This may or may not help clarify some things for some folks:
1. All students on campus currently attend Ridge Creek School, live in the same male or female dorm,
and attend the same academic and support classes.
Until a few weeks ago, the court was not informed, nor was US Trustee Attorney Morawetz , nor was BB&T's attorney Thompson that The Ridge Creek School was operational September09 and Hidden Lake Academy, Inc. was closed/name changed, etc, etc.
2. There are no other students in other facilities anywhere on campus.
Not yet. Contracts are in place with the DJJ and DCFS, according to court filings, they are frozen. Now, that is, if one believes the filings. Word coming out of 'DODGE'
City is that the school has a myriad number of violent children and I shall leave it at that. After reading DOC. 76 10-30-09 Buccellato's attorney is still stating Hidden Lake Academy is SACS(name change filed) and SAIS accredited(cannot be no longer a 501 (c), propriety school now - not true; the same document also states that Hidden Lake Academy is licensed as a child caring institution by the Department of Human Services - not true. The document needs to be changed to reflect The Ridge Creek School, she obviously did not do her homework. Ridge Creek- Mountain Brook is also licensed as a CCI. Then Ridge Creek Wilderness has it's own license- outdoor. The attorney also writes in the same document - 1 Hidden Lake Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that raises funds for the school. According to Sec. of State, 2007 was the last corporate registration and according to Buccellato, it was dissoved. So which is it? Maybe next she will accidently unearth THE CHAPEL FUND or is the correct word resurrect.
3. SACS inspected Ridge Creek School a few weeks ago. Ridge Creek School passed this SACS
accreditation process.
They are still missing a lab.. Dr. Judy Flatt is gone, there has been an overhaul. According to SACS rep, the license was transferred, and when it comes up for renewal Buccellato's dear friends and colleagues will not be surveying..so I am told...I wouldn't hang my hat on any of it. Been there. Gee if they are so thorough, one would think they could discern there is no lab....
And just for the fun of it...His attorney appealed to the court's heartstrings by citing the class case and a section of the Judges order, but left out where Judge O'Kelley found for the Plaintiffs... a little theatre.
This is what she wrote:(Sectioned pulled)
With respect to the motions set forth above, the District Court entered the following
orders:
a. order denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously entered
on February 9, 2007;
b. order granting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss HLA’s counterclaim
entered on March 26, 2007;
c. order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings entered on April 2, 2007 wherein, the
District Court dismissed the following claims (i) Meyer and
Brecker’s claims brought under Georgia’s fair business practices
act, (ii) Ryans’ claim against Hidden Lake Foundation, Inc., and
Dr. Leonard Buccellato brought under Georgia’s fair business
practices act; (iii) Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim against HLA;
and (iv) plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief; and
1 Hidden Lake Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that raises funds for the school.
Case 09-22026-reb Doc 76 Filed 10/30/09 Entered 10/30/09 16:49:46 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 42
10
d. order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion to certify class
entered on August 15, 2007.
THIS IS WHAT SHE LEFT OUT: (SECTION HIGHLIGHTED)
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings [26-1] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. For the reasons set out in the
body of this order, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is
hereby GRANTED as to the following claims:
(1) Meyer and Brecker’s FBPA claim;
(2) the Ryans’ FBPA claim against Hidden Lake Foundation, Inc.
and Buccellato;
(3) plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim against HLA; and
(4) plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.
Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is hereby DENIED as
to the following claims:
Case 2:06-cv-00146-WCO Document 68 Filed 04/02/2007 Page 18 of 19
-19-
(1) plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim;
(2) plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing;
(3) the Ryans’ FBPA claim against HLA and Hidden Lake
Academy, Inc.; and
(4) plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim against Hidden Lake
Academy, Inc., Hidden Lake Foundations, Inc., and
Buccellato.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of April, 2007.
s/William C. O’Kelley
WILLIAM C. O’KELLEY
Senior United States District Judge