Gay Talk

[_marg]

Every movement needs a leader, someone who's been there, done that, has the scars to prove it. There is no law that cannot be changed. Stomp, scream, shriek, but don't lose sight of the prize, which is shutting it down. And to do that, you gotta put on the suit and tie and walk up the steps, testify in front of the judge, and put evil in jail. Otherwise, it's all just noise.

And that's how you're handling your issues with Mormonism.

[_harmony]

Every movement needs a leader, someone who's been there, done that, has the scars to prove it. There is no law that cannot be changed. Stomp, scream, shriek, but don't lose sight of the prize, which is shutting it down. And to do that, you gotta put on the suit and tie and walk up the steps, testify in front of the judge, and put evil in jail. Otherwise, it's all just noise.

And that's how you're handling your issues with Mormonism.

Your comment makes no sense, marg.

[_Ray A]

Not that I think the ranch should stay in business, but this is America. Even evil people get a chance at a fair trial, where they get to tell their side of the story.

I wonder what they would say? And I wonder why they aren't in court yet, saying it?

I think the first question here is whether Eric wants such outcomes?? Maybe he just wants places like UBR shut down?

[_harmony]

I think the first question here is whether Eric wants such outcomes?? Maybe he just wants places like UBR shut down?

Shut down without justice? Shut down without legal recourse? What kind of place allows places like that to exist without legal recourse?

[_Ray A]

Shut down without justice? Shut down without legal recourse? What kind of place allows places like that to exist without legal recourse?

My view is that Eric and those in the UBR have had crimes committed upon them, liable to legal prosecution. My father physically abused me when I was ten years old, by nearly knocking me out with a fisticuff. But I didn't then, and never would dream of having him jailed. In spite of all the injustices, maybe some kind of compassion can come into this? I may be speaking out of my arse, but I, personally, would not want to inflict upon my enemies what they inflicted upon me, as long as I felt they learned from their past mistakes.

I think it will all depend on how arrogant or defensive Eric's abusers approach this. If they deny it all, and wash their hands of him, then I say prosecute to the hilt! And those Mormons defending their Church while Eric endured this abuse should hang their collective heads in shame.

[_marg]

And that's how you're handling your issues with Mormonism.

Your comment makes no sense, marg.

I don't understand your point. You keep harping on legal recourse as if nothing else is any use. With you and church issues, you aren't suing or causing a big stink using legal means. You are hoping to illicit change through quiet means, in discussions with people on the Internet.

I wrote a post which explained from a lawyer's perspective why it's so difficult to prosecute these cases. Think about it, how does one prove the abuse of repetitive humiliation, of the techniques used to break the wills down of the individuals bit by bit, day by day and that it is damaging? It's different if a child dies, or commits suicide, it's obvious something went terribly wrong but proving behavior modification techniques is damaging and what that damage is, I think must be difficult if not impossible.

What Eric is doing is effective, if the word gets out that a program doesn't offer therapy, that it's just a temporary yet expensive holding place until kids turn 18 using unproven controversial behavior modification techniques not conducive for therapy then potential parents will likely not send their kids their. Less students means less income, hopefully to the point that it's not worthwhile keeping such a facility in operation.

I'm sure Eric and others who have left would like to sue, but I don't think it's all that easy or economically viable for many to do so and in many cases likely a statute of limitations prevents them.

[_harmony]

I don't understand your point. You keep harping on legal recourse as if nothing else is any use.

You're right; you don't understand my point. I keep harping on legal recourse, not because nothing else is any use. I keep harping on legal recourse because 1) it's the next logical step, and 2) no one is addressing the legalities at all.

With you and church issues, you aren't suing or causing a big stink using legal means. You are hoping to illicit change through quiet means, in discussions with people on the Internet.

That's because the church isn't doing anything illegal. Unethical, yes, but illegal, no. The ranch, on the other hand, as is evidenced by the multiple testimonies of the boys who resided there, is involved in an illegal (at least in my state) activity and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I wrote a post which explained from a lawyer's perspective why it's so difficult to prosecute these cases. Think about it, how does one prove the abuse of repetitive humiliation, of the techniques used to break the wills down of the individuals bit by bit, day by day and that it is damaging? It's different if a child dies, or commits suicide, it's obvious something went terribly wrong but proving behavior modification techniques is damaging and what that damage is, I think must be difficult if not impossible.

Are you saying mental and emotional abuse isn't illegal? I think you need to check your hole card: bullying is illegal, intimidation is illegal. One doesn't need to actually hit someone to be guilty of assault. Businesses that deal with children are held to professional standards put up by the state. If the people who run this ranch are within the standards of the state of Utah, then it's not the ranch that should be the target; it's those laws that need revision that should be the target. Put on the suit and tie and climb the steps to the legislature with 250,000 signatures on a petition to put up a ballot measure.

What Eric is doing is effective...

I agree, up to a point. At that point, though, it just becomes whining with no resolution. As I told the gay activists after Prop 8 passed: don't just march, picket, and scream at your opponents. Gear up for the next legislative session, and start lobbying.

... if the word gets out that a program doesn't offer therapy, that it's just a temporary yet expensive holding place until kids turn 18 using unproven controversial behavior modification techniques not conducive for therapy then potential parents will likely not send their kids their. Less students means less income, hopefully to the point that it's not worthwhile keeping such a facility in operation.

From what I read, this was not a "tough love" facility. This was a facility that specialized in mental and emotional abuse, with the occasional sexual abuse thrown in for kicks and giggles (on the part of the perverts). This facility needs to be shut down, the perpetrators should be charged in criminal court, and the laws changed so no child is ever again in this sort of situation.

I'm sure Eric and others who have left would like to sue, but I don't think it's all that easy or economically viable for many to do so and in many cases likely a statute of limitations prevents them.

I'm not talking about civil court; I'm talking criminal court. Someone this evil needs to be behind bars.

[_rcrocket]

Shouldn't places like UBR have legal process like everybody else before putting them out of business?

Although I'd never want to send any of my kids there, and I've personally never heard of any successful cases among friends who've sent kids there, it seems that places like this play a role in juvenile correction attempts.

What is a parent to do when a child well under the age of 18 physically abuses his mother, for instance, is heavily into illegal drugs and risky sex with other teenagers and is a threat to other children in the household? I've seen those circumstances a couple of times in my ward. One option is to put up with it. Another option is to have him arrested and committed to public juvenile correctional facilities, such as the California Youth Authority, where kids occasionally die as well. Another is a private facility such as the UBR or the many other faith-based private boot camps around the county. But, as this AP article [http://www.nospank.net/n-i06.htm] documents, these are risky endeavors.

[_marg]

I don't understand your point. You keep harping on legal recourse as if nothing else is any use.

You're right; you don't understand my point. I keep harping on legal recourse, not because nothing else is any use. I keep harping on legal recourse because 1) it's the next logical step, and 2) no one is addressing the legalities at all.

I did address legalities ..did you ignore my post with a quote from the lawyer Phil Elberg who has been very much involved with this issue?

That's because the church isn't doing anything illegal. Unethical, yes, but illegal, no. The ranch, on the other hand, as is evidenced by the multiple testimonies of the boys who resided there, is involved in an illegal (at least in my state) activity and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And who is going to do the prosecuting..again did you not read Phil Elberg's comments and why these cases are difficult to prosecute?

Are you saying mental and emotional abuse isn't illegal? I think you need to check your hole card: bullying is illegal, intimidation is illegal. One doesn't need to actually hit someone to be guilty of assault. Businesses that deal with children are held to professional standards put up by the state. If the people who run this ranch are within the standards of the state of Utah, then it's not the ranch that should be the target; it's those laws that need revision that should be the target. Put on the suit and tie and climb the steps to the legislature with 250,000 signatures on a petition to put up a ballot measure.

And there has been some legislation which I did mention in a previous post that passed Congress but is being put before the Senate in 2009. However Phil Elberg mentioned that the private "right of action" which allows attorneys to recover their fees if they sue these programs on behalf of teens and their families..well that didn't get passed. For additional reasons it makes it difficult to sue ..one major one being a statute of limitations.

Check out the Cafety website which discusses actions taken to change the laws to protect individuals from abuse in these institutions. I don't fully understand it myself but my impression is that private institutions are given much more leeway in how they run their business than state affiliated ones.

What Eric is doing is effective...

I agree, up to a point. At that point, though, it just becomes whining with no resolution. As I told the gay activists after Prop 8 passed: don't just march, picket, and scream at your opponents. Gear up for the next legislative session, and start lobbying.

And that is being done..there are people involved in that. Phil Elberg, Kathryn Whitehead are 2 that I'm aware of, you could check into. I'm sure there are many others. However on a one school basis, which at this point is Eric's concern..it's difficult obviously because the kids inside don't know their rights and are prevented from seeking outside help and counsel even if they wanted it. They can't even get their parents to believe them. Once on the outside they again have few resources, don't know their rights and in many cases are traumatized and spend years adjusting to the outside life. Their experience while in, seems can be worse that being in prison. They don't come out according to Eric, as well adjusted emotional strong individuals, they come out as beaten down emotionally weak individuals..and unless they have parent's support few resources or a social network to fall back on for help.

... if the word gets out that a program doesn't offer therapy, that it's just a temporary yet expensive holding place until kids turn 18 using unproven controversial behavior modification techniques not conducive for therapy then potential parents will likely not send their kids their. Less students means less income, hopefully to the point that it's not worthwhile keeping such a facility in operation.

From what I read, this was not a "tough love" facility. This was a facility that specialized in mental and emotional abuse, with the occasional sexual abuse thrown in for kicks and giggles (on the part of the perverts). This facility needs to be shut down, the perpetrators should be charged in criminal court, and the laws changed so no child is ever again in this sort of situation.

These behavior modification schools exist, some have been shut down. That doesn't prevent more from opening up. Yes they shouldn't exist, but they do and they have for many years. And yes people are trying to change the legislation. Kathryn Whitehead is a key figure in this, was in one of those institutions, describes experiences similar to Eric's and other's at his facility. She came out of it, got an eduction, I believe became a psychologist, and so she's a good spokesperson, but many of the people that leave these places, aren't well educated, aren't articulate, don't even appreciate the wrongs inflicted upon them.

I'm sure Eric and others who have left would like to sue, but I don't think it's all that easy or economically viable for many to do so and in many cases likely a statute of limitations prevents them.

I'm not talking about civil court; I'm talking criminal court. Someone this evil needs to be behind bars.

There is a history to these private behavior modification schools, I believe they have been around since the 70's with many being forced to shut but then later another is opened with new management. It seems on the whole under 18 year old individual just don't have many legal protection and rights..on the whole.

[_marg]

Shouldn't places like UBR have legal process like everybody else before putting them out of business?

I guess that's difficult for Eric and others with their negative experiences to care about.

Although I'd never want to send any of my kids there, and I've personally never heard of any successful cases among friends who've sent kids there, it seems that places like this play a role in juvenile correction attempts.

What is a parent to do when a child well under the age of 18 physically abuses his mother, for instance, is heavily into illegal drugs and risky sex with other teenagers and is a threat to other children in the household? I've seen those circumstances a couple of times in my ward. One option is to put up with it. Another option is to have him arrested and committed to public juvenile correctional facilities, such as the California Youth Authority, where kids occasionally die as well. Another is a private facility such as the UBR or the many other faith-based private boot camps around the county. But, as this AP article [http://www.nospank.net/n-i06.htm] documents, these are risky endeavors.

Sure but the kids sent there aren't given due process. There is no psychological objective evaluation to determine they need incarceration or behavior modification techniques meant to destroy their wills. Typical teen rebellion is treated the same as seriously troubled behavior. And according to Eric and his friend who attended, even the seriously trouble teens get little actual therapy. Basically the program is to break the kid's wills down so that they will be compliant with all authority. So every parent who feels their kid is a problem gets to decide whether to send them, but parents are not fully cognisant of the program. I suspect in many cases the parents making the decision to send, involve step parents who don't truly have the best interest at heart and might just wish to get rid of the step child from the home. In a number of cases that I've read on the Net I've noticed quite a few had step parents involved.