit: 320
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt # in 5th Dist, Wash Cnty : is 050500370
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
ROBERT B. LICHFIELD Fred R. Silvester, Mr.
plaintiff EMAIL
[COR LD NTC]
Spencer C. Siebers
JFAX 9,5322270
[COR]
SILVESTER & CONROY LC
1371 E 2100 S STE 200
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84105
(801)532-2266
v.
INTERNATIONAL SURVIVORS ACTION
COMMITTEE, a Florida
Corporation
defendant
SHELBY EARNSHAW, an individual Michael L. Humiston
defendant [COR LD NTC]
23 W CENTER ST
PO BOX 486
HEBER CITY, UT 84032
(435)654-1152
WILLIAM EARNSHAW, an Michael L. Humiston
individual (See above)
defendant [COR LD NTC]
-
Erinys, could you put up the link to where VA has court papers online? Thanks!
-
On 2005-04-09 05:55:00, miseducated wrote:
"Erinys, could you put up the link to where VA has court papers online? Thanks!"
I don't think that will help you much in this instance. The case is with the Utah courts. As WWASP vs PURE demonstrated, since defamation (particularly if it is on the internet) takes place everywhere, the plaintiff can sue anywhere. Obviously Bob Lichfield wants to sue in his own back yard. Since Lichfield lives in Utah the alleged invasion of privacy must have taken place there too and the intentional interference with prospective economic advantage is, I assume, a follow-on from the alleged defamation.
In any case, if they were to move it to the state of the defendant then which defendant? The Earnshaws live in Virginia but ISAC (technically) is in Florida.
-
On 2005-04-09 05:55:00, miseducated wrote:
"Erinys, could you put up the link to where VA has court papers online? Thanks!"
OK, here's the links to VA courts:
Start here
http://www.courts.state.va.us/cc/circuit.htm (http://www.courts.state.va.us/cc/circuit.htm)
Good informative page on types of cases, civil, criminal and chancery. I think it would be Farquier County Circuit Court
My next step took me here:
http://208.210.219.132/vacircuit/select ... Q:ulnfn1uq (http://208.210.219.132/vacircuit/select2.jsp;jsessionid=00005MT3PQCMXC50L04XXA0Z4AQ:ulnfn1uq)
Then here:
http://208.210.219.132/vacircuit/select ... Q:ulnfn1uq (http://208.210.219.132/vacircuit/select2.jsp;jsessionid=00005MT3PQCMXC50L04XXA0Z4AQ:ulnfn1uq)
Found nothing and abandoned the project.
The Anon above is probably correct. The case was filed in Utah. I tried to search Utah cases but it's a lotta web slogging.
You know, if Mama Cass Elliot would have shared that damn sandwich
with Karen Carpenter, they would both still be alive today!!!!!!!
--chongo
-
Use your stories inflmate them, use you and hide?
Shelby seek psychological help, you must help yourself before you can help others.
:wstupid:
-
im sick of this WWASP is so stupid they are suing Shelby for "interfearing" with their buiness pracitices by telling Boonville the about WWASP and how the operate. What is so funny Shelby did not do it at all!
I DID! I was the one who approached Boonville City officials originally and told them about WWASP! I have the proof too in the form of E-Mails even!
WWASP needs to examin itself before they go suing people esoexially the wrong person for somthing they didnt do!
-
Well if that is the case then kudo's to you for coming forward that still doesn't change the minds of most that Shelby needs to address her own problems, stop trying to ride on the coat tails of others, taking credit for work of others, and get help.. ISAC or Shelby are not all they are cracked up to be, as a matter of fact word is an audit due to their non profit and inaccountibility with any funds they get is going to happen. Be careful!
-
On 2005-04-10 09:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
that still doesn't change the minds of most
Most? Most of whom? Who are you to speak for these others this way?An individual who should survive his physical death is beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
--Albert Einstein
-
Where is Shelby?
Not worried about the likes of you.
And You are not Most.
-
On 2005-04-10 09:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Use your stories inflmate them, use you and hide?"
I suggest you seek help. You seem to have difficulty composing a coherent sentence.
-
What do you mean:"Use your story implmate them?"
Did you mean:
Use your story and inflate them?
-
the WWASP's moaning is just another cult trying to make themselves look like vicim's. WWASP'S is a cult like scientology and they only care about themselves and not those they coerce , bully and threaten and manipulate under the guise of "that is the program, your life will be better if you do things our way". when someone speaks out about the abuses done by these sociopaths they try to turn things around and make it look like someone is hurting them. when people talk about a place if the place is honest they understand that there is not one uniform opinion about a place. these emotional growth places are not run by honest people, those that run them like to attack those they have abused to keep the racket going. they are so self absobed and narcissitic that they believe that they are always right and all should like them and those who don't have something wrong with them. they only care about what they can use you or your self absorbed "family member" for and they believe their own bullshit so much that they never fire anybody who abuses anyone . these places are only for those who are so narcissitic that they cannot understand anyone not having the same opinion as them. scientology threatens and abuses the everyday people who are lied to by them. they treat them horribly and then shove their noses up the asses of cruise, travolta etc. they are bloodsuckers who only care about their lifestyles and not the lives they destroy. cruise is so narcisstic he trys to tell those who serve him how they can dress and look. he fired some woman because she did not look the way he wanted his servants to look. cruise looks like a rat. his head is so far up his ass and he is such a control freak that he is abusing his servants because he is trying to tell people how to look. narcissism. when these cults demand an apology, it is really the other way around , everything is the opposite of what they say it is. the cults are the abusers and the people who are lied to by them are the victims.
-
More on the lawsuit in the Kemper threads:
http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.ph ... &forum=9&4 (http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=9144&forum=9&4)
Excerpt from Columbia Tribune Column
By TONY MESSENGER
Published Wednesday, April 13, 2005
---Many of the teen centers are connected to WWASP in some way, and wherever there is WWASP, Lichfield generally isn?t far behind. That?s why, when Earnshaw heard about his intent to buy the Kemper property, she started to let folks in Missouri know a little bit about Lichfield and his various companies.
Her actions earned her a typical Lichfield response.
He sued.
On Feb. 22, in Washington County court in Utah, Lichfield sued Earnshaw and her husband, William, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy and interference with prospective economic advantage. According to the suit, Earnshaw "contacted public officials in Boonville, Missouri, and Salt Lake City, Utah, and spread false, defamatory and misleading information about plaintiff with the intent to interfere with plaintiff?s business relations and with plaintiff?s prospective economic interests."
Earnshaw says the suit won?t stop her from letting anybody who cares to listen know how destructive she believes WWASP facilities are to children.
"A lot of folks are intimidated by the man and the money he has," she says. "I?m not."
I called Lichfield?s attorney to ask about the suit. He didn?t call back. It?s no wonder. He?s a busy man. ---
Link to story:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Apr ... eat001.asp (http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Apr/20050413Feat001.asp) Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
--Julius Caesar
-
Just an aside, do ya'll have any idea how tempting it is to edit the titile of this topic to eliminate the passive voice? Should be "BOB LITCHFIELD/WWASPS SUE ISAC".
In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
--Thomas Jefferson 1798
-
Well you could always just get permission to do so. :wink:
-
You shittin' me? The original author won't even admit they read this forum.
Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.
--James Madison, U.S. President
-
//You shittin' me? The original author won't even admit they read this forum. //
Well in that case, they can't pitch a fit if you piddle around with it, can they?
-
Duh, this is NOT a hard question to answer. Obviously ISAC is being sued because they are indeed effective in what they're trying to do. I mean, c'mon, would Bob Lichfield sue someone who could do him and his org. no harm?
As I said, it means that ISAC is doing a GREAT JOB, and Lichfield can't stand the truth getting out there.
And for the record, my son was held captive at Casa by the Sea prior to it's (well-deserved) being shut down by the Mexican authorities.
Like someone said, Mexican jails are known to be corrupt and awful, so just how bad did that place (Casa) have to be that the Mexicans found it unacceptable???
If you have a brain, this would make you think.