Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stripe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
1
The Seed Discussion Forum / Those freaking anniversaries
« on: March 13, 2014, 06:43:56 PM »
A mere 41 years ago...this day comes and goes now without much thought about what it was in 1973.
Thanks so much all the folks on this forum who understood, reached out, and were kind to me. Thank you.   

2
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: just found this place
« on: December 08, 2010, 04:24:22 PM »
Hey, you were 17 and a kid -  just like all of the other cult members.  And that what it was - a cult.  I was in Ft. L. 73-74.  It's not easy to speak of the things we did back then - to each other, to our friends, and to strangers.  It was a cruel place and lord knows, it's tough to forgive yourself or seek forgivness.  All I can tell you is that it takes some time to get beyond the harshness of your memories.  I was ashamed of my actions for years and years.  Some of the things you read here make it easier and other things you read make it harder.  But you are not alone in the journey.  Peace and light to you.

3
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: REJOICE and celebrate May 9, 2010
« on: December 08, 2010, 04:11:35 PM »
Fart Barker wrote a check his soul cannot cash.   :poison:

4
Published on originally on Law.Com Augst 31, 2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Pa. Supreme Court: Minors May Be Involuntarily Committed for Drug, Alcohol Addiction
By:  Leo Strupczewski

The Legal Intelligencer
August 31, 2010

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of an act that allows for parents and guardians to have minors involuntarily committed for drug and alcohol treatment.

Writing that prior case law established the presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children, the court, by way of a 6-1 majority, ruled that parents' rights to make decisions on the care of their children are "paramount" to the constitutional rights of their children.

That, along with the decision that the therapeutic nature of drug and alcohol treatment altered the bar for due process claims, helped lead the court to its ruling.

"We stress that we are dealing with a process in which a parent or guardian is seeking medical treatment for their child," Justice Debra Todd wrote. "This statute is civil in nature and involves therapeutic treatment for a brief duration -- as well as the hope of recovery and a brighter future for the child."

Justice Thomas G. Saylor dissented from the majority, writing that he was concerned with the risk for errors in making commitments, the possible length of the commitments and the manner in which the assessment is completed.

"I am not insensitive to the possibility that familial ties may be strained by pitting children against their parents or guardians as adversaries in a judicial setting and hence, I would not conclude that adversarial testing of the petitioner's veracity or motives is constitutionally required -- particularly as the petition itself becomes largely irrelevant once an assessment is ordered," Saylor wrote.

"I would hold, though, that, in view of the substantial involuntary commitment periods authorized by Act 53, and the possibility of erroneous deprivations due to the brevity of the assessment process, the 14th Amendment entitles a minor to a more thorough evaluation concerning the need for inpatient treatment than the relatively scanty procedures outlined in Act 53."

Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the Juvenile Law Center, had argued at oral arguments in September 2009 that the act was unconstitutional on its face.

Reached for comment, she said the decision was a "great disappointment."

"The lack of protection [for juveniles] is worrisome," Levick said. "Having said that, I'm not sure where else we can go."

She later added: "You can read Saylor's dissent and we certainly take solace that at least one justice who heard the case agreed with what our arguments were."

Kemal A. Mericli of the Office of the Attorney General, who had argued the act was constitutionally viable, could not be reached for comment.

According to Todd, a juvenile, referred to only as F.C., was committed to a residential treatment program after his grandmother filed a two-sentence petition and he admitted during an assessment that he used marijuana daily and alcohol occasionally.

His grandmother's petition read "[F.C.] will not go to school and I believe he's doing drugs and he's running away. And he's stealing."

The minor had volunteered to attend an outpatient program.

After the trial court ordered the commitment, F.C. appealed the decision and challenged the constitutionality of Act 53, which permits such commitments. The court ruled it was constitutionally viable, as did a unanimous panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Authoring the Superior Court panel's decision, Senior Judge Robert E. Colville wrote that due process is "concerned with the procedural safeguards demanded by each particular situation in light of the legitimate goals of the applicable law." Considering that fact, Colville wrote for the panel, the procedures used under Act 53, namely, not providing juveniles an opportunity to dispute the allegations lodged against them and subjecting them to assessment outside the presence of counsel, are "fundamentally fair" when weighed against the goal of providing treatment to minors.

In her analysis of the case, Todd agreed with Colville's reasoning.

The justice cited the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision Parham v. J.R.

Though F.C. argued Parham required a "careful analysis" of a minor's background before making a commitment decision to meet due process standards, Todd wrote the case recognized minors enjoy "certain rights," but that the "significant right of the parent or guardian to make decisions regarding care is paramount."

Further, Todd wrote, Act 53 requires a parent or guardian to file a petition, a medical professional to conduct an assessment and a formal hearing, with a right to counsel for the minor, before a juvenile may be involuntarily committed by the court.

Those requirements must be met every 45 days to determine whether a juvenile should still be committed, according to Todd.

F.C. argued the state's Mental Health Procedures Act and additional Act 53 procedures in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas offered extra protections to juveniles that should be extended in all Act 53 proceedings.

Todd wrote, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has held there is no constitutional right to a formal hearing for a minor when a parent or guardian thinks there's a need for medical treatment and that a "minimal informal" procedure is enough.

Further, Todd wrote, parents or guardians filing petitions with the court do so subject to penalty of unsworn falsification to authorities.

"[W]hile the provision of additional protections for minors as exemplified in other statutes and in Allegheny County may be salutary, they do not render Act 53 itself unconstitutional," Todd wrote. "In this light, appellant's argument for additional protections is more properly made to the General Assembly

5
News Items / PA Supreme Court: Minors may be Involuntarily Committed
« on: August 31, 2010, 08:47:39 PM »
Published on originally on Law.Com Augst 31, 2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
Pa. Supreme Court: Minors May Be Involuntarily Committed for Drug, Alcohol Addiction
By:  Leo Strupczewski

The Legal Intelligencer
August 31, 2010

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of an act that allows for parents and guardians to have minors involuntarily committed for drug and alcohol treatment.

Writing that prior case law established the presumption that parents act in the best interest of their children, the court, by way of a 6-1 majority, ruled that parents' rights to make decisions on the care of their children are "paramount" to the constitutional rights of their children.

That, along with the decision that the therapeutic nature of drug and alcohol treatment altered the bar for due process claims, helped lead the court to its ruling.

"We stress that we are dealing with a process in which a parent or guardian is seeking medical treatment for their child," Justice Debra Todd wrote. "This statute is civil in nature and involves therapeutic treatment for a brief duration -- as well as the hope of recovery and a brighter future for the child."

Justice Thomas G. Saylor dissented from the majority, writing that he was concerned with the risk for errors in making commitments, the possible length of the commitments and the manner in which the assessment is completed.

"I am not insensitive to the possibility that familial ties may be strained by pitting children against their parents or guardians as adversaries in a judicial setting and hence, I would not conclude that adversarial testing of the petitioner's veracity or motives is constitutionally required -- particularly as the petition itself becomes largely irrelevant once an assessment is ordered," Saylor wrote.

"I would hold, though, that, in view of the substantial involuntary commitment periods authorized by Act 53, and the possibility of erroneous deprivations due to the brevity of the assessment process, the 14th Amendment entitles a minor to a more thorough evaluation concerning the need for inpatient treatment than the relatively scanty procedures outlined in Act 53."

Marsha Levick, chief counsel for the Juvenile Law Center, had argued at oral arguments in September 2009 that the act was unconstitutional on its face.

Reached for comment, she said the decision was a "great disappointment."

"The lack of protection [for juveniles] is worrisome," Levick said. "Having said that, I'm not sure where else we can go."

She later added: "You can read Saylor's dissent and we certainly take solace that at least one justice who heard the case agreed with what our arguments were."

Kemal A. Mericli of the Office of the Attorney General, who had argued the act was constitutionally viable, could not be reached for comment.

According to Todd, a juvenile, referred to only as F.C., was committed to a residential treatment program after his grandmother filed a two-sentence petition and he admitted during an assessment that he used marijuana daily and alcohol occasionally.

His grandmother's petition read "[F.C.] will not go to school and I believe he's doing drugs and he's running away. And he's stealing."

The minor had volunteered to attend an outpatient program.

After the trial court ordered the commitment, F.C. appealed the decision and challenged the constitutionality of Act 53, which permits such commitments. The court ruled it was constitutionally viable, as did a unanimous panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Authoring the Superior Court panel's decision, Senior Judge Robert E. Colville wrote that due process is "concerned with the procedural safeguards demanded by each particular situation in light of the legitimate goals of the applicable law." Considering that fact, Colville wrote for the panel, the procedures used under Act 53, namely, not providing juveniles an opportunity to dispute the allegations lodged against them and subjecting them to assessment outside the presence of counsel, are "fundamentally fair" when weighed against the goal of providing treatment to minors.

In her analysis of the case, Todd agreed with Colville's reasoning.

The justice cited the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court decision Parham v. J.R.

Though F.C. argued Parham required a "careful analysis" of a minor's background before making a commitment decision to meet due process standards, Todd wrote the case recognized minors enjoy "certain rights," but that the "significant right of the parent or guardian to make decisions regarding care is paramount."

Further, Todd wrote, Act 53 requires a parent or guardian to file a petition, a medical professional to conduct an assessment and a formal hearing, with a right to counsel for the minor, before a juvenile may be involuntarily committed by the court.

Those requirements must be met every 45 days to determine whether a juvenile should still be committed, according to Todd.

F.C. argued the state's Mental Health Procedures Act and additional Act 53 procedures in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas offered extra protections to juveniles that should be extended in all Act 53 proceedings.

Todd wrote, however, that the U.S. Supreme Court has held there is no constitutional right to a formal hearing for a minor when a parent or guardian thinks there's a need for medical treatment and that a "minimal informal" procedure is enough.

Further, Todd wrote, parents or guardians filing petitions with the court do so subject to penalty of unsworn falsification to authorities.

"[W]hile the provision of additional protections for minors as exemplified in other statutes and in Allegheny County may be salutary, they do not render Act 53 itself unconstitutional," Todd wrote. "In this light, appellant's argument for additional protections is more properly made to the General Assembly

6
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: REJOICE and celebrate May 9, 2010
« on: June 25, 2010, 07:19:32 AM »
Yes, probably so.  He never acknowleded, even remotely, the real results of his "good works" and no one gets  an apology.  

So what's left now?  Embrace the freedom this death brings.  Rejoice in the fact that you do not believe the lies.  Step outside, greet this new day, and be thankful.
That you are not required to repeat the past.
That you have the ability to think on your own.
That you did not drink the kool-aid.  

I have no intention of letting Art Barker's chicken-shit deal with devil take up more time.  He's dead and now it's time redirect life force and work to prevent these programs.  Tell the truth.

7
The Seed Discussion Forum / REJOICE and celebrate May 9, 2010
« on: June 24, 2010, 09:33:13 PM »
Broward County, FL

Arthur R. Barker
Probate Case No.:  PRC  100002513
DOD 5/9/10

Not much on the public record:  May 28, 2010 Purported Will Case opened
case opened; Receipt issued;
May 29, 2010 Purported Will Case closed.  

Wisely, a private event.

8
The seed people had that delusion process down both ways:

First, extrenally by breaking down rational children and young adults for up front dollars  - and in the best of all possible seed worlds, control of that persons decsion making processes going forward.  

Second, by personally and corporately believing that they were right and righteous in taking every act necessary to do so.
 
Seems to me to be a pretty clear example of evil.

All this is - every bit of what people have written here for years, the good, bad, freaky, accusatory, angry, hurt, weak, delusional  - you name it - I  think this is the end result.  It's what remains when the karma runs over the dogma.

9
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: For Greg
« on: August 12, 2009, 01:08:30 PM »
Ginger,

To answer your question about Barker still being in the business...there are two companies here in Florida - Smart Mortgage, Inc. and Sound Mortgage, Inc.  Mr. Barker is involved with one or both - I can't recall now.  

The point is, Sound Mortgage and Smart Mortgage each loaned $100,000 to Recovery Zone, Inc. and Recovery Concepts, Inc. back in the early 2000's.  The main person at the Recovery business is someone by the last name of Jonas.  Jonas runs a halfway house in Delray Beach, FL.  Jonas also has a couple of other companies involved in the recovery and the "intervention" business locatedin Delray Beach.  Barker and his seed financiers are still in the rehab business.  

Go to Sunbiz.org and run a corporate name check on Recovery Zone and you will get the exact name of this Jonas guy - then you can search him out. Also check Smart Mortgage and Sound Mortgage.  I researched the business model back in 2005.  I have to hand it to the seed attorneys - it's a good business model.

This is just money lent in Palm Beach County, FL.  There may be more financing in other counties.
Still, the object would be to trace the "seed" money to the current financing. And since money is fungible (no way to differentiate a "Seed" dollar from any other dollar), well it would be difficult. Doable, but difficult.  Perhaps most of the money, if there was any, was paid out to employees before the 501(c)(3) disbanded and gave whatever money was left to other charitable orgs.

Stripe

10
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: Tired and dismayed
« on: August 05, 2009, 03:16:27 PM »
Crazy is organic, not external.

11
The Seed Discussion Forum / Tired and dismayed
« on: July 29, 2009, 06:28:00 PM »
Have you folks and guests who seem so intent on tearing everyone who crosses your path a new asshole lost your minds???? Geeze louise....go back and read what you wrote and then stop for minute. Just stop. And think.  

Apparently there needs to be some moderator/moderation here because self-restraint is clearly not present of late.  I have an idea:  instead of yelling at the "the man" for attempting to supress your free speech, why not take a few minutes to reflect on what you are about to stick up here for the whole world to read and perhaps, just maybe, edit the content so that your true intent is clear to the reader.   Or tell me to fuck off.

People had different experiences, they are going to have different memories and therefore different opinions about their experiences.  But the point of introspection, which is sometimes what happens here, is to see what's inside. We know that coming to terms with the seed experiece is an introspective exercise.  It makes people vulnerable and easy targets.  Under these circumstances, restraint is a virtue.  

There's no boogey man here, just lots people who are on a continuum. Greg, Ginger, pro-seed people, anti-seed people, trolls, guests, me, the Joneses, and the people who are trying to keep up with the Joneses, the spies, the anti-spies...we're all just moving along working through the stuff of this life and making it to next day.  
 
Finally, can some one, any one at all,  please explain to me what social value, what greater good is served by making wild, baseless accusations about a persons intelligence, sexuality, moral, or ethical standards?  Since we are essentially stangers bashing away on keyboards who have never had the pleasure of a personal meeing, is seems kind of stupid to accuse each other of being cross-dressers, liars, uneducated, etc., etc.  In the light of our last day, none of us is going to be all that pretty anyway.      

But then again, maybe tearing new assholes and misdirecting IS the agenda.   :wall:    
DOH !
Signing off to dream of a kinder, gentler world, a thousand points of light....

Stripe

12
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: This forum, Now and then
« on: July 24, 2009, 02:35:45 PM »
Greg,

I have nothing but the utmost respect for you and for the work you have done on this forum. And Ginger, too.  To both of you: your thoughtful questions and responses made the journey for me a positive experience.  Not necessarily an easy task by any means.  The challenges of confronting our experiences and our participation has made for some very interesting and thought provoking  discussions.  On a personal note, Greg, I've wondered where you have been of late.  I am sorry your daughter is not well and I hope that her health improves. While I never met you or Ginger personally, I appreciate all that you have done.
 :bump:

Thanks.

13
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: Get Ready
« on: July 17, 2009, 03:45:11 PM »
Quote from: "Guest"
I think the parrents were the ones who took the 13, 14, and 16 yr olds out of school;


Guest,

I am almost certain (not completely but almost) that no parent ever just came to a school and took their kid out and away to the seed without having FIRST consulted with some Seed individual, whether it was another program parent or a staff member.  

I'm also very confident that lots of kids were brought there under the guise of "Let's just talk to them."  That's what I heard.  So I talked to them. Or rather I responsed approrpriately to their questions. The intake person asked me what drugs I did, I said I smoked pot (which was the truth).  The lady told my parents I was lying and needed help immediately or I would end up deadinsaneorinjail.  Fuck, what a racket.  It was high pressure sales, pure and simple.

14
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: Class Action Filing
« on: July 17, 2009, 03:07:20 PM »
Stack,

Back in 2004 (when I was "waking up") I did some pretty extensive research on Mr. Barker.  He does, in fact, invest heavily in real estate here in S. Fla. - Palm Beach County in particular. It's through a company called Sound Mortgage (in business with some seedlings).     It's a pretty clever tax avoidance scheme - I have to hand it to the planners.  Anyway, he did invest in a drug rehab in Delray Beach, FL and that business is still open - so there may actually be some injured persons whose claims are within the SOL.

As for barker, I have all my research in a drawer in my file cabinet.  There's nothing illegal about tax avoidance and tax planning - but it was funny, when I laid the scheme out for all to read, I was hit with a ton of sour grapes.  My dad used to say that a hit dog always hollers.
I have a knack for tracing (money, assets, investments) so if your proposed attorney needs assistance on that, have that party contact me via email here.  I'm licensed to practice law here in FL - the offer is legitmate.  

I thought I had a golden idea the other day: seek redress in the International Criminal Court - for war crimes (declared drug war on US citizens) but unfortunately, the U.S. is NOT a signatory on the Treaty of Rome so it's not subject to ICCt jurisdiction. I can't really see any current or future president or congress pushing to sign the treaty  - there would be hell to pay by the exectuive and legislative branches of the US gov't. for war crimes in other areas of the world if the US signed on.  As far as I can tell, unless and until the US signs the treaty of Rome, US citizens cannot be tried in that court.  Maybe there is a way around it.  I don't know.  I had to concentrate on "paying" work so I can pay the bills.  

Stripe

15
The Seed Discussion Forum / Re: Class Action Filing
« on: July 15, 2009, 04:32:51 PM »
Stack,

Here's one of the many problems with a class action in a U.S. state or federal court: There is no existing entity, with money, that can compensate for damages or that can be punished with punitive damages.  Illegal actions by officers and directors will pierce the corporate protection veil and subject the corporate evil-doers to personal liability.  That assumes any case filed would get beyond a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Also, the suit would have to name  "everyone and his brother" to actaully be an effective tool.That means everyone - including  the staff members/Sgt. Schultz types who claim they "knew nothing," successor programs and the program directors, their staff members, etc.    

As for the money, a dissolving 501(c)(3) like The Seed is required under the Internal Revenue Code to donate its holdings to one or more 501(c)(3) corps. upon dissolution. It would be possible to trace the charitable money, but to what end? If the blood money went to successor drug programs, then by all means it should be yanked.  But if it actually ended up doing some good, what is the current social benefit of stripping funds from charity that actually helps people?  The place is closed so there's not much by way of injunctive relief, either.  

Not saying this could not be done, just thinking.

Peace out.

Stripe

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19