Author Topic: List of children being currently victimized at CALO, offsite (Read 10953 times)

Anonymous · « **Reply #15 on:** June 24, 2009, 07:59:19 PM »

Whether or not the admins are rats, the only thing to do now, if you are interested in exposing CALO and rescuing its detainees, is to post the list of CALO detainees, the 'treatment profiles' (perhaps with names redacted--theyre pretty much photos and details of a rape), lots of links to this forum and others, lots of background info, and enough terms so that when you google "troubled teen" or "attachment disorders" or "change academy Lake of the Ozarks," Ken Huey, and so forth, they appear.

psy · « **Reply #16 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:02:39 PM »

See my response here just in case you missed it:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27792#p334694

Anonymous · « **Reply #17 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:04:46 PM »

Quote from: "psy"

Quote from: "psy is a rat"
Quote from: "psy"
Quote from: "kenhueyisaprick"
I suppose you'll rat out the OP to Ken Huey like you did last time?
Say what? Nobody ratted anybody out. I don't even know who the OP is (though I have my guesses). Even if I wanted to, I couldn't.

You are living a pipe dream with your lies.

How could I rat anybody out, Again? I told anybody even possibly connected to this that I did not want to know who who well proxied was. Ask Aaron. If you have a rat it's not me, and when you find out who it is in time, I hope you have the common courtesy to apologize.

If pressure is on fornits, you would squeal in a heartbeat to prevent a major lawsuit. So, you really do have a motive. You are not convincing at all.

psy · « **Reply #18 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:09:26 PM »

Quote from: "psy is a rat 2"

If pressure is on fornits, you would squeal in a heartbeat to prevent a major lawsuit. So, you really do have a motive. You are not convincing at all.

Fornits has been through multiple lawsuits and always come out on top. Also, I have been through my own lawsuit which I could have avoided by simply giving in and taking my site down. 2.2 million was at stake if I lost but I fought it and won. I put the financial stability of my entire life on the line to fight a program and stand up for my principles, not to mention free speech. Look on this site for Benchmark v. Crawford. I look at legal action as an opportunity to do battle with programs, not something to avoid and my actions show that. Ginger views it the same way. Just after getting served, the first thread I started was entitled "WOO HOO, I'M GETTING SUED".

Anonymous · « **Reply #19 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:14:02 PM »

Quote

Ya, we talked to Ken Huey. We had a conference call to discuss the issue of the posts on Fornits.

You just shot yourself in the foot by openly admitting you had a conversation with Ken Huey.

Anonymous · « **Reply #20 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:15:07 PM »

Quote from: "psy"

Quote from: "Fuel"
I think what the poster PSY IS A RAT , is referring to you PSY

Is you mentioning you personally spoke with Ken Fooey
about the issue and found him to be such a charming man.
( not your exact words but close )

Those were Ginger's words ("sounds like a sincere sort of fellow"), actually, unless you're accusing her of being a rat as well. Ya, we talked to Ken Huey. We had a conference call to discuss the issue of the posts on Fornits. We told him that we could not moderate and explained our position. He told us his story from his perspective and we told him ours. It was an interesting chat. We explained why we felt that treatment without consent was always wrong. We explained a bit about thought reform, the stanford prison experiments. Lots of stuff. It was a fairly long call and most of the discussion was philosophical and from personal experience. AT NO POINT did we identify the original poster (who we do not know and do not want to know) and we made it very clear that while we would comply with any binding legal orders, we could not take action on our own, even though we might want to. At no point did we beg "please don't sue us" or make any sort of "deal" either.

Quote
Then wham , all of a sudden Ken Fooey
is
(some kind of say what ?)

I can tell you , Ken is a snake Charmer

Could be. I make no judgment any way. I hardly know the guy. Also keep in mind that I hardly trust anybody at all. I trust Ginger and a select few others, but that's about it. To say I trust some program director I barely met is a stretch at the very least.

Quote
and possibly part of the old snake oil peddlers
( he could talk the pants off his own grandmother
and maybe even has a few times ?

Does it matter ?

Not really ,
Would I trust him w/ anyone I cared about
No Never !

I was raised in a family of diplomats (literally). Just because you're polite and cordial with a person does not mean you trust them.

So is there any evidence against me other than that Ginger said he sounded like he was a "sincere sort of fellow"? If this speculation and raving suspicion is enough to hang your enemies, you kill your own case against CALO.

So, Ken admitted his "students" were brought to CALO through "escort" and that he imprisons them? A lot of the CALO trolls were implying that this doesn't happen at CALO, despite what was written in their own manual. Disgusting liars.

psy · « **Reply #21 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:17:29 PM »

Quote from: "psy is a rat 3"

Quote
Ya, we talked to Ken Huey. We had a conference call to discuss the issue of the posts on Fornits.

You just shot yourself in the foot by openly admitting you had a conversation with Ken Huey.

I didn't realize this was a program and I was on "bans" with him. Yes, Ginger and I both had a conference call with him. I already explained what it was about.

psy · « **Reply #22 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:19:45 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

So, Ken admitted his "students" were brought to CALO through "escort" and that he imprisons them?

This did come up.

He said that they do not accept kids from escort services. He claimed that his staff went to kids houses during the day during which they had a sort of "intervention" and convinced them to come. We asked what would happen if they resisted. He said they would be restrained, but claimed that it has never happened.

That's what he said... not saying I believe it. It's just what he told myself and Ginger.

Anonymous · « **Reply #23 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:47:38 PM »

There is NO reason here to come down on any of the administrators
I believe they are honest and trying to do the right things for
everyone concerned ,
I just wanted to interpet ( if you will ) how some have come to view this .
Its NOT how I feel ,
I think the damage control at Calo has its hands full, and our Non-Mormon
MISSION is still very much on Course.
Not to say ....I don't also agree that if W/P felt he/she did the right thing to
begin with, by showing how corrupt even their treatment summaries are ,
Then more power there as well.

I know no-one here in the administrators views would directly side with
a program director just on a whim.
( no matter how soft spoken he appeared )
Ken Fooey maybe better off to go in the acting Industry
and who knows may wish he had ........ < ha hahaaha )

in the end

Anonymous · « **Reply #24 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:49:03 PM »

Quote from: "psy"

Quote from: "Guest"
So, Ken admitted his "students" were brought to CALO through "escort" and that he imprisons them?

This did come up.

He said that they do not accept kids from escort services. He claimed that his staff went to kids houses during the day during which they had a sort of "intervention" and convinced them to come. We asked what would happen if they resisted. He said they would be restrained, but claimed that it has never happened.

That's what he said... not saying I believe it. It's just what he told myself and Ginger.

That is how I was abducted. Obviously, when one is surrounded by 5 or 6 people and one is told that you must go where your kidnappers tell you to, or you will be physically forced to comply, seeing the futility of physical resistance, many will not resist. Compliance under threat of physical violence makes this act no less of a CRIMINAL kidnapping

Ken has admitted to personally overseeing the abduction and imprisonment of human beings. Great for the kids who want to press criminal charges. And any REAL psychiatrist who looks at these victims post-abduction "treatment plans" can see them for they are.

There is no longer ANY debate necessary over the criminality of KEN Huey, Nicole Fuglsang and their organization.

Anonymous · « **Reply #25 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:52:30 PM »

psy,

Would you be able to post your conversation with Mr. Huey in a separate thread?

Bob Peterson

psy · « **Reply #26 on:** June 24, 2009, 08:58:56 PM »

Quote from: "bobpeterson1973"

psy,

Would you be able to post your conversation with Mr. Huey in a separate thread?

Bob Peterson

It wasn't a written conversation. It was a conference call (i.e. telephone) between myself, Ginger, and Ken.

I can, however, tell you what was discussed if you ask me questions.

Anonymous · « **Reply #27 on:** June 24, 2009, 09:01:16 PM »

Thanks

Anonymous · « **Reply #28 on:** June 24, 2009, 10:30:11 PM »

I believe psy and ginger have decided to interpret the DMSA in a way it is not applicable .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi ... yright_Act

They should wait for a legal finding there is some sort of legitimate copyright infringement here before they remove these names, even under this ruling.
I’m not judging them, but if you research the dmca, you will find their response is by no means mandatory.

Anonymous · « **Reply #29 on:** June 24, 2009, 10:35:34 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

I believe psy and ginger have decided to interpret the DMSA in a way it is not applicable .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Mi ... yright_Act

They should wait for a legal finding there is some sort of legitimate copyright infringement here before they remove these names, even under this ruling.
I’m not judging them, but if you research the dmca, you will find their response is by no means mandatory.

here is some information about what can be considered copyright, these names and materials would actually have to have BEEN copyrighted for DMCA to even be applicable. They don't have to remove them until it is found that claimed copyright is applicable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_holder

my 2 cents

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry