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 - scottT

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
The Troubled Teen Industry / AZ JURY AWARDS $46 MILLION IN GROUP HOME DEATH
« on: December 03, 2004, 08:30:00 AM »
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=2640192

News report indicates that parents wanted $30Mil; but Jury found negligence outrageous -- tacked on another $16M

2
The Troubled Teen Industry / So Many Questions, So Few Up-Front Retainers.
« on: January 04, 2004, 07:16:00 PM »
Somehow in the midst of responding to the thought-provocateur's, left one out.

No, I am not the anon attorney who claimed to have seen the lawsuit against Carey and Ginger.

No, I have no interest in W vs. P, or in defending Sue or PURE.  Like I said,  Similar facts warrant similar conclusions.  In no way do I dispute Carey's assessment of PURE.

That said,  my interest in this whole controversy is limited to discouraging the obsession with PURE as a distraction from larger issues.  

When you're on safari hunting for elephants,  its  foolish to waste your time chasing jackrabbits.  In this case,  one organization is said to refer kids to bad programs.  The other organization directly runs bad programs. As we go to bed tonight,  2,200 kids are under lock down key in those very programs.  

But when someone who has admitted taking big bucks  from the operator of the programs with 2,200 kids in lock down tells us that jackrabbits are the biggest problem in the world,  I gotta believe it serves to make the elephant sleep better at night.  Whose interests are being served by that?

3
The Troubled Teen Industry / Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan
« on: January 04, 2004, 06:44:00 PM »
All questions are answered in the new "So Many Questions,  So few up-front retainers" thread.

4
The Troubled Teen Industry / So Many Questions, So Few Up-Front Retainers.
« on: January 04, 2004, 06:36:00 PM »
Normally,  I would expect to be lavishly compensated for giving my legal opinions. As my clients know,  my fees would be a bargain at half the price.  

    Now,  since disclosing that I am an attorney,  many readers of the "Where did the ex-trekker go/What For? You need More Names to Rent?" thread have been posing all kinds of thought-provoking questions.  Since, by complete coincidence,  today is my day for giving free advice,  I shall take this opportunity to give the questions of the Forni-thusiast community the attention they deserve.

    Q 1.  Are you Anonymous?

     Wait a minute, lemme check.....Nope, I'm still me.

    Q 2.  Should people who refer children to programs for a fee be required to know the name of the child?

    Clearly, this is an area desperately in need of reform.  Just as vegetarians believe that you shouldn't eat anything that has a mother,  requiring ed cons to know the name of the child to be referred will certainly cause them to immediately rip up the parent's check,  and send themselves to the Program in the kid's place.

    In my personal opinion,  it would be entirely sufficient if the ed con learns the name of the child when named as a Party Plaintiff (or alternatively,  the name of the guardian ad litem).

    Q 3.  Why are politically active women so often the critics of these Programs?

   Because, in all honesty,  they deserve to be criticized.


    Q 4. Why do you so adamantly defend Sue and PURE?

   Shucks, maam. I didn't even KNOW I was defending Sue,  let alone ADAMANTLY defending her.

  Like many lawyers,  I sometimes throw around a lot of legalistic mumbo-jumbo that makes a relatively simple concept unnecessarily prolix and obfuscatory.  To the uninformed layperson, phrases like  "...I don't work for either organization";   "... I don't have a dog in this fight"; "...similar facts warrant similar conclusions"; "...I haven't accepted money from either organization, can my inquisitor say the same?",  may just look like an attempt to be neutral and even-handed.  But to others, these phrases are full of highly technical multi-syllabic words,  which can easily be misinterpreted as an "adamant defense".

   On the other hand,  maybe someone is just having one of those "...tell Mister DeMille I'm ready for my close-up"  moments.  
     

Q 5.  (Confidential to DG in Skowhegan) To the best of my knowledge,  "Swampscott" is a town in Massachusetts,  founded in the early 1600's.  It's geographic proximity to the town of Marblehead is purely coincidental.

Q 6.  (Confidential to 'Troubled Parent' in No Name, No Town, USA)  On the contrary,  last time I checked (see top of post) I have a full complement -- two in all.  However they're larger and redder than average due to constant busting.  And what's up with this "No Name, No Town" stuff?  Are YOU anonymous?

   Well, looks like my paint is dry now. Gotta go back to work. You get what you pay for.

5
The Troubled Teen Industry / Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan
« on: January 04, 2004, 03:35:00 PM »
To the inquisitor:

      1. My name is: Scott N. Tisevich, Esq.

      2. My Nevada Bar Number is 5525.
           
      3. My business address is: 333 Flint Street
            Reno,  NV  89501. My business phone
            number is 775-786-8926.

      4. For the record, Senator,  I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of,  nor have I ever accepted money or other remuneration from,  the organizations known as:

   (a) the Communist Party of America,
   (b) La Cosa Nostra,
   (c) Al-Quaida,
   (d) the Ba'athist Party,
   (e) the IECA,
   (f) PURE,
   (g) the "trekkers" or
   (h) The World Wide Association of Specialty   Programs and Schools.
   
    Can my inquisitor make the same statement?


    5. The Federal Court House in Reno is 3 blocks from my office and is visible from my front door.  If you wish to meet me there,  just stand on the Courthouse steps and wave. (So we can do lunch, of course.  There's a great deli across the street where the bailiffs go to get meals for the jurors)
                       

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:41 ]

6
The Troubled Teen Industry / Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan
« on: January 04, 2004, 03:03:00 PM »
The topic of my discussion was your demand for names and impugning the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.  

    Nothing I said could remotely be construed as favoring certain programs.  Again,  I believe you serve the interests of certain organizations by interpreting any post that doesn't share your particular world view into a supposed endorsement of PURE.    

     People fighting abusive behavior mod (REGARDLESS of referral agency) have as much reason to fear SLAPP suits as the underground railway transporters had to fear criminal prosecution.

    As such,  your characterization of my example as "irony" is not particularly apt.  Both sets of programs can be judged by the same criteria --Similar facts warrant similar conclusions. I have no dog in this fight. Other people might.
 

    Nonetheless,  a person who who wished to remain anonymous while opposing the programs which are foremost in your mind is entitled to equal dignity with the persons who oppose the programs which the trekkers oppose. Similar facts, similar conclusions. I don't serve the interests of either program.  Other people might.

    Lamentably,  these are times of persecution (ask Ginger).  If the program is abusive, lets oppose it.  I see nothing constructive in drumming up more business for the loathesome ones'  attorneys by insisting people reveal their identities as a condition of participating in this forum.  Other people might.

 

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:09 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:10 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:19 ]

7
The Troubled Teen Industry / Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan
« on: January 04, 2004, 02:16:00 PM »
"Why don't you come out of the henhouse?" says the fox; "Is it because you're just CHICKEN?"

    In today's forum we have a person who has admittedly accepted substantial compensation from the loathesome ones ( for providing information which they deemed  useful in their litigation onslaught) demanding that people reveal their identities, and impugning their honor if they fail to comply.    

    I guess once you start taking money for "naming names,"  you realize there may be an untapped career opportunity.  However,  by any definition -- dictionary, vernacular, or legal --accepting money for services makes you an affiliate of their organization.  Obviously, if you can encourage more disclosures, and get more identities,  your paymaster will likely be more than willing to show his gratitude in the traditional way.  Once you're bought and paid for,  its fair to presume that you stay bought.

    The desire for confidentiality is in no way inconsistent with being justifiably proud of participating in a worthwhile cause.

    Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.  Today's inquisitor would have you believe that their efforts were not honorable and decent, simply on the ground that they didn't advertise their identity.

    In my opinion,  the conditions to which people are subjected in extra-judicial seizure and incarceration programs  are a fair topic for public debate -- even if the program is run by a for-profit, commercial entity.  Revelations of treatment conditions which led to reform of mental health hospitals in the 19th and early 20th century are an analagous example. (Less litigious times, thankfully).   Even if unpleasant and messy,  such discourse (including the discourse on this very forum) is vital,  and should NOT be limited to those who are willing to bear the expense of defending SLAPP suits from our inquisitor's employer.

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:26 ]

8
The Troubled Teen Industry / "it's a breakdown for the child"
« on: January 03, 2004, 07:14:00 AM »
And, I would add,  not only does the Automatic Stay stop enforcement of non-dischargeable debts,  in the context of a Chapter 13 case, once the Plan requirements are satisfied,  you may get a "super-discharge" that affects all debts -- including those arising from an (alleged) intentional act.

9
Web forum hosting / A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES
« on: January 02, 2004, 11:27:00 PM »
You know,  back in WWASPS Discovery class, they had a little exercise that ran "I'M right!  No! I'M RIGHT!, NO, I'm RIGHT!..." repeated endlessly ad in finitum.  (to illustrate the futility of mindless, unconstructive bickering).

    Against all reason,  this forum has essentially degenerated into a variation on this theme.  Except here its become: You're 'affiliated' with PURE!  No, I'm not!! You're the one 'affiliated' with PURE! NO!  YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH PURE!  NO! YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH PURE,  AND HAVE BEEN SINCE BEFORE SUE HAD HER CHILD COMMITTED!  NO! YOU WERE AFFILIATED WITH PURE BEFORE SUE'S CHILD WAS BORN.  NO! YOU WERE AFFILIATED WITH PURE BEFORE SUE'S HUSBAND EVEN HAD A GLEAM IN HIS EYE!" and so on and so on  ad nauseum.  (And I do mean NAUSEUM.)

    The loathesome ones are playing Ms. B. like a musical saw.  Knowing her hot button,  they feed her some dough, a few confidential documents, and treat her like a "player" in the W v P case,  and then just set her loose on Fornits to do their bidding (perhaps unwittingly, one supposes).  

    Ginger, their strategy has succeeded in skyjacking virtually the entire WWF Teen Help thread away from abusive behavior mod into a meaningless (and redundant) semantic quibble-fest into the earth-shaking questions of who is feeding documents to whom, and whose name appears on whose mailing list. (Litigants using the media to influence public opinion?  I'm shocked! SHOCKED! to discover that such practices could possibly be occuring! After all, this is the INTERNET! Everyone who uses the internet is supposed to be IDEALISTIC!)

    Before Christmas,  I noted that the posters on this forum are eagerly living down to the puppet masters' low expectations of our collective intelligence.  Haven't seen much in the last nine days to dispel that fear.



[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-02 20:29 ]

10
The Troubled Teen Industry / What is up with Berryman
« on: December 24, 2003, 08:14:00 PM »
Dear Carey,

One thing on which I'm sure we can both agree:

The only sight more beautiful than Ensenada in my rear view mirror is Orotina in your rear view mirror.

Merry Christmas to you and your boys! Lets all hope for a better and more peaceful year in 2004.



[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-12-24 17:15 ]

11
The Troubled Teen Industry / What is up with Berryman
« on: December 24, 2003, 05:28:00 PM »
Sorry Carey,  I'm not going to give you an answer as to who exactly is "loathesome".

However, even though I can't "give" you an answer,  may I suggest that you get out your list of all the loathesome people from whom you have accepted money,  and perhaps you could find some who might want to "rent" my answer?

Who is loathesome?   The answer,  I suspect, is already in your hand.


[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2003-12-24 14:29 ]

12
The Troubled Teen Industry / What is up with Berryman
« on: December 24, 2003, 04:50:00 PM »
Dear Deb,

Todays anon questions were not directed at you, but at the person making the accustions.  As a regular around here, I already knew the answers.

My hope is simply that we can all dispense with the counter-productive  McCarthy style tactics and stay focused on the ultimate issue of exposing the loathesome ones,  rather than dilly-dallying about who has the most elevated sense of righteousness.

13
The Troubled Teen Industry / What is up with Berryman
« on: December 24, 2003, 02:42:00 PM »
To paraphrase Woody Allen (I think),  just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.  

I reached the conclusion very early on that a high percentage of posts were emanating from the loathsome organization(s),  specifically to incite flame wars;  or better yet,  demonstrate to any parents who might be "on the fence" about BM programs,  just see all the infighting, backbiting,  and coarse language  that goes on here and you can easily conclude that the program critics were "mere chattering pigs".

Too bad that so many were so eager to help them succeed by living down to the loathsome ones' expectations of us.  

Perhaps in the new year, let's pray that the quality of discourse will be less directed to ad hominem attacks,  and more conscious of the ultimate goal:  shutting down as much of the gulag as possible -- one one program at a time, one school at a time or even  one child at a time.  Divisiveness and reciprocal slander is counterproductive to that goal.

Letting WWASPS, PURE, and their ilk fragment the opposition with their ludicrous threats of holding all parents "accountable" (including parents fighting against the organizations) based on some ivory-tower notion of ideological "purity" is just a short cut to surrender.  

If the smear artists can scare away the people with the most direct familial and economic interests at stake (i.e., the check writing parents),  they tear the guts out of the opposition.  If so,  all they'll have to beat will left  be a few courageous individuals with highly elevated senses of self-righteousness, but not much in the way of juice.

14
The Troubled Teen Industry / What is up with Berryman
« on: December 24, 2003, 11:56:00 AM »
Quote

On 2003-12-24 07:18:00, Antigen wrote:

GINGER SAID "...Anon (Jeff, maybe?) nailed this one
Quote
'This attentuated reasoning is a throwback to McCarthy era standard of "If you at any time ever KNEW a communist, then you must yourself BE a communist' ... This seems to be a big problem w/ this issue."

No it wasnt Jeff.  Jeez. I made a point of stressing that I had no financial interest in any educational biz (or the OTHER smear artists).  It must have been the reference to Christmas Shopping (as opposed to Chanukah Shopping) that threw you off.

15
The Troubled Teen Industry / Holiday Greetings From Your Favorite Non-Profit Association
« on: December 19, 2003, 01:47:00 PM »
Well Gee Whiz! Sure I want My holiday to be WONDERFUL! Only some dumb-ass with a terminal case of the grundgies would CHOSE to have holiday that was WOEFUL!  

Three cheers and a Tiger for ME!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4