Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on August 06, 2004, 05:50:00 PM
-
PURE just won their case against wwasps.
-
Really?
America when will you be angelic
When will you take off your clothes....
America after all it is you and I who are perfect
Not the next world.
--Allen Ginsberg
-
Just wait till you see the transcripts people.
Its such a shame they couldn't have a camera in the court room!!
Transcripts are great but no way can they convey the drama and emotion that was there during the testimony.
There are so many side stories that won't be in the transcripts.
Like the French film crew shadowing wwasp.
Like the student spectator who broke down sobbing as High Impact was explained and the film shot of the kids in dog cages was shown.
Like the spectator booted from court for making facial gestures at Ken Kay; and him complaining and asking why; and she telling him "Because your a liar."
Like Spence taking his thumb and popping his shorts every time he stood up. . . Must need larger panties.
-
Yes, Ginger...It is my understanding that a NOT guilty verdict was handed down on ALL accounts against the accused just minutes ago!!! Grant it, this is second hand news...even if it is from five different people who were in the court room.
I didn't have the pleasure to see it in person...some of us have to work for a living! No what I mean?
This should open the door for many more...just proving wwasps is NOT untouchable!!!
Regards,
Lee
-
But define the term "won". What was the ruling? Is it apealable? What's the dish, woman?
Despite ongoing differences between me and Sue, I really want to believe the Utah court has come down on the side of allowing open discussion of the troubled parent industry. That would signal a real sea change.
My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character.
-- Charles Barkley, on hearing Tonya Harding proclaim herself "the Charles Barkley of figure skating"
-
I had to fly out last night and so was not present in the court room today - but word is spreading fast and I feel very secure in my sorce - She was exonerated on all counts.
I don't know if WWASP can apeal or not; But I swear - I can't imagian that they would dare try.
No kidding - wait till you get your mitts on the transcripts.
-
Ginger,
This is a very big victory for free speech...it's also a huge victory for parents against BIG business concerning their children...and these so called "programs" pertaining to children & their welfare.
This case alone should open some doors for many of the previous victims of these so called "experts" in the industry.
Let the good times roll...
Regards,
Lee[ This Message was edited by: turbinekat on 2004-08-06 16:33 ]
-
So then, Lee, you've softened some in your views on free speech?
Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow;
He who would search for perls must dive below.
Prolougue (from preface to
the Panther Book)
John Dryden, All for Love, Prolougue
-
In this case...and my opinion...I guess you could say I support freedom of speech when it's directed towards a corporation or business that tries to hide or silence its victims. YES!
On the hypocrite side;
As long as it's the truth... I don't have a problem with someone speaking their mind. I don't think it should harm individuals...however, in my favor...if I'm trying to convey a point who the hell cares! Although, this process would probably warrant a law suit against ME personally.
My biggest issue would be the truth...of the matter!
This trial just proves...now this is my opinion...that someone may go out and spread the truth about someone harming them in some form or fashion. Now who gets to decide harm?...I guess my son will find out whenever his legal experts get through with wwasps and their settlement offer? I've yet to see it...been informed that it was on the way.
Would I ever sell out just to get MY money back...no, it's the principle & my hard head that get in the way.
Regards,
Lee
-
Ginger,
If you'd have told me three years ago that there were corporations that housed & abused children located here in the US...I'd have called you a liar...so YES my eyes have been opened very wide ever since witnessing these organizations first hand.
But now...I'll never give up on my children or any others for that matter in my old age.
Free speech has always been welcomed in MY house...not always agreed with but listened to.
Regards,
Lee
-
So, what was Carey;s contribution?
-
On 2004-08-06 15:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
Like the student spectator who broke down sobbing as High Impact was explained and the film shot of the kids in dog cages was shown.
This brings us back to the epoch. So then, the film footage really does exist? My understanding was that they put the kid in the garbage bin. But 6 of these, half dozen of the other. No difference at all.
But the original issue w/ Carey was that she wanted that footage released to the media... how many years ago now? And the argument against it was that it would jeopardize this highly vaunted court case (which, I note, has not pre-empted election coverage on Nightline tonight) And that's what got Carey booted from, and demonized by, the inner circle.
So... what about the kid in the cage? While the London Guardian was looking, you folks held onto it. When we all wanted to see it, you held onto it. Some folks even intimated that it might not exist. Frankly, I'd sort of concluded that it was all a bluff. Not an empty one, mind you. Knowing what I know from firsthand experience about the lengths to which zealots will go, I don't doubt that there's a few dozen or so kids locked up in dangerous and humiliating cages, pits, closets and "timeout" rooms around the country and the teritories we control diplomatically even as we fritter away the hours typing about it.
But, if you had the footage, why in the HELL didn't you hand it over to every media outlet you could find years ago!?
Cause, if you did, you wouldn't get sued? Cause, if you did, there might not have been a WWASP to sue you? Cause, even their dedicated attorneys, if they saw that, would not have been able to stomach signing on?
What about the kid in the cage? Is he still there????
Fuckers!
As a consolation, can we see it now???
It's obnoxious to ask law enforcement to follow the law. That's insulting to every cop.
--John Lovell, lobbyist for the California police chief's association
_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
Seed sibling `71 - `80
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
10/80 - 10/82
Anonymity Anonymous
It is wrong to leave a stumbling block in the road once it has tripped you.
-
Ginger,
In my opinion...if it counts? I've never seen, heard or witnessed any of the items you mentioned in your last post.
Nor was anyone ever kicked out of an "inner circle". What we had was a group of parents that exchanged information between households pertaining to everything under the sun. It just so happened that all of us had previously had children who attended a behavior modifications program.
I personally have a tape of a one hour conversation that I had with Dace Goulding at Casa BY The Sea pertaining to my son, my family & me. I've never been asked or needed to produce it as evidence, nor will I until WE go to court.
I've personally never heard anything about any garbage cans? New one on me...but with their current records & accusations against them...it wouldn't surprise me.
I've heard of the photos of cages...and would tend to believe that they exist since I know the individual that has them. Never met them, but spoke many hours on my PC with. That's their choice what they do with their possessions & I have no say in the matter! That's it, the end...some people read MORE into situations than there really is.
As for the other individual that you mentioned...me personally...again my opinion...they were on a divorce adventure...not a child saving mission. Again...my personal opinion...
I myself have just been privy to other information that was produced in the Utah federal court. It didn't surprise me...I wasn't involved in the law suit nor a witness in the end.
Deborah;
Carey's contribution...was that she cashed a check from the "program" to turn over her bank owned PC to provide the plaintiff with information to support their case against people who disagree with the "programs" teachings of warehousing children. She was a pawn in the "program's" attempt to silence the many parents who dispute what has happened to their children or grand-children.
Just my opinion?for what it?s worth.
Regards,
Lee
-
A correction.
It was Fred who was popping his panties.
-
I understand your point of view Ginger but it is based on miss information.
If you'll think back what Bock was goin on about was photos and where she wanted them was in Lon's hands. Lon. Keep that in mind.
What was shown in court was the same footage Inside edition had; and it came from the Mexican police. Anyone could have obtained it who wanted it; tho naturally it would help a lot to be able to speak and read Spanish.
The media has been told about all this and when they asked for it they got it.
If CNN and FOX have ignored the story, its not for a lack of trying on the part of many to get their attention.
As for Cary's contribution - a big fat Zero - even less - it put them in the red, in my opinion.
-
This is what Carey said about the media footage:
Yes, I was removed from the list because the people on the list did not want to hear what I had to say about it, they prefer to keep the pictures to use in a court case that could take up to a year to ever even happen. A year is a long time for kids to have to wait to be saved, especially knowing there is evidence out there right now that would help parents to see the the truth now, today.
Most of the people on the list have kids who are already home, they don't see the need to move quickly to save those who are still in these programs. So the need of urgency is less important to them. The need for "revenge" for lack of a better word, is on the top of their list. I want accountabiltiy and I want to prosecute those guilty of child abuse but I want kids out of these programs and safe first. I want the parents to have all information that is available out there for them to view. Then we can go after and make accountable those who have profited off of this terrible "child warehousing institution."
I don't care what media they use, it does not have to be on Lon's website. However, I was asked by the person who owns the pictures to see if Lon was willing to post them. He said he could not and suggested that they be taken to the media.
I know if my boys were still in a WWASP program and I found out someone was holding evidence that would show me what can and has happened in one of these schools then I would hold them accountable for letting it continue to happen. I don't think you should hold on to evidence for a court case when it could help save kids today.
Carey
It seems it was more important for the footage to be held and used to help PURE than to help kids. Seems she just wanted it shown.
-
Can someone please tell me what it is that PURE exactly won. Did they prove child abuse? Did they win some kind of compensation? When you say they won, what do you mean they won? What were they trying to accomplish with this case?
-
carey,
There were other options to help the kids then the footage you seemed so concerned about.It came out in the inside edition footage.
What I remember you were so fixated on the raped of the traumatized young girl's story.You must have her experience documented for the judge.
You were,are a self serving, selfish individual.
Helping kids is really not your thing.
You sold out to wwasp way to cheaply.
Like a cheap corner you know what.
The so called conspiracy was found to be unfounded too. What a joke.
The doors have been opened for a big one. YEA!
-
As I understand it...
PURE was being sued by WWASPS for "business infringement" or somesuch. That means that PURE was bad-mouthing WWASPS (don't use them; use what we direct you to [PURE is an Ed Con]). Such bad-mouthing WITHOUT PROOF is contrary to federal law about slander. If you cause a business to lose BUSINESS because you say untrue things about them [this hairstylist has an unsanitary and unhealthy shop, so come to mine], you can be sued. WWASPS took a big gamble that PURE would fold its cards; they lost. The court victory for PURE is that they did, in fact, not say anything truly false. PURE "won", but unless monetary damages were assessed, WWASPS should only have to pay court costs that PURE incurred while defending itself from this case. Even that may not have been part of the case, and PURE may be out lawyers' fees...but I doubt it. WWASPS tried to bully yet-another voice. Bad move, WWASPS. What were you thinking?
While I don't support PURE because I personally think sending a kid off sucks, I must admire Sue Scheff for carrying through. This court case may seem like small potatoes for the media, but WE can lead them onto the story...with additional graphic details...and it may prove to be the little crumbling block at the base of the House of Cards that is WWASPS.
-
"What I remember you were so fixated on the raped of the traumatized young girl's story.You must have her experience documented for the judge. "
Carey had a rape vitims experience documented for the judge? Was Carey there?
-
Spots if I understand correctly, you are saying PURE did not win anything but nor did they lose anything. There was no monetary settlement? There were no kids removed from programs? Basically as I understand it...BOTH...PURE and WWASP are free to place children in unregulated, risky, and for the most part dangerous programs?
Sounds like a victory to me... :flame: But not for the teens. :flame:
-
This lawsuit was never about 'removing kids' from programs, unfortunately. It was all about PURE defending itself from W's claim.
How this could become a 'victory for the kids' is if the media picks up on the evidence of abuse that was revealed during testimony, and does a good job of presenting it to the public. It could give credibility to future claims of abuse. In regards to the media, it sometimes takes a court case to get their attention.
-
First, and most important, what evidence was revealed? Second, why could the evidence not have been revealed to the media prior to this case?
-
Lots of evidence was reveled. I can't think of anything that hasn't been in the press or on these forums all ready -
But what makes the difference was that the evidence was presented in Federal court; under oath; by the very people who experienced it; and their credibility was absolutely indisputable!!
I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law.
Well, they might try (What a bunch of snakes)but it will be easily proven a lie after this week.
It is a big deal folks.
-
"I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law."
The abuse was proven? You are saying that the court has made the statement that abuse was proven? If so, is the prosecutor taking criminal action against WWASP?
-
the dog cage film was on Inside Edition years ago as I understand it.
-
maybe the insurance co will go after WWASP to recover their attorney costs??
-
Keep in mind this was a civil case and so its not like there was a prosecutor present. Under these circumstances, the closest thing to a prosecutor would have been wwasp's attorneys.
It was the jury of 12 who all say abuse was proven by the verdict they gave.
However, one would hope that there are prosecutors who will hear of this and take action.
And for those of you who are still trying to defend Carey, keep in mind you are trying to do so with her statements; and she has well proven her total lack of integrity.
I was there, and I know what went down, and she has presented a very warped and twisted version of events.
In light of her actions, I can not understand how you can fail to accept this.
But please lets not get into yet another long thread on the virtue, or lack thereof, of mz Bock.
This is truly Not about her.
-
On 2004-08-07 09:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
""I feel it's extreme importance is in the fact that as of now, wwasp can no longer claim abuse has never been proven in a court of law."
The abuse was proven? You are saying that the court has made the statement that abuse was proven? If so, is the prosecutor taking criminal action against WWASP?
"
Standards of proof, legally, may be an issue on whether a DA will pursue criminal charges---even if you have the best DA in the world.
In a defamation suit, the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Basically WWASPS had to prove that it was 51% likely, or more, that the things Sue and PURE were saying were false.
They lost their case, but all that means is that a court found that it was *at least* 50% likely that Sue and PURE were telling the truth.
The problem with taking it to criminal court is that just because there's a 50% level of proof that what Sue and PURE said was true, doesn't mean that there's a 95% level of proof that what they said was true. And 95%, or "beyond a reasonable doubt" is what you have to prove for a criminal conviction.
Then, even if you have a 95% level of proof that it happened, for criminal court you have to be able to prove not just that it happened, but who did what to whom, and when, and which laws it broke, and that the statute of limitations has not expired on it.
And if you don't have all that, then even the most honest and sincere and competent DA in the world won't take it into court and spend the money and the resources on it, because he won't be able to get a conviction.
*BUT* if someone does something bad, the statute of limitations may expire before they get caught and protect them from criminal prosecutions, but as long as what you're saying is true, you can *talk* about it forever.
It's why OJ was acquitted of criminal charges but found responsible in civil court---the burden of proof in civil court is much lower, because you're not talking about people going to jail, you're just talking about money changing hands.
Timoclea
-
What WWASPS really lost here is that there are rules of evidence in a Court of Law, and the Court goes to much greater lengths to find the truth, and both sides get heard---so the evidence presented in Court on Sue and PURE's behalf has a lot more credibility now than it had two weeks ago.
The other thing WWASPS lost is that people who oppose them can cite the official court records all over the Internet, and hand them out as leaflets at protests, etc., and WWASPS can't get away with threatening the people who cite those records with lawsuits.
They can threaten, but if they actually bring suit against someone for citing that court testimony, the defendant's lawyer will have an *excellent* counterclaim for all court costs based on abuse of process and bringing a frivolous lawsuit----and they're going to have an interesting time finding halfway decent lawyers who will actually be willing to file those suits.
So basically, if all you're doing is citing the testimony from the Court case in criticizing WWASPS, they can threaten until they're blue in the face and you can just ignore them.
They're inability to use their lawyers in the future to intimidate critics into silence is a huge PR loss for them.
Timoclea
(I'm not a lawyer)
-
" And 95%, or "beyond a reasonable doubt" is what you have to prove for a criminal conviction.
Then, even if you have a 95% level of proof that it happened, for criminal court you have to be able to prove not just that it happened, but who did what to whom, and when, and which laws it broke, and that the statute of limitations has not expired on it. "
I'm not a lawyer either - but I think this can be done -
No problem.
-
"I was there, and I know what went down, and she has presented a very warped and twisted version of events."
Did she testify?
-
Er....their.
Sorry. I was typing too fast.
-
""I was there, and I know what went down, and she has presented a very warped and twisted version of events."
Did she testify? "
No she didn't. They used a few of her emails they got off her hard drive but that was her total contribution. And I'll tell ya - it turned out to be a huge mistake on their part - IMO - as it allowed a lot of testimony I'm sure they'd rather have kept out, in.
The sentence you quote above was in reference to her behavior on the support group list, and why she was put off.
their/there
I do that all the time.
:wink:
-
Did the court say that it's okay to post lies all over the internet now? Or is that out of their jurisdiction? Anyone can take a story and twist it to suit their purposes. My interpretation is that it's a scare site. It helps the parents be scared into thinking they will get "better" information.
PURE is still making money by using their site to convince parents they are "better." They are not Educational Consultants, however, I don't see a disclaimer or a note that says they have not taken the course or become certified to tell you what is best for your child in the way of treatment.
Obviously the members of the jury have never had a child in a program.
-
Obviously the members of the jury have never had a child in a program.
Who says?
Maybe they have had - the sworn testimony that took place would have scarred them shitless.
I know it had them crying.