Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Troubled Teen Industry

Amber Lee Knights testimony in a child custody case.

<< < (2/2)

Anonymous:

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

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.


--- Quote --- 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.
--- End quote ---


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:

--- Quote ---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.

--- End quote ---


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
--- End quote ---

Carey:

--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---


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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page