Author Topic: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org  (Read 53262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #270 on: September 21, 2009, 08:52:29 PM »
Quote
He's conceded your argument already by resorting to ad hominems.

He has argued clearly and there have been no personal attacks of any kind from him.  Why do you troll this thread?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #271 on: September 22, 2009, 11:39:06 AM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
He's conceded your argument already by resorting to ad hominems.

He has argued clearly and there have been no personal attacks of any kind from him.  Why do you troll this thread?


It doesn't matter about the who; he's a non-issue.  His trolling has gotten flabby during his hiatus and it's obvious he didn't spend his down time self searching or researching.  John Reuben is a monstrous asshole on the level of Sue Scheff and the topic of this thread.  However, if it can be proven he did post as the who, his STICC will be up his ass.  While Reuben may not profit from STICC, Lon Toolbury and Aspen do.  STICC's non-profit status is a little questionable, too.  Contact the IRS, put every type of heat on Rueben's STICC.  Have the IRS investigate parents who wrote off a program on their taxes - someone is telling the fools it's legit to get them to sign the admission papers. AUDIT!  AUDIT!

And fuck the who/John D. Reuben/programees as a whole.   There is only one programee, with many names and faces.

(He is pissed off, though.  See above post and ignore him.  Sweetness.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Ursus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8989
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #272 on: September 22, 2009, 12:49:05 PM »
Quote from: "Reub."
While Reuben may not profit from STICC...
Are you sure about that?  :D

I kinda like how Whooter explained it in these four posts from the Triple the Fraud at AARC thread (May 28-29, 2009):

#1: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26946#p332439
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
In all likelihood the money is off-shored. The Caribbean is my best for the final destination of the "Miracle". The Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda or the Caymans seem likeliest. Any AARColytes travelling to Vanuatu recently?
Nah, he can keep all of it he likes. There is no law against getting rich off of a company you started. The donors dont care because they get their tax cut no matter what is done with the money. Take a look at the drug companies (or drug dealers!!) and what they are putting in their pocket or the oil companies. The Wiz doesnt even come close to their profit margin.
#2: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26946#p332444
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
AARC is not a company that the Wiz started. He is not entitled to take whatever lucre he can from the organization. It is a registered charity, originally funded by the Rotary Club and the Provincial Government of Alberta. AARC operates in an industrial park out of a former warehouse joined to a former seismic shop. The facility does not operate specialized medical equipment, nor does it have residential services. It keeps between thirty and sixty people during daylight hours. The staff, aside from the two nurses, are not professionals. There are teachers, paid for by the Calgary Board of Education. Thus, in a setting equivalent to a school with sixty students, AARC takes in six or so million dollars a year, but unlike a school, AARC does not have to pay the salaries of professional staff. Millions upon millions of dollars are disappearing into this black hole every year. This money is, as stated above, likely ending up in an offshore tax haven.
No, I am sure it goes to the board members. They are the ones running the place, after expenses they are entitled to their share. Look at the bonuses the banks in the states are giving out. A few million a year isnt much compared to what most other places are getting.

Salaries before bonuses.

Charities:
World Vision
http://www.worldvision.org
Richard Stearns, President: $407,799

Children International
http://www.Children.org
Jim Cook CEO: $365,700

Save The Children
http://www.savethechildren.org
Charles MacCormack, President: $336,335

Christian's Children's Fund
http://www.ChristianChildrensFund.org
John Shultz President: $290,799
#3: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26946&start=15#p332477
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
They money is very likely being offshored. AARC wages to employees account for less than two million per year, out of the six million taken in by AARC each year. The original Forge Rd building was paid off long ago, and the expansion into the digs formerly occupied by AARC parent Peter Boyd's AARCIS was entirely funded over two years ago. Thus, each year, millions of dollars are vanishing through AARC.
It could be going off shored if the board members felt more comfortable with that, but after all expenses, expansions etc. the remaining money goes to the board members to do with as they please. Some may send it off shore (as was suggested). Others may choose to invest it in the market or summer/ investment property, upgrade their existing residence etc.
Check some of the leading charities' financial reports and compare them to AARC. You will see they keep the books pretty much the same. Charity or non profit doesnt mean the employees and board members dont make a profit. It means the company (or entity) doesnt grow thru increased profit each year. The money gets spent.
#4: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26946&start=15#p332481
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
A nonprofit organization is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them only to help pursue its goals. If an organization is to qualify for tax exempt status, the organization must specify that no part of its assets shall benefit any of it's members, directors, officers or agents (its principals). Misappropriation of funds is a.) fraud, and b.) a felony.
Sure, but if the nonprofit is nearing the end of the fiscal year and see that they are in a strong financial position for that year then they can distribute funds in the form or bonuses or "one-time wage adjustment" to employees of that nonprofit, but they need to avoid the term bonus when recording these into the books. This is legal as long as the employees of the nonprofit are motivated by the pleasure of their work and not the money.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #273 on: September 22, 2009, 01:15:46 PM »
Wow, good find, Ursus.  Wish I could use the search function that well.  I used this to explain non profit to Ajax13 at one point.  Although I am not familiar with Canadian law so it may be a little different.

But basically Rueben can make a profit but STICC’s cannot.  At the end of the year they have to have a zero balance.  So as the end of the year comes around and there is still a million or two in the non profit businesses  account then the board is faced with the dilemma of putting an addition on his summer home, handing out one time salary adjustments to employees or sponsoring a few more kids to programs or both so that all the money is spent by the end of the year.

Similar to your local government…if it doesn’t snow a lot this year they can’t carry over the snow removal budget to next year they need to spend it.  They cant give out bonuses but they can buy new equipment or desks for the school etc. to spend down the excess so that the town isn’t making a profit.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Johnny Get Yer Gun.
« Reply #274 on: September 22, 2009, 02:21:49 PM »
TheWho claimed no income from programs, but his words don't mean shit.  How's the daughter?

John D. Reuben is the ultimate program parent:  not one but both sons were packed off to programs.  Reuben is the ultimate narcissistic personality, the kids hit their teens and interfere with him, off they go.  When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

Death and misery follow this guy.  What role he played in his wife's death is unknown but Max held it against him.  Despite the failure of the programs Reuben cannot accept blame or failure and continues to push his Aspen.  Typical narcissist.  Look at what John D. Reuben did to his family, folks.  Why would any parent look to this guy for advice?  What "success" stories does he have?  

It is obvious why Lon Woodbury and John D. Reuben are in bed together (STICC, don't you know), they are obsessed with "parental rights" in placements.  They assume all parents are sane and reasonable.  Look at what Reuben did, does it look like he should be making choices for vulnerable teens?  Look what he does now, does he appear sane and rational?  He is a victimizer and he reaped the bitter fruit of his actions and he still has blinders on to the horrible end he brought to his family.  Bastard.  Don't let him sway other parents to duplicate his "success".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #275 on: September 22, 2009, 03:00:01 PM »
Quote
When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #276 on: September 22, 2009, 03:19:17 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.

Unless the kid has a parent like John D. Reuben who is not competent enough to exercise parental choice.  If he had only one child the situation would have been the same.  There are various grades of bad parents, with Reuben and his ilk being the worst.   It is a shame programs will admit any child as long as the parents present the money.  Once someone like Reuben puts a kid in a program, the program lets them dictate the treatment.  

Was Reuben's son Max sent away to silence the boy?  It points out another misuse of parental choice - what better way to stifle a child who has information that could put you in jail than putting them in a program, where the cardinal rule is to say the kids are lying about everything?  A kid in an RTC is not going to be considered credible, and any parent can buy their kid's silence from a program.  The program may even help cover up if the money is there.  How many kids end up in programs because their parents viewed them as liabilities or potential witnesses?  

Parental choice over clinical necessity is bullshit, especially when the parent(s) are mentally FUBAR like John D. Reuben.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #277 on: September 22, 2009, 03:24:20 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.
This typifies program parent thinking and is of course profitable for the programs. Many parents are convinced that their child is the problem. A problem parent cannot or will not accept personal responsibility, and will outsource their child. It’s about mitigating their own awareness of their failings and it prevents the family any opportunity of honest dialogue and authentic changes from within the family as a whole.
It's sad that a parent would sacrifice a child to maintain such a self serving family narrative. It's The bad seed myth they're buying into.  
In doing so, they cost their family dearly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #278 on: September 22, 2009, 03:43:04 PM »
Quote from: "John D. Reuben, pig bastard."
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.

Unless the kid has a parent like John D. Reuben

Yes there are exceptions.  I would agree that if all the kids in the family needed to be placed then there is something going on with the entire family or parenting.  But if all the kids are doing fine and there is one who is struggling then it is clearly not a parenting issue.  You dont need a professional to figure that out.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #279 on: September 22, 2009, 04:26:28 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "John D. Reuben, pig bastard."
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
When all your kids end up in programs, it is a good indication there's a problem with the parenting.

I see what you are saying, seems we agree somewhat.  So when the other siblings are doing okay and its just the one kid that needs a program then its a good indication it is just the kid who has the problem.  This has actually been my argument also.

Unless the kid has a parent like John D. Reuben

Yes there are exceptions.  I would agree that if all the kids in the family needed to be placed then there is something going on with the entire family or parenting.  But if all the kids are doing fine and there is one who is struggling then it is clearly not a parenting issue.  You dont need a professional to figure that out.

No, no, no...that's Lon Woodbury logic, and the point is ALL placements need to be done out of clinical necessity, not parental choice.  The "one kid" thing doesn't hold water.  What if the one kid is a step child being ousted by a new step parent? (Stephen Fredricksen, the young man in the TB documentary, for example)  Or the one kid is the whipping child for the dominant parent.

No, you are wrong.  You need a professional opinion, it's the only way to protect the child's rights.  This forum is rife with stories of kids farmed out to programs by abusive/narcissistic parents.  Any parent who is reluctant to get a professional opinion should set off alarms.  You need to break out of the ST group think about parental rights and learn more about demented parents like John D. Reuben.  There is the prime example of a parent abusing his parental choice, with a dead son being the horrible lesson.  Reuben didn't learn from it, so we must make sure others learn from his folly.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #280 on: September 22, 2009, 04:45:55 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
John D. Reuben is a wanna-be EdCon 'who' started a business making referrals to known abusive programs.  He has linked up with some of the most familiar bogeymen of the TTI such as Lon Woodbury, Martha Kolbe and many others, like NATSAP and Aspen Education.

John's son, 'who' was forced into two abusive programs, SUWS and ASR, did not receive the help he desperately needed from the unlicensed, unseducated staff of SUWS and ASR, but he was able to make it through, getting out at age 18.  Since the boy's legitimate psychological issues were never addressed while he was detained by for-profit quacks, his family bond was destroyed and when he came home from ASR he estranged himself from John and went back to his old behaviors (as almost every teen does after being detained by quacks) and got much more deeply into much harder drugs, turning to heroin to get his fix and escape from his terrible problems that his father refused to seek legitimate treatment for.

Eventually Michael Joshua Reuben overdosed on heroin and died due to his father's neglect in his time of need.

John's son Max H. Reuben is also a program veteran, but John declines to say which program.

Please lend your support in researching John's connections to the TTI and those of his firm STICC.

John, if you had followed sound medical advice, Mike would still be with us today.  Max, although still living, is deeply scarred by his experiences that you forced him into.  Now you want other people to follow your example which leads to psychological destruction or even death.  John used paid death notices in newspapers accross the country to draw attention to STICC and to get donations to send other kids to SUWS and ASR, a particularly misguided and disgusting thing to do.

Thank you to Mike's roommate [name withheld] who sought me out to tell Mike's story here and ask us here at Fornits to try to cripple STICC as a referral source to programs that verifiably kill children and are 100% ineffective.

R.I.P., Mike.  Your dad let you down, but your friends love you eternally.   :peace:

Please add your thoughts to this topic.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #281 on: September 22, 2009, 05:50:09 PM »
Quote
What if the one kid is a step child being ousted by a new step parent? (Stephen Fredricksen, the young man in the TB documentary, for example) Or the one kid is the whipping child for the dominant parent.

Of course there are exceptions and I understand what you are saying.  We cant sit here and say the problem is with the parents or with the child.  This can only be determined by a third party.........  there are tons of probabilities....What if the other kids in the family are doing fine and the parents treat all the kids equally but this one child just acts out?  What if the parents are as engaged as can be but the one child just heads down a destructive path?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Troll Control

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7391
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #282 on: September 22, 2009, 06:54:31 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote
What if the one kid is a step child being ousted by a new step parent? (Stephen Fredricksen, the young man in the TB documentary, for example) Or the one kid is the whipping child for the dominant parent.

Of course there are exceptions and I understand what you are saying.  We cant sit here and say the problem is with the parents or with the child.  This can only be determined by a third party.........  there are tons of probabilities....What if the other kids in the family are doing fine and the parents treat all the kids equally but this one child just acts out?  What if the parents are as engaged as can be but the one child just heads down a destructive path?

The parents should seek help from licensed healthcare providers using proven treatment for their child's previously medically diagnosed issue for which they got second opinions before they engaged any services.  Duh.  

Only people like John D. Reuben think "This kid is ruining my life.  Where can I send him to to keep him from cramping my lifestyle?" is the correct answer to your question.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
The Linchpin Link

Whooter - The Most Prolific Troll Fornits Has Ever Seen - The Definitive Links
**********************************************************************************************************
"Looks like a nasty aspentrolius sticci whooterensis infestation you got there, Ms. Fornits.  I\'ll get right to work."

- Troll Control

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #283 on: September 22, 2009, 07:18:34 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
Quote from: "Guest"
John D. Reuben is a wanna-be EdCon 'who' started a business making referrals to known abusive programs.  He has linked up with some of the most familiar bogeymen of the TTI such as Lon Woodbury, Martha Kolbe and many others, like NATSAP and Aspen Education.

John's son, 'who' was forced into two abusive programs, SUWS and ASR, did not receive the help he desperately needed from the unlicensed, unseducated staff of SUWS and ASR, but he was able to make it through, getting out at age 18.  Since the boy's legitimate psychological issues were never addressed while he was detained by for-profit quacks, his family bond was destroyed and when he came home from ASR he estranged himself from John and went back to his old behaviors (as almost every teen does after being detained by quacks) and got much more deeply into much harder drugs, turning to heroin to get his fix and escape from his terrible problems that his father refused to seek legitimate treatment for.

Eventually Michael Joshua Reuben overdosed on heroin and died due to his father's neglect in his time of need.

John's son Max H. Reuben is also a program veteran, but John declines to say which program.

Please lend your support in researching John's connections to the TTI and those of his firm STICC.

John, if you had followed sound medical advice, Mike would still be with us today.  Max, although still living, is deeply scarred by his experiences that you forced him into.  Now you want other people to follow your example which leads to psychological destruction or even death.  John used paid death notices in newspapers accross the country to draw attention to STICC and to get donations to send other kids to SUWS and ASR, a particularly misguided and disgusting thing to do.

Thank you to Mike's roommate [name withheld] who sought me out to tell Mike's story here and ask us here at Fornits to try to cripple STICC as a referral source to programs that verifiably kill children and are 100% ineffective.

R.I.P., Mike.  Your dad let you down, but your friends love you eternally.   :peace:

Please add your thoughts to this topic.

John D Reuben killed his kid, and he's after more. Saving Teen In Crisis Collaborative is John d reuben's vampiric suck of life blood, and attempt to leave more victims as dead as his own son.


Aspen Education Group does not provide a genuine therapeutic milieu that is conformative to  standards set by any medical body for their "patients," as Aspen's own lawyers have successfully argued.

Aspen education group informed the police about the details of one of the confessions it mandates made by one "patient."  The "patient's" parents sued for Aspens failure to provide a clinically valid therapeutic milieu, for failing to conform to medical standards, for violating the confidentiality of the patient/ therapist relationship, and for subjecting their "patient" to "therapy" from a group of people who were not licensed therapists.

Aspen Education Group's defense was that, yes, they failed to provide therapy that conforms to standards of medicine, but that was OK because they ONLY agreed
to provide...

Quote from: "Aspen Education Group"
"group and individual counseling as dictated by
PROGRAM design......NorthStar did not promise to do the things that plaintiffs
complain they failed to do, such as provide counseling by a
LICENSED counselor,2"

Aspen education Group argued that Expert the confessions the "patient" was expected to make was NOT part  of a therapeutic treatment program, and that  NorthStar was NOT a drug and alcohol or mental health therapy program.

Aspen Education Group argued largely SUCCESSFULLY that because their "patient's" therapist was unlicensed and because their employees were not actual medical personnel HiPPA statues did not apply to them

Quote from: "Pence v Aspen Education Group"
"Because she is not a licensed counselor and there is no evidence she is an employee of a
licensed counselor, Harless is not subject to confidentiality laws applicable to licensed counselors and their employees."

Quote from: "Pence v Aspen Education Group"
"There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no disputed issues of fact as to whether information conveyed by Harless to police was protected health information within the meaning of HIPAA, and whether NorthStar is a covered entity within the meaning of HIPAA."


http://www.websupp.org/data/DOR/6:05-cv ... 80-DOR.pdf
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Whooter

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5513
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: John D. Reuben and SavingTeens.org
« Reply #284 on: September 22, 2009, 07:34:21 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"

The parents should seek help from licensed healthcare providers using proven treatment for their child's previously medically diagnosed issue for which they got second opinions before they engaged any services.  Duh.  

Only people like John D. Reuben think "This kid is ruining my life.  Where can I send him to to keep him from cramping my lifestyle?" is the correct answer to your question.

Exactly, we agree (smile).  I have always been a strong advocate of parents getting a third party professional to sign off on any placement and that programs should be viewed as a last resort.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »