Amber Lee Knights testimony in a child custody case.

[Carey]

This testimony, by Amber Lee, took place at and around the same time I contacted her about my objections to my boys placement at Dundee.

It begins with her being sworn in.  It is in the custody case between XXXXXX V. XXXXXX.  This is on July 19, 2002.

Mr. Johnson:  The Petitioner calls Ms. Amber Lee Knight to the stand.

The Court:  Please raise your right hand.  AMBER LEE KNIGHT, being duly sworn was examined and testified as follows:

The Court:  Okay.  Please be seated.  State your name, and its important to speak up so everyone can hear you.

The Witness:  All right.  My name is Amber Lee Knight.

The Court:  How do you spell Amberl?

...Yada Yada Yada...

By Mr. Johnson:

Q.   Ms. Knight, please describe your background.

A.   I have a bachelor's degree in chemistry and history education, and I have taught high school for two years.  I also have a master's in international government focusing on -- it's socioeconomic government.

The Court:  Where are your degrees from?

The Witness:  Brigham Young Universtiy, your Honor.

The Court:  In Provo?

The Witness:  Yes.

A.   I had become invovled by working as a consultant in Washington...

The Court:  What was the question?

Mr. Johnson:  Your Honor we had taken a break...

The Court:  No.  Let's have your question.

Q.   (By Mr. Johnson) Where are you employed?

A.   I am employed at the academy.  It's Dundee Ranch, Ortino, Costa Rica.

Q.   How did you become employed by the academy?

A.   I worked as a consultant in Washington,D.C and took assignment there, a ten-week assignment to guide the accredidation process.  At that time I...after about 6 weeks I worked there they offered me a job as director, and because I had seen the amazing results, just fabulous changes in the kids' lives I decided to stay.

Q.   Could you please briefly describe your duties as director at the academy.

A.  Yeah.  It's director of the academy.  I... I am in charge of day to day operations including medical, acadmic, communication, employees, all of those things with the kids.  I spend a lot of time with the individual also, and because that's something that I c hoose to do because I care about them.

Q.   Do your duties bring you into direct contact with (the child invovled in this custody despute)

A.   Yes they do.  I spend about a three to five hours a week with her in group, and then about 15 minutes to about two hours depending on the week individually talking to her.

Q.   What kinds of activities do you do with Ms. XXXXX?

A.   We do yoga together.  Iread the kids bedtime stories sometimes.  We've talked individually.  We've talked in a group setting.  I listen to other girls given her...

The Court:   Slow down.  It's okay.

A.   I listen to other girls giving her feedback.  I've helped her in the school work.

Q.   Has she had the opportunity or have you had the opportunity to directly discuss (the childs) feelings with her about her progress in the school work

A.   Yes I have.  From the first week that I was there until now I've been listening to her as she describes her relationship with her parents, both her father and her mother.

Q.   Could you please briefly tell the Court what your observations have been.

A.   (The Child) views her mother as a person...

Ms. Heard:  Your Honor, I'm going to object.  It's hearsay from (the child), what she thinks.

The Court:  Okay. Sustained.

Mr. Johnson:  Thank you , your honor.

Q.  (By Mr. Johnson)  Let's move on.  Could you please describe briefly this program to the Court so the Court has an understanding of what the program is about.

Mr. Johnson:  And I will probably refer the Court to Exhibit 1.

The Witness:  Yes.

Q.  (by Mr. Johnson)  First of all, who prepared Exhibit 1?

A.   I prepared it.

Q.  And is it an accurate and truthful reflection of statements of progress through the program?

A.  Yes, it is.

Q.   Okay, okay.  First of all, the academy at Dundee Ranch is an affiliate school of a worldwide association of specialty schools and programs?

A.   We have over 20 years of experience, 2,000 students currently, but thousands of students who have successfully completed the program, and we have ten facilities worldwide.  So this program has been in development for the last 20 years.  We...its based on a self-directed merit system where kids can go through the levels and as they progress through levels they receive increased privilieges, rewards for their appropriate behaviour.
     The majority of our students are not students who have severe drug and alcholo addiction issues, but the majority of the kids who are master manipulators.  They're kids who know how to manipulate whatever situation they are in, including the staff sometimes, but usually...but they are master manipulators, getting what they want instead of getting...getting out of the situation.  What we found in our experience is that the problem generally lies in the breakdown of family structure.
     So our program is specifically designed to not only help the student overcome their negative behaviours, but also the family.  And, if you look at Exhibit 1 what you'll see is...we have a series of emotional growth seminars to go through...the kids go through and that the adults go through, also.  And then once they both have tools of accountabiltiy, learning how to take accountability with actions, dealing with integrity, having relationships for themselves and other people, and...mostly it is about accountability.  What we do is bring them together, the phone calls, and in parent/child seminars.
     In fact, in order to graudate the program we require that the parents go through one individual seminar, and then the three other seminars, the parent/child 1, 2 and 3.  The program as I have said I've seen amazing results.  Kids who graduate the program...I believe a proper witness brought this up...kids that graudate the program have a 92 percent rate, meaning they are not going back into old habits.  Again, I want to stress these are not hardened criminals.  These are kids that are good manipulators in situations and have behavioral problems.
     And, 50 percent are out of school, soley for school issues, not for drugs or alcohol.  



She goes on to discuss the sucess rate.  Amber Lee is discussing nonrecidivism as it relates to kids leaving the program at the different levels.
She continues on about the education the kids receive.

Just a little more that I found interesting:

The Court:  Has she been having any psychlogical problems that nec...let's say, in the last month or 6 months, that necessitated any intervention?

The Witness:  NO, she has not.  We...the Chrislers requested a psychological evaluation.  I beleive I don't have a copy of that.  But she...she's...she misses home just like any normal person.  I mean, I miss home.  I do.  We all miss home.  It's my opinion that this is the best thing for her as a child.

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2003-12-28 09:37 ]

[Antigen]

Couple of questions:

Does anyone ask for evidence of these impressive success rates, further on in the depo?

Do you see how this gal can be pretty brainwashed? I think she believes what she's saying. Not that what she's saying is true, just that she believes it is.

The Internet is now safe for free speech.
-- Christopher A. Hansen on the overturning of the Communications Decency Act

[Antigen]

Q. Okay, okay. First of all, the academy at Dundee Ranch is an affiliate school of a worldwide association of specialty schools and programs?

A. We have over 20 years of experience, 2,000 students currently, but thousands of students who have successfully completed the program, and we have ten facilities worldwide. So this program has been in development for the last 20 years. We...its based on a self-directed merit system where kids can go through the levels and as they progress through levels they receive increased privilieges, rewards for their appropriate behaviour.

Carey, doesn't this bit of testimony pretty clearly illustrate that Dundee is part of WWASP? At least the director of Dundee believed so. Not only that, but she cops to 20 years history. Now, WWASP was only established in the late `90's. So she can't be talking about WWASP as a corporate entity. So what must she be talking about, then? And where the hell are these thousands upon thousands of happy, well adjusted graduates? The only ppl I think I've ever seen carry on that line are parents w/ kids still in the program, recent graduates and parents and those who never leave, but who instead stay as staff or recruiters.

Wicked men obey from fear, good men from love.
--Aristotle

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2003-12-28 10:38 ]

[Carey]

No it does not tell me she was brainwashed.  Not at all.  It tells me she is full of sh**.  It tells me she is not very creditable.  My goodness,  by those standards, everyone in this society who has ever committed a crime would be able to rely on the "brainwashed" theory to get them off.

Let me tell you, Amber Lee has a problem no matter what the truth be.  She was at Dundee when my boys were there.  She is responsible for what they endured while there and then after.

I have never said that Dundee is not affiliated with WWASP.  That is obvious from the tape and brochures they send out to parents who are seeking help.  I guess one could say that WWASP is affiliated with Dundee in the same way that the Colburns, Burnett, et al are with PURE.

[Antigen]

On 2003-12-28 11:22:00, Carey wrote:

"No it does not tell me she was brainwashed.  Not at all.  It tells me she is full of sh**.  It tells me she is not very creditable.  My goodness,  by those standards, everyone in this society who has ever committed a crime would be able to rely on the "brainwashed" theory to get them off.

But isn't that really how it usually goes? Sure, we prosecute those people who commit acts not sanctioned by the community at large. Murder, for example, doesn't include all killing, only wrongful killing. And the definition of "wrongful", in this context, changes from place to place and from time to time.

The fact is that, right now in most parts of this country, the jury is still out on whether or not the things done to children and their parents in the name of treatment are really criminal.

Let me tell you, Amber Lee has a problem no matter what the truth be.  She was at Dundee when my boys were there.  She is responsible for what they endured while there and then after.

Carey, I'm not arguing against what you say here. You're right. Absolutely, positively, all these people are responsible for their own words and deeds. You're preaching to the choir. The question remains, though, how to go about improving the situation.

I have never said that Dundee is not affiliated with WWASP.  That is obvious from the tape and brochures they send out to parents who are seeking help.  I guess one could say that WWASP is affiliated with Dundee in the same way that the Colburns, Burnett, et al are with PURE.

Exactly! And they're absolutely positive that they're right; that they're the good guys and that any perceived enemy must, by definition, be among the bad guys.

So what do you mean when you say Dundee and PURE hurt your family, but not WWASP?

More importantly, how can we best respond to the situation to bring about some protection from this kind of mindfuck for the next generation of kids? This is not just about one or two corporations or a couple of "bad apple" individuals. The Troubled Parent industry is one of the few growth industries in this country today. Think about all the different people and professions that are complicit in this scam.

We have the school shrinks and education professionals working tirelessly to convince everyone that there's something terribly wrong with most of our kids. They change the names from time to time to protect the guilty. When I entered first grade, it was ADD. Now it's ADD/ADHD, ADHD, ODD and a whole string of other mostly bogus diagnoses. This is the first step in the process. Right from the get go, parents who question these diagnoses are pressured to take a stand w/ the professionals and against their own children, sometimes under threat of legal sanctions and loss of custody for the crime of medical neglect.

Then there's the juvenile justice system. You've run into that. Are you ready to step to the judge who wanted to order your sons back to Dundee and tell her how stupid and wrong she is? More power to ya' if you do, but judges don't usually like being told they're wrong. It's not like she's the only one. Juvenile judges accross the country order children into these places every day.

Punishing individuals and individual companies for doing what has become the accepted norm in our society isn't likely to get you very far. It's a poor approach to an important problem. At least, that's my opinion after a few years of looking into it.

The whole industry rests on a couple of basic fallshoods.

1. That over half of our young people are mentally and emotionall abnormal and, therefore, in need of some kind of saving treatment and/or punishment.
   
2. That this regimen, which produces glowing endorsements, zealot devotion and truckloads of cash is safe, reliable and effective at remedying these perceived ills.
   

Until people start to come around on those two issues, we're really going to have a hard time getting juries to convice the culprits in these crimes. Frustrating, I know, tell me about it! I've lost so damned much to this cult already, both in terms of personal loss and interms of this philosophy and it's adherants having garnered unimaginable influence on the American society for which I still hold a torch. But I just don't see any quick fix here.

If there's a worse idea going than locking people up for drug use, it's probably locking them up in close proximity to some tyranical altruist who wants to 'help' them with a problem that probably doesn't exist
-- Ginger Warbis
having had about all the help I can stand!

[Anonymous]

So what do you mean when you say Dundee and PURE hurt your family, but not WWASP?

These are the institutions (people) with whom I had contact with.  Dundee held my children against my will and against their will.
PURE further exploited our pain by claiming to be something they were not.

Then there's the juvenile justice system. You've run into that. Are you ready to step to the judge who wanted to order your sons back to Dundee and tell her how stupid and wrong she is? More power to ya' if you do, but judges don't usually like being told they're wrong. It's not like she's the only one. Juvenile judges accross the country order children into these places every day.

I did tell her how stupid and wrong she was.  She did not like it.  She made the remainder of Geoff and Garred's adolscent year horrible.  Why, because she was mad at me.  But,  she was smart enough to realize that she wasn't going to be able to send them back without it being career suicide.  This was not a court case in which the boys were on trial, this was a case of their domicillary status.  The boys were not guilty of anything, legally speaking.  Now had my boys been convicted of a crime, then maybe she could have actually had an argument, other than just the fact that she was mad at me.  She is not a juvenile court judge.  The juvenile court judge finally convinced her that she had no jurisdiction over them.  When they tested positive to marijuana, she could not do anything about it, they had never been ajudicated.

[Carey]

That previous post was me.  I did not realize I posted it as an anon.

[Antigen]

That's cool. I could change it, but I'm too damned lazy.

Ok, I get it. You can't make a case against WWASP cause you had no direct dealings with them as regards your kids. But you did deal directly w/Dundee, PURE and various individuals affiliated with those entities.

I'm in essentially the same boat wrt WWASP and a whole slew of other facilities. I hear descriptions of the same thought reform regimen that I remember from my experience with The Seed and Straight, with only slight variations on the main themes. But I can't say squat except that I, personally, believe the people making the complaints. You just can't make this stuff up, ya know? Not in that kind of detail.

But I know you know this is about something more than just these particular crooks. You say:

I did tell her how stupid and wrong she was. She did not like it. She made the remainder of Geoff and Garred's adolscent year horrible. Why, because she was mad at me. But, she was smart enough to realize that she wasn't going to be able to send them back without it being career suicide. This was not a court case in which the boys were on trial, this was a case of their domicillary status. The boys were not guilty of anything, legally speaking. Now had my boys been convicted of a crime, then maybe she could have actually had an argument, other than just the fact that she was mad at me. She is not a juvenile court judge. The juvenile court judge finally convinced her that she had no jurisdiction over them. When they tested positive to marijuana, she could not do anything about it, they had never been ajudicated.

I say Whoooooo Hoooo!
 ::drummer::  ::rocker::

But now what, Phoo, now what?

As to the question of which side you're on, I can't answer for you, but I want to answer for me. I really don't give a flip which side "wins". Looks to me asif all sides are losing pretty badly already. The process does produce a lot of sworn testimony, though, and that might be useful to what I want to happen.

It takes a thousand voices to tell just one story. Know what that means? All these people vehemently defending their positions and their beliefs. Maybe if some of the supporters have to look the whole story, in all its gorey detail, straight on, maybe then they won't support it. At least the ones who are somewhat removed from the situation, like all those juvy judges who think they're doing a kid a great big favor by saving them a few months in detention and forcing them to get the 'treatment' they need. Maybe if they had to look at case after case detailing just what they're actually doing to these kids, maybe they'll quit doing it.

Instead of giving money to fund colleges to promote learning, why don't they pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five years we would have the smartest race of people on earth.
--Will Rogers

[Carey]

As to the question of which side you're on, I can't answer for you, but I want to answer for me. I really don't give a flip which side "wins". Looks to me asif all sides are losing pretty badly already. The process does produce a lot of sworn testimony, though, and that might be useful to what I want to happen.

I am on the side of the kids.  I want kids to  be protected, not exploited.  What is important here is that this Case WWASP v. PURE is not about kids.  It is about one referral business sueing another referral service for fraud.  Don't ask me to choose one over the other because if I had to it surely would not be PURE.  They are, in part, personally responsible for my families pain.

If parents and children have been abused by WWASP then they need to go after WWASP...however if they think the only way they can win their case against WWASP is through PURE...then yes, they are in trouble.  They have hooked up with someone who can and will only hurt their case.  Why?  Because PURE and Scheff and her associates are crooks...plain and simple.  No one, no jury is going to buy anything she or they say.