Union and Kids Forever

[ajax13]

Whatever you say, JD.  Dean Vause obtained his PhD from the Union Institute.  It is cited by AARC as a qualification for providing psychological interventions to "treat" a brain disease at AARC.  The PhD from Union is not accredited by the APA, and Dean Vause is not a licensed psychologist, although he is required to be one by law in Alberta, in order to legally perform the psychological interventions conducted at AARC.

[Whooter]

Whatever you say, JD.  Dean Vause obtained his PhD from the Union Institute.  It is cited by AARC as a qualification for providing psychological interventions to "treat" a brain disease at AARC.  The PhD from Union is not accredited by the APA, and Dean Vause is not a licensed psychologist, although he is required to be one by law in Alberta, in order to legally perform the psychological interventions conducted at AARC.

If all is true then once the authorities find out he will be arrested.  So make the phone call tomorrow first thing and by Friday it will be all over the papers.

[ajax13]

How about you report it to the authorities, JD, and let us know what happens.  I reported it directly to the Alberta Health Minister, who has twice refused to acknowledge my complaint.  The previous Alberta Justice Minister responded to my complaints, three times insisting that it was Alberta Health that was responsible.  The fact that the Health Minister attended the last AARC gala may have something to do with the Ministry's refusal to act and perhaps not.  JD, I have serious doubts about your prognosticaton.  If you could predict the future with such accuracy, how did you end up killing your son?

[Whooter]

How about you report it to the authorities, JD, and let us know what happens.  I reported it directly to the Alberta Health Minister, who has twice refused to acknowledge my complaint.  The previous Alberta Justice Minister responded to my complaints, three times insisting that it was Alberta Health that was responsible.  The fact that the Health Minister attended the last AARC gala may have something to do with the Ministry's refusal to act and perhaps not.  JD, I have serious doubts about your prognosticaton.  If you could predict the future with such accuracy, how did you end up killing your son?

No way,  I dont think he is breaking the law and either does the Alberta Justice Minister.  Its just you Ajax.  You might be able to convince the health minister that some of the directors are over weight!!
Is your son still acting out in school?  You should really let him speak to a counselor, even if it means you may lose him. You should put your child first and put the porn on the side burner at least when he is home.

[ajax13]

Here is the law, JD.

"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:

(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs

(i) judgment,

(ii) behaviour,

(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or

(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;

Offence

4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless

(a) the person performing it

(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,

(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,

(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or

(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,

or

(b) the person performing it

(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and

(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),

and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.

(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.

(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.

(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.

Penalty

5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,

(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and

(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.

(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.

Burden of proof

6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g ... 0779739479

Now is AARC staff performing the act outlined in 2(1)(p)?

[Whooter]

Well when the Alberta Justice Minister gets a hold of this info it will all hit the roof.  If what you say is correct then we will see it in the papers any day now.  I'll be watching.
Thanks

[ajax13]

JD, your failings as a clairvoyant were made painfully obvious when you killed your son.  Now since the Attorney General of Alberta  refused to take any action with regard to AARC, you are wrong once again.  It did not all "hit the roof", whatever that jibberish means.  Stick to destroying kids by shipping them off to B Mods, JD.  Go with what you know.

[Whooter]

......the Attorney General of Alberta  refused to take any action with regard to AARC.

He took no action because there was none to take.  These feelings you have are all in your head.  You cant hold someone responsible if they did nothing wrong.

[ajax13]

JD, you quite plainly said that it would "hit the roof" once the Just Minister got a hold of the info.  Well, he got a hold of it two years ago, and nothing hit the roof.  So, again, your assessment of things, based of course on absolutely nothing other than your bizarre sentiments, has turned out to be wrong.  Here's the regulation again, in case any casual observor might like to make a determination for themselves as to whether or not AARC staff are violating these regulations:

"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:

(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs

(i) judgment,

(ii) behaviour,

(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or

(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;

Offence

4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless

(a) the person performing it

(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,

(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,

(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or

(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,

or

(b) the person performing it

(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and

(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),

and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.

(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.

(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.

(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.

Penalty

5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,

(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and

(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.

(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.

Burden of proof

6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g ... 0779739479

[Whooter]

you quite plainly said that it would "hit the roof" once the Just Minister got a hold of the info. Well, he got a hold of it two years ago, and nothing hit the roof.

Well, JD didnt, But I sure did.  I told you plain and clear if what you had to say to the minister had any fact to it at all then we would all see it in the papers within days.  Its been, what?  2 years!!  So we can see that your information had no substance to it.  Just fluff as usual.

I think you are better at guessing peoples weight.  At least when you are wrong you have to give the person a prize so someone wins!!!

[ajax13]

JD, you really are determined to make it as difficult as possible for people who are intrested in this subject to look at the facts.  For some reason, every time factual evidence makes it's way onto this forum, you push it farther back on the thread by offering your opinion.  Silly old Hasbaranik, the facts aren't going away no matter how many times you try to bury them.

[Whooter]

No one is burying the facts, Ajax.  You dont get it, You haven’t presented any facts!!  Lets say someone writes on this forum that you abused your son sexually. Does that make it fact?  Lets say that this person is so convinced of it he notifies the authorities and they get back to you and say there are no findings or they feel there is no merit.  Then how do you conclude this?  Would you say we should believe you abused your son sexually or not?
Do you see what I am saying?  You are stating laws and passages written which are intended to be interpreted and argued by lawyers.  There are courts designed specifically for this reason.  You cannot be judge, jury and prosecutor.  You never even mentioned that you passed the bar exam so how can we trust you?

I can put a sign up saying I provide therapy for drug addiction and that I am the lead therapist and spend all day helping these people by swimming in my pool for therapeutic purposes.  As long as I get some type of basic license and insurance and pay my taxes I am golden.
We can all sit here and quote laws out of a book but if the people who were trained to read and interpret these laws see no problem then we have to go with them and that is what the readers are doing.

Your posts are interesting but they don’t hold water because you are not a professional and the people who are professionals dont agree with you.

Those are the facts.

[ajax13]

JD, you seem awfully determined to make if more difficult for people to read the law that describes the activities being conducted at AARC.  I'll just post it again so that anyone interested in this can read it without having to scroll back through your uninformed opinions.
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:

(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs

(i) judgment,

(ii) behaviour,

(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or

(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;

Offence

4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless

(a) the person performing it

(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,

(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,

(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or

(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,

or

(b) the person performing it

(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and

(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),

and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.

(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.

(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.

(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.

Penalty

5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,

(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and

(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.

(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.

Burden of proof

6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g ... 0779739479

[Whooter]

So based on this law (below), Ajax13, you should be in jail.  Should we conclude that you are innocent since you are still running free or quilty because you havent been caught yet?

If I notify the authorities and 2 years later you are still not arrested what does that say?

Aggravated sexual abuse

How Current is This? (a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.

[Whooter]

So we presented what Ajax13 considers facts here on the forum.  Yet the 2 people (TheWiz and Ajaz13) are still running free.  What went wrong?  We presented the facts!  Notified the authorities!! We posted the laws!!!

Shouldnt everyone be found quilty this way?  2 people on the internet posting laws... shouldnt we have the power to override the authorities and place these people in jail at will.  Not allow them to face their accuser, make assunptions, cut and paste little pieces of the law and then form a lynch mob!!!

Is this what Ajax13 wants?  Should he be in jail too since we have evidence against him?  Should he get a trial or a chance to defend himself or just toss his ass in jail becasue I say so?

Something to think about.