Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones => Benchmark Young Adult School / Benchmark Transitions => Topic started by: psy on November 04, 2008, 10:34:37 PM
-
I have prepared a press release following my court victory. Please feel free to comment, ask questions and express your opinions on the matter in this thread.
Link to press release here (http://http://www.fornits.com/psy/PressRelease.pdf)
For those who do not have acrobat reader, a web-based version is available here (http://http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5116).
-
Looks pretty good to me as it focus on the main points. I'd have put a picture of Jayne Longnecker crying in her beer for a few laughs as well though.
-
I'd like to point out there are also other threads pertaining to this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26052 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26052)
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26036 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26036)
-
From another thread:
Seems Benchmark choked on Psy's legal burrito. Go read the drumroll thread for more details.
Best parts of the whole thing for me, are the parts where the school was blowing hot air at Psy about the protest.
1) Absolute fact: Psy never called the mother of the student we tried to spring. She called us 19 billion times.
2) Absolute fact: Psy or myself never once trespassed on Benchmark's property like they claimed.
3) Absolute fact: We in no way positioned ourselves so that access to the school was blocked. Benchmark claims we somehow managed to interfere with the ability of the school to run. Beats the fuck out of me how we did that when all we were doing was standing on the sidewalk waving signs.
4) Absolute fact: We in no way offered monetary payment to the residents to entice them to leave. I did offer out of my own pocket some food money and a bus ticket. However, Benchmark attempted to portray this as Mike attempting to pay them to leave. Umm no dumbasses.. We offered them a means of escaping their little 'Animal Farm'.
How could we have kept them from running by standing on the sidewalk?
How could we stopped them from abusing their residents by following their vans? (ok that is a silly one on my part. Of course they can't abuse the residents if we are around with cameras.)
We exercised our legal rights to protest a public entity. In the court papers you can clearly see how Psy's lawyers illustrate Benchmark and Jayne Longnecker's public status. Benchmark has released press releases claiming some sort of high muckity muck status in the world of tormenting young men and women. Well from what I'm gathering they did such a good job one of them jumped off a bridge and another one of them started a website exposing them. As for the rest of them Psy can fill you in on those particulars if he is up to it.
Benchmark has heralded Jayne Longnecker as a leader in the torture industry. I have to say from a professional point of view I'm in awe of the woman. She is doing torture the right way. No heavy handed physical brutality for her..
Nope.. She and her henchmen go right for the mental jugular.
Take a look at those papers and you'll see the absolutely fucked up accounting as related by Psy regarding his friendship seminar. Not many things have the ability to make me slightly ill or full on puking sick. But that recounting of his friendship seminar made me feel like getting sick. Maybe I'm a cynical old bastard, but that shit really struck a nerve.
Now my friends, enemies, and everyone else.. What we have here is opportunity..
An opportunity to learn.
We can learn that persistance pays off.
So does hiring good lawyers.
But first and foremost let's examine the tools used by Psy to cover his ass in the beginning.
Old Psy threw up that website back in '06 and sent Her Nibs Jayne "The world's biggest fucking moron and soon to be unemployed welfare recipient" Longnecker an email. This email invited her to contact Psy if he needed to make corrections to his website.
So let's check it out..
He sent an email inviting Benchmark to make corrections...
He didn't lie.
He didn't attempt to cover his tracks by changing his content..
He got really good lawyers..
He showed common sense and played his cards close to his chest by not yammering on and on and on and on and on about it to everyone and their cousin all over the internet.
There is some more, but I'm going to leave that to Psy to discuss as I'm having a hard time wading through the legalese of the papers.
So my friends Let's partay like their is no tomorrow.
:rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta:
-
The press release has just been linked to on Care2.com
http://www.care2.com/news/member/550333743/942712 (http://www.care2.com/news/member/550333743/942712)
Thanks to Hurricayn for doing it!
-
You going to put your press release on the fornits front page? If not I'll do it.. just pm me my password on the blog. I forgot it...
again..
:wall:
-
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 1110.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/BenchmarkBN_081110.shtml)
Benchmark Young Adult School
Redlands, CA
Benchmark Persists Against Internet Lies
Contact:
Shelley Skaggs
Director of Marketing & PR
909-307-3973
http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.com (http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.com)
November 10, 2008
Benchmark Young Adult School announces today that its lawsuit against former student, Michael Crawford, has been dismissed due to a very short statute of limitations which applies to claims alleging damages from defamatory statements posted on the Internet. Benchmark filed the lawsuit in response to false and derogatory statements made by Crawford on his website and on certain Internet blogs. The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
It is critical to note that the Court made no finding relating to the truth or falsity of any of the defamatory statements that Crawford made on his website. Benchmark stands by its assertion that Crawford has repeatedly made false and defamatory statements regarding Benchmark's philosophy, staff and curriculum, and Benchmark will continue to use every legal opportunity to pursue the truth. Indeed, the evidence presented to the Court by Benchmark made it clear that the statements at issue on Crawford's website were libelous. If you would like to review the testimonial evidence presented to the Court by Benchmark, click herehttp://http://www.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/read-sworn-declarations-by-in-support-of-benchmark-young-adult-school/. (Click here to see what Benchmark doesn't want you to read: http://www.fornits.com/psy/antiSlapp.pdf (http://www.fornits.com/psy/antiSlapp.pdf))
Jayne Selby-Longnecker, founder and owner of Benchmark Young Adult School, states, "We knew we were fighting an uphill battle regarding this matter. Unfortunately, the First Amendment, in which I strongly believe, protects people who go around telling lies about others on the Internet. Internet law is a relatively new frontier and it is very difficult to effectively pursue and win a case against someone who posts untruths about you or your company. This is especially true when you may not know the substance or damaging effect of such statements until after the very short statute of limitations applicable to these claims has already run."
Benchmark Young Adult School is a co-educational, residential, emotional growth school, dedicated to assisting troubled teens and young adults, 18-28 years of age, as they transition into independent living.
For further information regarding Benchmark Young Adult School, please visit our website at
http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/ (http://homepage.mac.com/psyborgue/) or contact us at 800-474-4848.
:waaaa: :waaaa: :waaaa: :waaaa:
"It is critical to note that the Court made no finding relating to the truth or falsity of any of the defamatory statements that Crawford made on his website."
LOL...I think it is more "critical" to note that the Court thought using the term "school" to describe Benchmark was at best questionable, at worst...what it is.
HEY, JAYNE: SHOW SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, WOMAN! I'd like to think a short statute of limitations screwed you like it screws program survivors, but you're lying. You were aware of Psy's site from the beginning and you did nothing. Now you post this snarky, petty and desperate mewling. We saw the nosedive in your admissions, Jayne - how long are you going to be able to "persist"?
Jayne is worse than I imagined her, Psy.
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment.
My, my... that "unique legal procedure" must surely be an oversight... lol!! :seg: ::evil::
-
You were aware of Psy's site from the beginning and you did nothing. Now you post this snarky, petty and desperate mewling. We saw the nosedive in your admissions, Jayne - how long are you going to be able to "persist"?
Jayne is worse than I imagined her, Psy.
She is a piece of work, i'll grant you that.
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
-
To me, it's simple. When Psy put up the website, he emailed her to invite corrections. She decliened to do so. One would think if there were any innacurate statements, she would have simply provided proof back then without waiting for "damages". It's not Psy's fault she declined to do so. She more or less consented to the publication of the website. Moreover, she waited over a year to file a lawsuit, which is untimely and expressly forbidden by the statute of limitations.
The judge did not have to waste his time quibbling over truth or falsity. In fact, he was forbidden to do so (that is for a trial). What the judge had to decide was two things: did the case have to do with free speech, and could the plaintiff (Benchmark) prove the case was winnable. Well, the statute of limitations pretty much kills the possibility of they winning right then and there, so why would the judge address anything else? This is more spin from Benchmark and they'd be stupid to appeal the case. It'll just end up costing them more than it is already, since anti-SLAPP awards court costs to the defendant if it suceeds (and it did). The same goes for appeal. If they want to bankrupt themselves, they should continue.
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
I suppose that's for Psy and his lawyers to figure out at this point. I wouldn't expect him to comment on an ongoing case. Of course, Benchmark could be lying about the appeal (just claiming they will appeal for the PR).
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
They would have to find some grounds for appeal. Whatever that might be is anybody's guess.
-
I suppose Jayne, that shit eating bitch, can always sell her house that she had more or less built by Benchmark students to keep paying her lawyers.
also.. can someone copypasta the docs on that wordpress blog to this thread? Great firewall of china effing strikes again.
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
I suppose that's for Psy and his lawyers to figure out at this point. I wouldn't expect him to comment on an ongoing case. Of course, Benchmark could be lying about the appeal (just claiming they will appeal for the PR).
That sounds very believable. My guess is that is most likely the scenario.
-
I suppose Jayne, that shit eating bitch, can always sell her house that she had more or less built by Benchmark students to keep paying her lawyers.
also.. can someone copypasta the docs on that wordpress blog to this thread? Great firewall of china effing strikes again.
It's not the great firewall. The links appear to be broken.
-
To me, it's simple. When Psy put up the website, he emailed her to invite corrections. She decliened to do so. One would think if there were any innacurate statements, she would have simply provided proof back then without waiting for "damages". It's not Psy's fault she declined to do so. She more or less consented to the publication of the website. Moreover, she waited over a year to file a lawsuit, which is untimely and expressly forbidden by the statute of limitations.
The judge did not have to waste his time quibbling over truth or falsity. In fact, he was forbidden to do so (that is for a trial). What the judge had to decide was two things: did the case have to do with free speech, and could the plaintiff (Benchmark) prove the case was winnable. Well, the statute of limitations pretty much kills the possibility of they winning right then and there, so why would the judge address anything else? This is more spin from Benchmark and they'd be stupid to appeal the case. It'll just end up costing them more than it is already, since anti-SLAPP awards court costs to the defendant if it suceeds (and it did). The same goes for appeal. If they want to bankrupt themselves, they should continue.
^^^ THIS
-
The fact that Jayne didn't complain at all prior to the lawsuit (despite Psy inviting her to) only shows that probably nothing on Psy's website was false, and she was only trying to shut up any criticism. That behavior is exactly what the anti-SLAPP statute was designed to stop.
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
I suppose that's for Psy and his lawyers to figure out at this point. I wouldn't expect him to comment on an ongoing case. Of course, Benchmark could be lying about the appeal (just claiming they will appeal for the PR).
That sounds very believable. My guess is that is most likely the scenario.
They HAVE to posture thus. To do any differently would be tantamount to admitting "defeat."
Give it a while, and chances are they will subsequently come out with an announcement that, "due to financial considerations, careful consideration of the negative psychological impact on our students, and upon advice of our attorneys... we choose to no longer pursue this matter." (If they announce it at all.)
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
I suppose that's for Psy and his lawyers to figure out at this point. I wouldn't expect him to comment on an ongoing case. Of course, Benchmark could be lying about the appeal (just claiming they will appeal for the PR).
That sounds very believable. My guess is that is most likely the scenario.
They HAVE to posture thus. To do any differently would be tantamount to admitting "defeat."
Give it a while, and chances are they will subsequently come out with an announcement that, "due to financial considerations, careful consideration of the negative psychological impact on our students, and upon advice of our attorneys... we choose to no longer pursue this matter." (If they announce it at all.)
Do programs ever announce bad news if they can avoid it?
-
Do programs ever announce bad news if they can avoid it?
Hahaha!
Oh, and I forgot to mention: Benchmark et al could also claim that their "insurance company strongly advises against it," as yet another tried-and-true means of backing out of such hollow threats...
;D
-
Normally, insurance companies cover defense, not prosecution.
-
Hell if Jayne wants to waste more money she can go for it. She didn't have a case before and she won't have a case now.
-
they have also posted their press release here:
http://benchmarktruth.wordpress.com/200 ... rnet-lies/ (http://benchmarktruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/benchmark-young-adult-school-persists-against-internet-lies/)
-
Jayne Selby-Longnecker, founder and owner of Benchmark Young Adult School, states... "Internet law is a relatively new frontier and it is very difficult to effectively pursue and win a case against someone who posts untruths about you or your company. This is especially true when you may not know the substance or damaging effect of such statements until after the very short statute of limitations applicable to these claims has already run."
Libel is libel - if Jayne considers Psy's site to be full of "untruths", she should have addressed it before there was any "damaging effect". She was given the opportunity to voice her objections. Sue Scheff goes for the jugular with less provocation and a quickness. Jayne is like a hospital patient who gets an infection after surgery but does nothing until it becomes gangrenous, then sues for malpractice. You're accountable, Jayne. It's not a good advertisement for Benchmark's program when the owner is a procrastinator. You gotta move before the train is on top of you, Jayne, but you didn't - because you knew Psy was accurate in his journalism and had documentation.
As the Court wrote, Jayne:
"More persuasive was the evidence submitted by the defendant. Crawford provided supplemental declarations indicating that there were no substantive changes to his website since posting it in December 2006 (apart from a minor grammatical correction in January 2007)." [/i]
Suing former "students" in order to silence them is bad PR. I imagine Jayne would like to sue Psy for the GAO sniffing around the program's door, but her lack of financial resources might make it difficult to "persist". It's another dumb Jayne moment to start calling a critic a liar after losing, too - you're begging for another lawsuit where Psy's evidence and documentation would be presented to refute your libelous and defamatory comments.
Change one word in Jayne's quote:
This is especially true when you may not know the substance or damaging effect of such treatment until after the very short statute of limitations applicable to these claims has already run."
Wow, Jayne. I'll bet you don't feel bad when survivors are unable to litigate because the time spent getting their heads back together and focused ran out the statute. In TN, you have one year to sue for malpractice. The PTSD of survivors will last decades, maybe all their lives, but they only have one year to bring the program to answer for the abuse. Don't cry about the "very short" statute of limitations Jayne, you have no right to bitch.
-
there is no question. Jayne put herself "at cause".
heh heh heh
-
you're begging for another lawsuit where Psy's evidence and documentation would be presented to refute your libelous and defamatory comments.
If her false statement harm Psy. I wouldnt' put it past him to sick his badass lawyers on Benchmark, going on the offense. Benchmark should watch what they say carefully, as Psy is not a public figure.
-
Hells yeah, Psy you should look into a "abuse of Process",or the like suit . Seems to me they knew they had zip to start with. Seems alot like malicious behavior.
-
Hells yeah, Psy you should look into a "abuse of Process",or the like suit . Seems to me they knew they had zip to start with. Seems alot like malicious behavior.
That's basically what the anti-SLAPP motion was for, but there is a seperate civil action in CA regarding what you're talking about ("malicious prosecution").
-
The lawsuit has been dismissed by way of a unique legal procedure called an "Anti-SLAPP" motion which applies in the context of lawsuits relating to the exercise of "free speech" under the First Amendment. Benchmark intends to appeal the Court's procedural ruling.
They claim that they are going to appeal the ruling. What would that entail?
I suppose that's for Psy and his lawyers to figure out at this point. I wouldn't expect him to comment on an ongoing case. Of course, Benchmark could be lying about the appeal (just claiming they will appeal for the PR).
That sounds very believable. My guess is that is most likely the scenario.
They HAVE to posture thus. To do any differently would be tantamount to admitting "defeat."
Give it a while, and chances are they will subsequently come out with an announcement that, "due to financial considerations, careful consideration of the negative psychological impact on our students, and upon advice of our attorneys... we choose to no longer pursue this matter." (If they announce it at all.)
Posturing it is one of many options for Jayne. Given her ego she probably finds that it is the only option for her. I can think of a half a dozen solutions off the top of my head that would avoid the problem and give them a chance at coming out on top as winners in the end.
I won't post them though..
Jayne ain't getting any of my good/bad ideas!
-
Well. Benchmark has published their declarations.
http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.co ... -lies.html (http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.com/benchmark-fights-against-internet-lies.html)
-
Can't Say i'm particularly surprised they published all their declarations, but I won't be commenting on what they said for the time being. The only documents I'll produce in response is a second declaration from E. Block explaining a little more about the first as well as one from my father.
http://www.fornits.com/psy/DECLARATION_ ... dacted.pdf (http://www.fornits.com/psy/DECLARATION_OF_E_BLOCK_SIGNED_redacted.pdf)
http://www.fornits.com/psy/WHC_SUPP_Decl.pdf (http://www.fornits.com/psy/WHC_SUPP_Decl.pdf)
-
I won't be commenting on what they said for the time being.
I will!
It's a bunch of empty shit. Desperate programmies are desperate.
-
The school may have cleaned its act up some, but one wonders how much. The "primary counseling staff" are all "certified" by ACSTH, which is linked to Narconon (a known Scientology "brand name"), and which lists its business address as being in the same building as the L. Ron Hubbard Library on Hollywood Boulevard.
Private agency (as opposed to government agency) certification is typical in the substance abuse field. The better-regarded CAADAC certification is given by a private agency, after a two-year course at a public junior college. But as is the case with the ACSTH "life counselor" certification (following a much less rigorous course of study than for the CAADAC), it is recognized by the state of California.
Benchmark operates under state Dept. of Consumer Affairs licensure as a "California Sober Living Program." The CSLP is, in my direct experience, very poorly monitored by the CDCA, which really doesn't monitor so much as it responds to inquiries, investigations and consumer complaints. CSLP is actually fairly typical of mental health oversight in general: it's not proactive.
All that said, Benchmark is no worse in my indirect experience than are many of the residential mental health facilities in this region, and actually quite a bit better than a number of them. Sigh.
-
The school may have cleaned its act up some, but one wonders how much. The "primary counseling staff" are all "certified" by ACSTH
You have a source for that? I think You're misreading their website where they say "They have been credited with 30 hours of Approved Coach Specific Training Hours (ACSTH) as recognized by the International Coach Federation (ICF)." All I see is that they're certified to have supposedly taken 30 hours of training by the ICF (according to Benchmark), though I can find none of their staff on a search on the ICF website (apparently they didn't earn any credentials).
See for yourself
Type these names:
http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.co ... elors.html (http://www.benchmarkyoungadultschool.com/primary-counselors.html) (lol.. note the url)
in here:
http://www.coachfederation.org/find-a-c ... directory/ (http://www.coachfederation.org/find-a-coach/find-a-coach-now/member-directory/)
It's a program. Make sure you double check their claims *all the time*. Where they're not outright full of shit, they're misleading you.
Here was their press release on the subject:
http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p ... 1008.shtml (http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/BenchmarkCertsPR_071008.shtml)
You don't think that's just a tiny bit misleading?
-
Benchmark operates under state Dept. of Consumer Affairs licensure as a "California Sober Living Program."
Sober living is an exception to licensing, not licensing in itself. It's also a bullshit exception for Benchmark since a sober living house is specified under Cali law to be *democratic* (members vote on stuff), have no staff in authority, and to not force anybody to do anything. Benchmark has been dodging licensing for quite some time now, and I've kept good tabs on how.
Read this handy govt pamphlet on that specifying explicitly that sober living is not a license, that sober living houses are not eligible for licensing. And the definition of what a sober living house is:
http://www.adp.ca.gov/factsheets/alcoho ... ousing.pdf (http://www.adp.ca.gov/factsheets/alcohol_and_drug-free_housing.pdf)
Benchmark currently is not a licensed or accredited program. Benchmark also does not employ any licensed counselors (whom they call coaches). (except maybe Michael V (I have not yet checked on that)). Benchmark also does not employ the therapists they list on their website. To the best of my knowledge, they operate on a consulting basis and are paid directly by the parents (they are not in the direct employ of Benchmark).
Even Straight.. Even AARc... has it's "pet" doctors.
-
Hi im a former "student of Benchmark school" the place destoryed my life
is there any way i can get in contact with Mike Crawford we were friends wile at the place
Thanks