AARC's Congenital Disease

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest getting a different attorney then.  If they sued Ajax, there are a number of attorneys (a few that I could put him in touch with) that would take it pro bono just for the free speech issue alone.  If Ajax won, the other party would be liable for Ajax's court costs and attorney fees.

There's also the Whistle Blowers rights, although that may only apply to employer/employee,  I'm not sure.  There are ways to deal with it if it happens, but again.  I don't think they'd take the chance on all their dirty laundry coming out.

My .02

Slander can cost up to $25, 000 if he loses heheheheh

Only if what he's saying can be proven a lie.  It can't.  Ajax, you're fine.  Read up on Ray Bradbury and the Semblers.

 :rasta:

Oh contraire  LOL
lots easily proved a lie!!

what's happened to AJAX, he's run off with his tail between his legs and psy keeps trying to reassure him he is ok, like he is some lawyer because he has been sued. typical aarc-detractor - specialists in any field they have been a CLIENT- . . .LOL i.e.  addiction treatment, justice system   ::poke::

[Anonymous]

Whatever you gotta tell yourself dude.

 :rasta:

[psy]

Oh contraire  LOL
lots easily proved a lie!!

Define and elaborate on "lots".

Rather than accuse Ajax of being a liar.  Find specific statements of his that you feel to be factually innacurate.  State why they are factually innacurate providing proof of falsity.  The onus is on you to prove his statements false (this means with admissible evidence).

Then, let Ajax defend those accusations.  Come on now.  You make a statement, now back it up.

Then once you do that... provided you can actually find a false statement, you have to prove that that specific false statement, caused actual damage to AARC (again, with admissible evidence).

There is other stuff that you would have to prove, too, but I imagine you'd have enough trouble with the above two issues, of which any fail, so does your complaint.

Sure I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.  But for the hell of it, why not have a mock trial anyway.  I'll represent Ajax and ... well you trolls can elect your own troll attorney.  As for who makes the rulings...  I dunno.  We'll figure something out or let the public judge.

[Anonymous]

Psy wrote:

Actually, at least in the united states, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove something false. In this case, AARC would have to prove the rape didn't happen, and I would watch yourselves there, AARC, as I have heard of rape from multiple people... willing to testify too.

Really bad advice, psy.  So I could say I was raped by 5 random rich people and it would be up to them to hire professionals and spend money to prove me wrong otherwise I would win the cases?  Dont think so.  First of all AARC will initiate a counter suit for libel.  The judge would ask when and where the rape occurred and ask you to produce the police report or at least the day it happened so that a copy of the report could be brought in for review.  If this had never been reported then the judge would want to know why you decided to have your husband paste these facts all over the internet instead of reporting it to the authorities.  One of the reasons people would not file a report is because it is not true and spreading lies on the internet under an alias is a way to slander someone.  The judge would be curious as to why you used an “assumed name” (i.e. Ajax) to spread this information to the public without allowing AARC to defend itself or have a way to contact you for dialog.
If you were not just trying to libel AARC then why would you post slanderous information about peoples family members having medical problems or addiction issues (calling them clinically obese or mentally ill) without having any facts to this effect if you were not out to hurt AARC.

Does not sound like you were forthcoming or honest about your intent and since AARC decided to take the initiative to defend itself againt your hurtful posts you will need to produce some evidence that some harm occured and explain why you didnot approach them first.

[psy]

Really bad advice, psy.  So I could say I was raped by 5 random rich people and it would be up to them to hire professionals and spend money to prove me wrong otherwise I would win the cases?

Pretty much.  The onus is on the plaintiff to prove falsity (at least in the united states).  I did some research and it appears canada is different on this matter.

Unlike the United States, where the impact of the First Amendment places the onus on the plaintiff to prove that what has been written is false, in Canada the onus is on the defendant to prove that the words complained of are substantially true.  Similarly, Canadian common law does not afford any special recognition to “public figures”, other than in the context of meeting a “public interest” test for the defenses discussed below.

Source

That being said.  Whether or not there is a police report is irrelevant to whether or not somebody was raped.  Lots of rapes go unreported for a myriad of reasons.  It doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Are you trying to tell me that if there was a rape, AARC would let a student have contact with the police to file a police report?  From what i've heard, from multiple sources, that's a bunch of crap.  Given that i've heard of rapes from multiple former AARC inmates, I doubt AARC would want to open this particular can of worms.  Even in Canadian law, truth is an absolute defense.  I guarantee that if AARC sues for that statement, it'll be signing it's death warrant... so by all means go for it.

[psy]

why would you post slanderous information about peoples family members having medical problems or addiction issues (calling them clinically obese or mentally ill) without having any facts to this effect if you were not out to hurt...

Like You do to Ajax and his wife?

[Anonymous]

why would you post slanderous information about peoples family members having medical problems or addiction issues (calling them clinically obese or mentally ill) without having any facts to this effect if you were not out to hurt...

Like You do to Ajax and his wife?

Careful

[psy]

why would you post slanderous information about peoples family members having medical problems or addiction issues (calling them clinically obese or mentally ill) without having any facts to this effect if you were not out to hurt...

Like You do to Ajax and his wife?

Careful

Careful what?  Are you trying to threaten me?   You think that works with me?  LOL!!!!  You guys are a riot.  You think you can just go around intimidating people into silence.  LOL.  Well. It might work with a certain section of the populace, but I assure you, I am not one of them.  Try me. I dare you.

[Anonymous]

Really bad advice, psy.  So I could say I was raped by 5 random rich people and it would be up to them to hire professionals and spend money to prove me wrong otherwise I would win the cases?  Dont think so.  First of all AARC will initiate a counter suit for libel.  The judge would ask when and where the rape occurred and ask you to produce the police report or at least the day it happened so that a copy of the report could be brought in for review.  If this had never been reported then the judge would want to know why you decided to have your husband paste these facts all over the internet instead of reporting it to the authorities.  One of the reasons people would not file a report is because it is not true and spreading lies on the internet under an alias is a way to slander someone.  The judge would be curious as to why you used an “assumed name” (i.e. Ajax) to spread this information to the public without allowing AARC to defend itself or have a way to contact you for dialog.
If you were not just trying to libel AARC then why would you post slanderous information about peoples family members having medical problems or addiction issues (calling them clinically obese or mentally ill) without having any facts to this effect if you were not out to hurt AARC.

Does not sound like you were forthcoming or honest about your intent and since AARC decided to take the initiative to defend itself againt your hurtful posts you will need to produce some evidence that some harm occured and explain why you didnot approach them first.

Troll tactics of Syd:
Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on
side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of
venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms
mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well
with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such
"arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to
certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.


An easy one for Syd:
Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain
or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts
nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to
persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This
likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the
evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net
result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding
in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But
disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with
respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications
which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in
type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thickskinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will
generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how
obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares
what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so
forth.

Trolls pretend to know intimate details of their target's life - their jobs, addresses, etc.  If they do learn the target's name, they will use it constantly in an attempt to intimidate a critic who is doing them harm.  If a critic is presenting damaging information, the troll shifts his attack from the critics charges to the critic himself, and anything is fair game to the damage control troll - they will threaten the critic's family, threaten the administrators of the forum, go to any length to destroy the critic.  A troll like Syd here is a bottom feeder, but he IS predictable and trolling by the numbers.  Remember, he fears being exposed more than anything, which is why he hides and snipes.  His interest is purely business, and he considers you, your family, and anyone who supports you to be expendable.  The guy is a disease.

Rock on, Syd.  Bluster all you want, but you're an impotent, amateurish troll.

[Anonymous]

Oh contraire  LOL
lots easily proved a lie!!

Define and elaborate on "lots".

Rather than accuse Ajax of being a liar.  Find specific statements of his that you feel to be factually innacurate.  State why they are factually innacurate providing proof of falsity.  The onus is on you to prove his statements false (this means with admissible evidence).

Then, let Ajax defend those accusations.  Come on now.  You make a statement, now back it up.

Then once you do that... provided you can actually find a false statement, you have to prove that that specific false statement, caused actual damage to AARC (again, with admissible evidence).

There is other stuff that you would have to prove, too, but I imagine you'd have enough trouble with the above two issues, of which any fail, so does your complaint.

Sure I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.  But for the hell of it, why not have a mock trial anyway.  I'll represent Ajax and ... well you trolls can elect your own troll attorney.  As for who makes the rulings...  I dunno.  We'll figure something out or let the public judge.

Dear Psy . .still trying to play lawyer without a clue. and what is a populace? and who is SydneyL - I kind of like this new 'identity' writing in here to challenge these wankers!! it is fun and easy, isn't it

Anyway Psy there are some very easy and basic facts that can be shown by AARC and when it comes to slander that is the start So, for a short list cause This stuff is all in previous post:
1) AARC has SW, psycholgist and psychiatrist that work with the clinical team .  AARC can easily substantiate that
2) Vause education, training and experience is all on paper and easily produced . I think if any Judge had his deissertaion in front of them he would be blown away. It is not a "paper" as some idiots have written here.
3) the credibility of the faculty that served as Vause dissertation committe is also all on paper and can be easily produced.
the funniest one trying to portray Vause as a liar - did he or did he not paly for the SW Broncos at one time in his hockey career - again easily confirmed

Now, about the alleged rapes / torture and child abuse - let them bring that on - they have no case and there are very credible people and documents that can be produced. They will have ONE HELL of a time. But seriously any moron could see that since A) the treatment population has never been compromised and destroyed as would be the case if "gang" rapes etc. were happening and B) the place is EXPANDING and more interest form the addiction medicine community is happening, there is NO way AARC  would be doing as well as it is.

And Psy, if Ajax has gone to run for cover - all the better. They as in his wife and himself need to get their facts straight. AARC will continuee to do what they do best and concentrate on that. Elliot should really shut his cake hole because he could get himself in trouble if someone doe decide that potential clients or grads are negatively affected. They won't have to prove that , they just need to prove he spread slancer/lies etc

[TheWho]

If Ajax were telling the truth he would still be here.  It speaks for itself.  cant sue anyone for telling the truth, although, if they were lies then he better run and thats what we are seeing.

[Anonymous]

If Ajax were telling the truth he would still be here.  It speaks for itself.  cant sue anyone for telling the truth, although, if they were lies then he better run and thats what we are seeing.

Exactly!! he sure is not writing as much as he did. There are too many reasonable voices turning up in the last month or so to challenge the slander. He would not have a hope if he had to face anyone.   :moon:

[Anonymous]

Yourt lies and Vinny's so called interviews with a whole 3 people who are likely as ill as you are does not compare to all the parents and kids I have talked to who have gone through AARC that are eternally grateful and remain that way.

There are a LOT more than 3 people. You wouldn't know that, or them though, because those people don't still attend AARC meetings/gala's/dinners/charity golf events/grad raps/parent raps/running host homes/working at AARC even though their kids are long gone, or any of the other apparently never ending commitments associated with being a part of the AARC program.

What kind of "sick" person would still be affiliated with a "treatment center for YOUTH" 3 - 4 years AFTER the youth left???

I love how anyone opposed to AARC or your/their ideals are considered "sick"!!! I don't imagine it's at ALL possible for a "healthy" person to have an objective opinion on the AARC program, it's practices or the background/experience/education of it's director and staff?

I guess the general population falls into 3 categories:

a) Ignorant and don't yet know of the marvelousness of the AARC program
b) Part of and/or supportive of the AARC program
c) Sick

I can't decide....  ::puke:: or  :cry: or  

[Anonymous]

Yourt lies and Vinny's so called interviews with a whole 3 people who are likely as ill as you are does not compare to all the parents and kids I have talked to who have gone through AARC that are eternally grateful and remain that way.

There are a LOT more than 3 people. You wouldn't know that, or them though, because those people don't still attend AARC meetings/gala's/dinners/charity golf events/grad raps/parent raps/running host homes/working at AARC even though their kids are long gone, or any of the other apparently never ending commitments associated with being a part of the AARC program.

What kind of "sick" person would still be affiliated with a "treatment center for YOUTH" 3 - 4 years AFTER the youth left???

I love how anyone opposed to AARC or your/their ideals are considered "sick"!!! I don't imagine it's at ALL possible for a "healthy" person to have an objective opinion on the AARC program, it's practices or the background/experience/education of it's director and staff?

I guess the general population falls into 3 categories:

a) Ignorant and don't yet know of the marvelousness of the AARC program
b) Part of and/or supportive of the AARC program
c) Sick

I can't decide....  ::puke:: or  :cry: or  

Dear Tami/"a mom": uhm unlike you , some people have lasting friendships and a life built on community and they keep in contact with others where they work or play or whatever. How does that make them 'sick'? Oh yes, in your healthy mind it does! roflmao   You, unfortunatley for your kid were so self-absorbed you refused to do what it took to support your kid so it was downloaded to someone else and now you write your BS just like GElliot on websites, bitching about what other parents unreservedly did for their kids because they actually love their kid more than their time. No mother who actually cares for their kid would abandom them cause things look a little too time consuming as you keep writing about when you complain about AARC. you also like to spread the same BS as GE and attack AARC grads who say they were helped at AARC. How interesting . .  another happy person just helping others out . . . ??

There truly are some people who should have been neutered in Alberta and not the ones deemed 'mentally handicapped'. You sure should have been a candidate, your poor kid . . .

AND where in the dictionary do I find "marvelousness"? I can see why you didn't quite catch on to how treatment for addiction works and that your kid is sick and needed help. It is a double wammy with you - stupid and self-absorbed!

[psy]

AND where in the dictionary do I find "marvelousness"? I can see why you didn't quite catch on to how treatment for addiction works and that your kid is sick and needed help. It is a double wammy with you - stupid and self-absorbed!

[attachment=0:386gb5n4]Here[/attachment:386gb5n4]