1
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / This was posted earlier. Is it true?
« on: February 08, 2006, 09:23:00 PM »
So, no RICO then?
Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / This was posted earlier. Is it true?
« on: February 08, 2006, 06:21:00 PM »
[/quote]
I recently reported my statements to the police and they have sat down on it. That's illegal right?
"
[/quote]
What does "sat down on it" mean?
I recently reported my statements to the police and they have sat down on it. That's illegal right?
"
[/quote]
What does "sat down on it" mean?
3
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / This was posted earlier. Is it true?
« on: February 08, 2006, 06:11:00 PM »
Limitations Period
RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. The United States Supreme Court adopted this limitations period and applied it to all RICO claims in the case of Agency Holding Corp. v Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987). Because RICO did not have its own statute of limitations, common law rules dictated that RICO claims should be subject to the statute of limitations applied to the most analogous claim under state law. The Supreme Court did not favor this approach because it would have resulted in civil RICO claims being subject to 50 different limitations periods, and no one could determine the limitations period until a particular claim was brought in a particular jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided it was more fair and efficient to borrow the limitations period from another federal statute, which would result in a uniform statute of limitations period regardless of the jurisdiction in which a particular RICO claim was filed. Because Congress essentially copied RICO's civil remedy provision (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) from the civil remedies provision of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), the Supreme Court adopted the Clayton Act's four year statute of limitations as the limitations period applicable to all federal civil RICO claims. http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp#rico
The holding in the case states:
(I listed the citation after the holding for those who have access to Lexis or Westlaw)
1. The 4-year statute of limitations applicable to Clayton Act civil enforcement actions, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, applies in RICO civil enforcement actions. Because the predicate acts that may establish a civil RICO violation are far ranging and cannot be reduced to a single generic classification, and because important RICO concepts were unknown to common law, there is a need for a uniform limitations period for civil RICO in order to avoid intolerable uncertainty for parties and time-consuming litigation. The Clayton Act offers the closest analogy to civil RICO, in light of similarities in purpose and structure between the statutes, and the clear legislative intent to pattern RICO's civil enforcement provision on the Clayton Act's. Moreover, the Clayton Act provides a far closer analogy to RICO than any state statute. It is unlikely that Congress intended state "catchall" statutes of limitations to apply or that such statutes would fairly serve the federal interests vindicated by RICO, and, in those States that do not have catchalls, any selection of a state statute would be at odds with RICO's sui generis nature. RICO cases commonly involve interstate transactions, and the possibility of a multiplicity of applicable state limitations periods presents the dangers of forum shopping and of complex, expensive, and unnecessary litigation. Application of a uniform federal period also avoids the possibility that application of unduly short state periods would thwart the legislative purpose of providing an effective remedy. Section 15b is preferable to the "catchall" federal 5-year statute of limitations that applies in RICO criminal prosecutions, since that statute does not reflect any congressional balancing of the competing equities unique to RICO civil enforcement actions. Pp. 146-156.
2. Because this litigation was filed less than four years after Malley-Duff's termination as Crown Life's agent, which is the earliest time Malley-Duff's RICO action could have accrued, the litigation is timely. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143
RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. The United States Supreme Court adopted this limitations period and applied it to all RICO claims in the case of Agency Holding Corp. v Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143 (1987). Because RICO did not have its own statute of limitations, common law rules dictated that RICO claims should be subject to the statute of limitations applied to the most analogous claim under state law. The Supreme Court did not favor this approach because it would have resulted in civil RICO claims being subject to 50 different limitations periods, and no one could determine the limitations period until a particular claim was brought in a particular jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided it was more fair and efficient to borrow the limitations period from another federal statute, which would result in a uniform statute of limitations period regardless of the jurisdiction in which a particular RICO claim was filed. Because Congress essentially copied RICO's civil remedy provision (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)) from the civil remedies provision of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a), the Supreme Court adopted the Clayton Act's four year statute of limitations as the limitations period applicable to all federal civil RICO claims. http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/nutshell.asp#rico
The holding in the case states:
(I listed the citation after the holding for those who have access to Lexis or Westlaw)
1. The 4-year statute of limitations applicable to Clayton Act civil enforcement actions, 15 U. S. C. § 15b, applies in RICO civil enforcement actions. Because the predicate acts that may establish a civil RICO violation are far ranging and cannot be reduced to a single generic classification, and because important RICO concepts were unknown to common law, there is a need for a uniform limitations period for civil RICO in order to avoid intolerable uncertainty for parties and time-consuming litigation. The Clayton Act offers the closest analogy to civil RICO, in light of similarities in purpose and structure between the statutes, and the clear legislative intent to pattern RICO's civil enforcement provision on the Clayton Act's. Moreover, the Clayton Act provides a far closer analogy to RICO than any state statute. It is unlikely that Congress intended state "catchall" statutes of limitations to apply or that such statutes would fairly serve the federal interests vindicated by RICO, and, in those States that do not have catchalls, any selection of a state statute would be at odds with RICO's sui generis nature. RICO cases commonly involve interstate transactions, and the possibility of a multiplicity of applicable state limitations periods presents the dangers of forum shopping and of complex, expensive, and unnecessary litigation. Application of a uniform federal period also avoids the possibility that application of unduly short state periods would thwart the legislative purpose of providing an effective remedy. Section 15b is preferable to the "catchall" federal 5-year statute of limitations that applies in RICO criminal prosecutions, since that statute does not reflect any congressional balancing of the competing equities unique to RICO civil enforcement actions. Pp. 146-156.
2. Because this litigation was filed less than four years after Malley-Duff's termination as Crown Life's agent, which is the earliest time Malley-Duff's RICO action could have accrued, the litigation is timely. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc., 483 U.S. 143
4
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / International Survivors Action Committee (ISAC)
« on: January 02, 2005, 01:48:00 PM »
I haven't been on this board for a while, but I was wondering if the group ISAC, International Survivors Action Committee, is still around. I believe the group was started by a couple, one by the screen name of METALGOD8. If so, have they been able to make any progress in regards to researching programs like Straight? Thanks. EMSR
5
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / National-level TV Talk Show looking for survivors of Straigh
« on: December 03, 2004, 01:53:00 PM »
Make sure they mention Pathway. Some bad press for that place would be like a breath of fresh air.
6
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Funny Stuff
« on: November 19, 2003, 02:57:00 PM »
I find it funny that every once in a while I'll check out the PFC forum and a freshly brainwashed graduate will post a message after a number of different posts. I think I can sum them all up. "Pathway may have been fucked up, but it saves a lot of lives." "Why can't you guys get over PFC. Grow up." "I would love to tell you some of the good things about Pathway." "I recently graduated, and PFC is the best thing that ever happened to me." Why don't these people stick around? I wish they would, because I need a good laugh every now and again.
I see someone has been posting about Kathy's husband. At first I disagreed with this "TBB" haha, but now I'm starting to think that changes need to be made by any means necessary. I've tried to talk rationally with Kathy, and I don't seem to get very honest or helpful responses. Maybe PFC only understands the methods by which they deal with clients: Condescending, threatening and seemingly unfair personal attacks.
I've heard PFC had been getting a few more clients lately. I wish there was a way we could contact potential PFC families to warn them about what goes on there. Ramprato, what ideas do you have in mind? EMSR
I see someone has been posting about Kathy's husband. At first I disagreed with this "TBB" haha, but now I'm starting to think that changes need to be made by any means necessary. I've tried to talk rationally with Kathy, and I don't seem to get very honest or helpful responses. Maybe PFC only understands the methods by which they deal with clients: Condescending, threatening and seemingly unfair personal attacks.
I've heard PFC had been getting a few more clients lately. I wish there was a way we could contact potential PFC families to warn them about what goes on there. Ramprato, what ideas do you have in mind? EMSR
7
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / To Pathway Supporters
« on: November 19, 2003, 02:46:00 PM »
:lol:
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2004-01-14 09:54 ]
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2004-01-14 09:54 ]
8
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Pathway survivors?
« on: November 19, 2003, 02:40:00 PM »
I'm a recent graduate of Pathway, and I can attest to the fact that what the Straight Survivors say is very similar to what goes on in PFC. Wait until you've been out of PFC for a couple of years. You will be back here with new insight. Brainwashing takes a while to start wearing off. EMSR
9
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / The Letter I Sent to the Clinical Director of Pathway and He
« on: October 08, 2003, 12:45:00 PM »
http://pfcenter.homestead.com/PFCSuccess.html
Go to this site. PFC claims to have a 10% relapse rate. But wait again!!! Right above that stat is a percentage that says only 49% havn't used drugs since discharge. This doesn't seem to add up correctly. Any mathematicians out there? EMSR
Go to this site. PFC claims to have a 10% relapse rate. But wait again!!! Right above that stat is a percentage that says only 49% havn't used drugs since discharge. This doesn't seem to add up correctly. Any mathematicians out there? EMSR
10
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / The Letter I Sent to the Clinical Director of Pathway and He
« on: October 08, 2003, 12:16:00 PM »
I know this is meant for the Pathway Family Center topic list, but I thought you guys might want to know what the current "Straight" is up to. Sorry if it's just a bother. EMSR
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2003-10-08 09:28 ]
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2003-10-08 09:28 ]
11
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / The Letter I Sent to the Clinical Director of Pathway and He
« on: October 08, 2003, 12:14:00 PM »
THIS IS THE LETTER I SENT TO MRS. ROW FOLLOWED BY THE RESPONSE THAT SHE GAVE ME (Caps not meant to be offensive; I'm just trying to differentiate
between the letter and my comments).
Mrs. Row,
I have seen the new PFC web-site, and I must say I am very disappointed. The new site still refers to clients as "addicted" when you yourself told me that you belived not all the clients in PFC were addicted. This is a big problem, especially seeing as it is obvious that PFC is desperate for new clients. "Addiction" can not be used as a falsified tool to induct new "members" into your program.
>
The information on your staff is very vague and informative, and doesn't descibe the quifications of each individual therapist, which I believe is
a necessity. My therapist in PFC had no master's degree and no CAC, and he was my drug counsellor. I'm sure parents would like to be informed if this still goes on before they subject their children to your methods.
>
Peer staff are referred to as "counselors?" We discussed this false title at length at lunch, and agreed this was a problem. The asterisk by "Peer counselors who are graduates," has no footnote describing peerstaff's true qualifications. Clinical psychologists? I met with one psychologist one time. Teacher(s)
and nurse(s)? Since when has there been more than one of each? Physicians? I met with one physician once.
>
What about your saMe misinforming success rate? Do you truely believe 82% of former clients or graduates are "clean and sober?" You told me this would be changed, and it has not been changed. Do you realize that close to all of your "From our clients eyes" kids are now using drugs? Why don't you figure that into your success rate.
>
PFC still seems hypocritical and dishonest. I was under the impression that you were to change some of these things. I had a friend go to PFC a while
ago, and he informed me of your current lack of clients. I want to let you know that as long as you promote dishonesty and deception, I will continue to propogate against Pathway. As I said, we have been relaxed, but this idleness wil not continue any longer. Through my contact with a position I took up at a local court, my contacts are improving, and I'm hoping your treatment program will not last much longer. You misinformed me, and I don't like being prevaricated.
>
Again, I have maintained respect for you in spite of my resentments, but I don't see significant changes being made, and after seeing your new site, I am very angry. I hope your family is well. EMSR
IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THESE VALID STATEMENTS, THIS IS THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED. WOULD YOU BE SATISFIED???
EMSR:
I wanted to get back with you. I looked at the Pathway web-site briefly. Again, I'm not sure how to comment on this. All three therapists at PFC are master level therapists. They are combining MI with IN, that's why the plurals are there. I don't get involved in the marketing side of PFC and was not at all involved in the making of this web-site, I really don't have much of an opinion on this. I do think that things are much better at PFC and we continue to update, review, and revise all areas of the clinical program.
I know that I have not addressed all your concerns here, if you want to talk with the public relations people at Pathway, maybe they can explain some of the issues that you think are deceptive. Sue Sherbow is in charge of community integration, she is at PFC, 248 443-0105. Take Care. Kathy Row
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2003-10-08 09:27 ]
between the letter and my comments).
Mrs. Row,
I have seen the new PFC web-site, and I must say I am very disappointed. The new site still refers to clients as "addicted" when you yourself told me that you belived not all the clients in PFC were addicted. This is a big problem, especially seeing as it is obvious that PFC is desperate for new clients. "Addiction" can not be used as a falsified tool to induct new "members" into your program.
>
The information on your staff is very vague and informative, and doesn't descibe the quifications of each individual therapist, which I believe is
a necessity. My therapist in PFC had no master's degree and no CAC, and he was my drug counsellor. I'm sure parents would like to be informed if this still goes on before they subject their children to your methods.
>
Peer staff are referred to as "counselors?" We discussed this false title at length at lunch, and agreed this was a problem. The asterisk by "Peer counselors who are graduates," has no footnote describing peerstaff's true qualifications. Clinical psychologists? I met with one psychologist one time. Teacher(s)
and nurse(s)? Since when has there been more than one of each? Physicians? I met with one physician once.
>
What about your saMe misinforming success rate? Do you truely believe 82% of former clients or graduates are "clean and sober?" You told me this would be changed, and it has not been changed. Do you realize that close to all of your "From our clients eyes" kids are now using drugs? Why don't you figure that into your success rate.
>
PFC still seems hypocritical and dishonest. I was under the impression that you were to change some of these things. I had a friend go to PFC a while
ago, and he informed me of your current lack of clients. I want to let you know that as long as you promote dishonesty and deception, I will continue to propogate against Pathway. As I said, we have been relaxed, but this idleness wil not continue any longer. Through my contact with a position I took up at a local court, my contacts are improving, and I'm hoping your treatment program will not last much longer. You misinformed me, and I don't like being prevaricated.
>
Again, I have maintained respect for you in spite of my resentments, but I don't see significant changes being made, and after seeing your new site, I am very angry. I hope your family is well. EMSR
IN RESPONSE TO ALL OF THESE VALID STATEMENTS, THIS IS THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED. WOULD YOU BE SATISFIED???
EMSR:
I wanted to get back with you. I looked at the Pathway web-site briefly. Again, I'm not sure how to comment on this. All three therapists at PFC are master level therapists. They are combining MI with IN, that's why the plurals are there. I don't get involved in the marketing side of PFC and was not at all involved in the making of this web-site, I really don't have much of an opinion on this. I do think that things are much better at PFC and we continue to update, review, and revise all areas of the clinical program.
I know that I have not addressed all your concerns here, if you want to talk with the public relations people at Pathway, maybe they can explain some of the issues that you think are deceptive. Sue Sherbow is in charge of community integration, she is at PFC, 248 443-0105. Take Care. Kathy Row
[ This Message was edited by: SurvivorEMSR on 2003-10-08 09:27 ]
12
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Pathway's New Site
« on: October 01, 2003, 12:53:00 PM »
http://pfcenter.homestead.com/PFCSuccess.html
Go to this site. PFC claims to have a 10% relapse rate. But wait again!!! Right above that stat is a percentage that says only 49% havn't used drugs since discharge. This doesn't seem to add up correctly. Any mathematicians out there? EMSR
Go to this site. PFC claims to have a 10% relapse rate. But wait again!!! Right above that stat is a percentage that says only 49% havn't used drugs since discharge. This doesn't seem to add up correctly. Any mathematicians out there? EMSR
13
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Pathway's New Site
« on: October 01, 2003, 12:19:00 PM »
I recently had a buddy return to PFC to check it out. He said there were even less clients there than when I went back a couple of months ago.
He informed me that there were very few guy-side (I don't recal how many), and three, yes three, girls. Haha.
I'm sick and tired of this shit. Let's do away with them. I know I have been uninvolved the last few weeks, but now I'm fired up again. Look out PFC!!! EMSR
He informed me that there were very few guy-side (I don't recal how many), and three, yes three, girls. Haha.
I'm sick and tired of this shit. Let's do away with them. I know I have been uninvolved the last few weeks, but now I'm fired up again. Look out PFC!!! EMSR
14
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Pathway's New Site
« on: October 01, 2003, 12:15:00 PM »
Wow, Pathway seems to have come up with a new web-site, but wait, the new web-site contains even less information than the previous one. The staff link is very vague and informative. We are no longer told what qualifications staff members have. For God's sake, when I was in PFC, Scott, who was my therapist, had a bachelor's level education and no CAC! Let me repeat, he was my DRUG therapist.
They also have posted under "Our Staff" "Peer counselors who are graduates." Counselors??? What the Hell? There is a little asterisk by the title that surprisingly contains no footnote.
Hey, and what do you know. There bull-shit success rate hasn't changed either. Presently clean and sober 82%??? Bull-shit. Liars
Anyway, just thought I would fill you guys in. Check out the site. http://www.pfcenter.homestead.com
They also have posted under "Our Staff" "Peer counselors who are graduates." Counselors??? What the Hell? There is a little asterisk by the title that surprisingly contains no footnote.
Hey, and what do you know. There bull-shit success rate hasn't changed either. Presently clean and sober 82%??? Bull-shit. Liars
Anyway, just thought I would fill you guys in. Check out the site. http://www.pfcenter.homestead.com
15
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / To Pathway Supporters
« on: September 06, 2003, 09:49:00 PM »Quote
On 2003-08-31 17:53:00, Anonymous wrote:
"If you are using this forum for 26 months for your "recovery". Let me tell you something, friend, you are not in recovery. I think I asked this question many months ago. Do you actively go to AA or NA meetings?"
This is the ridiculous statement. It was written in response to something I said, but wait, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said! If you would read semi-carefully you would see that I am in no need for "recovery," and I make it pretty obvious that I am not an alcoholic or a drug addict. Now, you SHOULD be able to draw the conclusion that I do not, in fact, go to meetings.
Another thing, you are not my friend. I don't know you; you don't even have the decency to leave a name so that I may be able to tell the difference between you and all of the other anonymous posters.
Let's start to use our brains, okay? EMSR