Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => Straight, Inc. and Derivatives => Topic started by: ajax13 on August 03, 2008, 11:49:59 AM
-
Why the Wizard chose to get a PhD from Union when there are many excellent schools in Canada, the University of Calgary, where AARC is located, having a clinical psychology PhD program in fact, is anyone's guess. Is it just coincidence that Union gave Miller Newton his PhDs, as well as providing Sharon Wegscheider to endorse Kids? Additionally, one of the staff at Kids of Southern California was a Union grad.
"The Union Institute is also accredited, but its degree requirements and standards for health-related doctoral degrees differ greatly from those of most traditional universities. Students design their own program, form and chair their own doctoral committee, and are required to attend only an introductory colloquium and a few interdisciplinary seminars. "
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html)
Here is another:
http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek ... 700u1rzzs8 (http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek.com/archive/2007/08/24/at700u1rzzs8)
Here is another:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/2 ... 216158.htm (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/216/ripoff0216158.htm)
Here is a quote from the book "Nafta and Neocolonialism" by Laurence French and Magdaleno Manzanarez, 2004, in regard to the Union Institute:
"the PhD is also offered by a host of questionable colleges and universities. The Union Institute illustrates this phenomenon. Known as the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, the Union Institute is a private, independent, nonprofit consortium authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents to grant degrees. It offers doctorates in a number of professional fields including education, psychology, the social sciences and theology. The doctorate consists mainly of a project directed by the student him/herself. Acting as their own dissertation committee "each learner prepares "Project Demonstration Excellence (PDE) which maay be a formal traditional academic dissertation, or may take other forms." These other forms include a publishsable book, a unified series of essays or articles, a documented project of social change, or outstanding creations in poetry, theater, media presentation, dance, painting and musical compositions. A Master's degree is preferred for admission to the doctoral program and no standardized test scores are required. A Program Summary (subjective portfolio) comprises the course work. It is a purely descriptive project reflecting the learner's development and program evaluation with a detailed statement concerning the meaning of the program to the learner. This program is not recognized by the American Psychologial Association even though many pursue it's PhD in psychology."
"F. Dean Vause Ph.D.
is executive director of the
Alberta Adolescent Recovery
Centre (AARC), a center in
Calgary, Alberta that reaches out
to teens with addiction issues.
Vause has developed the AARC
model and fills the additional
roles of clinical director and
front line therapist. He is also
actively involved in raising funds
for scholarships that will enable
select peer counselors from
AARC to enroll in Union
Institute & University's highly
specialized baccalaureate program
with a concentration in
alcohol and drug counseling and
treatment center management."
-
The Union Institute is also accredited
-
If it is now ( and I'm still not satisfied it is, but just for the sake of argument), it hasn't always been that way. I do believe (I'll let the fact checkers come along and verify this) that it was still the same diploma mill when Vause 'attended' as it was when Fr. Dr. (cough cough) Virgil Miller Newton 'went'.
-
"The Union Institute is also accredited, but its degree requirements and standards for health-related doctoral degrees differ greatly from those of most traditional universities. Students design their own program, form and chair their own doctoral committee, and are required to attend only an introductory colloquium and a few interdisciplinary seminars. "
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html)
Here is another:
http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek ... 700u1rzzs8 (http://ggjacobsen.mbablogs.businessweek.com/archive/2007/08/24/at700u1rzzs8)
Here is another:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/2 ... 216158.htm (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/216/ripoff0216158.htm)
Here is a quote from the book "Nafta and Neocolonialism" by Laurence French and Magdaleno Manzanarez, 2004, in regard to the Union Institute:
"the PhD is also offered by a host of questionable colleges and universities. The Union Institute illustrates this phenomenon. Known as the Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities, the Union Institute is a private, independent, nonprofit consortium authorized by the Ohio Board of Regents to grant degrees. It offers doctorates in a number of professional fields including education, psychology, the social sciences and theology. The doctorate consists mainly of a project directed by the student him/herself. Acting as their own dissertation committee "each learner prepares "Project Demonstration Excellence (PDE) which maay be a formal traditional academic dissertation, or may take other forms." These other forms include a publishsable book, a unified series of essays or articles, a documented project of social change, or outstanding creations in poetry, theater, media presentation, dance, painting and musical compositions. A Master's degree is preferred for admission to the doctoral program and no standardized test scores are required. A Program Summary (subjective portfolio) comprises the course work. It is a purely descriptive project reflecting the learner's development and program evaluation with a detailed statement concerning the meaning of the program to the learner. This program is not recognized by the American Psychologial Association even though many pursue it's PhD in psychology."
"F. Dean Vause Ph.D.
is executive director of the
Alberta Adolescent Recovery
Centre (AARC), a center in
Calgary, Alberta that reaches out
to teens with addiction issues.
Vause has developed the AARC
model and fills the additional
roles of clinical director and
front line therapist. He is also
actively involved in raising funds
for scholarships that will enable
select peer counselors from
AARC to enroll in Union
Institute & University's highly
specialized baccalaureate program
with a concentration in
alcohol and drug counseling and
treatment center management."
-
The Union Institute is accredited.
Finally!! it took you long enough. You are starting to man up and report facts. I like that. keep it going.
-
Lazy, lazy sack of shit. I was not arguing that the Union Institute was not accredited. As I had posted a statement indicating that Union was accredited over a year ago, your post above indicating that this something new was at best an indication of just what a lazy, useless fuck you are, and at worst, one more example of what a dishonest degenerate kid-killer you are.
-
You mean to tell me you never repeat yourself here on fornits? You never ask the same question over and over again to a person that doesnt even frequent fornits?
You use to go on and on about how The union Institute wasnt accredited and that it was a Diploma mill (until I cleared that up for you). Asking question after question on fornits trying to figure out why the wiz choose the major he did. But it never dawned on you that no one knew the answer to that except thewiz himself. But you never quite figured that out. If it were me I would speak to the guy directly, get the answer and move on, but you seem to avoid getting the facts for some reason.
I find your energy and constant avoidance of actually trying to get the facts fascinating. You tip your hand to your level of frustration when you resort to personal attacks and foul language.
-
JD, the Union Institute is a diploma mill. That's why it continues to offer doctorates in psychology that are not recognized by the APA. So even though I had clearly acknowledged over a year ago that Union was accredited, because you are lazy and dishonest, you pretended that this was new information, and that the issue regarding Vause and the Union Institute was accreditation, rather than the fact that his mail-order PhD is not recognized by the APA, and thus, to a reasonable person, would seem a rather dubious credential for someone operating a facility providing psychological treatment, in which they are performing psychological intervnetions. Such as Dean Vause and AARC. That Hasbara shit won't fly here JD. The former clients reading and posting here already know the score, so you can't sway there opinion with your wretched dishonesty. All you can do is temporarily disrupt communication. There is no mass of people whose view of the situation can be altered by disinfo. Wrong audience, JD.
-
JD, the Union Institute is a diploma mill. That's why it continues to offer doctorates in psychology that are not recognized by the APA. So even though I had clearly acknowledged over a year ago that Union was accredited, because you are lazy and dishonest, you pretended that this was new information, and that the issue regarding Vause and the Union Institute was accreditation, rather than the fact that his mail-order PhD is not recognized by the APA, and thus, to a reasonable person, would seem a rather dubious credential for someone operating a facility providing psychological treatment, in which they are performing psychological intervnetions. Such as Dean Vause and AARC. That Hasbara shit won't fly here JD. The former clients reading and posting here already know the score, so you can't sway there opinion with your wretched dishonesty. All you can do is temporarily disrupt communication. There is no mass of people whose view of the situation can be altered by disinfo. Wrong audience, JD.
Why are you so caught upon what people think. I really could care less what the readers think here. What is important is that you post what is factual and as long as you are dishonest with your postings I will be here to hold your feet to the fire and/or correct them for you.
Now that I finally got you to admit that The Union Institute is accredited you can move on to what qualifications are needed to run AARC. What you need to do is establish the requirements and then compare them to what is being done to determine if there are any discrepancies.
So if running AARC requires a Masters in business then we need to look at that. If you feel Vause needs certification of some sort then you need to post the requirements and then we can compare that to what Vauses credentials are. The problem I think you are having is you are trying to dictate the requirements yourself with buy in from authorities. I would think enough people have looked into AARC along with the fifth estate that if the guy wasnt qualified it would have surfaced.
But we will wait to see what you come up with before passing judgment.
-
JD, again, there is no "we", threre is just you. Readers of Fornits were of course, presented in the past with lies about Vause Very specifically, Joanne Miller lied years ago, stating that Vause was a psychologist. As has been stated ad infinitum, AARC maintained Alberta Report articles on their website for years in which Vause was falsely described as a psychologist. His Union paper is not sufficient to qualify him to be a licensed psychologist. Vause conducts psychological interventions at AARC and there are laws in our province that prohibit him from doing so without a license. Silly B Mod Hasbaranik.
-
JD, again, there is no "we", threre is just you. Readers of Fornits were of course, presented in the past with lies about Vause Very specifically, Joanne Miller lied years ago, stating that Vause was a psychologist. As has been stated ad infinitum, AARC maintained Alberta Report articles on their website for years in which Vause was falsely described as a psychologist. His Union paper is not sufficient to qualify him to be a licensed psychologist. Vause conducts psychological interventions at AARC and there are laws in our province that prohibit him from doing so without a license. Silly B Mod Hasbaranik.
I read somewhere that his intention wasnt to gain a certificate to become a licensed psychologist. He was furthering his education to better run AARC. People have written that he is a psycologist, but he himself does not market himself falsely. He cannot control what others write about him... fornits is a prime example of that. I may be wrong but I havent seen any evidence to the contrary.
I have seen people lie here on fornits many times about him. The best we can all do is hold him accountable for his own words and actions.
I must say that your last post much more professionally done....working with more facts and very little personal attacks. The discussion is moving along nicely.
-
JD, again, too lazy to bother looking up the information pertinent to the issue at hand. Not much wonder your son ended up as worm-food. AARC falsely promoted Vause as a psychologist. AARC maintained the Alberta Report articles on their website for years, and both articles contained the false claim that Vause is a psychologist. He is required to be a licensed psychologist under the Alberta Health Professions Act in order to perform the psychological interventions that he does at AARC. He is not qualified to do what he does, and it is thus against the law. By all means, look up the Alberta Health Professions Act, and judge for yourself. The Hasbara strategy only works JD,if you have an audience that is unfamiliar with the facts. What you do afford though, JD, is the opportunity to deal with someone willing to lie, and resort to any tactic in order to prevent the communication of facts. You're like a fungo bat that pops up deception. Not the same as a real game, but a close enough approximation to hone one's skills when dealing with an obsessed, deranged liar.
-
I must say that your last post much more professionally done....
“professional” I guess it would occur to a program shill to use that wording.
The best we can all do is hold him accountable for his own words and actions.
That goes for you too, whore.
Ajax13,
Worm food? You're as big of an ass as your foe here. Have you met RB?
-
Golly, you hurt my feelings. I guess I'll quit trying to get the illegal practices at AARC to stop. Sorry. But seriously JD, your kid is worm food because you sacrificed him to B Mod. Did Chuck Dederich appear to you in the form of a burning bush before you packed junior off to re-education?
-
Golly, you hurt my feelings. I guess I'll quit trying to get the illegal practices at AARC to stop. Sorry. But seriously JD, your kid is worm food because you sacrificed him to B Mod. Did Chuck Dederich appear to you in the form of a burning bush before you packed junior off to re-education?
That post wasnt mine. But as long as you mentioned it, have you stopped playing porn in front of your kid yet? Is he still acting out in school and getting low grades? Are you witholding him from seeing a counselor because he will put DSS on you?
Is this how you like to communicate when you get busted and short on facts Ajax13? Derail the thread and start attacking people , making things up?.... your MO, not mine.
Now after you calm down you can get back on topic.
-
Whatever you say, JD. Dean Vause obtained his PhD from the Union Institute. It is cited by AARC as a qualification for providing psychological interventions to "treat" a brain disease at AARC. The PhD from Union is not accredited by the APA, and Dean Vause is not a licensed psychologist, although he is required to be one by law in Alberta, in order to legally perform the psychological interventions conducted at AARC.
-
Whatever you say, JD. Dean Vause obtained his PhD from the Union Institute. It is cited by AARC as a qualification for providing psychological interventions to "treat" a brain disease at AARC. The PhD from Union is not accredited by the APA, and Dean Vause is not a licensed psychologist, although he is required to be one by law in Alberta, in order to legally perform the psychological interventions conducted at AARC.
If all is true then once the authorities find out he will be arrested. So make the phone call tomorrow first thing and by Friday it will be all over the papers.
-
How about you report it to the authorities, JD, and let us know what happens. I reported it directly to the Alberta Health Minister, who has twice refused to acknowledge my complaint. The previous Alberta Justice Minister responded to my complaints, three times insisting that it was Alberta Health that was responsible. The fact that the Health Minister attended the last AARC gala may have something to do with the Ministry's refusal to act and perhaps not. JD, I have serious doubts about your prognosticaton. If you could predict the future with such accuracy, how did you end up killing your son?
-
How about you report it to the authorities, JD, and let us know what happens. I reported it directly to the Alberta Health Minister, who has twice refused to acknowledge my complaint. The previous Alberta Justice Minister responded to my complaints, three times insisting that it was Alberta Health that was responsible. The fact that the Health Minister attended the last AARC gala may have something to do with the Ministry's refusal to act and perhaps not. JD, I have serious doubts about your prognosticaton. If you could predict the future with such accuracy, how did you end up killing your son?
No way, I dont think he is breaking the law and either does the Alberta Justice Minister. Its just you Ajax. You might be able to convince the health minister that some of the directors are over weight!!
Is your son still acting out in school? You should really let him speak to a counselor, even if it means you may lose him. You should put your child first and put the porn on the side burner at least when he is home.
-
Here is the law, JD.
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:
(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
(i) judgment,
(ii) behaviour,
(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or
(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;
Offence
4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless
(a) the person performing it
(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,
(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,
(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or
(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,
or
(b) the person performing it
(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and
(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),
and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.
(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.
(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.
Penalty
5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,
(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and
(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.
Burden of proof
6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g) ... 0779739479
Now is AARC staff performing the act outlined in 2(1)(p)?
-
Well when the Alberta Justice Minister gets a hold of this info it will all hit the roof. If what you say is correct then we will see it in the papers any day now. I'll be watching.
Thanks
-
JD, your failings as a clairvoyant were made painfully obvious when you killed your son. Now since the Attorney General of Alberta refused to take any action with regard to AARC, you are wrong once again. It did not all "hit the roof", whatever that jibberish means. Stick to destroying kids by shipping them off to B Mods, JD. Go with what you know.
-
......the Attorney General of Alberta refused to take any action with regard to AARC.
He took no action because there was none to take. These feelings you have are all in your head. You cant hold someone responsible if they did nothing wrong.
-
JD, you quite plainly said that it would "hit the roof" once the Just Minister got a hold of the info. Well, he got a hold of it two years ago, and nothing hit the roof. So, again, your assessment of things, based of course on absolutely nothing other than your bizarre sentiments, has turned out to be wrong. Here's the regulation again, in case any casual observor might like to make a determination for themselves as to whether or not AARC staff are violating these regulations:
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:
(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
(i) judgment,
(ii) behaviour,
(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or
(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;
Offence
4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless
(a) the person performing it
(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,
(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,
(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or
(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,
or
(b) the person performing it
(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and
(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),
and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.
(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.
(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.
Penalty
5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,
(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and
(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.
Burden of proof
6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g) ... 0779739479
-
you quite plainly said that it would "hit the roof" once the Just Minister got a hold of the info. Well, he got a hold of it two years ago, and nothing hit the roof.
Well, JD didnt, But I sure did. I told you plain and clear if what you had to say to the minister had any fact to it at all then we would all see it in the papers within days. Its been, what? 2 years!! So we can see that your information had no substance to it. Just fluff as usual.
I think you are better at guessing peoples weight. At least when you are wrong you have to give the person a prize so someone wins!!!
-
JD, you really are determined to make it as difficult as possible for people who are intrested in this subject to look at the facts. For some reason, every time factual evidence makes it's way onto this forum, you push it farther back on the thread by offering your opinion. Silly old Hasbaranik, the facts aren't going away no matter how many times you try to bury them.
-
No one is burying the facts, Ajax. You dont get it, You haven’t presented any facts!! Lets say someone writes on this forum that you abused your son sexually. Does that make it fact? Lets say that this person is so convinced of it he notifies the authorities and they get back to you and say there are no findings or they feel there is no merit. Then how do you conclude this? Would you say we should believe you abused your son sexually or not?
Do you see what I am saying? You are stating laws and passages written which are intended to be interpreted and argued by lawyers. There are courts designed specifically for this reason. You cannot be judge, jury and prosecutor. You never even mentioned that you passed the bar exam so how can we trust you?
I can put a sign up saying I provide therapy for drug addiction and that I am the lead therapist and spend all day helping these people by swimming in my pool for therapeutic purposes. As long as I get some type of basic license and insurance and pay my taxes I am golden.
We can all sit here and quote laws out of a book but if the people who were trained to read and interpret these laws see no problem then we have to go with them and that is what the readers are doing.
Your posts are interesting but they don’t hold water because you are not a professional and the people who are professionals dont agree with you.
Those are the facts.
-
JD, you seem awfully determined to make if more difficult for people to read the law that describes the activities being conducted at AARC. I'll just post it again so that anyone interested in this can read it without having to scroll back through your uninformed opinions.
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:
(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
(i) judgment,
(ii) behaviour,
(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or
(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;
Offence
4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless
(a) the person performing it
(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,
(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,
(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or
(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,
or
(b) the person performing it
(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and
(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),
and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.
(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.
(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.
Penalty
5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,
(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and
(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.
Burden of proof
6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g) ... 0779739479
-
So based on this law (below), Ajax13, you should be in jail. Should we conclude that you are innocent since you are still running free or quilty because you havent been caught yet?
If I notify the authorities and 2 years later you are still not arrested what does that say?
Aggravated sexual abuse
How Current is This? (a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.
-
So we presented what Ajax13 considers facts here on the forum. Yet the 2 people (TheWiz and Ajaz13) are still running free. What went wrong? We presented the facts! Notified the authorities!! We posted the laws!!!
Shouldnt everyone be found quilty this way? 2 people on the internet posting laws... shouldnt we have the power to override the authorities and place these people in jail at will. Not allow them to face their accuser, make assunptions, cut and paste little pieces of the law and then form a lynch mob!!!
Is this what Ajax13 wants? Should he be in jail too since we have evidence against him? Should he get a trial or a chance to defend himself or just toss his ass in jail becasue I say so?
Something to think about.
-
Just can't bear the thought of other people seeing the facts about AARC and making up their own minds. You are so fuckng lazy JC, that you couldn't even hunt up a Canadian law. Ignorant, lazy and degenerate: a Hasbaranik's work is never done JD. But let's leave the law that pertains to AARC up here and let people who read it decide for themselves.
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:
(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
(i) judgment,
(ii) behaviour,
(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or
(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;
Offence
4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless
(a) the person performing it
(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,
(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,
(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or
(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,
or
(b) the person performing it
(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and
(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),
and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.
(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.
(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.
Penalty
5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,
(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and
(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.
Burden of proof
6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g) ... 0779739479
-
Just can't bear the thought of other people seeing the facts about AARC and making up their own minds. You are so fuckng lazy JC, that you couldn't even hunt up a Canadian law. Ignorant, lazy and degenerate: a Hasbaranik's work is never done JD. But let's leave the law that pertains to AARC up here and let people who read it decide for themselves.
All your posts are still there for everyone to read. You just dont like people having a discussion with you. You want to be judge and jury and have everyone believe what you say without question.
You posted laws on this thread.. what you didnt do is prove anything and this bugs you that I pointed this out and proved my point.
Sorry for that.
-
JD, there is no discussion. This law pertains to AARC. The law, from the wrong country, that you posted earlier did not pertain at all to AARC. Since you posted a law that did not pertain to AARC, serving to obscure the law that did pertain to AARC, you are trying to hide the facts, again. JD, you are one shitty Hasbaranik.
"Restricted activities
2(1) The following, carried out in relation to or as part of providing a health service, are restricted activities:
(p) to perform a psychosocial intervention with an expectation of treating a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs
(i) judgment,
(ii) behaviour,
(iii) capacity to recognize reality, or
(iv) ability to meet the ordinary demands of life;
Offence
4(1) No person shall perform a restricted activity or a portion of it on or for another person unless
(a) the person performing it
(i) is a regulated member as defined in the Health Professions Act, and is authorized to perform it by the regulations under the Health Professions Act,
(ii) is authorized to perform it by a regulation under section 3,
(ii.1) is authorized to perform it by an order under section 3.1, or
(iii) is authorized to perform it by another enactment,
or
(b) the person performing it
(i) has the consent of, and is being supervised by, a regulated member described in clause (a)(i), and
(ii) is permitted to perform the restricted activity under a regulation made under section 131(1)(d)(i) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of the regulated member referred to in subclause (i),
and there are regulations made under section 131(1)(d)(ii) of the Health Professions Act by the council of the college of that regulated member respecting how regulated members must supervise persons who provide restricted activities under this clause.
(2) Despite subsection (1), if no person who is authorized under subsection (1) is available to perform the restricted activity or a portion of it, a person may without expectation or hope of compensation or reward provide a restricted activity or a portion of it to provide physical comfort to or to stabilize another person who is ill, injured or unconscious as a result of an accident or other emergency.
(3) No person, other than a person authorized to perform a restricted activity under subsection (1)(a), shall or shall purport to consent to, provide supervision of and control of, another person performing the restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity.
(4) No person shall require another person to perform a restricted activity or a portion of a restricted activity if that other person is not authorized in accordance with subsection (1) to perform it.
Penalty
5(1) A person who contravenes section 4 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5000,
(b) for a 2nd offence, to a fine of not more than $10 000, and
(c) for a 3rd and every subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 6 months or to both fine and imprisonment.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this Schedule may not be commenced more than 2 years after the date on which the alleged offence occurs.
Burden of proof
6 In a prosecution under this Schedule, the burden of proving that a person was authorized to perform a restricted activity by section 4(1) is on the accused."
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=g) ... 0779739479
-
If your point is to just post laws, well, thats easy. There are thousands of them. I didnt see where the law you posted was written for AARC. The one posted pertains to people like yourself who abuse their kids sexually. At least mine has some credibility.
So based on this law (below), Ajax13, you should be in jail. Should we conclude that you are innocent since you are still running free or quilty because you havent been caught yet?
If I notify the authorities and 2 years later you are still not arrested what does that say?
Aggravated sexual abuse
How Current is This? (a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.
-
JD, that law you keep posting is from the wrong country. I didn't post a random law, I posted one from the province in which AARC operates. People who want to know about AARC should be able to read the law and determine for themselves if they believe AARC is breaking the law. You are very determined to keep people from easily reading the law, which is why you are posting an American law, and claiming that it pertains to me, providing some sort of information relative to AARC. You're a kid-killin' Hasbaranik, and an ignorant, lazy one at that. Playing the Hasbara game for B Mods isn't going to make your son any less dead, JD.
-
JD, that law you keep posting is from the wrong country. I didn't post a random law, I posted one from the province in which AARC operates. People who want to know about AARC should be able to read the law and determine for themselves if they believe AARC is breaking the law. You are very determined to keep people from easily reading the law, which is why you are posting an American law, and claiming that it pertains to me, providing some sort of information relative to AARC. You're a kid-killin' Hasbaranik, and an ignorant, lazy one at that. Playing the Hasbara game for B Mods isn't going to make your son any less dead, JD.
They should also be informed that the ministry feels that AARC is working within that law and not breaking it. You have no proof that any laws are being broken. The media doesnt side with you or agree with you based on their articles. The government agencies didnt find any fault with AARC. So you decide to just keep posting an obscure law over and over again with the intent of misleading the readers.
So if posting the law makes them guilty them you wont mind me posting the law which depicts your present predicament. I am not trying to stop you from posting anything or the readers from reading your posts, just like I am sure you are not trying to stop my posts.
Its an open forum we both know that.
-
So based on this law (below), Ajax13, you should be in jail. Should we conclude that you are innocent since you are still running free or quilty because you havent been caught yet?
If I notify the authorities and 2 years later you are still not arrested what does that say?
Aggravated sexual abuse
How Current is This? (a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.
-
The open nature of Fornits is what infuriates a Hasbaranik like you JD. That's why you have to try to bury the facts. But at the end of the day, you still killed your Kid, and anyone who is determined to know the truth can sort back through your chaff. Imagine JD, a whole year gone by, and you're still not man enough to face up to making your son a burnt offering to Chuck Dederich.
-
The open nature of Fornits is what infuriates a Hasbaranik like you JD. That's why you have to try to bury the facts. But at the end of the day, you still killed your Kid, and anyone who is determined to know the truth can sort back through your chaff. Imagine JD, a whole year gone by, and you're still not man enough to face up to making your son a burnt offering to Chuck Dederich.
See, when you run out of facts or dont have any you just insult people. This is where you tilt your hand. If you actually had a valid argument against Vause or myself you would use it.... but you dont. You have not made any attempt to debate your position.
You say I bury the facts and I am willing to listen to you but you have not posted any yet. Post a fact and we can discuss it.
-
One of Ajax's arguments: "Why would someone who lives in Canada decide to get their degree in America?" We have great schools here. The guy must be corrupt orinsane to go to America to get his education.
For some reason Ajax thinks this is a big reason for not getting help at AARC. This is the logic and facts he uses.
-
Why doesn't this act apply to AARC or Vause?
Addiction is a disease or at the very least a psychosocial problem, AARC "treats" clients. Clients have a "clinical" staff member and they have a "treatment plan".
Why doesn't this act apply?
-
So based on this law (below), Ajax13, you should be in jail. Should we conclude that you are innocent since you are still running free or quilty because you havent been caught yet?
If I notify the authorities and 2 years later you are still not arrested what does that say?
Aggravated sexual abuse
How Current is This? (a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the circumstances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
(d) State of Mind Proof Requirement.— In a prosecution under subsection (c) of this section, the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the other person engaging in the sexual act had not attained the age of 12 years.
QFT
-
The fact that Ajax13 has not denied any of it.
The fact that he hasnt posted the results of the visit by DSS.
The fact that Ajax admitted himself to watching porn in front of his kid.
The fact that his kid is acting out in school.
The fact that he wont let his son talk to a professional unless he is in the room with him.
Speaks Volumes