New Database of TTI lawyers -- what are your thoughts?

[YV23]

I've mostly received positive feedback for this website, which I felt prompted to start after sitting through a disgusting deposition involving a case between West Ridge Academy and a youth that was repeatedly physically and sexually abused while there. SO, I'm curious to hear what Fornits thinks about the site. I envisioned it to be inclusive of all sorts of law firms, the firms that tried to sue the mother for speaking out about WWASPS, the Mount Bachelor Academy lawyers, the Catholic priest abuse lawyers, but if the collective "survivor" community feels like this is a net-negative effect on our efforts to stop abuse in residential treatment, I'll gladly let myself be convinced to take it down. I'm all ears, folks.

http://pedophiledefense.wordpress.com

Eric

After reading both of your threads I'm surprised at you. As an Elan survivor I'm offended at your attack on Wayne's book. Even Danny didn't do that. It's the defining book on that fucking place. Not one person from either side has done what you have.

I'd like to know the answer you have to his question about people who are falsely accused. It happens. If you are successful with your goal they won't be able to get lawyers either. What do you have to say about that?

That was where this thread went south, and you refuse to address the question

[DannyB.II]

Yes, Wayne is right. This is about the kids  :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

[DannyB. ll]

Felice, stop pretending to be Wayne pretending to me. Your trolling program survivors again  ::poke::

[YV23]

This place is like a car wreck. I keep telling myself not to look, but it's too fucked up not to

 :boycott:

[eric]

I'd like to know the answer you have to his question about people who are falsely accused. It happens. If you are successful with your goal they won't be able to get lawyers either. What do you have to say about that?

That was where this thread went south, and you refuse to address the question

I've answered it 20 times already, but here it is again. Your question is a non sequitur. How would the website keep an innocent or guilty (mind you, this database is strictly for INSTITUTIONS like residential treatment facilities) person from obtaining counsel?

It won't. Even if my goal was to see due process circumvented and every accused pedophile sent straight to Guantanamo Bay without so much as an arraignment, that would be impossible.  

(Is that really what I've made you all think?)

Am I still refusing to address the question, and to blame for Wayne, or are we good now?

[blombrowski]

Here's my gut reaction to the content of the website.  Everyone is entitled to legal representation.  A lawyer is entitled to defend his client.  A lawyer is not entitled to defame or libel the accuser.  Child sex abuse cases often are defended by in effect defaming the accuser.  It is the equivalent of saying that a rape victim asked for it.

Joe Amendola (Jerry Sandusky's lawyer) is a classic example of this, and frankly after the Penn State victims are done suing Sandusky, and Penn State, and the Second Mile, they should go after Amendola for defamation.

There are ways to argue a case even when a pedophile is guilty that do not call into question the character of the accuser.  Like arguing facts, or timeline, or intent, or culpability.  To that end, I would trim down the website to focus those lawyers who in their defense of their clients have gone on the attack against their accusers.  

As you sat in on the deposition of the Utah Boys Ranch case, I think you can make your own judgement about the character of those lawyers.  Same with Joe Sandusky's lawyers as they have been quite publicly disgusting about the way they have handled the case.  I don't know enough about the others to say one way or the other.

Just my .02.

[YV23]

I'd like to know the answer you have to his question about people who are falsely accused. It happens. If you are successful with your goal they won't be able to get lawyers either. What do you have to say about that?

That was where this thread went south, and you refuse to address the question

I've answered it 20 times already, but here it is again. Your question is a non sequitur. How would the website keep an innocent or guilty (mind you, this database is strictly for INSTITUTIONS like residential treatment facilities) person from obtaining counsel?

It won't. Even if my goal was to see due process circumvented and every accused pedophile sent straight to Guantanamo Bay without so much as an arraignment, that would be impossible.  

(Is that really what I've made you all think?)

Am I still refusing to address the question, and to blame for Wayne, or are we good now?

What is the point of the website?

I thought it was agreed it was to coerce lawyers into shying away from clients who are accused of child molestation or rape.

Pardon me if I was misinformed

[DannyB II]

This thread does have merit and should be allowed to continue uncluttered from all posts that don't pertain to it. I would like it very much if we could have data archived somewhere with all these lawyers names attached to the facility and child. They are a major part of the problem with this industry and need to be put on the stage front and center.
We need to remember these are children we are talking about here not adults.
Just some thoughts.

[Xelebes]

Here's my gut reaction to the content of the website.  Everyone is entitled to legal representation.  A lawyer is entitled to defend his client.  A lawyer is not entitled to defame or libel the accuser.  Child sex abuse cases often are defended by in effect defaming the accuser.  It is the equivalent of saying that a rape victim asked for it.

Joe Amendola (Jerry Sandusky's lawyer) is a classic example of this, and frankly after the Penn State victims are done suing Sandusky, and Penn State, and the Second Mile, they should go after Amendola for defamation.

There are ways to argue a case even when a pedophile is guilty that do not call into question the character of the accuser.  Like arguing facts, or timeline, or intent, or culpability.  To that end, I would trim down the website to focus those lawyers who in their defense of their clients have gone on the attack against their accusers.  

As you sat in on the deposition of the Utah Boys Ranch case, I think you can make your own judgement about the character of those lawyers.  Same with Joe Sandusky's lawyers as they have been quite publicly disgusting about the way they have handled the case.  I don't know enough about the others to say one way or the other.

Just my .02.

I have to agree.  This should be the focus.

[eric]

What is the point of the website?

From the site directly:

"This site is a database that chronicles which law firms and “officers of the court” earn a living defending child abusers, sex abusers of children, pedophiles [at] institutions that torture and physically and sexually abuse children."

Particularly those that victimize victims as part of their "legal strategy."

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.

[Anonymous]

.