Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS)

Parents Sue WWASPS . Read Complaint Here

<< < (4/9) > >>

Nonconformistlaw:
Hey Antigen-----Or do you prefer Ginger?

In my situation, the fact that I may have had to bring down my parents (jail), in order to take on Straight (criminally & civilly), also was a factor, in addition to my need for 'sanity' as you so accuratly put it. Emotionally I just could not handle a legal battle.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the problem is not so much in the validity of the legal theories of the plaintiff's complaint, as much as the HUGE problem that the whole drawn out discovery process takes, where WWASP attorney's would probably STONEWALL every discovery (AKA information, etc.) request that hits them. That would make it very difficult to build a case against WWASP in and of itself. Finding witness's at all, who also "appear credible" is also a potential problem I think. Not to mention running up huge legal fees for both sides, but then again...WWASP can basically feed $ to their attorney's longer.

In other words, "he who has the most money wins, he who runs out of $ first loses." Doesn't always work this way, but it happens all too often. And many attorneys will not work on a case once the $ stops flowing....for attorneys handling the plaintiff's case its all about profit as much as it is for WWASP and their attorneys.  ::rainbow::

Shortbus:
I agree with much of your post NCL. But I also know there are clients out there that have invested way too much emotionally in their cases and can't/won't look at their cases objectively. A good attorney tells em up front and a good client follows the advice given. A client has to realize when to drop something and maybe take another tack. I wish there was any easier way.... if nothing else the system is set up as incentive to hopefully not have to use it. People make noise about women filing sexual harrassment suits against employers to make a fast buck......... anyone who's been there knows that's not the case. Lawsuits of any flavor are grueling, painful, expensive and time-consuming. Which is unfortunate when its about something serious - like trying to get your child OUT of a program.

So now Im asking myself how much is too much emotional investment when it comes to your child? Or shutting down a program? Or just regulating an industry? And how much money is too much money? And who winds up winning?

_________________
Its never too late to procrastinate[ This Message was edited by: Shortbus on 2005-08-14 13:43 ]

Nonconformistlaw:
Hey Shortbus, you said----"But I also know there are clients out there that have invested way too much emotionally in their cases and can't/won't look at their cases objectively. A good attorney tells em up front and a good client follows the advice given. A client has to realize when to drop something and maybe take another tack."----

Yup, also very true. Part of winning a war, is knowing when to cut your losses and back out, and then redirect your energies through another course of action, or simply move on, whatever the case may be. And sometimes the lawyer is the only one who will realistically be able to advise clients on those options because it is sooo emotional.

I think its safe to say, that fighting WWASP's and others supporting institutionalized child abuse, is a war no matter how you look at it. And the ones that pay the highest price in all this mess, and suffer the most, are enlightened suffering parents and suffering kids.

What is VERY discouraging is that many people with strong legal claims never come forward because they dont have the financial resources to pay a good attorney...and I doubt free/low cost legal services agencies are properly equiped to help those families. ::rainbow::

Anonymous:
Not long ago I remember a now 18 year old boy who was contemplating suing his mother for impounding him in some behavior mod program.

His biggest complaint aside from the physical abuse he endured was his claim that he was denied an adequate education for 2 years.

Said his mother admitted she did't send him to get an education at the "boarding school" but to isolate him from friends she did not approve of (namely a girlfriend).  He had a 4.0 GPA and did not smoke, drink or do drugs.

The nature of the lawsuit was child abuse and neglect leveled against the mother.  That even if his mother did not know he was being maltreated, she should have known (ignorance is not an excuse) and would have known had she believed the numerous news reports and/or gone to look at the place herself.

Instead, she buried her head in the sand and left him there for 2 years.  He left when he turned 18, she was planning on keeping him longer if she could have gotten a court order.

Personally, I think kids should sue their parents in cases like these where the parent abdicates their duty as a parent and as long as money is no object, can afford to keep their kid under lock and key until they turn 18.

Antigen:
Well, I would never advise anyone to go at it through the legal system. I really wouldn't. Why? Cause, all of the times I've considered it, I've always come to the same conclusion. It's a lot of effort, a lot of turmoil, a lot of expense w/ very little chance of a good outcome and a larger chance of a bad one.

I think it's just not the most sensible, logical means of addressing this particular problem, though it does have its benefits. If someone is willing to go that route, I won't discourage them, either. For one thing, I could be dead wrong. And I just know so many good, intelligent and competent people who do see merit in that strategy.

That's my take, so far, on approaching the problem through the 3 estates of government. But that approach always encompasses the discovery process, which nearly always contributes to what I view as a far better tack; the 4th Estate, our vaunted free press and freedom peacably to assemble.

Step back and take broad view of the industry. What do you see? They're promoting a lot of different ideologies all the way from the religious reich (VCA, NYHM, for example) to newage native culture rip offs like SW. And there are different structures. Some look like extremely tough boarding schools, some still operate out of warehouses by day, host homes by night. Some are conducted out in the wilderness or in a ranch type setting. All of these differences serve to accentuate the salient commonalities.

Lifton and Singer's criteria for thought reform describes those commonalities almost verbatim. One of those core principles common to so many of these programs is that they strictly control communication. "No talking; out in group, to old friends, behind backs; what goes on here stays here." That's the weakest spot, in my opinion. If you can subvert that athoritarian control somehow, the whole thing unravels. And you'll note that all this free talking 1) really annoys them 2) often draws litigation and threats of litigation and 3) best of all, they routinely lose in this arena.

RAMPANT Talking Out in Group!  :rofl:
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
--Edward Everett
--- End quote ---


_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Drug war POW
Seed Chicklett `71 - `80
Straight, Sarasota
   10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
return undef() if /coercion/i;

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page